[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1234


                     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 further 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. Hughes, 
Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, March 2, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo] had been disposed of.
  Are there further amendments to title I of the proposed Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act?


                    amendment offered by mr. boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner:
       Page 66, after line 18, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     ``SEC. 1116. SCHOOL CHOICE.

       ``(a) Choice Programs.--A local education agency may use 
     funds under this part, in combination with other Federal, 
     State, local, and private funds to develop and implement 
     choice programs, for children eligible for assistance under 
     this title, which permit parents to select the public school 
     that their children will attend.
       ``(b) Choice Plan.--A local educational agency that chooses 
     to implement a school choice plan shall first develop a 
     comprehensive plan that includes assurances that--
       ``(1) all eligible students across grade levels will have 
     equal access to the program;
       ``(2) the program does not include schools which follow a 
     racially discriminatory policy;
       ``(3) describe how the school will use resources under this 
     part and from other sources to implement such components;
       ``(4) describe how the school will provide individual 
     student assessment results, including an interpretation of 
     such results, to the parents of a child who participates in 
     the assessment required by section 1111(b)(3);
       ``(5) the plan will be developed with the involvement of 
     the community to be served and individuals who will carry it 
     out, including teachers, principals, and other staff, 
     parents, and, if the plan relates to a secondary school, 
     students from the school;
       ``(6) the plan will be made available to parents and the 
     public; and
       ``(7) the program shall not include schools that do not 
     receive funds under this title''.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would allow school districts to use their title I funds for public 
school choice programs. To begin, I would like to emphasize three 
points.
  First, this amendment is strictly optional. There is no mandate. It 
is up to school districts to decide whether or not they want a public 
school choice program.
  Second, this amendment only allows for public school choice.
  Third, only children eligible for assistance for title I funds can 
participate. These children are the poor and educationally 
disadvantaged. In other words, the ones most in need of a choice.
  I hear a great deal on this floor about how we must help the poor, 
especially the children. Our goal with title I is to help these poor. 
What better way to help them than to allow them to get out of bad 
schools? What better way to help them than to allow school districts to 
set up programs that would allow the poor to attend a school that 
better suits their needs?
  As a reasonably well-off parent, I and my wife have the financial 
ability to send our two daughters to private schools or to move into a 
jurisdiction with better public schools. Luckily, the public school 
district in which I live is one of the best in the State, so my wife 
and I have made the choice to send our daughters to the schools in that 
district. But what about the poor children just miles away? Their 
parents are so poor that they cannot move into another district. They 
cannot afford a private school. And if their district does not allow 
movement among schools, they may be forced to keep their children in 
failing schools. This amendment would allow and encourage school 
districts to change this and grant parents the power to get their 
children into better schools.
  Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore should not be the 
only two couples in America who live in public housing that have school 
choice. The President in the State of the Union Address made it clear 
that he supports public school choice.
  I also hear a great deal about how we must get parents more involved 
in their child's education. What better way to get this involvement, 
than to empower parents to make the most fundamental of decisions, 
where to send their child to school? Experiences with choice programs 
in East Harlem, Cambridge, MA and elsewhere have shown that parental 
involvement with a school and with their child's education is increased 
when they get to choose the school.
  The States seem to agree with me. As a former member of the Ohio 
General Assembly, I am reminded that States often are the laboratories 
of invention. This is why I look to such varying States as California 
and Minnesota, Virginia and Hawaii, Arkansas and Massachusetts, and my 
home State of Ohio, which all have some form of public school choice 
programs. We can help school districts in these States and others with 
this amendment.
  In conclusion, I cannot emphasize enough that this amendment will 
help poor children, will empower poor parents, and will improve pubic 
schools. I encourage its adoption.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members of this body support the concept of public 
school choice. Others do not. The President himself has expressed 
interest in this approach.
  But using title I funds to develop and implement such a program I do 
not believe is really an appropriate use of these funds. Title I funds 
are a central source for our poorest schools, and the purpose of title 
I is to provide educational services to low-achieving students.
  This amendment would change the purpose of title I from that of 
providing educational services to disadvantaged students to paying the 
administrative costs of developing and implementing choice programs.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this is a good use of title I funds, 
and I do oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, because the amendment deals strictly with 
title I schools, title I children going from title I schools to another 
title I school, I rise in support of the amendment by our colleague, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner]. First of all, it is a local 
option to implement public school choice, it is entirely up to the 
local school. Second, the choices are limited to other title I schools. 
This would avoid the criticism that I would have that you would dilute 
title I funds and limit the effectiveness of the program if it were 
going to a non-title I school.
  Making choices available to parents, particularly in title I 
programs, encourages them to be more involved in their child's 
education.
  The amendment does not require the LEA to provide transportation.
  So, because of all of those reasons, I rise in support of the 
gentleman's public school choice amendment.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner school 
choice amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
important amendment. Even President Clinton has stated his support for 
public school choice, an idea whose time has come.
  Far too many students experience failure that is far worse than an 
``F'' on a test. The failure they experience is that of the entire 
public school system. Schools across the country seem to be plagued 
with second rate syndrome. They are falling behind and no longer offer 
a quality education to the youth of America.
  To allow parents the option of choosing which public school their 
children will attend, is to empower them. By making a very small change 
to the status quo, this amendment would provide huge benefits to the 
parents and students ensnared in failing schools.
  As studies have shown, and parents will tell you, they would like to 
have the option of sending their children to the good schools in their 
community, the ones with a magnetism that would draw students if choice 
were allowed. The mediocre schools, those that refuse to change in 
order to meet the educational needs of students, are stagnant and 
performing a grave disservice to the youth of America. If competition 
were injected into the educational system, these stagnant schools would 
be forced to improve, or cease to exist.
  Competition in schools must take the form of school choice. We all 
know that wealthy privileged Americans, like President Clinton, can 
sent their children to the best schools available. The poor do not have 
that option. They are locked into the worst and weakest schools, in 
spite of the fact that parents long for the ability to choose which 
school their children will attend. I believe parents should have more 
options for educating their children.
  The implementation of school choice for public schools receiving 
title I funds would allow for the participation of parents and 
establish an important structure of accountability for those receiving 
Federal funds. I believe strongly that empowering parents with the 
ability to choose the school their children will attend, would make our 
public schools among the finest in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, choice for everyone is an idea whose time has come. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Boehner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hughes). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROMERO-BARCELO

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Romero-Barcelo: Page 123, line 15, 
     strike ``1.62'' and insert ``2.5''.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I proposed an amendment 
to bring the students in Puerto Rico to the point where they receive 
the same share, the same amount that is granted for every child 
throughout the Nation. The House voted 258 to 70 against it.
  I explained that it would only have cost each State, per child, the 
sum of 75 cents per month to allow the children of Puerto Rico, U.S. 
citizens, to be treated in the same way as all of the children 
throughout the Nation.
  Today I am proposing an amendment that would not bring the children 
in Puerto Rico to parity with the rest of the fellow citizens 
throughout the 50 States of the Nation but at least would give them a 
little fairer share of the funds being allocated through H.R. 6 for 
children throughout the Nation.
  The formula which is applied for Puerto Rico is arbitrary. At the 
end, when they discuss the formulas to be applied for all the States 
throughout the Nation, discussed at pages 120 to 123 of H.R. 6, they 
end up with the last sentence, lines 13, 14, 15, that say, ``For the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico the weighting factor shall be no greater 
than 1.62.''
  We are asking that that be amended to read 2.5. That still is not the 
largest weighting factor. The largest weighting factor is 3 points. 
Puerto Rico would be entitled to the largest weighting factor of 3 
points. With 2.5 you take into consideration all of the children 
throughout the Nation and what each State would have to give up on an 
average would be a little bit over 3 cents per month per child covered 
by the act--38 cents per year per child covered by the act.
  The funds that would be available then for the children of Puerto 
Rico, as I said before, would not bring them up to parity with the rest 
of the Nation even though they are United States citizens, but at least 
would give them an opportunity to have a better education at home.
  I want to read once again the statement of policy of H.R. 6 in title 
I, section 1001. The statement of policy reads:

       The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United 
     States that a high-quality education for all persons and a 
     fair and equal opportunity to obtain such education (1) are a 
     societal good necessary for creating a vibrant future. * * *

  Mr. Chairman, I ask once again, we would like to tell the children of 
Puerto Rico: Are they considered to be part of other persons in the 
Nation, are they considered to be citizens of this Nation or not? Do 
they have a right to be treated equally or not?
  Many of those children, their grandparents or their great-
grandparents died in the Second World War, in the Korean war, in the 
Vietnam war, defending this Nation. Some of these children see their 
grandparents or great-grandparents who have been maimed or who have 
some kind of difficulty as a result of the wounds they suffered 
defending this Nation in the wars in which they participated.
  Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans are equal in death, they are equal in 
time of war, there is not a halftime allotment for service in the 
military in the time of war. It is a full-time service.
  Now, when it comes to education, they are being treated unfairly, 
unequally.
  The Congress talks about equality, it talks about discrimination, but 
it is not putting its money where its mouth is because for Puerto Rico 
there is a different formula. The children of Puerto Rico are being 
deprived of an opportunity to decrease the gap of education that exists 
between Puerto Rico and the Nation.
  As I said yesterday, I hear from other people, ``Oh, but you don't 
pay income taxes in Puerto Rico.'' That is true. But I did not vote for 
it. If I had a vote, I would vote for the people of Puerto Rico, the 
ones who can pay, would pay their income taxes so that the poor, the 
children, the handicapped would receive what they deserve. But I do not 
have a vote; you have the vote. There is no reason, no good reason why 
Puerto Rico cannot pay Federal income taxes.
  But you have chosen to give the benefits to the large corporations, 
to the wealthier individuals, and deprive the children, the 
handicapped, the elderly, abandoned mothers with children who have no 
resources, of fair and equal treatment. I say the children, they do not 
pay taxes, but they should be allowed to at least receive a little bit 
more.
  All I am asking each fellow Member in this House is for 3 cents per 
month per child who qualifies under the act in their State. I think 
that is very little to ask to just give the children of Puerto Rico a 
little better chance; not the same kind of chance, but a little better 
chance than they have right now under the act.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as my chairman would say, I rise with 
heavy heart to oppose the amendment.
  I do so because the new formula, of course, does take into 
consideration the fact that Puerto Rico will receive from the new 
formula in H.R. 6 more than 42 other States in the United States. It 
would put them in the top five, as a matter of fact. It will put them 
above Michigan and Pennsylvania in receiving new money.
  So, because the fact that the formula is weighted to help areas such 
as Puerto Rico, I rise in opposition because it will be taking from 
other needy areas in the other 42 States throughout the United States.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Puerto 
Rico.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason why Puerto Rico is receiving more is because 
it has many more poor children than those other States. If we had the 
same number of poor children or a lesser number of poor children, it 
would be receiving less. But because it has many more poor children, 
then it gets penalized. They say because you have so many poor children 
who need an advantage, who need an opportunity to raise the level of 
education so they can find a better job, so there will be less poverty 
in Puerto Rico, you are going to be deprived of those funds, just 
because we have those poor children.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is why we agreed 
to a formula that benefits Puerto Rico and the children of Puerto Rico. 
Those of us in the 42 States who will lose money, because those who 
agreed to the formula believe that we should help the young people in 
Puerto Rico. So the new formula will be very helpful to Puerto Rico.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, for similar reasons enunciated by myself 
yesterday and by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] today I 
rise, again with a heavy heart, to oppose this amendment being offered 
by the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
  We did in committee, of course, increase the concentration in a 
formula for title I, and that will help Puerto Rico, and I will 
continue to work with the Governor in trying to achieve statehood for 
the people of Puerto Rico. In that instance they will have full voting 
rights and will be paying Federal income tax.
  But in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, to enact this amendment would mean 
the loss of dollars for a number of States here, many of whom are 
willing to give up some dollars in increasing the concentration 
formula. So, I do oppose the amendment, again with a heavy heart, but I 
feel that we must oppose it because States will lose dollars under 
this.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain once again that 
even though we do not pay Federal income taxes we are now paying for 
the first time in our history income taxes, and that money that is 
being received by the Federal Treasury, which is approximately $1 
billion per year, is from the corporations that are doing business in 
Puerto Rico. This is a new tax which was not paid before this year, and 
that money is not being received back by Puerto Rico at all.
  So, Mr. Chairman, from that money there is sufficient monies to be 
given to Puerto Rico, but we are not being treated fairly, and all I am 
asking my fellow Members, Mr. Chairman, all I am asking is 3 cents per 
child per month so that the children of Puerto Rico can have a better 
opportunity of education. That is all I am asking.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hughes). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the nays appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 340, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                                AYES--76

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Lewis (GA)
     Manton
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--340

     Allard
     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
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     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
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     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)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaugther
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bonior
     Collins (IL)
     Crapo
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Fingerhut
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Green
     Hastings
     Houghton
     Martinez
     McDade
     Natcher
     Rostenkowski
     Schiff
     Sharp
     Thornton
     Towns
     Washington

                              {time}  1313

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bonior against.

  Messrs. HERGER, NEAL of Massachusetts, KLEIN, HUFFINGTON, GORDON, and 
ROWLAND changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JEFFERSON and Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, due to official business with 
constituents visiting Washington, DC, I was away from the House of 
Representatives at 12:43 p.m., March 3, when the vote was taken on the 
Romero-Barcelo amendment to H.R. 6. Unfortunately my pager 
malfunctioned and failed to indicate that a vote was being taken. As a 
result, I was not present to cast my vote on this occasion. Had I been 
present at 12:43 p.m., I would have voted ``no'' on the Romero-Barcelo 
amendment.


                    amendment offered by Mr. boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner: Beginning on page 190, 
     strike line 1 and all that follows through line 13 on page 
     194 (and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
eliminate the Elementary School Innovative Transitional Projects 
Program. But before I speak directly on this program, I would like to 
outline what Mr. Miller from Florida and myself will try to do 
throughout the consideration of this bill.
  We will be offering amendments to streamline the ESEA by eliminating 
several programs. Some of them have been recommended for elimination by 
President Clinton, not only in his proposal for the reauthorization of 
ESEA, but also in his recent budget. Some of them are so targeted in 
their focus that they can't possibly address broad, national 
educational concerns. Some of them can be funded by other larger 
programs and don't require their own separate authorization. And still 
others have the Federal Government getting into areas traditionally 
left to the States.
  As the ESEA stands today, there are 61 programs. Some with large 
authorizations and many others with small authorizations and even 
smaller appropriations. There is no focus and priorities are lost. That 
is why many of us on the Education and Labor Committee started on a 
path to consolidate all of these programs into a set which not only was 
focused, but also made clear our priorities. Instead of having a large 
number of small pots of money, we would have a small number of large 
pots. These programs would in turn be focused and give school districts 
the flexibility to use the funding for their needs.
  Even the Clinton administration got into the act with their initial 
proposal which consolidated some programs and eliminated others. Their 
proposal recommended the authorization of 26 programs. However, as the 
bill now stands, there are almost 48.
  Unfortunately, some of these programs will end up taking funding away 
from larger ones, such as title I and chapter 2. What is going to 
happen when the Appropriations Committee looks at this potpourri of 
programs and can't figure out our priorities? They will try to fund all 
of the programs in amounts too small to carry out their various 
objectives.
  Mr. Miller and I want to return focus to this bill and make for a 
more efficient use of taxpayer money. If these amendments are accepted, 
our schools will be better served, and ultimately, our children will be 
better served.
  Which brings me to the present amendment. Since 1967, there has been 
a program called Follow Through, which is intended to sustain the gains 
made in Head Start and other preschool programs. But, as President 
Clinton described in his budget, ``It was intended as a short-term 
experimental effort. Successful models have now been designed, refined, 
and disseminated for more than 25 years. The reauthorized title I 
grants to LEA programs will provide a more appropriate vehicle for 
funding implementation of these models.''
  The program before us is an extension of the Follow Through Program. 
While supporters of the program advocate that it is different, I submit 
that it is similar enough to Follow Through that it should be 
eliminated. In addition, the Secretary of Education will have to spend 
at least $10 million on this program. In short, we are taking away the 
flexibility of title I and splitting that particular pot of money.
  The administration proposed to eliminate Follow Through, and, 
frankly, this is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to ensure that 
the program continues. That is why we have a new title to the program.
  Under the current Follow Through Program, approximately one-half of 
the grantees have had their grants for 20 years or more. This program 
started out as a demonstration project. However, there has been little 
growth in the program due to the fact that many of the original 
grantees still receive Federal support. There are no assurances that 
the same grantees will not receive funds under this new program in the 
bill.
  In fiscal year 1991, the Department of Education funded 42 projects, 
10 for sponsors, 30 for LEA's, and 2 research grants. The program gave 
priority to LEA projects operating in chapter 1 schools operating as 
schoolwide programs, and, as a result, 20 of the LEA grants were 
awarded to districts serving children in schoolwide projects.
  The point we are trying to make here is that this is nothing more 
than a demonstration program that has gone on and on and on, and it is 
time to say ``no.'' We can change the name. We can call a pig a cow, 
but that will not make it oink. The fact is, this is Follow Through 
under disguise, and it ought to be eliminated from ESEA.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to the Boehner amendment, striking the 
Innovative Elementary School Projects. In response to the question of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] as to what our priorities are, in 
my view there is nothing more vital to our national security than how 
we educate our children.
  This is part of the work that has been done in H.R. 6, particularly 
in title I, to ensure that our children are going to have the best 
education possible and that they are going to be able to succeed.
  This program allows schools receiving title I funds to create and 
implement innovative transition projects to help at risk preschool 
children in Head Start, Even Start, and other preschool programs come 
to school prepared to learn.
  It provides $10 million in assistance under this section of the bill 
that deals with Federal evaluations and demonstrations under title I.
  Now, we all know the importance of intervening early with our at-risk 
children. That is the entire purpose behind such programs as Head Start 
and Even Start. But we know by now that 1 year of preschool is just not 
enough. We have got to continue to support those children and their 
families as they move from one system to another. This is one important 
way we can encourage schools to focus their energy and their resources 
on helping Head Start and Even Start children to enter school ready to 
learn and to stay ready to learn.
  This is not a Follow Through Program. This is a new authority that 
provides grants to LEA's for innovative transition projects. In order 
to be funded under this authority, projects must enter into formal 
transition agreements with Head Start, Even Start, and other local 
preschool programs, and they must involve parents in the planning, 
operation, and evaluation of transition projects.
  We need to support these young children early in their education. 
Research indicates that without this support in those early years, we 
can expect increased school failure, higher drop-out rates, all of 
which are far more costly in the long run. This is a means of saving 
money in the long run, by keeping these children in school so that they 
can contribute to society rather than out of school and become 
dependent upon society.
  One of the ways to reform welfare is to help children succeed in 
school. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehner amendment to 
title I.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to Representative Boehner's 
amendment to H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. The 
Boehner amendment would eliminate funding for the innovative elementary 
school transitional projects.
  The elementary school transitional projects are extremely important 
in helping children from low-income families who were part of a Head 
Start, Even Start, or a similar preschool program make a smooth 
transition to kindergarten and the early elementary grades.
  Let us bear in mind that more than $20 billion is being spent on Head 
Start and Even Start. The innovative elementary school transitional 
projects ensure that investment and its effectiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, many gains have been made for children enrolled in Head 
Start and Even Start, but studies have shown that if we don't follow 
through with these children they fall behind. That is why the 
innovative elementary school transitional program is so essential.
  I have introduced an amendment to this bill which would allow the use 
of mentors who are high school or college students trained to provide 
tutoring to elementary and secondary students formerly enrolled in Head 
Start or Even Start programs. Mentoring is just one example of the 
different types of transitional projects that can be initiated under 
this program.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boehner amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  If we truly expect to meet our first national education goal, that 
all children shall enter school ready to learn, then preschool 
transition programs are absolutely essential.
  Study after study has shown that the early school years are crucial 
in setting the stage for future academic success. We have all seen the 
benefits of Head Start and other early childhood programs that help 
low-income children start elementary school on an equal footing with 
their more economically advantaged peers.
  However, Mr. Chairman, research indicates that the advantages of Head 
Start fade around third grade. Mr. Chairman, we must support these 
students during their first years of elementary school if we want them 
to maintain the gains they made during their preschool years.
  The preschool transition program in H.R. 6 is designed to target 
children who are most educationally at risk. If we are concerned about 
school failure; if we want to lower the school drop-out rate; and if we 
want to increase the number of students who graduate with the skills we 
will need for tomorrow's technological workplace; we must support the 
preschool transition program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehner amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I 
rise in opposition to this amendment. I think the whole amendment 
fundamentally misperceives the nature of our reauthorization.
  What we are trying to do is take what we have learned over the last 
several years and incorporate it into this legislation. One thing we 
have learned is that young people who have been exposed to preschool 
programs like Head Start lose their advantage over the years, unless 
adequate comprehensive and thorough transition programs, all of the 
money that is being spent, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
indicated, is really dissipated, because we cannot sustain that level 
of performance.
  At the heart of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Unsoeld] is a very sensible and very pragmatic approach, which is 
to invest in the types of transitional programs which will sustain what 
we have achieved through Head Start. We are going to once again, I 
hope, vigorously support Head Start. But to do so without this 
transitional mechanism is, I think, to be somewhat misplaced in our 
priorities. So we have to, I think, support this amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Washington is right. We have to sustain the 
progress we have made through Head Start.
  Also this program is not antagonistic to the administration's 
proposals. It is part and, indeed, complements the demonstrations of 
innovative practices programs which have been proposed by the 
administration.

                              {time}  1330

  On policy grounds, on commonsense grounds, this amendment should be 
defeated. We should retain the program of the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, because I have such respect 
for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], I rise to oppose the 
amendment which would eliminate title I transition projects. Over the 
past year the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education 
of the Committee on Appropriations has demanded of the administration 
greater accountability for the education programs we fund.
  We know that Head Start dollars, for instance, are simply being lost 
because in the transition to elementary school, children lose the gains 
they have made in Head Start by the third grade.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that transition programs can work. I have seen 
it in my own district at the Carmen school, in Waukegan where children 
get transition assistance. They do not have the Head Start fade. Their 
students maintain high achievement throughout the elementary grades. I 
invite anyone who questions the value of transition programs to look at 
the letters I get from these kids. Their ability to write as well as 
they do is eloquent testimony to their transition program.
  Normally, I would be down here with Mr. Boehner, supporting a 
consolidation or termination of these programs. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
have been a strong supporter of transition programs from the beginning 
because they have proven their effectiveness. They work.
  Congress allocates over $3 billion a year on Head Start to give 
economically disadvantaged students the opportunity to start school 
ready to learn. Transition programs ensure the Head Start money is not 
wasted and that students continue to achieve at higher levels 
throughout elementary school.
  I want to make an important point. This is an authorization bill and 
will not add to the deficit. The bill will not raise spending caps. But 
it will give the Appropriations Subcommittee the opportunity, without 
adding more money to total spending, to strike the proper balance 
between preschool and transitional assistance to ensure that billions 
of taxpayer dollars are not wasted on an ineffective program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to allow the Appropriations Subcommittee 
the flexibility of working between Head Start and transitional 
assistance, to fund children able to start school ready and able to 
learn.
  Without the transitional programs, much of the Head Start money will 
simply not do the job. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose to take the full time. There is so 
much of what was needed to be said that has been said.
  Let me just suggest, however, that I understand the motive of the 
gentleman from Ohio. I think it is well-motivated. If this in fact were 
a follow-through program, we would not want to sustain cash cows that 
simply went back to the same programs year after year, if that were 
what we were doing.
  I do not believe that that is the case in this instance. Rather, this 
is a case of having learned the lessons of 23 years and more of 
programs as widely and highly regarded as Head Start, and innovative 
programs as essential to sustaining that effort as Even Start, and to 
put them together in a way that lets them sustain the effort that they 
have begun, not only through a child's early school years, but from 
generation to generation.
  The truth is that much of what we say about Head Start is absolutely 
true, but the program is not without its faults. It does not have the 
longevity we all would like to see. It does not have the sustainability 
we all would like to see.
  However, we have learned lessons in recent years from the best of the 
followthrough programs and from others, like one in my district, the 
Decker Family Care Center, in which programs across school boundary 
lines bridge together Even Start, Head Start, health care programs from 
a variety of different kinds of settings, and sustain the strength of a 
family at the point where it is most fragile.
  In fact, this was a program, the Decker Family Care Center, that was 
one of only a handful which, under the successful literacy 
demonstration programs in this country, was recognized by the First 
Lady. I hasten to add, it was not the current First Lady who recognized 
this, but the previous First Lady, who brought this program to national 
attention.
  We need to be able to learn from this kind of effort. We need to be 
able to take those lessons and sustain them where they can grow. That 
is what this particular effort does. The title I transition projects do 
not represent an enormous amount of money, but they do represent the 
glue, the mortar, to hold together some solid bricks, some real 
building blocks that can build an edifice of a kind we care deeply 
about.
  In that sense, while it is a matter of sympathy for me, that I 
understand the motive in making sure that we do not dissipate and 
diffuse already scarce dollars in the programs that we have, I stand 
here in opposition to the so-called Boehner amendment on the grounds 
that this is not the diffusion of dollars, these dollars represent the 
glue to hold together much larger programs that need the sustainability 
that if offers.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me just add a few remarks to what has 
been said, the words that have been said by some of my colleagues who 
are in opposition to the amendment before us.
  In California we spend about $4,200 per year to keep a child in 
school. We spend $32,000 to keep a youth the same age locked up in a 
youth facility if he or she has committed a crime. When we consider 
that 80 percent of all the prisoners in our jails and prisons are 
school dropouts, it becomes very, very easy to understand why we want 
to have programs like Head Start, and then have the transition programs 
once the child is no longer in Head Start but has moved on to school.
  What we want to try to do is provide this child not just with the 
initial step to help any child who may be at risk with the opportunity 
to really learn and be productive once he or she becomes an adult, but 
really, once they are in school, to provide them with the assistance 
and that support that explains to them in very graphic terms that we 
are not going to let them fall between the cracks.
  We do not want them to become part of the 80 percent that goes on to 
or is in prison. We also do not want them to become part of those that 
are costing us, as taxpayers, $32,000 per year to keep them behind 
bars.
  We have to do some things and we have to do them early so they do not 
cost us that much. We have to do what we can to use prevention methods 
and not remedial methods with kids who are starting to show signs of 
not being able to succeed in school.
  I would hope that we would take a close look at these, particular 
projects that are funded by the transition projects under title I and 
understand that what we are doing is, we are paying pennies to keep 
these kids from becoming part of the 80 percent that are behind bars 
right now. Therefore, I would urge all my colleagues to please oppose 
this amendment and let us move on.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the reauthorization process last 
year, there was a bipartisan effort to target scarce Federal dollars on 
title I and other programs focusing on broad national education 
concerns, rather than on specific constituencies.
  We hoped to eliminate or consolidate numerous categorical programs 
and use the savings to create better education opportunities for all 
students.
  During committee markup that concept was forgotten. Programs were 
reinstated which were originally eliminated not only in the President's 
reauthorization proposal, but also in his recent budget proposal. 
President Clinton called many of the programs worthy of termination or 
unneeded.
  Rather than follow the President's recommendations, the committee 
added many brandnew programs. We believe that the House should return 
to the original intention and eliminate the $1.8 billion of new 
programs as well as the $62 million of programs targeted for 
elimination by the President.
  We must begin eliminating and consolidating somewhere. The Innovative 
Elementary School Transition Project, formerly referred to as the 
Follow Through Program, should be eliminated.
  I agree with my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boehner, and the President 
in this case.
  The Follow Through Program, in theory, is a noble idea, but the time 
has come to set priorities on Federal spending.
  President Clinton and Secretary Riley have set priorities and I 
believe we need to do the same.
  Authorizing $10 million for a program targeted for elimination 
doesn't make sense. That's $10 million to be divided over 15,000 school 
districts. I question the impact that so few dollars have?
  The President called this program a short term experimental effort 
and pointed out that title I grants ``will provide a more appropriate 
vehicle for funding implementation.'' I think we should show our 
support of the President and eliminate this program.
  I would also like to point out the irony that today, we're marking up 
the 1995 budget in the Budget Committee. Our goal is to eliminate 115 
programs targeted by the President. Meanwhile, this bill adds $10 
million here and another $350 million in title II and $200 million in 
title XI. The list goes on reaching $1.86 billion of unwarranted 
spending.
  We have got to start eliminating and consolidating somewhere.
  We have got to draw the line.
  The President drew the line when he targeted this program for 
elimination. I implore the Members to join the President and Mr. 
Boehner and pick up a piece of chalk and let us draw the line.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
speaking and for yielding on this important issue. The gentleman and I 
do not have any beef with the program, and if Members want to do the 
program in their districts, more power to them, because obviously in 
some cases it has worked, although with Even Start the statistics are 
in and children are not falling behind as a result. So we have no beef 
about the program.
  What the beef is is about a program that is so narrowly targeted that 
only 30 school districts in America receive benefit for it. All of this 
talk we heard on the floor this afternoon would lead one to believe 
this was a large nationwide project. But the fact is that what we have 
heard from today are Members who happen to have a grantee, one of these 
30 grantees in their districts. I do not blame them for standing up on 
the floor here defending the program, trying to keep that money coming 
into their districts.
  We are all familiar with pork in Congress. We all think it all 
happens in the appropriations bills, but it does not. This is nothing 
more than educational pork that ends up in 30 school districts in 
America. When we are trying to focus some attention on how to help 
disadvantaged children in title I, this is the last thing that we ought 
to be doing--taking out an authorization for $10 million in order to 
benefit just 30 school districts in America. That is my problem. It is 
not the program in general. I think districts and communities can 
afford to fund this program on their own. But for the Federal 
Government to do this for 30 districts is wrong, because what it does 
is it does this: It reduces the pie for all other school districts in 
America. And so for the 30 Members of Congress who have a grantee in 
their district, it may be great. But for the other 405 Members of 
Congress who receive nothing out of this, their districts end up 
getting less for their schools as a result of these types of very 
targeted programs.
  Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. All of us who 
have followed the progress of education in America realize how 
important it is to begin the educational process in the earliest 
possible years. And because that has become almost a universally 
accepted educational policy in America, we have given in the Congress 
and throughout this country extraordinary support to Head Start 
programs and other preschool programs, because we realize that in 
particular for those communities that are at risk, have a tremendous 
percentage of poor children or poor families who are in some way 
economically disadvantaged, that if we are to help the children in 
these communities we have to start at the earliest possible age.
  So we have embarked upon Head Start programs and we continue to 
insist that the goal of this country be to fully fund Head Start and to 
have it not only a half-day program but a full-day program as well as 
throughout the 12-month year.
  In concert with our commitment to support the youngest of our 
children in Head Start programs and Even Start programs and others, we 
also believe that the gains that are made though Head Start and through 
early childhood education must have a transition process into the 
regular school program. And if we do not have this transition process 
much of what is gained in the preschool years will be lost.
  So, my colleagues, this is an important part of the total concept of 
elementary and secondary education for children that are in the poverty 
area.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Washington.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I fear that the sponsor of this amendment is not 
desiring to respond to his own colleagues about the need to not waste 
the $20 billion that is already being spent on Head Start and Even 
Start by failing to sustain the progress of these students and has 
unfortunately resorted to calling this pork. It is an insurant and an 
investment that we are already making in at-risk children so that they 
will be able to succeed in school.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if this was such an important program, why 
would not President Clinton have proposed in his recent budget that 
this program continue? And why would he, when he proposed the 
reauthorization of the elementary and secondary and vocational 
education, why would he not then have proposed that this program 
continue? The fact is that he did not propose in either his budget or 
in his reauthorization bill that this program continue.
  Mrs. MINK. I have to respond to the gentleman that he has directed 
the question to someone who is not in full agreement with the President 
on many of his education initiatives, and in this particular one I 
think grievous error and failure of recognizing the importance of such 
programs that did provide a transition from early childhood education 
into the regular school. There may have been programs with 
followthrough, but this is not follow-through. This is a new program 
which attempts to enlarge upon and expand the opportunities for at-risk 
children, and in fact I believe concurs with the President's Goals 2000 
which says the No. 1 goal is that all children shall enter school ready 
to learn.
  That is really what this is all about. Why spend billions of dollars 
on Head Start with a comprehensive approach to education and then not 
have a program which affords extra support for transition in the at-
risk school? We are not dictating policy. This is a voluntary approach 
which school districts are going to have the opportunity to avail 
themselves of. Only some of them may not like it, but I am sure in the 
gentleman's district as well as mine this opportunity to continue the 
advances and advantages of Head Start will be a very welcomed approach.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and 
I do so for two reasons.
  First of all, I think that in an effort to save us $10 million, this 
will ultimately cost us more money, both in terms of complementing, 
first, the Head Start Program, and second, crime preventing. And let me 
address both of those.
  The Committee on Education and Labor will shortly reauthorize the 
Head Start Program. We have already conducted many thorough studies 
about where Head Start, a bipartisan-supported program, is good and 
strong, and where it might have some weaknesses. One of its perceived 
weaknesses is in following up on the knowledge that we give these 
children in Head Start Programs through preschool programs and entering 
into elementary school.
  This program is designed to complement and provide a transition for 
those at-risk children and for those children that need, through a 
paucity or some weaknesses in the Head Start Program, some supplemental 
education and followup. So this will complement our Head Start Program, 
and hopefully keep children in school.
  Second, many Members in this body are going to vote for a tough crime 
bill. Three strikes and you are out is going to be considered, reforms 
in habeas corpus and the exclusionary rule, and death penalty 
provisions expanded. I intend to vote for many of those provisions.

                              {time}  1350

  But we will be remiss in this body if we do not provide crime 
prevention programs as well, and invest in our children.
  When I was in Indiana looking at our State budget for new prisons and 
new prison cells, I asked the director of prisons, ``How do we 
calculate how many new prisons and prison cells we are going to build 
in the State of Indiana?'' He said, ``Mr. Roemer, hold on to the seat 
of your pants. The single biggest variable, the barometer we look at, 
is the number of at-risk children in the second grade.''
  If we do not do enough on the crime bill or in this very important 
education bill, we will really be letting our taxpayers down. We will 
be telling them it is OK to spend $30,000 to incarcerate and imprison 
people, but we do not want to spend some money on keeping our children 
in school and from the danger of dropping out.
  I think that this amendment should be defeated. I think this will 
save us money both in terms of a crime bill, in terms of preventive 
education, and in terms of saving money for special services education, 
and I strongly encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. As I said earlier, I do not have any problem with the 
objectives that the Members who put this language in here are trying to 
accomplish. The problem is that it is only $10 million. It is not a 
problem that is going to help in transition for all people involved in 
Head Start, or Even Start, across the country. It is not anywhere near 
enough money.
  Mr. Chairman, it would take hundreds and hundreds of millions of 
dollars to accomplish that.
  Second, it looks like the old Follow Through Program. There are no 
guarantees in the legislation that those grantees, those 30 grantees--
20 of which who have been receiving money for over 20 years as part of 
the demonstration project--there is no grant or guarantees that they 
will not in fact continue to receive the same amounts of money that 
they have in the past.
  So I understand your concern. But I say this to you: This is a very 
targeted program to help 30 school districts in America, and that is 
not why we are here reauthorizing this bill.
  Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, which I do not have a lot of left, I 
would say this needs to be targeted. This need to be targeted to at-
risk children who will drop out if not provided with the Follow Through 
assurances in this kind of transition program, who will cost us $30,000 
as opposed to several hundred dollars invested in children early on.
  As the gentleman from Ohio knows, we are going to spend several 
billion dollars on crime prevention or on crime and on prisons and on 
putting more police on the streets, which we should be doing.
  We have an obligation to future generations to invest in the crime 
prevention part, and that is what this transition program does.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the subcommittee, I feel very much like 
an orchestra leader.
  All of the Members opposing this amendment have presented a very good 
concern against it.
  I urge its defeat.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I sit on your subcommittee, and you do a 
wonderful job. I have to ask you this question: Do you currently have a 
school district in your congressional district that receives funding 
under the Follow Through Program?
  Mr. KILDEE. Yes, I do.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Would you think that with this new authorization that 
that school district would continue to receive funding?
  Mr. KILDEE. I have no idea. They will have to compete with every 
other school district applying. The gentleman knows that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do this only to point out that our great flaw in Head 
Start over a 20-year period, and at a cost of approximately $20 
billion, has been the fact that we have done nothing until the last 
reauthorization to deal with the family literacy problem.
  The whole idea in Head Start, unfortunately, was to involve parents 
in everything other than learning about parenting, other than improving 
their literacy skills. The unfortunate part about this is that there is 
then no one at home to be the first and most important teacher that a 
child ever has.
  That is why, when they get to third grade, contrary to what those who 
support Head Start usually like to say--that it is the school 
district's fault--the reason these children have problems is that we 
did not design the program well and did not insist that family literacy 
was a part of that program.
  A second problem is that over the years since Head Start began, we 
have never recompeted a Head Start Program. I mean, even though the 
reports were such that we should have been doing something, we did not. 
We just allowed the same group to continue and continue and continue, 
and it became an employment program for them. It was their employment 
program, and they did not want us to mess with them. And so I think we 
really have to, as we go through this whole exercise, really zero in on 
the whole idea of family literacy, or we can spend $20 billion more on 
Head Start, and those disadvantaged youngsters are still going to be 
disadvantaged, more disadvantaged, or at least not any better than 
those that went through the Head Start Program before them.
  I will do anything I can do to make sure we do not come back with 
this argument against Head Start in the future. The chairman knows I 
have made this criticism about Head Start over and over again. We have 
to make very, very sure the same people do not constantly receive the 
grants year after year unless they are doing a good job.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Boehner's 
amendment to strike ``Title I--Transition Projects'' which are 
currently authorized under H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act.
  The legislation authorizes Federal assistance for comprehensive 
projects that provide for a smooth transition for children from 
preschool through the early elementary school grades. The projects 
target poor children, assisting them in reaching high academic 
standards.
  These transition programs are vital in continuing the social and 
educational successes of those children participating in Head Start, 
Even Start, and other quality preschool programs through the early 
grade levels. The fade-out effect, seen in former Head Start 
participants, may be alleviated through the continuation of effective 
services for at-risk children during the elementary school grades.
  Certainly, the continuation of innovative and successful preschool 
transition programs will prove to be a cost-effective and practical 
approach in the long run. If the educational and social needs of our 
youngest students are permitted to be neglected, the costs to society 
in the future through added demands on our education, justice, and 
social service programs will be enormous.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Boehner amendment and 
support the ``Title I--Transition Program.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128, 
noes 287, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               AYES--128

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Andrews (TX)
     Bonior
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Gallo
     Green
     Hastings
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Laughlin
     McDade
     Michel
     Natcher
     Rostenkowski
     Schiff
     Taylor (NC)
     Washington

                              {time}  1417

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Taylor of North Carolina for, with Mr. Gene Green of 
     Texas against.

  Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, and Mr. RIDGE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EMERSON, Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. THOMAS of California, BILBRAY, 
LEHMAN, and HALL of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. gunderson

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: Page 127, after line 21 
     insert:

                ``Subpart 3--Presidential Awards Program

     ``SEC. 1131. PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Development.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with the chairpersons and ranking minority members of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor for the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources of the Senate and educational leaders, develop a 
     Presidential awards program that will recognize and provide a 
     cash award to schools that excel in educating their students 
     to high levels as defined by the National Education Goals and 
     the standards certified by the National Education Standards 
     and Improvement Council established under the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act.
       ``(b) Nominations.--Schools recognized under this program 
     will be selected by the Secretary from a list of nominees. 
     Each State shall select a nominee to be submitted to the 
     Secretary from among schools designated as distinguished 
     schools under section 1119.
       ``(c) Selection.--The Secretary shall annually convene a 
     panel of experts who will review nominated schools and select 
     those who will receive awards. In addition to Presidential 
     recognition, selected schools will receive a cash award which 
     may be applied without restriction to enhance the educational 
     programs in those schools or to provide cash awards to 
     personnel in the school.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subpart such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 
     1997, 1998, and 1999.

  Mr. GUNDERSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


 perfecting amendment offered by mr. goodling to the amendment offered 
                            by mr. gunderson

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: In the amendment to page 
     127, after line 21--add the following:
       In section 1131, subsection (a)--
       (1) strike ``shall in consultation'' and all that follows 
     through ``America Act'' and insert ``may develop a 
     Presidential awards program that will recognize the person or 
     corporation producing the best education game of the year.''
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       Strike ``Schools'' and all that follows through ``section 
     1119'' and insert the following: ``Games recognized under 
     this program shall be selected by the Secretary from a list 
     of nominees or applicants submitted by a panel of experts who 
     convene annually at the request of the Secretary.''
       (3) In subsection (c) strike ``nominated'' and all that 
     follows through ``1999'' and insert the following: 
     ``nominations and applicants in selecting recipients who will 
     receive awards under this section. Games selected for awards 
     under this section may be eligible to receive other awards.''

  Mr. GOODLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the perfecting amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] rise?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the perfecting amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                  amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: Page 25, after line 
     18, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1003. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``None of the funds authorized in section 1002 shall be 
     made available to a local educational agency unless--
       ``(1) such agency, beginning on October 1, 1994, and 
     continuing on or before such date in each subsequent year, 
     submits to the Assistant Secretary of Education for 
     Elementary and Secondary Education, a statement regarding the 
     total number of students enrolled in its school system, the 
     number of students enrolled who are not lawfully in the 
     United States, the number of students who are lawfully in the 
     United States who do not have at least 1 parent or legal 
     guardian who is lawfully in the United States, and the 
     average per pupil expenditure of the local educational 
     agency.
       ``(2) The data submitted under paragraph (1) shall be 
     current as of any date in the 30-day period prior to the date 
     that the Assistant Secretary requires.''

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, 
straightforward, and it ought to be noncontroversial. It simply 
requires schools receiving funding under title I of ESEA to count their 
students who are in this country illegally or those who have parents 
who are in this country illegally. This information, taken together 
with the information about the cost of education at the schools, will 
allow all levels of Government to determine the cost of illegal 
education to our country's school systems.
  The reason I believe this amendment should be noncontroversial is 
that regardless of how one stands on the issue of Government benefits 
to illegal aliens, the debate should be based on the most accurate 
information possible about the cost to all levels of Government of the 
current policy, which is the policy of giving educational benefits to 
anyone who makes his or her way into this country, legally or 
illegally.
  To those who believe that the Federal Government should provide such 
compensation to school districts with high levels of illegal 
immigrants, this amendment will provide them the data they need to 
determine the amount of money that is needed to be reimbursed. Those 
who believe, as I do, that Government should not provide education for 
illegal aliens and their children will also find it valuable to have 
these costs and the figures available. Whichever side one is on of the 
illegal issue, it is essential for Congress to know how much it is 
costing to educate illegal aliens and their children in this country.
  Let me also explain, Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does not do. It 
does not create any great or unprecedented burden on the schools, 
although I am sure that is what my opponents will suggest. There is not 
a school in this country which does not have information for every 
student enrolled in its system. It is very easy to determine if the 
birth certificate comes from the United States or not, and those 
presenting birth certificates from other countries would simply be 
asked a further question about their legal status.
  Under a number of Federal laws, the schools are already required to 
determine the occupation of the students' parents for impact purposes 
and the incomes of their parents for school lunch purposes. It is not 
out of line to ask, with very little expense, just an additional 
question about legal status.
  Some Members of this House who are themselves responsible for 
imposing billions of dollars' worth of unfunded mandates on local 
school districts have decided to attack this minor requirement which 
would have very little cost to impact and attack it as an unfunded 
mandate. That is absolutely ridiculous, and just to remove any doubt, I 
will be accepting an amendment to my amendment brought by the cochairs 
of the Congressional Unfunded Mandates Caucus, of which I am an 
original member. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] will be proposing an amendment that 
will take care of that particular problem, if it ever was a problem.
  My amendment also does a couple of other things, and it does not do a 
couple of other things also. It does not require the reporting of any 
names of students or parents to the INS, although we will hear people 
making that charge. It does not require that, or that these names be 
transmitted to any other Federal agency. All we are asking for in this 
amendment is that we need the numbers, not the names. Nor does this 
amendment cut off any funds for educating illegal aliens. That is not 
what this amendment is about. I will be proposing an amendment like 
that separately later on, but that is not the point of this amendment.
  Let me make note of the fact that asking for information does not 
violate in any way the Supreme Court's Plyer versus Doe decision. That 
decision deals with providing education, not with asking questions, so 
there is no prohibition on whether or not we can in some way come to 
grips with the illegal alien problem, with the numbers of illegal 
aliens that are in our schools and how much they cost us.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is merely an attempt to quantify these 
costs, the costs of educating illegal aliens and their children, 
something that everyone should agree is needed.
  Let me say this very clearly. Those people who oppose this amendment 
and say that we should not even be able to count the number of illegal 
aliens in our schools should not come back to this body and expect that 
any money be provided by the Federal Government to finance the 
education of illegal aliens, if they themselves have refused to provide 
the data that is necessary to find out how many illegal aliens are 
needed to be financed. Any small burden that this amendment would 
require, that it would add in terms of the informational requirements 
that the schools already face, is just absolutely minimal, it far 
outweighs the benefits of knowing the information that we have to have. 
There is a huge unfunded mandate right now, and the number of illegal 
aliens, especially in the Southwest and California, that is providing a 
burden to the taxpayers to the point that the level of our schooling or 
the quality of our schooling is being stretched to the breaking point 
is such that we cannot permit this to go on and just ignore the issue. 
Let us quantify it, find out how much it is costing, and then we can 
determine what the solution should be.


   amendment offered by mr. roberts to the amendment offered by mr. 
                              rohrabacher

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roberts to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       At the end of the amendment proposed to be added to page 
     25, after line 18, add the following:
       ``(3) The direct costs incurred by States, local 
     educational agencies, and schools in complying with this 
     section shall be reimbursed by the Federal Government.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and other members of the 
Congressional Caucus on Unfunded Mandates.
  After consulting with various Members on the language and the intent 
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], it was agreed that this correcting amendment to his 
language should be and would be offered.
  I wish to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] to amend H.R. 6 in a way that hopefully would reduce costs 
to American taxpayers.
  The simple language we are offering is intended to remove an 
additional unfunded mandate that would be created if the Rohrabacher 
language were adopted. Simply put, this language would require that the 
Federal Government fund the cost of this requirement if it were 
enacted.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the chairman of the Unfunded Mandates 
Caucus, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. I think it is imperative that when 
we in Congress determine that there is an unfunded mandate attached to 
a piece of legislation, or as in this case, an amendment, we find a way 
to pay for it. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment. We 
are trying to state clearly that if it costs local school districts 
money, the Federal Government is obligated and responsible to pay for 
that.
  That is basically what we are doing today. I am in support of that, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] that would ask us to do that.
  In addition to that, I would advise Members that we will be offering 
this amendment to other parts of H.R. 6. This is not something new. It 
is something we have debated, and it is something we will continue to 
do.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution.
  Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield very briefly to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My 
understanding is that his amendment is to say that the Federal 
Government shall pay for this program.
  I have two questions. One is, how are we going to pay for that 
program, and the second one is if we do not pay for that program 
because we have passed a series of laws around here, unfortunately, 
where we have told local government we would pay for the program, and 
it has never happened, and yet they are still mandated to carry out the 
program.
  We do that for education of the handicapped. We told them we would 
pay a percentage of excess costs. We never did that. They still have to 
educate handicapped children. What is going to happen here when this 
part is not funded?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think the gentleman is pointing out exactly why we are 
making this perfecting amendment. We are extremely concerned that, 
regardless of what we pass in this body, we are passing the costs on to 
the States and local government. If the Rohrabacher amendment is 
passed, if that does actually represent a de minimis kind of unfunded 
mandated cost, we are simply saying the Federal Government shall pay 
for it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. We all know that is subject to 
appropriations.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would tell the gentleman that it comes under section 
502 of the bill as it stands, it is subject to the provisions of the 
Committee on Appropriations. So the appropriations process would take 
care of it. I cannot tell you exactly where the money would come from.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If they do not fund it, does the 
Rohrabacher provision drop out?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If they do not fund it, we are back to an 
unfunded mandate.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, this whole question 
about cost is obviously a maneuver in order to defeat the purpose of 
the bill, rather than what I consider to be a substantial argument.
  Mr. MILLER of California. It is talking about the merits. Somebody is 
going to have to talk about the costs.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have the time. While I have great 
respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], they can continue this 
debate under their own time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] raises 
a very good question. When I first heard about the amendment, I put the 
gentleman on notice that I would have to make a point of order against 
the amendment because it would be establishing an entitlement. The 
gentleman went and checked, as I checked, and found out that indeed 
this is an entitlement. There is no guarantee that the States and local 
governments will ever get a nickel out of this language. It is mainly 
an authorization to appropriate money for that purpose. And if we never 
appropriate a nickel, the States and local communities will still have 
to put their money out, because if they do not put their money out to 
do this, they will not get money under this bill to educate the at-risk 
children in their school district from the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a cutoff if they fail to gather the 
information, but there is no cutoff of the requirement to gather the 
information if they fail to get the money. And that is the very strange 
situation.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] can refer to it as a 
gimmick to oppose your amendment. I am opposed to the gentleman's 
amendment because it is insane to suggest that after what we learned 
about Nazi Germany in the period before World War II, that we would 
turn little children into informers on their parents as to their 
nationality status in schools in this country and expect that they 
would still go to school with trust in their eyes and trust in their 
hearts, when it was time for them to go to school.
  It is insane in your attempt to make whatever point you wanted to 
make about illegal aliens. And I do not know what is going on in your 
part of California. I have never been able to figure it out. But I 
wanted to tell you something, it is not just going to affect them.
  In the city of Detroit, there are tens of thousands of people who are 
in the school system and in surrounding suburbs who are Canadian 
citizens, and they never saw a green card. They do not know about those 
things, because they are not a different color and they do not speak a 
different language.
  Where you have a population that is coming in that has a different 
skin coloration or a different language, it is easy to pick them out 
and identify the problem and demagog on that issue. I am not saying 
that the gentleman is doing that, but some have in the past.
  What I want to tell the gentleman is that you are causing trouble for 
every school district in the country. You go into Miami and try to find 
out how you are going to get anybody to come to school, when the school 
has to turn in the number of children who are illegal. Not only that, 
if the child is born in the United States and is legal, they have to 
bring information about mommy and daddy. And not since Adolf Hitler has 
any government asked little school children to tell on mommy and daddy.
  Your amendment should be defeated with or without the amendment 
correcting it. And the amendment correcting it does not really do any 
good, because it does not guarantee that the school districts will ever 
get paid a dime.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Roberts amendment, because I think it is a subterfuge. If in fact what 
they were concerned about is unfunded mandates, what they would say is 
unless Federal moneys are provided for this activity, the activity 
shall not be required.
  That is not what it does. In fact, what we do is, we say the Federal 
Government shall fund this, as we do throughout the entire bill. We 
know that we have the right as the Federal Government to pick and 
choose where we will spend taxpayers' dollars and where we do not, and 
that happens in the appropriations process.
  But, in fact, the school district will be left with this charge in 
this legislation without the money. That is the history of unfunded 
mandates. So this amendment does not cure that problem.
  I think it is a subterfuge to suggest that it does or that it takes 
somebody off the hook. Because let us read what the California school 
board's association says about this, a State that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and I both represent.
  They say, ``It is with great frustration that we find the Federal 
Government attempting to address illegal immigration by further 
burdening the schools. Immigration policies and enforcement are 
strictly under the domain of the Federal Government, and yet schools 
have direct constitutional mandates to provide the educational 
services, regardless of whether or not the Federal Government has 
enforced those policies.''
  That is the law. That is what the constitutional case the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] pointed out said. And yet now we are 
telling them that whether or not we are effective in controlling 
immigration and enforcing the laws of this country, they will suffer 
another burden.
  I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], that 
our governor was just back here in Washington explaining to us that is 
exactly what he did not want to have continue to happen. That is how he 
has added up a $3 billion bill, saying that this is the unfunded cost 
of illegal immigration to the State of California. Now what the 
gentleman is suggesting is he is going to add to that.
  So, the Roberts amendment is not a big enough fig leaf to cover the 
flaws in this amendment. There are other flaws that we will address 
when we get back to the Rohrabacher amendment. But to suggest that 
somehow the Roberts amendment takes care of unfunded mandates, the 
chairman of the caucus better go back to legislative counsel and draft 
one that in fact does that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman will yield, I an 
wondering if the gentleman would accept a request on my part, a 
unanimous consent request, that would say something to the effect that 
requirements of this title, however, would be suspended if such 
reimbursement is not authorized by the Congress.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will have to 
work that out with the committee, the language. It has to be language 
that works, but that, in effect, says that when the Committee on 
Appropriations comes here, you can have that fight. But do not do this 
to the school districts that do not have the money. You have got to 
make that kind of link. And I do not know if that does it or not, and I 
am not objecting to it.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, is not the problem the gentleman is 
trying to articulate is that the money is actually appropriated under 
title I, and the net effect of the two amendments together will be that 
the first requirement of every State is to use their limited chapter 1 
dollars to do a survey before they use any of the money for anything 
else, which is clearly not the intent of the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a condition of the 
funding. What they point out is you are reducing the educational 
dollars to take care of now another problem you want local government 
to solve, which is not of their making. They do not create the 
immigration laws nor the enforcement policies in this country. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin is quite correct.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield, what you are doing 
now is identifying another facet of the problem. If the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has an objective here, he should attain 
that objective by amending the immigration laws and putting obligations 
on local police departments, school districts, whoever he wants to, 
providing that the money that we appropriate to enforce our immigration 
laws pay for it.
  Do not take money that is so thinly spread now that we cannot do the 
job away from children who are being taught to read and compute math 
and use it for recordkeeping to do the INS's job for it. If they are 
going to work for the INS, let the INS pay for it. If you want to do 
something about tightening up on immigration, let us do it with 
immigration legislation. Let us not try to use scarce school dollars to 
do that.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me how these debates get 
distorted, at least in my view. They have to get a lot of this 
information when students enroll in school anyhow. They have to provide 
birth certificates. They have to provide other information. They have 
to provide health information.
  This is not a large additional cost. Yet they are using this, in my 
view, as a red herring to stop finding out what the real problem is.
  In 1992 we spend $13.2 billion on primary and secondary education for 
illegal aliens. In 1992, the estimated cost for illegal immigrants, for 
the period 1992 to 2002, will be $221.5 billion. Yet every single time 
we come to this floor to try to get a handle on the illegal immigration 
problem, the liberal mentality says we cannot do that. Yet people 
across this country are concerned about their tax dollars being used 
wisely. They are concerned about the national debt. And yet one of the 
biggest expenditures we have that is adding to this deficit is taking 
care of illegal aliens coming across this border for health care 
purposes, educational purposes, and social purposes.

  We will not even address the problem, because the liberals in this 
body continue to say, ``Oh, my gosh, we cannot do that.''
  Let me give my colleagues some statistics that we will not address in 
this body. There are 2.3 million illegal aliens coming across the 
Mexican-American border alone every year, and about 1 million go back. 
That means we are getting 1.3 million new illegal aliens in this 
country that we are taking care of every single year with American 
taxpayers' dollars.
  They are not paying taxes. They come in to get phony Social Security 
cards, phony drivers' licenses so they do not have to do that. And yet, 
we are picking up the tab. But we cannot deal with it, because the 
liberals in this body continue to say, ``Oh, my gosh, that is something 
we can't do. You are going to hurt the children. You are going to hurt 
these poor people.''
  That is insane. The taxpayers who are paying the bill in this country 
ought to have some accountability from this Congress, and that means 
when illegal come into this country, we ought to know how many of them 
there are. We ought to know where they are. We ought to know what 
benefits they are getting, and we ought to send them back where they 
came from, unless they are legally in this country.
  Let me give my colleagues some other statistical data. Illegal aliens 
constitute one out of four people that are inmates in our Federal 
prisons. Each one of those inmates costs about $85,000 a year that the 
taxpayers have to pay for, one-fourth of our prison population, but we 
cannot deal with that. We ought to talk to them about that.
  There were 1,064 illegal aliens in the Los Angeles riots that did 
billions of dollars worth of damage. Those were not American citizens. 
They were illegal aliens breaking into those stores, carrying out 
television sets and everything else, 1,064 of them.
  Two-thirds of the births in Los Angeles County last year or 37,000 
births were illegal alien births, and the AFDC payments per month is 
$26 million just to take care of those children and take care of their 
families. That did not include other forms of health care, education, 
or anything else. Yet we cannot get at the problem, because the 
liberals say we cannot do that.
  If we look at every single bill that came before this body, the 
immigration bill, everything else, there is always a reason to say no, 
we cannot do that.
  I say we ought to be accountable to the U.S. taxpayer that is footing 
the bill. These people are not American citizens. If they wanted to 
come through the normal immigration process, fine. But when they come 
into this country illegally, we have no obligation to take care of 
their health, their welfare, or their education. Yet we cannot talk to 
these Members. They say one is a Nazi, if they talk about that. Give me 
a break. Give me a break.
  We ought to start thinking about the American taxpayer who is footing 
the bill. I could go on and on and on, because I have reams of 
statistical data to show we are spending billions and billions and 
billions of dollars, when we cannot afford it, when the national debt 
has grown from $1 trillion 10 years ago, after 200 years, to $4.5 
trillion in 10 years.
  We are taking care of the rest of the world, and we are neglecting 
the Americans that are paying the bill. I think that is wrong.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to point out 
that, as I understand it, the debate that has gone on here, we are 
trying to stop the sins of the past. There is no question we asked for 
a huge amount of information from school districts today, school lunch 
programs and others. We are also working overtime with school districts 
to try to reduce that paperwork, to reduce those costs so we can take 
that money and put it into lunches or services or teaching.
  We cannot just say, because we are already doing that, we can just 
add a little bit more. I think that is the purpose of the debate that 
is going on here.
  From this reauthorization, which has been 5 years since we have done 
it, if Members do not want unfunded mandates, then they have to come up 
with ways to provide that funding. We cannot just say this is additive. 
We are asking the questions anyway. This is an entirely different set 
of questions about citizenship than about whether the school lunch 
applies to a person or not.
  I just say, let us cure the sin here, if that is what we are serious 
about doing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). The time of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, Governor Wilson, to whom the 
gentleman alluded a few minutes ago, has talked about the tremendous 
burden that has been placed upon him and his State, the State of 
California, the gentleman's State, in taking care of illegal aliens in 
every single area: health care, education, and so forth.
  I submit to my colleagues that one of the ways to get to the bottom 
of the problem is to find out how many illegal aliens are in the 
schools and being taught. If we found that out, then they could find a 
way to address this problem through the educational system as well as 
health care, welfare, and everything else.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, apparently Governor Wilson knows, because he keeps 
send us the bill here.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. And he keeps complaining, and I think with 
justification. This Congress needs to take responsibility for not 
dealing with the illegal alien problem.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Part of my problem is, I agree in large part with the side on the 
committee and part of me agrees with the problem that we have in 
illegal immigration in the State of California.
  I took a look at this thing on both sides of it, and I still do not 
know, although I am in support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. I do not know if it is going to do any 
good. I do not know what it is going to cost.
  I have those same concerns on the other side. I also feel that the 
real problem needs to be solved at the border, not in the field of 
education.
  I have a real hard time with it. But as was discussed a minute ago, 
Governor Wilson has asked for $3.7 billion because of the illegal 
immigration impact. It is a Federal mandate. We mandate on the States 
that they pay for it, just like we are trying to legislate that we 
mandate a payment to cover the cost of this paperwork.
  The problem is, $3.7 billion a year, if we can stop illegal 
immigration, we do not have to worry about doing it here in the field 
of education. We can take $3.7 billion and apply it to those areas into 
education and law enforcement and rest of it by stopping it at the 
border.
  I think that is the real area that we need to take a look at. I want 
to stop all illegal immigration coming in, whether it is the Chinese 
boat people, whether it is the Irish, which I am a member of, or 
whether it is across the border of Mexico. The only way to do that, I 
think, is to stop totally those services, but that should not rest in 
the education field.
  However, all the other areas, law enforcement, where we have, as the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] said, about 25 percent, it is 
actually about 132 percent of our felons are illegal aliens, but we do 
not fund that. We know that number. It is a hard number. And we can ask 
the Government for funds.
  In the field of AFDC, we know that number. And we can do it.
  But in the field of education, when the State asks for help because 
of the impact, just like impact aid in military, when the State asks 
for the numbers of illegals so that we can get the funding out of 
the Federal Government for that impact on the States, we cannot give 
them an accurate number.

  My problem with the Rohrabacher amendment, one, it is an unfunded 
mandate, which I would like to see it funded. But we cannot appropriate 
it unless we authorize it first, or they will call for a point of order 
later on. So it is ``darned if you do and darned if you don't.''
  The whole point is, my wife is a principal. We take a birth 
certificate. We take an address, and we take a phone number. And we do 
not ask the kids. The parents fill that out.

                              {time}  1450

  When the parent fills that out, you put block No. 4 on there, ``Are 
you a legal resident of the United States?'' That does not take a whole 
lot of paperwork or a whole lot of dollars to do. You cannot use that 
information by law with the INS, so you cannot verify it. I do not know 
if it is going to do any good or not.
  That is what my problem is on both sides of this, trying to weigh in 
my own mind whether it is a good thing to do. I do not know if we are 
going to get accurate funds, but I think we need to stand up in all the 
committees and make a point. First of all, we are dealing with illegal 
immigration--illegal immigration that impacts us, $27 billion across 
the United States. We can do a lot with that money. If we stop that 
type of immigration, we are going to not only help taxpayers, but we 
are going to help the programs that we are so deficient in the money, 
in education, in law enforcement, in health care, and the rest of it.
  The perfecting amendment I would hope that the Members would support. 
The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 600 new border patrolmen 
at the border. They have lights, they have roads. That is where we need 
to stop illegal immigration.
  My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] and I will sit 
down and talk. They will support those kinds of initiatives. Do we do 
it in education?
  The second amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] I oppose. Why? Because he is going to ask that the Federal 
Government not give the schools money, but yet, the school counts it by 
the number of faces there, and if they do not get the number of faces 
there, they cannot get the money. Again, Governor Wilson is going to 
have to pay for it, and he does not have the money to do that, so I 
would oppose the second amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher].
  This amendment in essence, I think the point is just trying to 
identify the numbers. I think my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Becerra] would agree. We need to identify the numbers so we can 
get the money for it. I do not know if this is going to do it. I hope 
it does. That is one of the reasons I would support it.
  (Mr. OBEY addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are hearing all kinds of arguments coming at this 
issue from all kinds of different directions. First we hear people say 
how terrible it is we are going to divert all sorts of resources at the 
local level away from education. Then we have people on the other side 
who are trying their darndest to prevent us from authorizing, which is 
exactly what we are trying to do with the so-called Roberts amendment, 
the money that is necessary to pay for this added cost, which is a 
minimal, minimal cost of people asking two more questions. Of all the 
other questions that they ask when a student has to register for class, 
we just ask two more questions.
  As far as I am concerned, we have to be really up front right now 
about what we are talking about. We are talking about, in this 
language, the Roberts language, an authorization of the money. We just 
hear people on the floor saying that they are concerned that the local 
governments will have to spend. That is what this is, an authorization.
  We also hear that we cannot, for example, by authorizing this money 
really be assured that the money is going to get there, because it is 
not appropriated. Come on. That means nothing in this bill has any 
meaning at all, because we do rely on the appropriators to appropriate 
the money. This is exactly where this kind of stand should be made. 
This is exactly where the policy is made. We are stating the policy. We 
are making the authorization.
  As I say, Mr. Chairman, the end cost is minimal, even to the Federal 
Government. I think the public, when they are listening to this debate, 
will understand we are being told, ``You cannot do anything about the 
illegal immigration problem. Leave it to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.'' In my State, we know by providing tens of 
thousands of dollars worth of benefits, education, health benefits, 
housing benefits to illegal aliens, what we have done is enticed a 
flood of illegal immigration from all over the world into California, 
and it is breaking our bank.
  Again, if Members defeat my amendment and this amendment, no one from 
California, from the Southwest, should come back to this body and say, 
``We need money to help take care of the education or health needs of 
illegal immigrants,'' because they have refused to permit us to set up 
a system where we can quantify the problem.
  By the way, leaving it up to Immigration, we know it has not worked 
in California. We know it has not worked. They can build a wall 10 feet 
high, dig a trench 20 feet deep, and if we are giving a package of 
benefits to people to come here illegally, especially if it is aimed at 
helping their families, and these are good and decent people, we are 
not saying that the people who are coming here illegally, whether it is 
from Canada, as was suggested, in Michigan, or whether it is from 
Mexico, as many of the people from California are from Mexico, or from 
Asia, or from Europe, or from Ireland, these are not bad people coming 
here. We just cannot afford to spend tens of millions, hundreds of 
millions, billions of dollars educating people from other countries who 
are here illegally.
  The bottom line is when we hear the other side of this argument, 
talking with all sorts of compassion about ``we cannot waste the money 
to even determine the problem,'' the American people can understand 
what is going on. The American people are going to see that what we are 
being told is we cannot do anything about a problem that is draining 
billions of dollars out of our system, draining billions of dollars 
that should be going to provide education for our own kids, meaning 
kids of legal residents and U.S. citizens, and giving this money to 
provide benefits for the children of illegal aliens.
  That is not to say that we do not like these children or that they 
are bad people. We have to care about our own people first.
  Now, you can talk about all kinds of parliamentary maneuvers and 
things of why it cannot be done and use all of these words. The people 
back home will just know that what is happening is an attempt to 
prevent at least a first step of coming to grips with this problem. And 
that is, we have got to take down the welcome sign that says, ``If you 
can get across this border, we are going to give you all kinds of 
benefits, the same benefits package that any American has,'' because we 
are inviting people to come, and the Immigration Service that you are 
talking about, you are saying let the Immigration Service do it. I will 
tell Members, if we are providing this benefit, they are never going to 
be able to do that job, and you know they will never be able to do that 
job because we are giving people an incentive to break the law and come 
here.
  I have supported legal immigration. This is not an anti-immigrant 
bill. This is an anti-illegal-alien move to try to stem this flow that 
is coming into our country and dissipating all of the funds that our 
people have saved up, whether it is retirement or whether it is health 
care, those people who come from our own country who have been here for 
a long time, legal residents and U.S. citizens and have contributed to 
the pot. We are about them. It is not that we are heartless.
  For us to hear these words, ``Nazi Germany,'' the American people do 
not buy that kind of name-calling anymore. They know it is a serious 
problem. It deserves serious discussion, and that is what this is all 
about.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the 
majority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this amendment, and I 
say that with an understanding of the gravity and importance of this 
problem.
  The first duty of Government is to protect the safety of its 
citizens, and probably right along with that is the duty to protect the 
borders of the United States and to see that illegal immigration does 
not take place.
  Like many of my colleagues in the chamber, I have been on the border 
many times, the Canadian border, and I have been to places like Miami, 
where illegal immigration occurs, and I have been on the border with 
Mexico. The truth is that we are not making a sufficient effort with 
the Immigration Service to make sure that illegal immigration does not 
take place.
  Perhaps we need to bring the Immigration Service bill back up on this 
floor. Hopefully, it will come later in the year and we can have this 
discussion. I am prepared, and I think a lot of Members are prepared, 
to appropriate additional moneys to make sure that our borders are 
secure. I am convinced that we can do a far better job than we are 
doing.

  I stood at the border at Tiajuana not long ago, and I watched illegal 
immigration take place. I talked to the immigration officers who were 
there, and they said, ``Yes, we could do a much better job, but we are 
not prepared today to do it because we do not have the commitment of 
the U.S. Congress through funding sources to make possible what needs 
to be done.''
  I think this amendment is ill-advised. We are seeing this kind of 
amendment on a whole series of bills before this House. Let us check on 
people that want to get into a training program, let us check on people 
that want to get into a school, let us check on people who want to do 
all manner of things that Government agencies that are outside the 
Immigration Service are not prepared to do. It does not make sense to 
turn every school and every school official in the country into an 
immigration officer. That is not their job. They are not prepared to do 
it. They do not have the equipment to do it, they do not have the 
personnel to do it, they do not have the time to do it, they do not 
have the ability to do it correctly? So let us please not burden every 
piece of legislation that comes through here with an added 
responsibility to enforce the immigration laws of this country. Let us 
get the immigration laws enforced by the Immigration Service and by the 
Border Patrol.
  I was told by our immigration officers that earlier last year, when 
the Mexican Government and our Government got more serious about 
illegal immigration for about a 2-month period, illegal immigration 
dropped precipitously. It can be done. But let us do it in the right 
place, and let us have this discussion on an immigration bill that 
comes before this House, and let us keep the responsibility where it 
belongs, not in the schools and not in the training programs of this 
country, but in the Immigration Service, which has that responsibility.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roberts amendment because 
it really does not solve the problem of unfunded Federal mandates. It 
is merely a cosmetic cover.
  There are presently not enough Federal funds to cover all of the 
programs that are being implemented.
  Now, the Rohrabacher amendment creates a further requirement, and the 
Roberts amendment says, ``Well, don't worry about it; the Feds will 
cover the cost.'' Oh, yeah, and the check is in the mail.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I rise today mainly in opposition to the two 
Rohrabacher amendments which would require schools to identify and 
collect data on the residency status of students, and would withhold 
Federal funds for any district which does not comply with this 
bureaucracy.
  As a certified teacher, I am sensitive to the education ramifications 
of such a damaging amendment, and as someone who came to the United 
States at an early age and learned English through a bilingual program, 
I cannot stress to my colleagues enough that we cannot allow this and 
other harmful amendments to pass today.
  I am extremely concerned over the constitutional question raised by 
these amendments, which violate the Supreme Court mandate that public 
schools must provide education to all children regardless of their 
immigration status. The sponsors believe that the constitutional 
questions have been resolved. But I do not believe that this is so.
  In addition to my opposition from a legal standpoint, I am also 
worried about the implications to blameless children and families who 
are citizens of the United States but who do not look like an 
antiquated version of what an ``average American'' may be, and who, 
therefore, may be susceptible to discrimination.
  This amendment would cause an enormous paperwork burden for teachers 
and would require them to determine the INS status of their students. 
The administrative costs of this needless bureaucracy could very well 
be high.
  Additionally, this notification serves no immigration policy because 
restricting students from education will not prevent illegal 
immigration. This amendment would provide bilingual programs in some 
districts which have proven to be powerful tools in helping limited-
English-proficient students learn English. This increases the danger of 
students dropping out and not graduating. Hispanics have one of the 
highest drop-out rates in this country, and this legislation would only 
worsen the problem. We should not critically restrict the schools' 
capability to provide services to limited-English-proficient students 
to areas such as Miami, with a great number of such students.
  The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Services also oppose these amendments, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's cosmetic 
reference to my amendment. However, I think the cosmetics are in error 
as far as my personal intent.
  The gentlewoman indicated the check is not in the mail, and that is 
precisely the reason that I introduced this amendment. On behalf of the 
unfunded mandates caucus, it was determined when Mr. Ford went to Mr. 
Condit and said will you please help us here because the Rohrabacher 
amendment has an unfunded mandate, as to why he is on the floor is 
because it is precisely because Mr. Rohrabacher came to me and said it 
might be an unfunded mandate, would you come to the floor. I have not 
really indicated my prejudice for or against the Rohrabacher amendment. 
I appreciate what he is trying to do, but the fact the check is not in 
the mail is the reason why I introduced this amendment.
  It is not cosmetic, and the intent of the amendment is to solve the 
unfunded mandate problem. We are going to come every time there is an 
unfunded mandate, and Members may want to vote for it or against it. 
They may want to make a speech for or against whatever bill. But if it 
does saddle our local governments and our States and others with costs, 
our Members will hear about it.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman must understand 
that all the amendment says is that the Federal Government will cover 
these costs. There are countless programs that are now on the books, 
they sound really great, and all we say is, and, gee, local government, 
local school district, if you do not have enough money, do not worry, 
we will cover those costs. And it is not happening. The check is not in 
the mail, and merely saying that the Federal Government will pick up 
the costs will not make it happen.
  My children believe in the Easter Bunny, but I, I say to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] do not.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, we will hop down the Easter trail together 
opposed to unfunded mandates. The point I am trying to make is the 
gentleman from California will soon try to ask consent to change the 
amendment, saying if there is no money, then of course there is no 
requirement.

                              {time}  1510

  We are on the same side. It was just that the gentlewoman tried to 
change my intent.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman must know that 
there is no money. It is not if there is no money or if there is no 
Easter Bunny. There is no money, and there is no Easter Bunny.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Then vote against the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] and quit picking on me.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I plan on voting against it. I do not think your 
amendment is going to satisfy the concerns, if they truly are serious 
concerns about unfunded mandates. This does not cover it. Do not fool 
the people into thinking that it does.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent, if I could, to add 
language----
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The Chair hears an 
objection.
  Would you like to hear what the proposition is, or do you just 
object, period?
  Mr. SERRANO. I object, and in anticipation----
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, may I make my point on what I would have 
done had there not be an objection?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Well, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes, and the gentleman may propound his request for the record.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman and Members, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is an honorable amendment. His 
intentions were clearly to deal with the unfunded-mandate issue.
  We did not want to get into the debate of my colleague from 
California. We clearly wanted to talk about unfunded mandates, and we 
have a consistent position on this, and that is that if the Federal 
Government requires local governments, States, and counties and school 
districts to do something that they think is a good idea, we are asking 
the Federal Government to reimburse them for those good ideas, because 
it costs them money.
  This amendment from my colleague, the gentleman from California, by 
my colleague from California, will cost somebody some money. Make no 
mistake about it, it will cost somebody some money. Somebody will have 
to pay to calculate those numbers and take the time to take the 
surveys. There will be personnel costs and so on and so forth.
  We clearly wanted to simply ask that if you are going to mandate this 
on schools, please, reimburse them for the costs. We did not take a 
position on the amendment. That was not our intent. Our intent was to 
say it is unfunded mandate, and, please, recognize that and pay for it.
  What I wanted to do to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] was just add language that the requirement of this 
title shall, however, be suspended if such reimbursement is not 
authorized by Congress. That is real clear, real clear. If you do not 
give them money for this mandate, then it is voluntary.
  In my opinion, that is the way mandates here ought to be. It ought to 
be simply if you believe in something enough around here and it costs 
money, you ought to believe in it enough that you are willing to pay 
for it, and this is what the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] was 
trying to do with his amendment.
  It is an honorable amendment, and his intentions were right. I am 
sorry that we were not able to add this language that we think would 
have improved his amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let the American people who are watching this debate 
fully understand exactly what maneuvers are going on here. An attempt 
is being made to authorize money.
  The cochairman of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus, and I am a founding 
member of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus, are doing everything that they 
can to find language that will in some way be acceptable to people who 
are claiming that this is an unfunded mandate. That was the purpose of 
the original Roberts language.
  Now we have an amendment to that trying to bend over backward to find 
the language in which the whole argument that this is an unfunded 
mandate can actually be addressed. Instead, what we have are the people 
who are using that argument against to try to defeat this bill are 
defeating the attempt to make it or to address the problem, and the 
reason why this is happening is because they do not want the Federal 
Government to address the issue.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed over here 
and said that people are making the unfunded argument, but you have not 
heard that from the committee. No one on the committee has said 
anything about that. No one on the committee has made an argument 
against this amendment because of who is going to pay for it or not. We 
do not believe it is right to have little children in public schools 
enlisted to be spies against other members of their families, no matter 
who pays for it. We do not care whether it is funded or unfunded. It is 
immoral. It is wrong.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am glad the gentleman made that point. He does not 
care either way whether it is funded or unfunded.
  Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, I will simply say there have been a 
number of Members in this House on both sides of the aisle that have 
approached members of the Unfunded Mandates Caucus and pointed out that 
this is an unfunded mandate. We tried real hard to accommodate them. We 
tried to come up with language that was fair, and I want to commend the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] for his honorable efforts to try to 
do that.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I wanted to first of all comment on the good intentions of the 
Unfunded Mandates Caucus. I understand, in our discussion, what they 
are trying to do to not place a burden on local school systems.
  However, I have a concern that if we were to vote and accept that 
particular amendment which says that there is no mandate, that we do 
not have to go along with this recording program, that, therefore, the 
program does not exist. This makes it more palatable perhaps in the 
minds of some people, and I, quite frankly, think that we should just 
vote down the Rohrabacher amendment on its own lack of merits and not 
because it is not something that is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we, in Congress, must be committed to 
the education of all of our children. For this reason, I rise in 
opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment, which would require the more 
than 14,000 school districts across the country to report the number of 
undocumented students in their school systems. This amendment also 
would prohibit funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
to serve students who are not lawfully in the United States. The 
Rohrabacher provisions are unwise, unworkable, and unfair for a number 
of reasons.
  Keeping track of undocumented students would create a paper nightmare 
for school districts. The public schools in our country are not 
equipped to handle the enormous burden of gathering data regarding 
which students are not lawfully in the United States. The Rohrabacher 
amendment would turn local school districts into mini-immigration 
services, and every teacher, school principal, and school administrator 
would be an agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]. 
These school officials would have to determine the citizenship status 
of every student and their parents.
  If the purpose of the Rohrabacher amendment is to address the problem 
of illegal immigration, there is no evidence that links illegal 
immigration to the right of public schooling. The Rohrabacher amendment 
simply would not work. Moreover, further inspection of the amendment 
raises concerns that, besides denying Federal funds for services to 
undocumented children, the provisions also would deny federally funded 
services to children who are in the United States legally.
  Most immigrants, whether or not they are documented, most likely will 
remain in the United States. The Rohrabacher amendment would create a 
subclass of uneducated individuals who most likely would end up on the 
streets. Instead of contributing to the tax base of our society, these 
children would only add to the long-term problems of homelessness and 
crime.
  The Rohrabacher amendment is punitive, mean-spirited, and 
unconstitutional. Why should we punish children for the actions of 
their parents? Our students represent the future of our Nation. We must 
educate all of our children, for they are the citizens of tomorrow and 
our future workers. In 1982, the Supreme Court handed down a decision 
that all undocumented children have a right to a public education in 
the case, Plyler versus Doe. The Rohrabacher amendment clearly 
contradicts this Supreme Court decision which affirms that basic 
education cannot be denied to any child.

  Mr. Chairman, I recognize and uphold the right of the United States 
to protect its borders and regulate immigration. The Rohrabacher 
amendment would do nothing to address concerns regarding illegal 
immigration. Instead, it would have a detrimental effect on children, 
and ultimately on the future of our Nation. I urge my colleagues not to 
allow immigration concerns to permeate education by voting against the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the Roberts amendment.
  We should begin paying for these things. That is what the debate on 
the balanced budget amendment was, and this is going to be one of those 
small items that we are asking local governments to fulfill that ought 
to be paid for.
  Now, should we ask schools to ask their students, ``Are you a 
citizen?'' There is tremendous cost involved here.
  Second question: ``Are either of your parents a U.S. citizen?'' 
Tremendous expense here. People come here to have their babies, it is 
charged. We give free hospitalization, we print in Medicare--Medical, 
in California--in several languages, ``We won't turn you in. We will 
give you free service if you want to have your baby here. We will pay 
for it.'' Where would you, if you lived in Latin America, want to have 
your child? Free delivery, free health care, free schooling on the U.S. 
taxpayer.
  Folks, enough is enough. It is time we not only pay for the 
government we are having today, it is time to say we limit that service 
to the U.S. citizens and to those aliens who have waited patiently for 
5 years to become citizens of the United States.
  Instead, we say to anybody that can hobble, crawl, or swim or get 
over the border, ``We will open up the treasury for you.'' And then we 
go home and talk how conservative we are and how we are going to 
balance the budget.
  Who are we fooling?
  Free education. UNESCO just said we spend more on education than any 
other country in the world. That was printed in USA Today.
  Where would you go to have your child if you knew those facts? Right 
here. And they are doing it by the tens of thousands.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to say: In 1992 we spent $13.2 billion, that is 
13,200 million dollars, on primary and secondary education for illegal 
aliens; $8.5 billion in Medicaid; $7.8 billion for local health and 
welfare services; $2.9 billion for bilingual education; and $2.8 
billion for AFDC, and over the next 10 years it is going to cost at 
least another 225,000 million dollars--that is $225 billion.
  Now, the majority leader said on this floor a little bit ago if we 
are going to deal with the illegal aliens problem, we ought to 
appropriate more money for the Immigration Service. And I agree with 
that. But that alone will not solve the problem. We need a full court 
press.
  From Mexico alone we are getting a new 1.3 million illegal aliens 
staying in this country every single year. That is just Mexico. That is 
not coming across the Canadian border or through Miami or anyplace 
else. We have a virtual tidal wave of illegal aliens. We need a full 
court press through the health agencies, education agencies, and 
everything else to deal with this problem; otherwise we are going to be 
drowning in a sea of red ink caused, in large part, by illegal aliens 
coming into this country.
  Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment may not be the panacea for the problem, 
but it is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, two last points on my time. We 
are asking, through this act, 900 pages of regulations on the local 
school district. We say, ``If you ask them if they are citizens,'' that 
is going to overburden the school districts. We have nationalized, in 
this act, the school system with Goals 2000.
  Twenty percent of our prison population in California is illegal 
aliens. We say America is for opportunity; some come here for crime, 
free medical care, free education. Let us draw the line, let us accept 
the Rohrabacher amendment now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I am very proud of Chairman Ford, 
the gentleman from Michigan, and the Representative from Florida; the 
opposition to this legislation, along with the Representative from 
Maryland, is bipartisan, and it is heartening to see that the House of 
Representatives is reacting negatively to an assault that seems to be 
taking place not just on undocumented workers but on legal immigrants 
and later, next week, on eliminating bilingual education programs that 
benefit Hispanic children, Asian children, and native American 
children.
  While the debate on the restriction is an unfunded mandate debate, I 
want to speak here briefly on behalf of people who are part of the 
American dream. What I am pleased with is that it is not just members 
of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, all of whom are opposed to the 
Rohrabacher amendment on a bipartisan basis, but it is Americans who, 
for whatever their ethnicity or ancestry, are strongly opposed to what 
is happening here.
  Forget the fact that this amendment turns every educator in this 
country into an INS agent. Schools would have to determine the 
citizenship status of every student and every parent. Talk about 
paperwork on teachers, on administrators. First of all, this does not 
sound like a Republican amendment: more paperwork, more cost, unfunded 
mandates; with all due respect, the rhetoric we have heard over the 
years.

  Our schools are overburdened with costs and redtape. We would be 
adding another layer.
  This amendment would also cause discrimination against all nonwhite 
students and their parents. Why? Do you know why? Do you know who would 
be asked to produce their little card or would be asked to register and 
come to the principal's office? It is not going to be the American who 
looks like Robert Redford or Mr. Rohrabacher; it is going to be the 
Hispanic, it is going to be the Asian, it is going to be the native 
American, the doesn't-look-quite-like-an-American. That is not right to 
do that to students and to parents.
  Families are going to be wrongly identified, and irreparable damage 
is going to be done to American citizens and other people who are 
legally entitled to be in this country, not to mention the fact that 
you are going to make thousands of kids and parents feel not like 
Americans. They, their families, may have served in every war, they may 
have given blood for this country; but somehow because they do not look 
American, they re going to be unfairly singled out.
  This is not the proper context to discuss this issue. Let us have a 
national immigration bill, a new one which deals with the issues of 
undocumented workers, of legal immigrants, that deals with the issue of 
the earthquake. But as immigrants, that deals with the issue of the 
earthquake. But as somebody of Hispanic ancestry, I cannot help but see 
that every bill--and now I understand that in the budget resolution 
there is another amendment that singles out a group of people. We know 
who it is, we know who you are talking about. That is not what America 
is all about.
  So, I say let us start today with a rejection of the Rohrabacher 
amendment. Let us go next week also and say ``no'' to two amendments 
that deal with bilingual education. In other words, they eliminate 
bilingual education, which, in districts all around this country, 
affect not just Hispanics, not just native American children, but 
affect children who are perhaps not that typical American.
  So, once again to my colleagues, reach down and do the right thing. 
And the right thing is, yes, to cast a vote against unfunded mandates, 
which this bill does; yes, vote against more paperwork and more 
bureaucracy, which this amendment does; but also in terms of the 
humanity of this House, so that every American who is legally here--a 
nation of immigrants--can feel that they are not unfairly treated. This 
is what this amendment will do, and I ask for a ``no'' vote on the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment. This amendment, not only discriminates against 
innocent children, but it also adds an overwhelming burden on our own 
local schools which will effect the education of all children 
nationwide. The amendment is an unfunded Federal mandate which requires 
local schools to report on the immigration status of innocent children 
and their parents without giving any money to help schools with the 
enormous costs of conducting these investigations.
  Under this amendment, school administrators and teachers who are 
already overwhelmed with the educational system would have to enforce 
complex immigration laws. Those in favor of the amendment may try to 
argue that its passage will prevent illegal immigration. Mr. Chairman, 
that is simply untrue. Instead, if this amendment passes, teachers will 
be overwhelmed with administrative burdens and costs and will be unable 
to give their full attention to educating our children. The result will 
be poorly educated individuals unable to contribute to the future work 
force of our country.
  The Rohrabacher amendment would also expose innocent individuals who 
are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally admitted into this country to 
widespread discrimination. By requiring untrained State and local 
officials to make complex determinations on immigration status, it is 
likely that only those who appear foreign will be asked to produce 
proof of citizenship when they are detained or questioned. In fact, 
innocent individuals have been mistakenly deported, and under this 
amendment, cases of mistaken identity will be enormously increased. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment will force teachers to single out and 
discriminate against students in order to receive the funds they 
desperately need. Such an idea is unthinkable and unfair to every child 
in this country.
  This amendment also undercuts the Supreme Court decision mandating 
that States provide a public education to all children by potentially 
discouraging children from attending school. Without a good education, 
these individuals will be unable to contribute to the progress of our 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, school boards as well as the immigration and 
naturalization service oppose this amendment. They do so because they 
understand that our focus needs to be on the enhancement of our 
educational system for all children. By discriminating against our 
children and by adding more burdens and costs to our local schools, we 
would be harming all Americans. The education of innocent children is 
at stake, and education is essential for all children in order to keep 
our Nation strong. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Rohrabacher amendment.

            Opponents of the Rohrabacher and Roth Amendments

       Department of Education.
       Immigration and Naturalization Service.
       Office of Management and Budget.
       Asian Law Caucus.
       ASPIRA Association, Inc.
       American Association of School Administrators.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       Asian-Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.
       Chinese for Affirmative Action.
       Council of Chief State School Officers.
       Council of Great City Schools.
       California School Boards Association.
       California State Department of Education.
       Cuban-American National Council.
       Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.
       International Reading Association.
       Japanese American Citizens League.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy.
       National Association for Bilingual Education.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals.
       National Association of Federally Impacted Schools.
       National Association of State Boards of Education.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       National Education Association.
       National HEP-CAMP Association.
       National Hispanic Leadership Agenda.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Council of Social Studies.
       National Council of Teachers of English.
       National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
       National Parent Teacher Association.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition.
       The Navajo Nation.
       Organization of Chinese Americans.
       Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       State of New York.
       Texas Education Agency.
       U.S. Catholic Conference.
       U.S. Conference of Mayors.
                                  ____


 [From the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
                         Budget, Mar. 1, 1994]

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 6--Improving America's Schools Act of 1993

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 6. The 
     bill would: (1) reauthorize and restructure the elementary 
     and secondary education programs of the Department of 
     Education to make them better vehicles for helping all 
     children achieve high standards; (2) direct greater Federal 
     resources to the poorest schools and communities; (3) support 
     education reforms under way in the States; (4) support 
     sustained intensive professional development in the core 
     academic subjects for educators; (5) assist efforts to make 
     our schools safe and drug-free; and (6) provide increased 
     State and local administrative flexibility, in return for 
     greater accountability for successful education results.
       Although H.R. 6 contains provisions that the Administration 
     does not support, it is consistent with Administration 
     objectives and, in most respects, would substantially improve 
     current law. The Administration looks forward to working with 
     Congress to strengthen the bill further as it moves through 
     the legislative process.
       Of the amendments that may be offered on the House floor, 
     the Administration strongly opposes the following:
       (1) The Rohrabacher amendments that would affect 
     undocumented students and children of undocumented parents. 
     These amendments would impose an enormous data-gathering 
     burden on schools and conflict with the Administration's goal 
     of holding all children to the same challenging standards. 
     States and local school systems would continue to have the 
     constitutional responsibility to educate undocumented 
     children, but public schools would be denied the Federal 
     resources available to assist them in meeting their 
     responsibility. Finally, these amendments would likely 
     subject citizen and legal resident children of certain ethnic 
     backgrounds to discrimination and humiliation.
       (2) Any amendments that would restrict the ability of local 
     communities to make their own decision about school-based 
     health education and health services programs compatible with 
     the needs of their children.
                                  ____

         U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and 
           Naturalization Service,
                                Washington, DC, February 28, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to express the strong opposition 
     of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the 
     amendments to H.R. 6, the ``Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1994,'' which have been proposed by Congressman Dana 
     Rohrabacher. The first amendment would require local school 
     districts to provide annually to the Department of Education 
     the number of students who are not lawfully in the United 
     States, and the number unlawfully here who do not have at 
     least one parent or legal guardian who is lawfully in the 
     United States. The second amendment would bar the use of 
     Federal funds for assistance to any individual who was not a 
     citizen or national of the United States, a permanent 
     resident alien, or an alien who is a parolee, asylee or 
     refugee.
       As a practical matter, school districts cannot by 
     themselves make immigration status determinations about 
     students or their parents and therefore would have to work 
     with INS to implement these amendments, which would be 
     extremely difficult and enormously burdensome for the INS. 
     INS would have to divert scarce resources from other 
     enforcement priorities, including border enforcement and the 
     removal of criminal aliens, to check both our automated and 
     other records of aliens in the United States. The local 
     educational authorities could not be directly linked to our 
     automated databases without creating vast opportunity for 
     privacy violations. Finally, the labor-intensive requirements 
     contemplated by these amendments could not be assumed without 
     extensive new resources.
       In addition, the first amendment would require the local 
     educational agency to count students who are not lawfully in 
     the United States, which is a category that does not 
     correlate with the one used in the second amendment to define 
     alien students who could benefit from the Federal funds--
     ``permanent resident aliens, parolees, asylees, and 
     refugees.'' Certain other aliens are deemed by statute, 
     regulation and court decision to be ``lawfully in the United 
     States.''
       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this amendment. We 
     share a concern that illegal aliens not be allowed to remain 
     in the United States, but INS believes that these amendments 
     will not further that end.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. The Office 
     of Management and Budget has advised that there is no 
     objection to the submission of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Doris Meissner,
                                                     Commissioner.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, representing the districts I do, it would 
be very simple to get up and say I support the amendment. I do not 
support the amendment. I do not support the amendment for numerous 
reasons. But, No. 1, I do not support the amendment simply because I 
agree with what the majority leader says, which I will summarize in 
just one or two sentences. I think what the majority leader said was 
that he would hope that we would look at the issue, which certainly 
needs fixing. I do not think there is anyone in here who does not 
believe it needs fixing. But let us let the committees of jurisdiction 
act, and act promptly, so that we have a cohesive approach, rather than 
a piecemeal approach, which is what we will do if we keep adding pieces 
of other legislation that is before us.
  I have a second concern. Every youngster that is born in this country 
is a citizen in this country. I have said over and over again that, if 
we are ever going to make the grade in dealing with illiteracy in the 
country and helping all people become productive citizens, there has to 
be a family effort to do that. So, Mr. Chairman, we cannot say on one 
hand that we support a family approach to the literacy problem and on 
the other hand say, ``Well, the child was born here, so you can deal 
with him, but you can't deal with the parent.'' It would be my hope 
that we do have this comprehensive approach that will come later.
  I do have to just jab a little at the Californians however. We lost 
two seats in Pennsylvania. We did not lose two seats in Pennsylvania 
because we lost population in Pennsylvania. We lost two seats in 
Pennsylvania because we did not have any illegal aliens to count, and 
we are allowed to do that when we are talking about redistricting. So, 
I have to jab just a little at the Californians who are up here crying.
  But again we need a comprehensive approach. That should come from the 
committees of jurisdiction. The youngsters that are here should be 
educated, and we should, in turn, make sure that their parents can 
become their first and most important teacher.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering an amendment 
offered by my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, that would require 
school districts receiving funds under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act to survey and report to the Department of Education the 
number of children in their schools who are undocumented residents or 
are the children of undocumented residents. Many Members have observed 
that this amendment is an unfunded Federal mandate because it would 
impose requirements on local school districts without providing them 
the funds necessary to implement the mandate. My colleagues who have 
labeled the amendment as an unfunded Federal mandate are correct. The 
Rohrabacher amendment, as drafted, would require local school districts 
to use their own resources in order to meet its requirements. Thus, it 
is an unfunded mandate.
  As the cochair of the congressional caucus on unfunded mandates and 
as the primary sponsor of legislation addressing unfunded mandates, I 
am adamantly opposed to enacting further unfunded mandates. I have 
taken it as a personal responsibility to amend bills or amendments that 
impose unfunded mandates so that our local jurisdictions will not be 
saddled with financing further Federal dictates. Therefore, I, along 
with Congressman Roberts, attempted to amend Mr. Rohrabacher's 
amendment so that it would not result in an unfunded mandate. That was 
our sole purpose--to prevent another unfunded Federal mandate from 
being passed onto our local governments. It should be understood that 
by attempting to amend Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment we were in no way 
endorsing his proposal. In fact, I believe that the reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the wrong forum to 
address our Nation's immigration policy. I say that even though I 
believe that our immigration policy is failing and States, such as 
California, are being made to suffer because of our inadequate 
immigration policy.
  The Roberts amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment was defeated by 
the House. So the Rohrabacher amendment remains an unfunded mandate. 
Because it imposes costs on local schools without Federal reimbursement 
and because I believe that H.R. 6 is the wrong vehicle in which to 
address the shortcomings of our immigration policy, I will be opposing 
the amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment is a bad idea whose time should never come.
  Have we come to a time in our history when we want our school 
children spying on their mothers and fathers. Is it the role of our 
schools to teach our children to be spies and informants. Does this 
amendment foster trust--trust between parents and their children, trust 
between teachers and their students. I say the answer is ``no.''
  Rather than nurturing an atmosphere of trust, the Rohrabacher 
amendment would breed an atmosphere of suspicion and division.
  Do we really want our little boys and girls to become little CIA 
agents or, in this case, INS agents. This is not what our schools are 
for. Our schools are for teaching and for learning.
  This amendment was conceived in darkness and born of intolerance and 
division. It should not be the law of the land. I say let us defeat it 
now.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for 5 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The gentleman will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, pardon me, but do we go back 
and forth?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will say that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker] has already spoken on this amendment.
  Mr. BAKER of California. On the Roberts amendment, Mr. Chairman, I 
have not spoken on this, and there are two others waiting behind me, so 
we are not short of Republicans here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If it is satisfactory, the Chair will 
recognize the gentleman next.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I consider the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] to be my good friend. Now that is said on 
this floor probably more often than not, and maybe it is thought to be 
a rhetorical flourish, but in this instance I think the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would agree that indeed we are friends and 
that I urged him today, again and again as a friend, because I know him 
as someone who has stood up for civil rights, as someone who has stood 
up for human rights and someone who values a single standard of conduct 
across this world where human rights are concerned, but I urged him to 
withdraw this amendment because it is not worthy of the person that I 
know as Dana Rohrabacher.
  This is not the time to start a contemporary Schindler's List, and 
that is what this amendment is. This says, ``Is your mother or father 
Jewish? Is your mother or father a Bohunk?''
  Mr. Chairman, when I grew up in Buffalo, NY, I knew what that was:
  ``Are you a Dutchie?''
  ``Are they a Wop?''
  ``Are they a Dego?''
  ``Are they a Kike?''
  ``Are they a Spic?''
  And, my colleagues, do not think that is not what people think it is, 
and do not think we are going to get away with it, and do not sit there 
and frown on the other side while saying, ``Oh, no.''
  And do not think it does not shame me to stand here with the 
countenance that I have, elected from a district that is three-quarters 
different color than I am, knowing that my ancestors were Scottish and 
driven out of Scotland by people who enclosed their land and said they 
were sheep thieves. I ask, ``starting down this trail of telling people 
that how they look, and where they come from, and who they are is going 
to determine whether they can learn, whether they can pick up a school 
book?''
  Mr. Chairman, a child is to be treasured, and a child is innocent.
  Now I have heard words on this floor about building walls 20 feet 
high and digging ditches 20 feet deep. Well, if that is what it takes 
for human beings or adults in this world to address their problems with 
one another, then I say, ``Go to it, but do not take their children and 
cause them to be the foundation of this kind of sin against their 
innocence.''
  Mr. Chairman, I say, ``Vote down this amendment, and vote down all 
similar amendments. If we cannot have a world such as I come from, 
where I have the honor to be able to hold up my hand, as virtually 
everybody else has had that opportunity, to say that we honor a man 
like Mr. Natcher today for voting for 40 years, to say that we hold up 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, to come from a place 
that is multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, and we believe in 
having a rainbow of people in the United States of America, and to say 
to them, `I'm sorry your parents are not legal, you're not allowed in 
this school, you have to prove whether you have a chance to be here to 
pick up that book to learn?'''
  Mr. Chairman, people were put in detention camps in this country less 
than half a century ago because they were Japanese-Americans, and they 
were Americans. They were already citizens, and they were put into 
detention camps because of who they were. I ask my colleagues, ``Do you 
think that this kind of mentality is any less than that mentality?''
  I thought we learned something. This Congress actually compensated 
those people for that wrong that was committed, and yet today we stand 
here and say we are going to do it.

  I say to my colleague, Dana, my friend, please withdraw this 
amendment. If you want to bring up the other, we can debate it about 
whether to mandate it or not mandate it. If you want to talk about 
bilingual education, we can discuss that. That's a matter of policy. 
That's a matter of philosophy. But this is a fundamental matter of 
humanity. Dana, please withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is boring, but I would like to get back to 
the amendment.
  This bill says that H.R. 6 funds cannot be used by any agency unless 
they report the number of students enrolled who are not lawfully in the 
United States. Has nothing to do with bilingual education. Has nothing 
to do with anything we have just heard. It has to do with how many 
people are being subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers who are not here 
legally.
  I tried to make this point when we created the new National Standards 
Act and we had 4 hours of debate just like this. It was emotional, 
heart-wrenching, but not to the point.
  The taxpayers are fed up because we will not balance our budget, they 
are fed up because we are living and rolling in debt, and they are fed 
up because more and more people are coming here illegally. We already 
accept more people legally each year than the rest of the world 
combined, and now we say, ``Come have your child. We'll pay for the 
delivery. We'll pay the medical costs. We won't turn you in to INS.''
  I ask, ``What if you're an employer? What has this same Congress 
said? What have the people that have been making these heart-wrenching 
speeches said to the employers who feed these families?''
  ``If you don't ask, if you don't fill out your forms correctly, we 
will fine you $5,000, and if you don't report every illegal alien, we 
will put you out of business.''

                              {time}  1540

  That is what we tell employers. What do we tell government agents? It 
is discriminatory if they ask if they are here legally. That is a 
burden in costs. It is going to destroy public education. It is going 
to punish children. Yet we flog employers in the United States if they 
do not ask.
  Where do the INS agents go? Do they patrol the border? They try. They 
go to the farms, they go to the restaurants, they go out and find the 
people who are productive. Do they go to the welfare offices? Do they 
go to the unemployment offices? Do they go to the schools? No. They 
flog those people who come here for opportunity.
  If we want to balance this budget, we should send the INS agents to 
the prisons and take all the 20 percent of California, 16,000 strong, 
and return them to sender.
  Let us not be emotional. Let us read the amendment. No school 
district receives funds unless they report the number of students 
enrolled who are not lawfully in the United States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to 
describe to the people who are watching and listening to this debate 
exactly what has happened in the debate so far.
  There was an attempt to authorize the funds, which I would say would 
be a minimal cost, of just asking those two questions about whether 
someone was here legally or was a U.S. citizen, and that was voted down 
by Members who are now opposed to those claiming it is an unfunded 
mandate. We have a quote from Chairman Ford, who suggested he does not 
care if it is funded or not, he would be opposed to it whether or not 
it was funded.
  So if the public is listening or if the public who are reading the 
transcript will understand, that is where it is really at. This whole 
argument about whether it is funded or not funded is kind of a vehicle 
to oppose the substance of the amendment. The substance we are talking 
about is an attempt to get control of a flood of illegal aliens who are 
coming into our country and basically taking resources that they, as 
illegal aliens from whatever country they come from, should not be 
entitled to because we do not have enough money to provide medical care 
and education and housing benefits and all the other benefits for 
everyone in the world who can get here illegally.
  I have been in favor of legal immigration. I voted for the last 
immigration bill, which was a very substantial and positive bill, and I 
am in favor of legal immigration. But if we just say that anyone who 
comes here illegally can get the same benefits package and is indeed 
entitled to the same benefits package as Americans, we are condemning 
our own people, our seniors, and our younger people, to basically a 
breakdown in the social services and a breakdown in their educational 
system.
  I know that people are trying to say that those of us on this side 
are in some way mean spirited, or at least they imply it. We do not 
have to be mean-spirited to say that we cannot take care of everybody 
in the world and we have a limited pot to draw from. But that money 
should be spent for people who are here legally and who are U.S. 
citizens. That is not mean spirited. I think that is a caring attitude, 
because if the system breaks down, nobody is going to be helped.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of my time. For once it is good to 
be a member of the committee and be able to be recognized ahead of 
others who are waiting in line.
  Let me talk about something a little bit away from the amendment 
itself, and then I will come back to it in very succinct words.
  The majority leader stood up and said he would work in the direction 
that we need to stop illegal immigration with an immigration bill, and 
I would ask my colleagues to support that because I think that is the 
direction all of us want to go instead of attacking each and every one 
of the bills that come up with different items. The reason is that if 
we can stop and have the means of stopping illegal immigration into our 
country from whatever direction, then we would not have two-thirds of 
our children in Los Angeles who are born to illegals going down and 
collecting AFDC. There will still be some, but that number will 
dwindle. And we will not have these same problems with the States not 
being funded to provide the schools, because those students will not 
end up in the schools because they are illegal and they are stopped at 
the border. I think that is the general direction my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle would like to go. I think that is what they would 
like to support. I do not think it is healthy for us to fight on every 
one of these bills, although I understand the desire to fight on this 
issue.
  Let us take a look at what we can do to stop the illegal immigration 
in our country. One of the problems we have, especially in the State of 
California is that a school district that does not get its Federal 
money does not really cry at not getting the money from the Federal 
Government for illegal immigrants. They get it from the State. The 
Federal Government covers only about 5 percent of the total education 
dollars, a very small portion. So the school district goes to the State 
budget and says, ``We have these many faces sitting in chairs, and we 
need the money,'' and they get the money for those students. There is 
no problem there.
  Where the problem exists is when they go back to the Governor or the 
budget committee at the State level and hey ask for dollars for their 
normal programs and the Governor says, ``Sorry, we have no more money. 
We will have to cut your education programs. It is not fair because we 
haven't divvied up with the Federal dollars.''
  I understand the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher]. We need to identify the numbers. I question whether 
this is the right area to do it. I think if we can get an immigration 
bill and if our colleagues will support our getting an immigration bill 
on the floor out of the Committee on the Judiciary, which has been a 
black hole for this subject for a long time, then I think both sides of 
the aisle can come to some agreement, and maybe we can stop the 
rhetoric on both sides.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham], for the benefit of our fellow 
Members, which State is the gentleman from?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. California.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. And Mr. Rohrabacher?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. California.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. The State of California. I guess most of 
the proponents of this measure are from the State of California?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think primarily the border States of Texas, 
Arizona, California, and any other States that have been affected.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman did an 
excellent job of explaining to the taxpaying citizens the 
responsibilities of running a school system and it is pretty much the 
same throughout our country. The locals pay for the buildings and the 
administration, and the States pay for the classroom teachers. What 
this bill does is put a burden on little towns like Kiln, MS, Bay St. 
Louis, MS, and Biloxi, MS, that do not have immigration problems, 
requiring them to fill out more forms. They do not have immigration 
problems. In fact, let us face it, out of 50 States, how many States 
really have immigration problems? It is mainly California.
  If California has a problem, would not that problem be best addressed 
in the California Legislature rather than the U.S. Congress? I do not 
solve all of Mississippi's problems here in Congress. They have a 
wonderful legislature that takes care of Mississippi's problems.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that I 
understand what the gentleman is saying. One of the problems is that 
the taxpayers in California then have to foot the bill for the other 
States for the education portion, because it is costing us $3.7 billion 
a year that we do not have. And it is a national problem. The gentleman 
from Mississippi said we do not have individual problems, but we do 
have a problem, and all we are asking is that when it comes time to 
come on the floor with a bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary on 
illegal aliens and legal aliens, the gentlemen support us on the House 
floor. I think in answer to the gentleman's question, speaking to 
Members on both sides of the aisle, that it would be much better for 
all concerned if we would focus on that area.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, during the last few months, we have come to the floor 
to discuss this issue in a different form almost on a weekly basis, and 
during that time and each one of those times, the debate has been very 
emotional, as in fact it has been today. And I have been part of that 
very emotional debate.
  Today I decided I was going to try something new, that I was going to 
come to the floor and only discuss the numbers and only discuss the 
issue, and try to stay away from the emotion of this issue, only to 
realize that I was fooling myself, that indeed this is not a debate 
about numbers, it is a debate about a cheap political style. And that 
is to take the suffering of a people and to use it for those people to 
feel that we in Congress are helping them by turning them against 
another group of suffering people.
  So it is true, as it has been said on this floor, that the American 
people are complaining about how many dollars they pay in taxes. And it 
is true, also, as has been said on this floor, that the American people 
are complaining in many cases about their condition.
  What is not true, however, and we have to be clear on it, is that the 
American people were the ones who thought up this idea of turning on 
permanent residents, on illegal immigrants, and the children who may be 
here undocumented. That is not true, and the record should show it is 
not true. It wasn't the people that started discussing that subject. It 
was talk show hosts and some elected officials in this country who 
decided that it was easier to come up with an easy target, rather than 
to sit down and really try to solve the problem of the economy, of 
housing, of jobs, of social services.
  So now we stand up here and we say that if we really turn on these 
little children, and we make them spy on their parents, and we try to 
document every one who is not documented as an undocumented person, 
that somehow we will be servicing the American people. We are mistaken.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said that some 
people have implied that this amendment is mean spirited. I want to be 
clear in this, one of my two languages. I am not implying. I am stating 
that it is mean spirited, it is misguided, it is foolish, and it 
divides our community.
  Now, a lot of the people that got up to speak also have no 
understanding of what a school district goes by. Well, in my other 
life, before the State legislature and before the Congress, I was a 
district school administrator. And we had at that time 33,000 students 
from all over the United States and, for that matter, from all over the 
world.
  What I would have to do today under this amendment, to go and ask 
every single child to bring proof--to bring proof--that he and his 
parents are documented, is beyond anything that anyone can imagine 
here. It would be a burden that I could not carry.
  There is the additional problem which I continue to bring up, and I 
will continue to bring it up all the time, which seems to score no 
points with very few people who propose these amendments, and it is the 
fact that there are people in this country who were born citizens, 
whose ancestors have been born citizens for hundreds of years, but who 
continue to look different from what Hollywood and other places think 
Americans should look like, and only they will be asked to produce 
papers.
  Let us face it. A child with my name, looking somewhat un-American, 
quote-unquote, would be asked to produce papers. I have done it a 
hundred times and I will do it again.
  You see, I carry no proof that I am an American citizen. I was born 
in Puerto Rico a citizen. I have no proof. Incidentally, if you come up 
with another amendment to make me carry papers, I will never carry 
papers to prove I am an American citizen.
  Let us understand that this is not a good idea. Let us understand 
that this is not supported by people who work in the field.
  I have and I will submit for the Record the names of 40 organizations 
who have written to you, people like the Department of Education, the 
INS, the Office of Management and Budget, the School Boards 
Association, the Elementary School Principals, the Federally Impacted 
Schools, the Bar Association, all throughout this Nation, saying you 
cannot do this. Please, let us defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Serrano] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Serrano was allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. As a school administrator, I would like to ask 
the gentleman, in your school, did the students have to have it 
certified that they had their measles shots and other shots?
  Mr. SERRANO. Unfortunately, when I was an administrator, we did not 
pass that law yet. They did not have to verify that.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is unusual. Most of the country does.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this issue today, but I 
have been sitting and listening to a lot of the debate, a lot of the 
rhetoric. I would like to respond to a couple of the comments that have 
been made and I think that we really need to focus on, which is 
something that we have not addressed today.
  Americans come in all colors. So do illegal aliens. This is not an 
issue of color. It is not an issue of ethnic background. It is an issue 
of the law.
  In California, and in other States, this is not a small problem, Mr. 
Chairman. We are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand. We 
are talking about several hundred thousand individuals that are in our 
public schools that have no legal right to be in the United States. 
That is the issue. It is an issue of the law.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a student in elementary school, I remember 
that it was a requirement for me when I enrolled in school to present 
my birth certificate. Somewhere along the line these things have 
changed. I have raised four children in the public school system, and I 
can tell you that my children, and hopefully some day grandchildren, 
when they apply to school, I would have no problem at all if the 
administrators asked for my children's proof of residency, and I do not 
think that anybody that is intellectually honest on this would object 
either.
  Mr. Chairman, the folks that are hurt the most by this issue of 
illegal immigration are those that can afford to be hurt the least, and 
we do have an obligation to those that have a lawful right to be in 
this country first.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would congratulate the gentleman for 
underscoring a point that needs to be made, and that is this is not an 
issue of race. This is an issue of economics and legality. I have had a 
great outpouring of support from Americans of Mexican descent in 
California who support this proposal and my basic fundamental position, 
which is that public services should not be provided for illegal 
aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, they support this position because they themselves 
depend on many of these government services, and see that the quality 
of the services are being diluted as they are being stretched to the 
breaking point. We have to make a choice with limited resources between 
people who are here legally, whether they are citizens or legal 
residents, and people who are here illegally, because so many people 
have come here from other countries it is beginning to break down the 
public services in many of our urban areas, especially in California.
  Mr. Chairman, those on the floor saying this is a matter of race, 
because it is so terrible they are going to be asked, and obviously 
they will only be asking people who look like they are Mexican 
Americans, or Hispanic-American, will probably be the only ones asked, 
that is what is being implied, that is not the case at all.

  This legislation would require people to present their birth 
certificate to prove legal status. Everybody. Every child.
  By the way, those who are complaining the most about this, and I 
would hope to be corrected if I am wrong, are the ones who would 
absolutely mandate this on employers, and not think anything of 
requiring this horrible, horrible mandate on people, to do what they 
consider to be something racist. But the fact is, if it was so racist, 
they would not want to put this on the employers.
  What we are doing now basically by the policies we are stating today, 
is we are making it a crime for an illegal alien to work, but we are 
giving an incentive for people to come here illegally and to consume 
government benefits, and many of the times those government benefits 
are being stretched to the breaking point, to the point our own people 
who paid for them, of every race and ethnic background, are getting 
short changed.
  That is not what this Government is supposed to be about. It is not 
that we do not care about those people coming here. We have to care 
about our own people more, because that is the wonderful thing about 
America.

                              {time}  1600

  We come from everywhere. We are part of the great American family, 
but we cannot just dissipate all the funds on people who come here 
illegally. The Immigration Service cannot do it on their own.
  We have Members saying, ``Just let the Immigration Service do it.'' 
If we are providing benefits, who is kidding who here? The American 
people understand that if we are providing huge cash incentives and 
benefit packages to people who come here illegally, the Immigration 
Service is never going to be able to get control of the situation.
  We are trying an honest, good-faith effort of good will to come to 
grips with the problem that affects the lives of our people. The people 
who are watching and reading this Record will understand who is 
thwarting what and who is trying to correct the problem.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I would like to build a little bit on what the gentleman from New 
York said. In this country, I have noticed in the last 30 years we have 
to have someone to bash.
  I remember at one time it was the truckers. If a person was a 
trucker, we had to bash them. We were popular, if we could be against 
the truckers.
  Then it was the doctors, the doctors were the bad people in this 
country. And for a couple of years that was the popular thing to do.
  This seems to have started a year ago. I know thee are a lot of 
illegal aliens. We do not know how many. We have tried to count them. I 
have been down there on the border. I have talked to a number of them 
that came across.
  Some of them come across five times a year. They come over here for 
one purpose. It is to earn some money to go back home and feed their 
family.
  We ought to be paying attention to the real problem here instead of 
bashing people all the time and trying to find some way to offset the 
deficiency in California's State laws.
  If California has got deficiencies in their laws, correct them. But 
do not come down here to the Congress and try to hook something onto 
every bill.
  Last year we had it on an appropriations bill, the one I handled. I 
opposed it. We defeated it. We finally defeated it.
  This year it started right out, the first bill out of the box. Bash 
the aliens. We will have this all year. This is not the end. If we pass 
this, we will have it next year. It just whets the appetite.
  Let us sit down and be reasonable, try to figure out what some of the 
problems are, relieve some of the pressures. There are pressures within 
Mexico. We know that. There are pressures down there. They come over 
here to get a job. That is what they come for, for no other reason.
  We do not know how many there are, but let us try to relieve the 
problem by getting at the real problem and not bashing somebody on 
every bill that comes up this year. We are going to have 13 
appropriations bills. We are going to have this 13 times, if we do not 
stop it.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I am for dealing with the illegal alien problem. I have been for 
doing something about it since 1975, when I was vice chairman of the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and became deeply involved in this 
subject.
  I regret to say, however, that I am opposed to this amendment. I 
think this amendment is wrongly drafted. I will get into that.
  I do not think this is the way to go about solving the illegal alien 
problem. And my good friend and colleague [Mr. Rohrabacher], and he is 
that, I appreciate the interest and the effort, because this is of 
concern, not only in California but throughout America. And it ought to 
be.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] mentioned that he is 
well aware of the advantages of illegal aliens in California, because 
Pennsylvania lost two seats. He is correct. I went around the House, 
when we secured the additional money for the Border Patrol, and told a 
number of my colleagues that their State will again lose additional 
seats after the next national census in the year 2000.
  We need your help or you will lose a lot more seats to California. 
And you should lose seats to California and the Southwest as well as 
the Southeast if you do not help us.
  I regret that until recently, when President Clinton advocated the 
counterfeit-proof Social Security card, that is the first time I have 
seen a President of the United States want to do something about this 
problem. Since 1975 and in 1980, two of us on the Commission on Civil 
Rights raised the issue and sought Federal action in doing something 
about the problem.
  What Congress did do has not worked.
  I am angered that no President in either party has seen fit to do 
something about illegal aliens for almost two decades. I hope President 
Clinton sticks with the promise of a counterfeit-proof Social Security 
card. That would truly help to implement the Simpson-Mazzoli act.
  As a Californian and a native son, I can recall the 1930's and the 
1940's rather well. I can recall the time the teacher went around the 
room and asked us in what country our parents were born. My father 
happened to be a legal German immigrant in 1903 and had long been an 
American citizen. Hitler was at his prime in the late 1930's. I knew 
that if I answered ``Germany'', I would have a little trouble on the 
playground. I was not completely stupid.
  He was born in Bavaria, and so I answered ``Bavaria.'' Nobody had 
ever heard of Bavaria.
  I remember rather well early 1942, when one-third of my classmates 
disappeared from the fifth grade. The shame of America, the shame of 
California, when Japanese-Americans, most of them citizens of the 
United States, were forcibly removed from their California homes and 
put in relocation camps. I still remember the Christmas present that 
little Eddie Kamomoto had left for me in the fifth grade class 
exchange. He was not there to finish the year or to graduate from 
elementary school with his class in 1945--the year that the Second 
World War ended. I think we all agree that the discrimination against 
those citizens and legally admitted aliens was shameful. Reparations 
were made by preceding Congresses. Those monetary awards do not bring 
back the last years to a generation of children. The actions that were 
taken were clearly unconstitutional.
  There are actions we could take that would be constitutional, and we 
should take them.
  I can also recall 1949, when I was called into the office of the 
superintendent of the high school. And he said, ``I am sorry. You can't 
win the statewide prize of this nonprofit association because you have 
to have both of your parents born in America.''
  My father, a German immigrant and an American citizen, had worked in 
the United States Patent Office on chemical patents in the First World 
War. He and other American citizens of German ancestry were hounded by 
many. Most Americans of German ancestry have heard those experiences, 
whether they occurred in Nebraska or in California or in Washington, 
DC.
  Now, if the school district would mail the certification to the 
parents, I would not have a problem with that. But I will tell Members 
what the school district will do. It will give the form to little Susie 
and little Johnny or little whoever and ask the child to take home the 
certification form in order to save the postage out of the school 
budget. And it will be the talk of this or that child on the 
playground. Many of these children do not know that they are children 
of illegal alien parents.
  I just do not think that is the way to go about it. If we should do 
something like this, let us provide the money. Let us make sure the 
school districts have to mail the forms. And let us also do what counts 
first, which is learn to control our borders.
  We have not done it on the Canadian border. Nobody talks about that. 
We certainly have not done it on the southern border or on the east 
coast and the west coast, as we have seen the Chinese loaded ships 
headed in our direction.
  We have a problem. Anybody that had a semialert brain knew we had a 
problem 20 years ago.
  It is about time we quit burying this in committees and get to work 
on solving the problem.
  I shall vote against this amendment. But I am sure for doing 
something about it. If the Congress does not act responsibly and has 
more procrastination, Members will find me at the head of the line 
supporting an amendment like this next time.
  In the meantime, let us straighten it out and do it rationally and 
let us do it constitutionally.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from California 
that we cannot solve all of our immigration problems by adding these 
types of amendments on the bills that come before us either in 
authorization or appropriation.
  Earlier colleagues, as I got to the floor, talked about obeying the 
law. I wonder if they understand that the reason that we do not ask for 
birth certificates, and we have not since 1982, has been that the 
Supreme Court, in the decision of Plyer versus Doe, they said that all 
children have the right to a public education regardless of the status 
of their parents. So that is the law of the land today.
  I think the Supreme Court, in their judgment, looked at that law for 
social reasons. They knew that throughout the years, in the past and in 
the future, we are going to have immigrants, legal and unlegal, in this 
country. And rather than have an underclass of uneducated residents, 
that it was in good social policy that we educate them, because they 
will become, whether we like it or not, the work force of the future. 
We would want them to be competitive in this country.
  So we are obeying the law, Mr. Chairman. We are obeying the law of 
1982, as set down by the Supreme Court.
  I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], 
that we are going to have to solve our immigration problem.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  There is only one person in this entire Congress that may be pure, 
and that is Senator Campbell on the other side. No one else is really 
pure here.

                              {time}  1610

  You know, it is the vehicle, not the question of controlling our 
borders, it is the vehicle that is being proposed.
  As a former school board member and the chief financial officer of a 
school district, it would be impossible to bring in all of the 
thousands of children in that district one by one, and say to little 
Jose, ``Jose, are you a legal citizen of the United States?'' Where do 
we start? Does it start with everybody? Imagine the cost, imagine the 
time.
  In reality, when school administrators are forced to do this, does it 
start with, ``Anybody who is a Smith is okay,'' but does my son Bobby 
at 8 years old, who happens to have the last name Menendez, does he get 
called in and say, ``Bobby, are you a citizen? Are your parents 
citizens?'' Or does his mother, who is Norwegian, Irish, and German, 
then is she a citizen? Where does it start and where does it end? Or is 
anyone who is black, is it believed that maybe they might be African, 
so therefore they are called in; or anyone who is Asian, it is believed 
that they are not American, so they are called in; or anyone who has a 
brogue, and in fact maybe they are an illegal person here from Ireland? 
Where does it begin and where does it end?
  It seems to me that many of the names that appear on this board when 
we vote on this amendment, if this same issue had been here at a 
different time, we might not be speaking about Menendez and Torres and 
others, and Serranos, we would be speaking about many other different 
names, the very names of the proponents of this legislation, this 
amendment.
  The fact of the matter is this is not how to spend our tax dollars on 
a witch hunt. It is not to ask children, ``Your mother and father, are 
they U.S. Citizens?'' We are going to make them experts in immigration, 
something I practiced law in when I used to practice law. It is simply 
ridiculous.
  The tone and tenor of those who propose these amendments, the venom 
that you can hear, it just, to me, is not what America is all about. 
Yes, let us control our borders, but let us not use children against 
their parents in a Gestapo-like attitude as our police arm of this 
Congress. What a failure, that we would have to use children against 
their parents to accomplish this goal.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The time of the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Pastor] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pastor was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Nazis have invaded Denmark. It is 
World War II. They have taken the whole place over. The people are very 
concerned. They were looking for certain people and they could not 
really identify them. Some of them they could, some of them maybe did 
not look like they were Danes. It was kind of hard to identify some of 
the Jews, so the Nazis said, ``This is the order. Tomorrow morning 
every Jew must wear a gold badge saying, ``Jude,'' ``I am a Jew,'' and 
if anybody knew one who was not wearing it, they were to be turned in.
  When the sun rose over Copenhagen that next morning, we found a very 
Christian King walking the streets wearing one of those yellow labels, 
saying that he was a Jew. As people woke up realizing what had 
happened, they came out of their homes, not just the Jews but everybody 
in Denmark, wearing yellow badges, saying, ``I am a Jew,'' so that the 
Nazis could not tell one from the other.
  Let us, Mr. Chairman, not hang labels on each other. Let us not 
divide our society. Let us not turn each other in. Let us address the 
issues that we as a civilized people should be addressing here in the 
proper legislation. Do not make piranhas out of each of us. This is not 
the American way. It is not the human way. Please do not vote for this 
kind of absurdity in this great Nation of ours.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very emotional debate. I am sorry for 
some of what has been said, because a few minutes ago, as I was 
watching the debate, I heard one of our colleagues come to the floor 
and utter some despicable racial slurs and names in defense of his own 
policy. I think that that really does not help us here, and I do not 
think we ought to debate these kinds of things with the kind of hate 
and venom that I have heard from some people.
  I have also noticed that one group that has not been mentioned very 
much in the course of the debate is the American middle class, who ends 
up, regardless of what we do, having to pay the bills, and is quite 
concerned about the direction in which their country is going, too. 
They have to pay the bills for whatever we decide to do in this regard, 
and they do so in many cases by working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, 
sometimes two members of the family working hard to eke out a living 
for themselves and their children, and hope a little bit about the 
future.
  What they also are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 
the law does not seem to mean much anymore. Most of them, whether they 
be black or white, whether they be Hispanic or oriental, regardless of 
race, creed, or color, work every day and do so in a way that obeys the 
law. One of the things they are most concerned about is the fact that 
somehow this Congress does not seem to recognize that that is a 
sacrifice on their part. There are lots of people around who like to 
evade the law, who like to find some way to explain away the law, 
because it gives them some comfort in order to do so.
  The vast American middle class suggests that obeying the law is in 
fact a positive public good, and they think it is important for them to 
do. Even at a penalty to themselves and their families, they obey the 
law. They are very confused, then, when their government comes along 
and suggests that people who do not obey the law ought to be treated in 
special ways.
  As I read the Rohrabacher amendment, the fundamental part of this 
amendment says obeying the law is a necessity. I do not understand why 
we would have such an emotional debate on the issue of whether or not 
the law should be obeyed. This Congress is sending some very bad 
signals. We sent some very bad signals yesterday when we voted on 
resolutions which suggested that our own rules were not important, that 
investigation of unethical conduct was not important. The American 
people and particularly the American middle class is sitting out there 
saying, ``They expect me to obey the laws that they pass, and yet they 
say to others, `Go ahead and break the law and we will look the other 
way.'''
  I am real concerned about that and I think Americans are concerned. 
If we wonder why there is disrespect for that which we do, it is 
because they think we disrespect the law. In my view, if we do not 
approve something, and I do not know whether this is the most artfully 
drafted language, but we ought to approve something that suggests that 
the law is important, and that people who do not obey the law will in 
fact be punished in our society.
  I am hopeful that as we go about debating this issue further, that we 
will not suggest that somehow the law is something that we can put 
aside without any consideration at all.

                              {time}  1620

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Rohrabacher 
amendment. And, frankly, I agree with one statement by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who preceded me. The law must be 
obeyed, and the law, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor] pointed 
out, says that all children in America have a right to be educated 
without regard to the status of their parents.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment for three reasons as a parent 
and as a legislator. First of all, the provisions would impose an 
unaffordable cost on the school systems in our country, and I do not 
think any parents in America want that.
  Second of all, it would have a chilling effect on the education of 
many undocumented children, all of whom have the right to be educated 
in our country, as the law indicates, as the gentleman from Arizona 
pointed out. Children denied an education are not likely to grow up as 
productive members of our society.
  The Rohrabacher amendment would have a negative and costly impact on 
our entire society. I do not think the parents of this country who want 
the best for their children want their children in a society where 
other children are deprived of an education.
  Third, I believe that this amendment would serve no legitimate 
immigration policy purpose. Determining citizenship status of 
schoolchildren and their parents will not deter undocumented immigrants 
from entering the country. Indeed, it would impose a burden on teachers 
and administrators and children to check up on the legal status of 
parents, and that is a waste of energy and counterproductive to the 
goal of decreasing the number of illegal immigrants in this country.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this particular provision has 
no place in the laws which guide and authorize funding for the 
education of our children. I urge my colleagues to join in casting a no 
vote against the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding, and I want to assert my very strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment. There have been some very eloquent statements 
made here today citing the history of this country and the 
responsibilities that we have as a nation for the children who live 
here, not to establish punitive measures against them or to place 
onerous obligations and burdens upon the school systems.
  We have been importuned this afternoon to obey the law, and I think 
each and every one of us stands before this body with a commitment, a 
sworn commitment to abide by the law. It is this amendment that is an 
infraction upon what has already been established not only as the 
philosophy, as the policy, but as the law of this land, and that is we 
must not discriminate in the education of our children. There have been 
Supreme Court decisions, lower court decisions. This has been the 
established policy of this country.
  In looking at this amendment one would have to ask what is the 
purpose of it? The purpose is to try to invoke the other laws that are 
in effect with reference to immigration and to make it part of the 
policy of our public school system. This is to impose a new duty upon 
our schools that have no part whatsoever in the educational improvement 
or enhancement of the quality of education in our school systems. And, 
in fact, it is an abrogation of the Supreme Court decisions which say 
we must educate all of our children.
  So without the purpose of this amendment to enhance public education 
but to force our schools and our teachers and our families to police 
ourselves in the school systems, I believe it is not only a tragic 
abrogation of what the policy of this country has been over the years, 
but should be absolutely turned down by this body.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been told here this afternoon by our friend, 
for example, from New Jersey that we are all a nation of immigrants, 
and of course no one would deny that, because we all are a nation of 
immigrants. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is one of 
illegal versus legal.
  Yes, no one likes to be pointed out as a group, and I think no one 
wants to do that. The United States is a nation of individuals, not a 
nation of groups. And it seems to me we got into this hassle in this 
country when we began looking at ourselves, as groups rather than as 
individuals. And, as Woodrow Wilson said, as long as you consider 
yourself a part of a group rather than a individual, you are not really 
assimilating into American society.
  We have heard a lot of red herrings today, a lot of issues very 
emotional that have nothing to do with this particular amendment as I 
see it. You know, if we give additional dollars to illegal aliens, are 
we not taking money away from the people who are the citizens of this 
country? And where does our first obligation lie? With the citizens of 
this country. I think so. And that is why I think that this particular 
amendment makes a lot of sense.
  We do have problems with illegal aliens. OK. If you do not like the 
solution, what are your solutions, how would you address the issue? 
Just to come to the floor here and make a lot of emotional statements 
is not going to resolve the issue, is not going to get at the problem. 
What are your solutions?
  This Nation of America has been good to all of us. We are all 
Americans in this Chamber. This Nation has been good to you; this 
Nation has been good to me. We have an obligation to this country, you 
and I, and if we have a problem with illegal aliens, then by golly we 
have to ask ourselves how are we going to address this problem. And 
just a lot of hot, emotional rhetoric is not going to solve this 
problem.
  I have heard a lot of rhetoric here on the floor this afternoon, but 
I have not heard any solutions. The only solution we have so far is the 
Rohrabacher solution. So if you have a better solution, let us hear it. 
But just to get up and make a lot of emotional statements is not going 
to get the issue resolved.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Before I proceed in my opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment, I 
yield to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon for yielding. I am sorry I was not here earlier. We are working 
on the crime bill which everybody is looking forward to anxiously I am 
sure. Week after next, folks.
  Mr. Chairman, I have examined this and members of my subcommittee 
have examined the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher], and it just invites racial discrimination. It is 
almost frightening what would happen to the children and the parents of 
the children if this became law.
  My colleagues, we cannot turn schoolteachers into Border Patrol 
agents and have these children harassed by standing up and saying, 
``What are you? What are you?''
  And of course, the cost of all of these statistics is going to be 
enormous, and especially in my State of California where unfortunately 
so many of the undocumented persons end up.
  Also, these schools are stuck, happily, with a Supreme Court decision 
which says that they have to be educated no matter who they are, that 
they are entitled by law to an education.
  So Mr. Chairman, I urge a resounding no vote, and again thank the 
gentleman very much for yielding.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his comments. I 
think it is important for Members to look at some of the legal 
liability issues involved in the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Clearly what it says is that school districts are in danger and could 
lose all of their Federal funding if they adopt as a policy or de facto 
not enforce the policy enunciated in the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Second, they do face losing all of their Federal funds if either a 
teacher or the district fails to follow up on an accusation made by 
either a student or a parent that a child in the district is here 
illegally in this country.
  Finally, I think the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary's 
subcommittee alluded to this, but it is a question of how quickly will 
the ACLU or some other group bring a lawsuit against a school district 
or a teacher where there is a false accusation of a child being 
illegally in this country or where they are illegally here and 
dismissed from the school for that reason. This just invites very 
expensive lawsuits against the school district, and I think it is 
important just to get to the basic policy. We are not saying here that 
the respect for law is not important. We are saying here the issue 
before us is who is to enforce the law.

                              {time}  1630

  We have the INS; we have local sheriffs that deal with this. That is 
where the solution lies. It is not with the children of America.
  It is not unfair, inaccurate, or just rhetoric to say that this is 
modeling the practices of Germany in the 1930's. We are not saying this 
just for scare tactics. It is a historical comparison as fact and as a 
comparison that is necessary to be made.
  And so I ask my distinguished friends on both sides of the aisle to 
think through this amendment. We do not want our children to grow up in 
an atmosphere where they are expected in a learning environment 
especially to act as police officers. They are not trained, they are 
not mature enough. And it is not their job in the school building to be 
acting as police officers. Their job there is to learn to socialize, to 
learn how to think for themselves, to learn the respect for law in this 
society, and that is why we must resoundingly defeat the Rohrabacher 
amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a piece of information that is given 
out by the Medi-Cal organization. It is the Medicaid of California. It 
says, ``Medi-Cal has good news for pregnant women.'' This is printed in 
both Spanish and English, and passed out down along the Mexican-
American border in this form. I want to read to my colleagues what it 
says: ``Even if you applied for amnesty or are in this country 
illegally, you can now receive a special kind of Medi-Cal or Medicaid 
for your health care purposes.'' It says, ``If I am here illegally, 
will it be reported to Immigration?'' And the answer is, ``No. Under 
the new law, Medi-Cal cannot report you to Immigration for applying for 
or receiving Medi-Cal while you are pregnant.''
  Federal taxpayers' dollars are being encouraged to be used for the 
delivery of children by pregnant women in California.
  Now, we brought this issue to the floor of the House before, and no 
action was taken. This body took no action on dealing with the 
advertising, the advertising of bringing Mexican-Americans across the 
border to have their babies, and it even goes so far as to say, ``We 
will not report you to Immigration if you applied for these benefits.''
  Now, today we have got this education bill that deals with reporting 
whether or not a child is here illegally or legally. Every single time 
we try to close the loophole that allows illegal aliens into this 
country, we receive the same argument from the liberals in this body, 
``Oh, my gosh, that is not humanitarian, it is Nazistic,'' it is 
whatever.
  My question is: ``Who speaks for the American taxpayer? Who speaks 
for the people who are paying these bills?'' As the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] said a few moments ago, who speaks for the 
middle class in this country, the American taxpayer who is paying for 
all of this? Every single time a measure is brought to this body to 
deal with the illegal immigration problem, some spurious argument is 
raised, and it is dealt with in the wrong way. We kill it; no positive 
things are being done to deal with the illegal immigration problem, and 
as a result, from Mexico alone, we are getting 1.3 million illegal 
aliens staying in this country every single year. That does not include 
those coming from Canada or the east coast or the west coast or through 
Miami and the Caribbean.
  Mr. Chairman, we are being inundated with these people, and every 
single thing that comes up like the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] goes right down the toilet, because 
we do not want to deal with it.
  The American taxpayer sits at home and watches us on television and 
says, ``Why in the world are they wasting our taxpayer dollars? Why are 
we not dealing with this problem?''
  I say that if you do not like the Rohrabacher amendment, then come up 
with something else. We have got to deal with this. There is a virtual 
tidal wave of illegal aliens coming into this country that the 
taxpayers are paying for, and we are not doing a darn thing about it.
  Now, go home and ask your constituents. Do not listen to me. Ask your 
constituents what they think about it. They are going to tell you they 
do not want this thing going on. They do not want their taxpayers' 
dollars being wasted for this, and they do not want that deficit to 
increase, because they know down the road we are going to face severe 
economic problems if we do not deal with it.
  I would just like to say to my colleagues, you know, every single 
time this issue comes up, back home on television and throughout this 
country people hear us, some of us, making these comments about Nazis, 
about bigotry, about racism. This is not about any of those things. It 
is about the law. We are a nation of laws and not of men, and if we 
wink at the law and let illegal immigration continue unabated, then we 
are not doing our jobs.
  So I say to my colleagues, think about that when you cast votes on 
these issues. If you do not like this amendment, then come up with 
ideas of your own to deal with this. Let us deal with it, because the 
American people demand it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is fairly interesting to note that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania stood up here and said, ``Well, maybe this 
is not the most artfully crafted amendment.'' But what he meant to tell 
you was the amendment says that we are going to have the middle class, 
probably the way upper class, lower middle class, lower who or whatever 
class we want to refer to paying for local educational agencies to 
determine the number of students enrolled who are not lawfully in the 
United States. I am quoting from the Rohrabacher amendment.
  How do they propose to do that? Well, they do not tell us that, not 
in this amendment. What do you reckon that your local school district 
is going to have to do? Well, they are going to have to assign some 
people, I suppose, to holding due-process hearings to determine the 
resident legal status of children that attend that school. The child 
may not even be sure that the child himself or herself is foreign born, 
may not be, and does not necessarily mean that that individual is a 
legal resident of the United States.
  I suggest to you that it is not only not crafted artfully, as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] put it, I think the amendment 
is a disaster.
  I say to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, who says that we 
need to get away from all of the other kinds of issues and look at the 
amendment and talk about who pays, that he is right in the sense that 
we ought to be talking about who pays. We will all pay.
  This amendment is not well thought out. It is exactly the kind of 
amendment that I think is intended to make headlines. It is intended to 
say you are either for stopping illegal immigration or you are against 
it, and we are going to put it on the schools this time, or we will put 
it, as the majority leader pointed out in his earlier statements this 
afternoon, or we will put it on some agency who is providing assistance 
or help to the most impoverished and perhaps the least wealthy and the 
least able to take care of themselves in our society and America.
  So I suggest to all of my colleagues that you read the amendment. 
When you read the amendment, you will know the correct vote is ``no.''
  I know that there will be those that think they have got to worry 
about the headline back home. Remember what the majority leader said 
earlier this afternoon; the majority leader said if we want to deal 
with the immigration issue, let us deal with it through the Immigration 
Service.
  When was the last time a Member on the other side of the aisle, and I 
am pointing to the Republican Party in this case, came up with an 
amendment that increased the funding for the INS?
  I think that is a part of the problem, because they say, ``Well, we 
are conservative. We do not want to spend money.'' They also do not 
want to go back and tell the voters it is going to cost more money, and 
the truth of the matter is if you are going to enforce the immigration 
policy in this country, it is going to cost money. It is not free.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] last year 
offered an amendment to increase the amount of money for the INS. How 
many of you voted for it?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I did, and it passed you may remember.
  Mr. WALKER. Well, you asked the question, and I am giving you the 
answer. That was a Republican who sponsored it. It was a Republican who 
brought it on the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. That was for more Border Patrol men; that was for more 
Border Patrol men. I will say to you that what is important here is if 
you keep on that tack, let us see if you vote for this one this time. 
We are going to have another amendment out here when we bring the 
appropriations bill on Justice, Commerce, and State, and we will see if 
you vote for the amendment and for the appropriations bill; instead of 
offering a 1 percent across-the-board cut this time, why do you not put 
your money where your mouth is?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The time of the gentleman 
from Texas has expired.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and yield all my time for closing arguments to the maker of the 
amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very valuable debate today. I am sorry 
that every time we discuss an issue that I believe is really important 
to our country--and I know the people who are watching on C-SPAN and 
reading the Congressional Record, they too know trying to get control 
of the flow of illegal aliens in to our country is vital to the well-
being of themselves and their families.
  As far as these people are concerned, they are not racists. I am 
sorry that every time we discuss this we have to be basically called a 
bunch of names and implied we are the same as the Nazis and everything 
like that. The American people have a good spirit, and they are very 
generous people. They do not mind helping. We provide basically a 
generous, a very generous immigration law so that people can come here 
legally from all countries of the world, from all races. And I think it 
is a wonderful thing. And I voted for the last immigration bill, which 
was a very generous immigration bill. But the idea that they do not 
want the millions of people who are coming here illegally to receive 
the same benefits and thus encouraging even more people to come here 
and dilute those funds, and that makes them some kind of Nazis or 
Fascists, this is a disservice to the American people and it is a 
disservice to the debate on this vital issue.
  I believe people of good will can disagree on things like this, and 
they should disagree in good will and realize that you can talk about a 
problem that concerns us, that deals with legality--we have heard it 
constantly said, we have been told that the Supreme Court said that we 
have to fund education for illegal aliens. The Supreme Court does not 
say that we cannot count illegal aliens to find out how many illegal 
aliens are in our schools so we can figure out the cost. The Supreme 
Court does not say that.
  What I need to ask--when people are up there talking about basically 
implying that we are a bunch of Nazis and Fascists, we are trying to 
get control of the illegal alien situation, does that mean that no 
immigration laws are going to be enforced? Is that what you want? Does 
that mean, for example, that all children of illegal aliens, illegal 
immigrant children who come here, that they should not be deported with 
their families? Is that what we are saying, that the immigration law is 
right out the window? And if you believe in enforcing them, you are 
some kind of a Nazi? That is obviously not going to help the situation 
get any better.
  By the way, we are making immigration policy here. When we say we are 
going to provide a benefit package for people who come here from 
another country illegally and they are going to get so much money, we 
are giving them an incentive to come here, that is immigration policy 
because we are giving them the incentive to come here. It is not a hard 
thing to understand that concept and who we are supposed to be 
representing.
  This amendment, by the way, just to note for the last gentleman who 
talked, we did try to authorize the funds that were necessary to 
implement this, as I repeat again, inconsequential, minimum funds. We 
already ask kids their health, the history of their health situation, 
we ask kids about the residency of their parents, we ask kids about the 
income of their parents. Just to add to that list two questions at 
minimal cost, yet the bottom line is if we--two of the questions are 
minimal cost. But if we tried to handle that objection and the other 
side voted it down, they would not even let us authorize the money if 
there was not money.
  Let me just end with this: The American people are watching, and they 
are listening. They understand people of good will can be concerned 
about this, we are not a bunch of racists because we want to control 
our borders, we want to get control of our borders. And people do not 
come here and consume the benefit package that they worked their lives 
to build. Anyone from the southwestern States, especially, where we 
suffer so much under this, no one who votes against this bill says we 
cannot even count the number of illegal aliens in our system, no one 
should come back here and say, ``Oh, the Federal Government has to pick 
up a share of the cost because it is overwhelming our systems.'' Do not 
come back--because a vote like that will be betraying the citizens in 
our part of the country because now we cannot quantify the problem. 
Thus the Federal Government can never come back and help us.
  So, a vote against the Rohrabacher amendment is a vote saying the 
Federal Government is never going to help us out in the Western and 
Southwestern States to help pick up the funds.
  My own solution is different. My own solution would be that illegal 
aliens should not be given benefit packages at all. But whether you are 
for the Federal Government providing some help for the States inundated 
by illegal aliens, or whether you say that nobody, or the Federal 
Government should be providing those services, you should be supporting 
this amendment which will help us come to grips with this problem that 
threatens the well-being of our people.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, we expect a lot out of our teachers in 
America today.
  We expect them to be educators and role models.
  Counselors and motivators.
  Babysitters and disciplinarians.
  And we ask them to do all that in the face of:
  Budget cuts and metal detectors.
  Turf wars and teenage angst.
  Decreasing resources, and increasing diversity.
  And even with all that, most of them do a wonderful job.
  But the gentleman from California feels like our teachers don't do 
enough.
  That they don't have enough responsibility.
  So he wants teachers and school districts to get into the Perry Mason 
business.
  He doesn't just want them to be trained in reading, writing, and 
arithmetic.
  He wants them to be trained as agents of the INS.
  Instead of spending money on computers and books, he wants to require 
schools to set up INS offices next to the lunchroom.
  And instead of just checking hall passes, he wants every last teacher 
to spend their days checking immigration papers.
  Make no mistake about it, that's what this amendment does.
  It not only requires schools to conduct investigations of their own 
students to make sure they're legal. It requires schools to investigate 
whether or not their parents are legal as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not what schools are for.
  This amendment not only turns teachers into INS agents. It does so 
without providing so much as a dime of Federal money to do it.
  Let me say that one more time, Mr. Chairman. This amendment requires 
all of this--the investigations, the background checks, the constant 
monitoring by teachers--without providing so much as a dime of Federal 
money to help.
  Mr. Chairman, talk about double standards.
  Talk about red tape.
  Talk about unfunded mandates.
  This amendment is the mother load of all unfunded mandates.
  But above everything else, this amendment does one substantial, 
unforgivable thing.
  One thing that no government should ever be a party to:
  This amendment codifies discrimination.
  Ask yourself this: how are teachers supposed to decide who is legal 
and who isn't?
  How are they supposed to decide who to check and who not to check?
  Will it be based strictly on appearances?
  Will every student who doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes be 
forced to line up in the gym and flash their papers?
  Will every student who speaks with an accent be forced to go before a 
review board?
  Or will teachers just randomly pick students out of study halls and 
recess lines who don't look quite right?
  Is that how it works?
  Mr. Chairman, what kind of message does that send to the other 
students?
  That it's OK to discriminate?
  That it's OK to suspect somebody's guilty of wrongdoing just because 
they look different or sound different?
  That it's OK to presume that others are guilty until proven innocent?
  Mr. Chairman, maybe I come from the old school.
  I believe teachers should focus on report cards, not green cards.
  I believe they should prepare all of our students for the future, not 
just a select few.
  Let's be honest: This amendment won't improve our schools or increase 
our test scores.
  It won't drive out the gangs or confiscate the guns.
  And it will do nothing to reduce the flow of illegal immigration.
  All this amendment will do is divert our teachers away for teaching.
  And burden State and local budgets.
  With more redtape.
  More bureaucracy.
  More reports.
  And more unfunded mandates that they can't afford.
  Above all, it unleashes a kind of scholastic McCarthyism that allows 
our students to be investigated any time, any place, and anywhere.
  Mr. Chairman, a first grade classroom is not the place to interrogate 
students and enforce immigration laws.
  We have other agencies to do that.
  We need realistic approaches to solve our immigration problems.
  But this amendment is nothing but a cost-shifting, teacher-
exploiting, student discriminating amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher and Roth amendments to H.R. 6, ``Improving America's 
Schools Act.''
  None of these proposed amendments would be anything to improve 
America's schools. In fact, these proposals would impose huge, unfunded 
Federal mandates on States and local school districts. These amendments 
would deprive thousands of educationally disadvantaged children of the 
services they so desperately need.
  The first Rohrabacher amendment would require every school, in order 
to be eligible for Federal education funding, to identify and collect 
data on the citizenship status of every student and his or her parents. 
This would not improve our schools. To the contrary it would only 
impose an unworkable, administrative nightmare on already overburdened 
school districts.
  The second Rohrabacher amendment goes even further by seeking to 
undermine constitutional principles. The amendment would undercut the 
1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler versus Doe, mandating States to 
provide public education to all children. The amendment would deny 
Federal funds to States, but still require States to provide all 
children with an education.
  The Roth amendments seek to severely weaken, and ultimately eliminate 
the title VII programs, which were passed by the bipartisan leadership 
of the Education and Labor Committee. These title VII programs are 
proven to be the best way to teach children with limited English 
proficiency English language skills.
  Every major educational organization in this Nation is opposed to 
these senseless and unconstitutional amendments.
  The Clinton administration and Secretary of Education Richard Riley 
have stated that these amendments are unfair, unworkable and unwise, 
and strongly urge us to reject them.
  We must remember the most important point of this debate. We are 
talking about children. Children who want to learn, learn about 
American history, learn about English, learn about math, about science, 
about art--all that we can teach them.
  We have a chance before us to do the right thing: To ensure that 
every child in this country is treated fairly and with compassion; to 
encourage them to grow into productive American citizens that will lead 
our Nation into the next century; to be competitive global leaders in 
an increasingly complex global marketplace. By voting against both the 
Rohrabacher and Roth amendments, we ensure that America will continue 
to be the leader and that our children, all our children, will be 
educated to the best of their and our ability.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been a vital source of 
Federal funding for our public school systems, particularly for 
disadvantaged youth.
  This politically motivated amendment would effectively defeat the 
true purpose of the act and impose additional and unnecessary 
administrative burdens. It is an unfunded Federal mandate that will 
neither improve our schools nor address Federal immigration policies.
  There are those who have argued that a census count of undocumented 
students is a minor administrative duty. I assure you, however, that in 
communities such as Los Angeles, it will be very difficult, if not 
impossible, to verify the immigration status of all students and their 
parents. Our school districts already lack sufficient resources to meet 
the educational needs of our children. They are not in a position, nor 
should they be placed in a position, to do the work of the INS.
  The anti-immigrant climate apparently has no boundaries within reason 
or humanity. This amendment will only harm our schools and should be 
defeated.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment. Let's be clear about what we are doing here. 
This is not a simple effort to account for native born and immigrant 
children in our schools, as supporters suggest. This is not a benign 
attempt to count children's heads. No, this is a shameful and mean-
spirited attempt to single out and penalize the innocent children of 
immigrants.
  With this amendment, we will transform our Nation's educators into 
immigration police. We would tell our Nation's teachers, principals, 
and counselors to put aside their books, their training, and put on a 
badge. Put aside your commitment to education, and start enforcing our 
immigration laws.
  Mr. Chairman, let's also be clear about who will become suspect. As 
my friend from Colorado has suggested, it wouldn't be children like 
those of the sponsor of this amendment who would come under scrutiny. 
The fair haired and fair skinned could go on with their studies without 
fear of retribution. For kids who look like me, kids who speak with an 
accent, as I do, our schools would become something else altogether. 
This amendment will make suspect Latino, African-American, and Asian 
American children, and no others. For them, our schools would become a 
fearful place indeed.

  In coming into this Chamber today, I thought that we were here to 
discuss the improvement of our schools. I thought that we were voting 
on the hard work and commitment of my colleagues on the Education and 
Labor Committee. Instead, this amendment drags us through yet another 
ugly debate on immigration. Here we are again being forced to respond 
to misperceptions, half truths, and crude generalizations. When will 
this stop? When will we stop singling out immigrants for all the ills 
of our Nation? When will we again appreciate the blood, sweat, and 
tears that immigrants contribute to this country? When will that 
beautiful statue in the New York harbor again be a source of pride, and 
not a reminder of how far we have fallen?
  This amendment is not only immoral, it directly contradicts one of 
the most enlightened and humane decisions of the Supreme Court. In 
Plyler versus Doe, the Court concluded that it was abhorrent to our 
great Constitution to deny an education to innocent children because of 
their immigration status. All students are entitled to a public 
education. The Court was right then and it is still right today.
  The kids in our schools, immigrant and native born alike, are our 
future. Denying some immigrant children an education outright, or 
creating a fearful atmosphere that would keep them from coming to the 
classroom, denies them their future and in turn denies this country its 
future. By depriving them of an education, these immigrants will never 
be able to become tomorrow's hardworking citizens and taxpayers. 
Instead, they would become tomorrow's unemployed and destitute.
  We as a nation cannot afford to squander our human resources. We 
cannot throw away our immigrant children. I ask my colleagues to defeat 
this shameful amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to speak in opposition to 
the Rohrabacher amendment.
  It is interesting that my colleague who often times bemoans Federal 
mandates as burdensome and intrusive, would create a huge bureaucracy 
for our Nations schools. Rather than focusing energy and resources for 
title I programs, my colleague asks school districts to become Federal 
immigration investigators and data collectors.
  It would be wrong to use our school systems as immigration police for 
the Federal Government. Equally important, we must remember that the 
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that school districts may not gather 
citizenship information from their student population.
  I can't imagine that parents and teachers want to divert school 
districts' resources from students to downtown bureaucracies. In 
southern California, which has a large title I population, our school 
districts are working valiantly to get their students, teachers, 
classrooms, and schools back together following our devastating 
earthquake. They need support as educators, not as investigators and 
bureaucrats.
  Please allow public schools to do the huge task that is before them: 
provide education that is challenging and enriching to all of our 
children. Vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Michigan rise?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to announce we will probably 
have three more amendments after this for which there will be no 
rollcall requested.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 78, 
noes 329, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                                AYES--78

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hunter
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Kingston
     Linder
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ravenel
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Walker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--329

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     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
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Clinger
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Furse
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hastings
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Laughlin
     McDade
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Natcher
     Quillen
     Rostenkowski
     Schiff
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Vucanovich
     Washington

                              {time}  1709

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Taylor of North Carolina for, with Mr. Miller against.
       Mr. Thomas of California for, with Mr. Gene Green of Texas 
     against.

  Ms. CANTWELL and Messrs. WALSH, CHAPMAN, and THOMAS of Wyoming 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1710


                          legislative program

  (Mr. GINGRICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just address the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] for the purpose of dealing with 
the schedule for next week and for a colloquy with the distinguished 
majority leader.
  If I might have the Members' attention, there has been at least one 
change in the schedule, and the error was on my part. I apologize to 
all the Members, so they will not be mad at the majority.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there will not be further votes this evening. Votes are 
finished for today. There will be a discussion of a few other 
amendments, but there will not be votes.
  There will not be votes on Friday, and on Monday, March 7, the House 
will meet at noon. There will be no Morning Business, no legislative 
business.
  On Tuesday, March 8, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for Morning 
Business. It is my understanding that there will then be a recess, and 
there will then be one bill on suspension. The recorded vote on that 
bill, which is the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1993, H.R. 
3345, will not be held on Tuesday but will be derailed until Wednesday. 
However, it is my understanding there may be the possibility of a 
procedural vote or votes later in the day on Tuesday.
  Mr. FROST. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, Tuesday is the date of the Texas primary. 
There are 30 Members of Congress from Texas, both Democrats and 
Republicans. In the past, it has been customary, when there is a large 
State primary, and this is just the first of many large State primaries 
this year, for the leadership on both sides to attempt to accommodate 
those Members and not have votes of any kind on those days.
  I would ask the gentleman, do I understand that will not be the case 
this time?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, obviously, 
that is our attempt. We do not always accomplish that, and we have 
attempted to accommodate every primary. It is impossible to do all of 
them. Obviously, there is not the ability, without a complete 
agreement, to save people from every possible procedural vote or quorum 
call. I can assure the Members that there will not be a legislative day 
on that day. There may be a quorum call. There may be an adjournment 
vote. We can never guarantee Members that that will not happen.
  Mr. FROST. If the gentleman will continue to yield, do I understand, 
and I am trying to make sure that I have a clear picture, that our side 
of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, is not going to ask for 
any votes, even procedural votes, on Tuesday?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. That is correct.
  Mr. FROST. If there are any votes, the request would be made on the 
other side, on the Republican side?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I might say to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], I tried to make that clear when I said there had been a 
miscommunication earlier about this particular day, and that I take the 
responsibility for having made an error. I apologize to those Members 
who I have made an error. I apologize to those Members who I have 
miscommunicated with.
  I would also point out there are many States that have primaries. All 
those States are as important as Texas to themselves, hard to believe, 
and on a number of occasions we actually have votes on days we have 
primaries, but we are agreeable to meeting late and trying to have any 
votes which do occur as late in the day as possible for those Members 
who do have to come back from Texas and are inconvenienced.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I am glad to yield to my friend, the other gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], who also wants to express umbrage, I 
believe.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] and tell the 
Members that I am not happy with this decision, either. I thought that 
we always protected the rights of our individuals in this Chamber when 
it was voting day. I would hope that we could continue to do it in the 
future. I am disappointed if we cannot do it in the case of Texas.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, on Wednesday, 
March 9, we will meet at 2 p.m. We will be taking up H.R. 3345, the 
Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1993, the vote on that, 
although it will be debated on Tuesday.
  We will be taking up again H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Amendments of 1993, to complete consideration; S. 636, the 
motion to go to conference on Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances 
Act, subject to a rule; and the resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 1995, subject to a rule. Conference reports can be brought up at 
any time.
  It is our hope that we will not need to be here or have votes on 
Friday, but I cannot give an iron-clad assurance, because we do want to 
get these matters finished.
  Mr. GINGRICH. If I might, just to remind Members, as I understand it, 
we would go in on Tuesday at 10:30, have the morning hour, recess, and 
probably come back in at about 3 o'clock for the legislative business, 
and any procedural votes that might occur would probably be rolled 
until after that 3 o'clock coming back in?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I would say to the gentleman, if there is a procedural 
or a quorum call vote, it would be in the 4 to 5 o'clock period before 
it would start.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I thank the majority leader.


                   amendment offered by mr. hoagland

  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoagland:
       Page 49, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 50, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 50, line 13, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert 
     ``notwithstanding''.
       Page 50, line 19, strike the period and insert; and'' and 
     add after that line the following:
       ``(4) to the extent feasible, use funds received under this 
     part to serve educationally deprived children who reside in 
     school attendance areas having high concentrations of 
     children from low-income families or who are under a school 
     desegregation plan and who otherwise meet the eligibility 
     requirements of this part and who attend schools in 
     noneligible attendance areas.

  Mr. HOAGLAND (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.


           modification to amendment offered by mr. hoagland

  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Hoagland:
       Page 50, after line 19, insert:
       ``(4) use funds received under this part to serve eligible 
     children who reside in school attendance areas served under 
     the part and who attend schools in other school attendance 
     areas in accordance with a court-ordered school desegregation 
     plan or a plan which continues to be implemented in 
     accordance with a district-wide, court-ordered desegregation 
     plan.''

  Mr. HOAGLAND (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is 
intended to correct an important flaw in the new approach to 
distributing chapter 1 funds that is provided for in H.R. 6, the 
elementary and secondary education amendments.
  The administration has decided on a policy change to concentrate 
chapter 1 funding to those schools with the most deserving and needy 
students. But the administration's bill fails to give any consideration 
to school districts operating under a school desegregation plan, and 
the result is that the proposal will penalize the very students chapter 
1 is designed to help.
  In Omaha, NB, there will be 1,000 public school students and 350 
private school students--currently receiving chapter 1 services--who 
will no longer receive assistance because these students are attending 
a noneligible chapter 1 school because of a desegregation plan.
  This is simply not fair.
  In Omaha, students from low-income areas of the city who attend 
Dundee Elementary School or Washington Elementary School or Belle Ryan 
or Western Hills Elementary School may very well need the extra boost a 
remedial reading program would provide them. They should not get left 
behind just because the school districts in their city operate under a 
desegregation plan and so do not fit into the administration's criteria 
for concentrated help.
  I think we should not prejudice those students.
  Last, if we do not correct this policy in the bill, it may discourage 
further integration of our schools, and that would not make any sense. 
Our community has made great strides toward integration and we are 
quite proud of our efforts. It does not make any sense to penalize 
school districts and students in their efforts to integrate our 
schools.
  In closing, I want to reiterate my concern for the 1,350 students in 
my congressional district who would not receive chapter 1 services 
without the adoption of this amendment. I think it is essential that it 
be adopted for the sake of those students and their families.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland], as 
modifed.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Hoagland:
       Page 49, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 50, line 12, strike the period and insert ``and''.
       Page 50 line 13, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert 
     ``notwithstanding''.
       Page 50, after line 19, insert:
       ``(4) use funds received under this part to serve eligible 
     children who reside in school attendance areas served under 
     the part and who attend schools in other school attendance 
     areas in accordance with a court-ordered school desegregation 
     plan or a plan which continues to be implemented in 
     accordance with a district-wide, court-ordered desegregation 
     plan.''


                   amendment offered by mr. ackerman

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:
       Page 49, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 50, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 50, line 13, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert 
     ``notwithstanding''.
       Page 50, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; and'' 
     and add after that line the following:
       ``(4) to the extent feasible, use funds received under this 
     part to serve educationally deprived children who reside in 
     school attendance areas having high concentrations of 
     children from low-income families and who otherwise meet the 
     eligibility requirements of this part and who attend schools 
     in noneligible attendance areas.

  Mr. ACKERMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


           Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment with the language at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment, as 
modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Ackerman: Page 49, 
     line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 50, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 50, line 13, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert 
     ``notwithstanding''.
       Page 50, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; and'' 
     and add after that line the following:
       ``(4) in LEA's that have over 900,000 students, to the 
     extent feasible, use funds received under this part to serve 
     educationally deprived children who reside in school 
     attendance areas having high concentrations of children from 
     low-income families and who otherwise meet the eligibility 
     requirements of this part and who attend schools in 
     noneligible attendance areas.

  Mr. ACKERMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment further modifies the bill 
to accommodate some of the inequities that some of us feel are in the 
bill, and I believe that we have the cooperation of the majority and 
the minority.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I have looked at this amendment 
and we have no problem with it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. wheat

  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent for its immediate consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wheat:
       Page 406, after line 18, insert the following:

                     ``PART J--PARENTS AS TEACHERS

     ``SEC. 3941. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Parents as Teachers: the 
     Family Involvement in Education Act of 1994'.

     ``SEC. 3942. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds--
       ``(1) increased parental involvement in the education of 
     their children appears to be the key to long-term gains for 
     youngsters;
       ``(2) providing seed money is an appropriate role for the 
     Federal Government to play in education;
       ``(3) children participating in the parents as teachers 
     program in Missouri are found to have increased cognitive or 
     intellectual skills, language ability, social skills and 
     other predictors of school success;
       ``(4) most early childhood programs begin at age 3 or 4 
     when remediation may already be necessary; and
       ``(5) many children receive no health screening between 
     birth and the time they enter school, thus such children miss 
     the opportunity of having developmental delays detected 
     early.

     ``SEC. 3943. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this part to encourage States to 
     develop and expand parent and early childhood education 
     programs in an effort to--
       ``(1) increase parents' knowledge of and confidence in 
     child-rearing activities, such as teaching and nurturing 
     their young children;
       ``(2) strengthen partnerships between parents and schools; 
     and
       ``(3) enhance the developmental progress of participating 
     children.

     ``SEC. 3944. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For the purposes of this part--
       ``(1) the term `developmental screening' means the process 
     of measuring the progress of children to determine if there 
     are problems or potential problems or advanced abilities in 
     the areas of understanding and use of language, perception 
     through sight, perception through hearing, motor development 
     and hand-eye coordination, health, and physical development;
       ``(2) the term `eligible family' means any parent with one 
     or more children between birth and 3 years of age, or any 
     parent expecting a child;
       ``(3) the term `lead agency' means the office or agency in 
     a State designated by the Governor to administer the parents 
     as teachers program authorized by this part;
       ``(4) the term `parent education' includes parent support 
     activities, the provision of resource materials on child 
     development and parent-child learning activities, private and 
     group educational guidance, individual and group learning 
     experiences for the parent and child, and other activities 
     that enable the parent to improve learning in the home;
       ``(5) the term `parent educator' means a person hired by 
     the lead agency of a State or designated by local entities 
     who administers group meetings, home visits and developmental 
     screening for eligible families, and is trained by the 
     Parents As Teachers National Center established under section 
     3948; and
       ``(6) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Education.

     ``SEC. 3945. PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States 
     to pay the Federal share of the cost of establishing, 
     expanding, and operating parents as teachers programs.
       ``(2) In awarding grants under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall give special consideration to applicants whose programs 
     primarily serve hard-to-serve populations, including--
       ``(A) teenaged parents,
       ``(B) illiterate parents,
       ``(C) economically disadvantaged parents,
       ``(D) offenders and their families,
       ``(E) unemployed parents,
       ``(F) learning disabled parents, and
       ``(G) non-English speaking parents.
       ``(3) In determining the amount of a grant under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall take into consideration the size of 
     the population to be served, the size of the area to be 
     served, and the financial resources of such population and 
     area.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--Any State operating a parents as 
     teachers program which is associated with the Parents As 
     Teachers National Center located in St. Louis, Missouri, 
     shall be eligible to receive a grant under this part.

     ``SEC. 3946. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) Each State receiving a grant under 
     section 3945(a) shall conduct a parents as teachers program 
     which--
       ``(A) establishes and operates parent education programs 
     including programs of developmental screening of children; 
     and
       ``(B) designates a lead State agency which shall--
       ``(i) hire parent educators who have had supervised 
     experience in the care and education of children;
       ``(ii) establish the number of group meetings and home 
     visits required to be provided each year for each 
     participating family, with a minimum of 4 group meetings and 
     8 home visits for each participating family;
       ``(iii) be responsible for administering the periodic 
     screening of participating children's educational, hearing 
     and visual development, using the Denver Developmental Test, 
     Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, or other approved 
     screening instruments; and
       ``(iv) develop recruitment and retention programs for hard-
     to-reach populations.
       ``(2) Grants awarded section 3945(a) shall only be used for 
     parents as teachers programs which serve families during the 
     period of time beginning with the last 3 months of a mother's 
     pregnancy and ending when a child attains the age of 3.

     ``SEC. 3947. PARENTS AS TEACHERS NATIONAL CENTER.

       ``The Secretary shall establish a Parents As Teachers 
     National Center to disseminate information to, and provide 
     technical and training assistance to, States establishing and 
     operating parents as teachers programs.

     ``SEC. 3948. EVALUATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall complete an evaluation of the State 
     parents as teachers programs within 4 years from the date of 
     enactment of this part.

     ``SEC. 3949. APPLICATION.

       ``Each State desiring a grant under section 3945(a) shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require. Each such application shall describe 
     the activities and services for which assistance is sought.

     ``SEC 3950. PAYMENTS AND FEDERAL SHARE.

       ``(a) Payments.--The Secretary shall pay to each State 
     having an application approved under section 3949 the Federal 
     share of the cost of the activities described in the 
     application.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--(1) The Federal share--
       ``(A) for the first year for which a State receives 
     assistance under this part shall be 100 percent;
       ``(B) for the second such year shall be 100 percent;
       ``(C) for the third such year shall be 75 percent;
       ``(D) for the fourth such year shall be 50 percent; and
       ``(E) for the fifth such year 25 percent.
       ``(2) The non-Federal share of payments under this part may 
     be in cash or in kind fairly evaluated, including planned 
     equipment or services.

     ``SEC. 3951. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 to 
     carry out this part.''.

  Mr. WHEAT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.


             modification to amendment offered by mr. wheat

  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment with an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modifications to amendment offered by Mr. Wheat: Page 81, 
     line 7, after ``Even Start,'' insert ``Parents As Teachers,''
       Page 85, line 16, strike ``and''
       Page 85, line 19, after ``systems;'' insert ``and''
       Page 85, line 20, insert new subparagraph:
       ``(C) in the case of a school using funds under this part 
     to operate a preschool program, opportunities for parents to 
     learn about child development and child rearing issues 
     beginning at birth.''
       Page 87, line 5, after ``Even Start,'' insert ``Parents As 
     Teachers,''

  Mr. WHEAT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modifications?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to thank Chairman 
Ford and Chairman Kildee and Ranking Member Goodling for their 
commitment to improving the quality of education in this country and 
for their hard word in crafting this landmark bill, and I think them 
for their support on this amendment.
  This is the Parents as Teachers amendment that allows title I funds 
to be used for the very positive Parents as Teachers Programs that 
assist parents in teaching their children skills that are useful in 
improving their educational abilities in early childhood.
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I have looked at this amendment and we 
find it acceptable.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Wheat], as modified.
  the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my ranking member and the 
chairman for this opportunity. I had an amendment, but I am going to 
withdraw the amendment. It had to do with modifying the opportunities 
for schools to move to schoolwide programs with Chapter One funds.
  Under the present circumstances I understand that it takes a school 
that has 75 percent of their students in the low income category. This 
bill moves it to 60 percent, and I would by my amendment have moved it 
to 50 percent. I think that is the proper thing to do.
  It seems to me that the biggest step we could take to improve student 
performance would be to give schools flexibility. The present 
stratification of Federal money is cumbersome and inefficient. In 
Wyoming we had a number of meetings with educators to discuss the 
Chapter One Program and how to improve it for student benefits, and 
their basic feeling was shared in this statement:

       Many factors now used to define and monitor Chapter 1 
     schools fall short of helping children succeed. Whether the 
     Chapter 1 teacher spends one period a day or two periods a 
     day teaching non-Chapter 1 kids is arbitrary and irrelevant. 
     If Chapter 1 children do well and other children happen to 
     benefit, why place parameters on who teaches whom, when and 
     how? Schools forced by perceived regulatory requirements to 
     use only pull-out models may deny Chapter 1 students the full 
     benefit of the regular school program.

  I have been to some schools in Wyoming where chapter 1 facilities, 
chapter 1 teachers' times and so on were not used to their full benefit 
because of this restriction. However, I do have assurances from the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 
Kildee], and I appreciate it, that there would be some consideration, 
that this revised Chapter Two Program will not be attacked, and so I do 
believe perhaps I will withdraw the amendment in the hopes that the 
Senate will take a look at this opportunity to change it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to say that I had an amendment, as the gentleman knows, very similar to 
his which I have discussed with the committee, and which I have 
discussed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] as well. 
Like the gentleman from Wyoming, I will not offer that amendment, but 
like him, I believe we have to look at this alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with an enormously important 
issue: namely, expanding eligibility for a whole-school program under 
title I. Many of us believe that overall school improvement is the 
single best way to improve achievement by disadvantaged students. An 
enhanced, challenging curriculum taught by well-prepared teachers is, 
in fact, the goal of the school reform efforts all over the country. 
Given that, I think we have to ask ourselves why we continue to rely on 
pull-out programs as the backbone of the Title I Program.
  Although this amendment only drops the percentage of disadvantaged 
children required for a schoolwide program to 50 percent from 60 
percent, it is a key step in the right direction for title I. If a 
school and a school district are willing to go through the planning 
process and meet the performance standards--for all children--that are 
required of a schoolwide program, I say we should encourage them. This 
is one of the most powerful ways in which Federal funds can encourage 
school improvement all over the country. I think we should take this 
opportunity and expand title I schoolwide eligibility, provided it is 
accompanied by the kind of performance standards and accountability 
contained in H.R. 6.
  As the chairmen and ranking member know, I think we should be 
offering schools even more flexibility in their use of Federal funds 
than we do in H.R. 6 overall. This bill's framework for schoolwide 
title I shows us how this could be done, and I hope by the time the 
ESEA reauthorization is signed into law, we will have expanded 
eligibility to all schools that are eager to participate. This 
amendment takes us toward that goal.

                              {time}  1730

  If a school and a school district are willing to go through the 
planning process and meet the performance standards for all children 
that are required of the schoolwide program, I say we should encourage 
that acceptance of responsibility for all of the children in the school 
no matter what the percentage of poor children or disadvantaged 
children in that particular school.
  This is one of the most powerful ways in which Federal funds can 
encourage school improvement all over the country. I think we should 
take this opportunity and expand title I schoolwide eligibility. It is 
controversial.
  I know the committee has worked hard, and I am not going to offer my 
amendment. And I understand the gentleman himself is not going to offer 
it. But I look forward to working with him as this bill passes from 
here, and I am going to support this bill as it goes to the Senate. I 
am going to be an advocate of moving in the direction of making sure we 
utilize these funds for a broader schoolwide improvement which I think 
inevitably is the answer to making sure all children are lifted with 
the expectations and the standards that we expect of our school system 
dollars that we pay, not mandate. If they do not want to take our 
dollars, they do not have to do it, but if they take it, then meet 
those standards for all children.
  I thank the gentleman for his efforts, thank him for yielding, and 
look forward to working with him and with the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Kildee], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] on this issue.
  I think we have a tremendous opportunity this year to make a dramatic 
difference. I think the committee has gone in the right direction, and 
I congratulate them for it.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and let 
me get one final shot in for flexibility, making decisions where they 
count on the ground. Further, it is not often that I agree with the 
administration, and I did on this one to go to 50, so I appreciate it 
very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Valentine). If there are no further 
amendments to title I, the Clerk will designate title II of the 
proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The text of title II is as follows:
              ``TITLE II--IMPROVING TEACHING AND LEARNING

    ``PART A--DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 2101. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) reaching the National Education Goals requires a 
     comprehensive educational reform strategy that involves 
     parents, schools, government, communities, and other public 
     and private organizations at all levels;
       ``(2) a crucial component of the strategy for achieving 
     these goals is ensuring, through sustained and intensive 
     high-quality professional development, and through the 
     development and adoption of high quality curriculum, that all 
     teachers are capable of providing challenging learning 
     experiences in the core academic subjects for their students;
       ``(3) decisionmaking as to what activities a State or local 
     educational agency should undertake to improve teaching and 
     learning are best made by individuals in the schools closest 
     to the classroom and most knowledgeable about the needs of 
     schools and students;
       ``(4) the potential positive impact of high-quality 
     professional development is underscored by recent research 
     findings that--
       ``(A) professional development must be focused on teaching 
     and learning in order to change the opportunities of all 
     students to achieve higher standards; and
       ``(B) effective professional development focuses on 
     discipline-based knowledge and subject-specific pedagogical 
     skills, involves teams of teachers and administrators in a 
     school and, through professional networks of teachers and 
     administrators, is interactive and collaborative, motivates 
     by its intrinsic content and relationship to practice, builds 
     on experience and learning-by-doing, and becomes incorporated 
     into the everyday life of the school;
       ``(5) engaging teachers in the development of high quality 
     curricula is a powerful professional development activity 
     that improves teaching and learning;
       ``(6) special attention must be given in professional 
     development activities to ensure that education professionals 
     are knowledgeable of, and make use of, strategies for serving 
     populations that historically have lacked access to equal 
     opportunities for advanced learning and career advancement;
       ``(7) States and local educational agencies also need to 
     engage teachers in the development of high quality curricula 
     that are aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards in order to improve teaching and learning and 
     ensure that students achieve the State standards;
       ``(8) professional development is often a victim of budget 
     reductions in fiscally difficult times and curricula 
     development is almost nonexistent in many State and local 
     school systems; and
       ``(9) the Federal Government has a vital role in helping 
     States and local educational agencies to make sustained and 
     intensive high-quality professional development in the core 
     academic subjects become an integral part of the elementary 
     and secondary education system and in providing assistance to 
     such agencies to engage teachers in the development of high 
     quality curricula that are aligned with State or local 
     content and performance standards.

     ``SEC. 2102. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are to provide assistance to 
     States and local educational agencies and to institutions of 
     higher education with teacher education programs so that such 
     agencies can determine how best to improve the teaching and 
     learning of all students through--
       ``(1) helping to ensure that teachers, other staff, and 
     administrators have access to sustained and intensive high-
     quality professional development that is aligned to 
     challenging State content and performance standards in the 
     care academic subjects and that--
       ``(A) is tied to challenging State and local curriculum 
     content and student performance standards;
       ``(B) reflects recent research on teaching and learning;
       ``(C) incorporates effective strategies, techniques, 
     methods, and practices for meeting the educational needs of 
     diverse students, including females, minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, limited-English proficient individuals, 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals, in order to 
     ensure that all students have the opportunity to achieve 
     challenging performance standards;
       ``(D) includes strong academic content and pedagogical 
     components;
       ``(E) is of sufficient intensity and duration to have a 
     positive and lasting impact on the teacher's performance in 
     the classroom; and
       ``(F) is part of the everyday life of the school and 
     creates an orientation toward continuous improvement 
     throughout the school; and
       ``(2) assisting States and local educational agencies to 
     engage teachers in the development of high quality curriculum 
     that is aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards.

     ``SEC. 2103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; ALLOCATION 
                   BETWEEN SUBPARTS.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this part, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $800,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 
     1999.
       ``(b) Allocation Between Subparts.--Of the funds 
     appropriated to carry out this part for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall use--
       ``(1) 5 percent to carry out subpart 1; and
       ``(2) 95 percent to carry out subpart 2.

                    ``Subpart 1--Federal Activities

     ``SEC. 2111. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with, local educational agencies, State 
     educational agencies, State agencies for higher education, 
     educational service agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, and other public and private agencies, other 
     organizations, and institutions to--
       ``(1) support activities of national significance that will 
     contribute to the development and implementation of high-
     quality professional development activities in the core 
     academic subject areas;
       ``(2) support the development of challenging curriculum 
     that is aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards; and
       ``(3) evaluate activities carried out under this subpart 
     and under subpart 2.
       ``(b) Coordination With Other Agencies.--In carrying out 
     this program, the Secretary shall consult and coordinate with 
     the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and 
     other appropriate Federal agencies and entities.

     ``SEC. 2112. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) The Secretary shall use funds available to carry out 
     this subpart--
       ``(1) to provide seed money to eligible entities to develop 
     their capacity to offer sustained and intensive high-quality 
     professional development;
       ``(2) for the development and maintenance of a national 
     clearinghouse for science, mathematics, and technology 
     education materials which shall be administered as an adjunct 
     clearinghouse of the ERIC system of clearinghouses supported 
     by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement;
       ``(3) to support consortia of educational agencies and 
     organizations in disseminating information and providing 
     assistance regarding curricula, teaching methods, and 
     assessment tools that support national or State content 
     standards in mathematics and science; and
       ``(4) the evaluation of programs under this subpart and 
     under subpart 2.
       ``(b) The Secretary may use funds available to carry out 
     this subpart--
       ``(1) for the development and maintenance of national 
     clearinghouses for core academic subjects as the Secretary 
     determines are needed and which shall be administered as 
     adjunct clearinghouses of the ERIC system of clearinghouses 
     supported by the Office of Educational Research and 
     Improvement;
       ``(2) to provide grants to entities to develop high quality 
     curricula that are aligned with voluntary national or State 
     content standards;
       ``(3) to sponsor institutes that provide teachers and 
     administrators with professional development that is based on 
     strong and integrated disciplinary content and pedagogical 
     components;
       ``(4) for efforts to train teachers in the innovative uses 
     and applications of technology to enhance student learning;
       ``(5) to encourage the development of local and national 
     professional networks of educators;
       ``(6) to disseminate standards in the core academic 
     subjects, including information on voluntary national content 
     and performance standards and related models of high-quality 
     professional development;
       ``(7) for efforts to train teachers in innovative uses of 
     applied learning strategies such as service learning;
       ``(8) to disseminate models of high-quality professional 
     development activities that train educators in strategies, 
     techniques, methods, and practices for meeting the 
     educational needs of historically underserved populations, 
     including females, minorities, individuals with disabilities, 
     limited-English proficient individuals, and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals, in order to ensure that all 
     students have the opportunity to achieve challenging 
     performance standards;
       ``(9) to promote the transferability of licensure and 
     certification of teachers and administrators among State and 
     local jurisdictions; and
       ``(10) to support the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.
       ``(c) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     ensure that each program, project, and activity contained in 
     such subsection receives an allocation that is no less than 
     the amount that each such program, project, or activity 
     received in fiscal year 1994.

                ``Subpart 2--State and Local Activities

     ``SEC. 2121. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to make grants to State 
     educational agencies for the improvement of teaching and 
     learning through sustained and intensive high-quality 
     professional development activities in the core academic 
     subjects at the State and local levels and the development by 
     teachers and others of high-quality curricula that are 
     aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards.

     ``SEC. 2122. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount made available 
     to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) reserve one half of one percent for the outlying 
     areas, to be distributed among them on the basis of relative 
     need, as determined by the Secretary in light of the purposes 
     of this part; and
       ``(2) reserve one half of one percent for the Secretary of 
     the Interior for programs under this subpart for professional 
     development activities for teachers, other staff, and 
     administrators in schools operated or funded by the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs.
       ``(b) State Allotments.--The Secretary shall allocate the 
     remaining amount to each of the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as follows, 
     except that no State shall receive less than one-half of one 
     percent of such remaining amount:
       ``(1) 50 percent shall be allocated among such 
     jurisdictions on the basis of their relative populations of 
     individuals aged 5 through 17, as determined by the Secretary 
     on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data.
       ``(2) 50 percent shall be allocated among such 
     jurisdictions in accordance with the relative amounts such 
     jurisdictions received under part A of title I of this Act 
     for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(c) Reallocation.--If any jurisdiction does not apply for 
     its allotment under subsection (b) for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reallocate such amount to the remaining 
     jurisdictions in accordance with such subsection.

     ``SEC. 2123. WITHIN-STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       ``(a) Reservations.--Of the amounts received by a State 
     under this subpart for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) not more than 5 percent shall be used for the 
     administrative costs of programs carried out by the State 
     educational agency and the State agency for higher education;
       ``(2) not more than 5 percent may be used for State-level 
     activities, as described in section 2125; and
       ``(3) of the remaining amount--
       ``(A) 87 percent shall be distributed to local educational 
     agencies, to be used in accordance with section 2129, as 
     follows:
       ``(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be distributed in 
     accordance with the relative enrollments in public and 
     private nonprofit schools within their boundaries.
       ``(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be distributed in 
     accordance with the relative amount such agencies received 
     under part A of title I of this Act for the preceding fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(B) 13 percent shall be used for competitive grants to 
     institutions of higher education as described in section 
     2129.
       ``(b) Limitation.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     any local educational agency that receives an allocation of 
     less than $10,000 under subsection (a) shall, for the purpose 
     of providing services under this subpart, form a consortium 
     with at least 1 other local educational agency or institution 
     of higher education receiving assistance under this section.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The State educational agency shall waive the 
     application of paragraph (1) in the case of any local 
     educational agency that demonstrates that the amount of its 
     allocation is sufficient to provide a program of sufficient 
     size, scope, and quality to be effective. In granting waivers 
     under the preceding sentence, the State educational agency 
     shall--
       ``(A) give special consideration to local educational 
     agencies serving rural areas; and
       ``(B) consider cash or in-kind contributions provided from 
     State or local sources that may be combined with the local 
     educational agency's allocation for the purpose of providing 
     services under this part.

     ``SEC. 2124. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Applications Required.--Each State educational agency 
     that wishes to receive its allotment under this subpart for 
     any fiscal year shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time and in such form as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) State Plan To Improve Teaching and Learning--(1) Each 
     application under this section shall include a State plan 
     that--
       ``(A) is integrated with the State's plan, either approved 
     or being developed, under title III of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act, and satisfies the requirements of this 
     section that are not already addressed by that State plan; or
       ``(B) if the State does not have an approved plan under 
     title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and is not 
     developing such a plan, is integrated with other State plans 
     under this Act and satisfies the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Each such plan shall also--
       ``(A) be developed in conjunction with the State agency for 
     higher education, institutions of higher education, schools 
     of education, and with the extensive participation of 
     teachers and administrators and members of the public who are 
     interested in improving education in the State and show the 
     role of each in implementation;
       ``(B) be designed to give teachers and administrators in 
     the State the knowledge and skills to provide all students 
     the opportunity to meet challenging State performance 
     standards;
       ``(C) include an assessment of State and local needs for 
     professional development and for the development of curricula 
     that are aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards;
       ``(D) include a description of how the plan has assessed 
     the needs of local education agencies serving rural areas, 
     and what actions are planned to meet those needs;
       ``(E) include a description of how the plan has maintained 
     funding for professional development activities in 
     mathematics and science education;
       ``(F) include a description of how the activities funded 
     under this subpart will address the needs of teachers in 
     schools receiving assistance under part A of title I of this 
     Act;
       ``(G) a description of how programs in all core academic 
     subjects, but especially in mathematics and science, will 
     take into account the need for greater access to, and 
     participation in, such disciplines by students from 
     historically underrepresented groups, including females, 
     minorities, individuals with limited-English proficiency, the 
     economically disadvantaged, and the disabled, by 
     incorporating pedagogical strategies and techniques which 
     meet their educational need;
       ``(H) if the State's needs assessment under subsection (C) 
     demonstrates a need for professional development, describe 
     how the State will--
       ``(i) work with teachers, including teachers in schools 
     receiving assistance under part A of title I of this Act, 
     administrators, local educational agencies, schools, and 
     institutions of higher education to ensure that they develop 
     the capacity to support sustained and intensive, high-quality 
     professional development programs in all the core academic 
     subject areas, but especially in mathematics and science;
       ``(ii) take specific steps to review and, if necessary, 
     reform State requirements for licensure of teachers and 
     administrators, including certification and recertification, 
     to align such requirements with challenging State content and 
     performance standards; and
       ``(iii) address the need for improving teaching and 
     learning through teacher development beginning with 
     recruitment, pre-service, and induction, and continuing 
     throughout the professional teaching career; and
       ``(I) if the State's needs assessment under subparagraph 
     (C) demonstrates a need for curricula development, describe--
       ``(i) a strategy for engaging teachers in the development 
     of curricula that are aligned with State or local content and 
     performance standards; and
       ``(ii) how the State will also work with administrators, 
     parents, school board members, and other members of the 
     community in developing high quality curricula that are 
     aligned with State or local content and performance 
     standards.
       ``(c) Additional Material.--Each State application shall 
     also include--
       ``(1) a description of how the activities funded under this 
     subpart will be coordinated, as appropriate, with--
       ``(A) other activities conducted with Federal funds, 
     especially activities supported under part A of title I of 
     this Act;
       ``(B) State and local funds;
       ``(C) resources from business and industry; and
       ``(D) funds from other Federal agencies, such as the 
     National Science Foundation, the Departments of Commerce, 
     Energy, and Health and Human Services, the National Endowment 
     for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities; 
     and
       ``(2) a description of the activities to be sponsored under 
     the State-level activities and the higher education 
     components of its program under this subpart.
       ``(d) Peer Review and Secretarial Approval.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall approve the application of a State 
     educational agency if it meets the requirements of this 
     section and holds reasonable promise of achieving the 
     purposes of this part.
       ``(2) In reviewing applications, the Secretary shall obtain 
     the advice of non-Federal experts on education in the core 
     academic subjects and on teacher education, including 
     teachers and administrators.
       ``(e) Assurance.--Each State applying for funds under this 
     title shall provide the Secretary with the assurance that 
     after July 1, 1998, it will require each local educational 
     agency within the State to certify that each full time 
     teacher in schools under the jurisdiction of the agency is 
     certified to teach in the subject area to which he or she is 
     assigned. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     prevent a State from implementing alternative methods of 
     teacher certification.

     ``SEC. 2125. STATE-LEVEL ACTIVITIES.

       ``Each State may use funds reserved under section 
     2123(a)(2) to carry out activities referred to in section 
     2124(b), such as--
       ``(1) reviewing and reforming State requirements for 
     teacher and administrator licensure, including certification 
     and recertification, to align such requirements with the 
     State's content standards and ensure that teachers and 
     administrators have the knowledge and skills necessary to 
     help students meet challenging State performance standards;
       ``(2) developing performance assessments and peer review 
     procedures, as well as other methods, for licensing teachers 
     and administrators;
       ``(3) providing technical assistance to schools and local 
     educational agencies especially schools and local educational 
     agencies that receive assistance under part A of title I of 
     this Act, to help such schools and agencies provide effective 
     professional development in the core academic subjects and 
     develop high quality curricula;
       ``(4) developing or supporting professional development 
     networks, either within a State or in a regional consortium 
     of States, that provide a forum for interaction among 
     teachers and that allow exchange of information on advances 
     in content assessment and pedagogy;
       ``(5) supporting partnerships between schools, consortia of 
     schools, or local education agencies and institutions of 
     higher education, including but not limited to schools of 
     education, which would encourage teachers to participate in 
     intensive, ongoing professional development programs, both 
     academic and pedagogical, at institutions of higher 
     education, and to encourage students at institutions of 
     higher education studying to become teachers to have direct, 
     practical experience at the schools;
       ``(6) enhancing the effective use of educational technology 
     as an instructional tool for increasing student understanding 
     of the core academic subject areas including--
       ``(A) efforts to train teachers in the innovative uses and 
     application of instructional technology;
       ``(B) utilizing and strengthening existing 
     telecommunications infrastructure dedicated to educational 
     purposes; and
       ``(C) efforts to train teachers in methods for achieving 
     gender equity both in access to and teaching practices used 
     in the application of educational technology;
       ``(7) providing incentives for teachers to be involved in 
     curriculum development and technical assistance processes for 
     teachers and students;
       ``(8) professional development enabling teachers and other 
     school staff to ensure that girls, young women, minorities, 
     limited English proficient students, individuals with 
     disabilities, and economically disadvantaged individuals have 
     the opportunity to achieve challenging State performance 
     standards in the core academic subjects by, for example, 
     encouraging girls, young women, and minorities to pursue 
     advanced courses in mathematics and science;
       ``(9) designing professional development activities that 
     increase the numbers of members of minority and other 
     underrepresented groups in the teaching force in the core 
     subjects;
       ``(10) developing high quality curriculum that is aligned 
     with State or local content and performance standards; and
       ``(11) providing financial or other incentives for teachers 
     to become certified by the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.

     ``SEC. 2126. LOCAL PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR IMPROVING 
                   TEACHING AND LEARNING.

       ``(a) Local Application.--(1) Each local educational agency 
     that wishes to receive a subgrant under this subpart shall 
     submit an application (singly or as a consortia as described 
     in section 2123(b)) to the State educational agency at such 
     time as the State educational agency shall require, but not 
     less frequently than every 3rd year.
       ``(2) If the local educational agency has an application 
     approved by the State under title III of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act, the application required by this section 
     shall be a component of (or, if necessary, an addendum to) 
     its Goals 2000 application.
       ``(3) A local education agency shall set specific 
     performance indicators for improving teaching and learning 
     through professional development and curriculum development.
       ``(4) A local educational agency shall submit, as part of 
     its application, the results of the needs assessment 
     conducted under subsection (b), and the local educational 
     agency plan developed in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(b) Needs Assessment.--(1) A local educational agency 
     that wishes to receive a subgrant under this subpart shall 
     include in its application an assessment of such agency's 
     need for professional development, for the development of 
     high quality curricula that are aligned with State or local 
     content and performance standards.
       ``(2) Such needs assessment shall be carried out with the 
     involvement of teachers, including teachers in schools 
     receiving assistance under part A of title I of this Act, and 
     shall take into account what activities need to be conducted 
     in order to give teachers and administrators the means, 
     including the knowledge and skills, to provide students with 
     the opportunity to meet challenging State or local 
     performance standards.
       ``(c) Plan Development.--(1) The plan required under this 
     subsection shall be developed jointly by the local 
     educational agency and by teachers from the core academic 
     disciplines.
       ``(2) Such teachers shall also be representative of the 
     grade spans within schools to be served and of schools which 
     receive assistance under part A of title I of this Act.
       ``(3) Based on the needs assessment required under 
     subsection (b), the local educational agency's plan shall 
     include the following--
       ``(A) a description of the local educational agency's 
     strategy to improve teaching and learning in every school;
       ``(B) a description of how the plan contributes to the 
     local educational agency's overall efforts for school reform 
     and educational improvement;
       ``(C) a description of the activities the local educational 
     agency intends to undertake under this subpart consistent 
     with such agency's needs assessment conducted under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(D) a description of how the plan has maintained funding 
     for professional development activities in mathematics and 
     science education;
       ``(E) a description of how the activities funded under this 
     section will address the needs of teachers in schools 
     receiving assistance under part A of title I of this Act;
       ``(F) a description of how programs in all core academic 
     subjects, but especially in mathematics and science, will 
     take into account the need for greater access to, and 
     participation in, such disciplines by students from 
     historically underrepresented groups, including females, 
     minorities, individuals with limited-English proficiency, the 
     economically disadvantaged, and the disabled, by 
     incorporating pedagogical strategies and techniques which 
     meet their educational need;
       ``(G) an assurance that the activities conducted with funds 
     received under this program will be assessed at least every 3 
     years using the performance indicators; and
       ``(H) a description of how the program funded under this 
     subpart will be coordinated, as appropriate, with--
       ``(i) activities conducted under section 2130 and other 
     services of institutions of higher education;
       ``(ii) similar State and local activities;
       ``(iii) resources provided under part A of title I and 
     other parts of this Act, particularly part B of title II;
       ``(iv) resources from business, industry, private nonprofit 
     organizations (including museums, libraries, educational 
     television stations, community-based organizations, 
     professional organizations and associations specializing in, 
     or with a demonstrated expertise in the core academic 
     disciplines);
       ``(v) funds or programming from other Federal agencies, 
     such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of 
     Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
     National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National 
     Endowment for the Arts; and
       ``(vi) an identification of funding that will provide the 
     local educational agency's contribution under section 2127.

     ``SEC. 2127. LOCAL COST SHARING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency shall bear 
     not less than 33 percent of the cost of any program carried 
     out under this subpart, but not including the cost of 
     services provided to private schoolteachers.
       ``(b) Available Resources for Cost-Sharing.--A local 
     educational agency may meet the requirements of subsection 
     (a) through one or more of the following:
       ``(1) Cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, including 
     private contributions, directed toward professional 
     development and curriculum development activities.
       ``(2) Release time for teachers participating in 
     professional development or curricula development funded 
     under this subpart.
       ``(3) Funds received under one or more of the following 
     programs, if used for professional development or curricula 
     development activities consistent with this subpart and 
     consistent with the statutes under which such funds are 
     provided, then such funds must be used for the benefit of 
     students and teachers in the schools that would otherwise 
     have been served with such funds:
       ``(A) Part A of title I of this Act.
       ``(B) The Safe and Drug Free Schools program under title IV 
     of this Act.
       ``(C) The bilingual education program under title VII of 
     this Act.
       ``(D) The Women's Educational Equity Program under title 
     III of this Act.
       ``(E) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
       ``(F) Programs that are related to the purposes of this Act 
     that are administered by other agencies, including the 
     National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the 
     Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the 
     Department of Energy.
       ``(c) Waiver.--The State educational agency may approve an 
     application which has not fully met the requirements of 
     subsection (a) and waive the requirements of subsection (a) 
     if a local educational agency can demonstrate that it is 
     unable to meet the requirements of subsection (a) due to 
     economic hardship and that compliance with such requirements 
     would preclude its participation in the program.

     ``SEC. 2128. LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND ALLOWABLE 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Local Allocation of Funds.--Each local educational 
     agency that receives funds under this subpart for any fiscal 
     year--
       ``(1) shall use not less than 80 percent of such funds 
     for--
       ``(A) professional development of teachers, principals, and 
     other instructional staff who work directly with children; 
     and
       ``(B) engaging teachers and other staff in the development 
     of high quality curricula aligned with State and local 
     content and performance standards, in a manner that is 
     determined by such teachers and staff and is consistent with 
     the provisions of such local educational agency's application 
     under section 2126, any school plan under part A of title I 
     of this Act, and any other plan for professional development 
     or curricula development carried out with Federal, State, or 
     local funds; and
       ``(2) may use not more than 20 percent of such funds for 
     district-level professional or curricula development 
     activities, which may include the participation of 
     administrators and policymakers if such activities directly 
     support instructional personnel.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--Each local educational agency 
     and school that receives funds under this subpart shall use 
     such funds for activities that give teachers and 
     administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students 
     with the opportunity to meet challenging State or local 
     content and performance standards. Funds received by local 
     educational agencies under this subpart only shall be used 
     for the activities specified under subsections (c) and (d). 
     No less than 80 percent of those funds shall be used for 
     activities under subsection (c) and not more than 20 percent 
     for activities under subsection (d).
       ``(c) Professional Development.--If a needs assessment 
     conducted under section 2126(b) determines that funds under 
     this subpart should be used to provide professional 
     development in the core academic subjects for teachers and 
     other school staff, the local educational agency shall use 
     such funds for professional development for teachers and 
     other staff to support teaching consistent with State, or 
     local content standards, and shall, to the extent 
     practicable, coordinate such activities with institutions of 
     higher education and activities under section 2129:
       ``(1) Professional development activities funded under this 
     subpart shall--
       ``(A) be tied to challenging State or local content and 
     student performance standards;
       ``(B) reflect recent research on teaching and learning;
       ``(C) incorporates effective strategies, techniques, 
     methods, and practices for meeting the educational needs of 
     diverse students, including females, minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, limited-English proficient individuals, 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals, in order to 
     ensure that all students have the opportunity to achieve 
     challenging performance standards;
       ``(D) include strong academic content and pedagogical 
     components;
       ``(E) be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a 
     positive and lasting impact on the teacher's performance in 
     the classroom; and
       ``(F) be part of the everyday life of the school and create 
     an orientation toward continuous improvement throughout the 
     school.
       ``(2) Funds under this subpart may be used for professional 
     development activities such as--
       ``(A) professional development for teams of teachers, 
     administrators, or other staff from individual schools, to 
     support teaching consistent with State or local content 
     standards;
       ``(B) support and time for teachers and other school staff 
     to participate in professional development in the core 
     subjects offered through professional associations, 
     universities, community-based organizations, and other 
     providers including museums and educational partnership 
     organizations;
       ``(C) activities that provide followup for teachers who 
     have participated in professional development activities that 
     are designed to ensure that knowledge and skills learned by 
     the teacher are implemented in the classroom;
       ``(D) support for partnerships between schools, consortia 
     of schools, or local education agencies and institutions of 
     higher education, including but not limited to schools of 
     education, which would encourage teachers to participate in 
     intensive, ongoing professional development programs, both 
     academic and pedagogical, at institutions of higher 
     education, and to encourage students at institutions of 
     higher education studying to become teachers to have direct, 
     practical experience at the schools;
       ``(E) the establishment and maintenance of local 
     professional networks that provide a forum for interaction 
     among teachers and that allow exchange of information on 
     advances in content and pedagogy;
       ``(F) activities to prepare teachers in the effective use 
     of educational technology as an instructional tool for 
     increasing student understanding of the core academic subject 
     areas;
       ``(G) activities to enable teachers to ensure that girls, 
     young women, minorities, limited-English proficient students, 
     individuals with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals the opportunity to achieve the challenging State 
     performance standards in the core academic subjects;
       ``(H) professional development and recruitment activities 
     designed to increase the number of minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, and females teaching in the core academic 
     subject in which they are underrepresented;
       ``(I) the development of incentive strategies for rewarding 
     schools where a substantial portion of the teachers achieve 
     certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching 
     Standards; and
       ``(J) other sustained and intensive high-quality 
     professional development activities in the core academic 
     subjects.
       ``(d) Curriculum Development.--(1) If the needs assessment 
     of a local educational agency determines that funds under 
     this subpart should be used for curriculum development, such 
     agency shall use the funds provided to develop high quality 
     curricula that is aligned with State or local content and 
     performance standards.
       ``(2) Funds may be used to purchase the curriculum 
     materials to the extent such materials are essential 
     components of the local educational agency's plan to improve 
     teaching and learning in the core academic subjects.

     ``SEC. 2129. HIGHER EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) General.--(1) The State agency for higher education, 
     working in conjunction with the State educational agency (if 
     it is a separate agency), shall make grants to, or enter into 
     contracts or cooperative agreements with, institutions of 
     higher education and nonprofit organizations including 
     museums and educational partnership organizations, which 
     demonstrate consultation and cooperation with a local 
     education agency, consortium of local education agencies, or 
     schools, for--
       ``(A) professional development activities in the core 
     academic subject areas that contribute to the State plan for 
     professional development;
       ``(B) engaging teachers in the development of high-quality 
     curricula that are aligned with State or local content and 
     performance standards;
       ``(C) developing and providing assistance to local 
     education agencies, and the teachers and staff of each such 
     agency, for sustained, high-quality professional development 
     activities; and
       ``(D) improving teacher education programs in order to 
     promote further innovation in teacher education programs 
     within an institution of higher education and to better meet 
     the needs of the local education agencies for well-prepared 
     teachers;
       ``(2) All such awards shall be made on a competitive basis.
       ``(3) No institution of higher education may receive 
     assistance under subsection (a)(1) of this subsection unless 
     the institution enters into an agreement with a local 
     education agency, or consortium of such agencies, to provide 
     sustained, high-quality professional development for the 
     elementary and secondary school teachers in the schools of 
     each such agency.
       ``(4) Each project funded under this section shall involve 
     a joint effort of the recipient's school or department of 
     education and the schools or departments in the specific 
     disciplines in which assistance may be provided.
       ``(b) Allowable Activities.--A recipient of funds under 
     this section shall use those funds for--
       ``(1) sustained and intensive high-quality professional 
     development for teams of teachers, or teachers and 
     administrators from individual schools or districts;
       ``(2) other sustained and intensive professional 
     development activities related to achievement of the State 
     plan for professional development such as--
       ``(A) establishment and maintenance of professional 
     networks of teachers that provide a forum for interaction 
     among teachers and that allow exchange of information on 
     advances in content and pedagogy;
       ``(B) programs that prepare teachers to be effective users 
     of information technology, able to integrate technology into 
     their pedagogy and their instructional practices, and able to 
     enhance their curricular offerings by appropriate 
     applications of technology;
       ``(C) programs that utilize information technology to 
     deliver sustained and intensive high quality professional 
     development activities for teachers;
       ``(D) activities to enable teachers to ensure that girls, 
     young women, minorities, limited-English proficient students, 
     individuals with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals have the opportunity to achieve the challenging 
     State performance standards in the core academic subjects;
       ``(E) professional development and recruitment activities 
     designed to increase the number of minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups teaching 
     in the core academic subjects, particularly in mathematics 
     and science;
       ``(F) establishment of professional development academies 
     operated as partnerships between one or more elementary or 
     secondary schools and one or more institutions of higher 
     education to provide school-based teacher training that 
     provides prospective, novice, and experienced teachers with 
     an opportunity to work under the guidance of master teachers 
     and college faculty members; and
       ``(G) technical assistance to local educational agencies in 
     providing sustained and intensive high quality professional 
     development activities for teachers.

                    ``Subpart 3--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 2131. REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) States.--Each State that receives funds under this 
     part shall submit a report to the Secretary every 3 years on 
     the State's progress toward the performance indicator 
     identified in its State plan, as well as on the effectiveness 
     of State and local activities under this part.
       ``(b) Local Educational Agencies.--Each local educational 
     agency that receives funds under this part shall submit a 
     report to the State every 3 years on its progress toward the 
     outcome performance indicators in its plan.
       ``(c) Federal Evaluation.--The Secretary shall report to 
     the President and Congress on the effectiveness of programs 
     and activities funded under this part.
       ``(d) Prohibition on Funds Being Used for Construction or 
     Renovation.--Funds received under this part shall not be used 
     for construction or renovation of buildings, rooms, or any 
     other facilities.

     ``SEC. 2132. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part, the following terms have the 
     following meanings:
       ``(1) The term `core academic subjects' means those 
     subjects listed in the State plan under title III of the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act or under National Education 
     Goal Three as set out in section 102(3) of such Act.
       ``(2) The term `performance indicators' means measures of 
     specific outcomes that the State or local educational agency 
     identifies as assessing progress toward the goal of ensuring 
     that all teachers have the knowledge and skills to assist 
     their students to meet challenging State standards in the 
     core academic subject areas. Examples of such indicators 
     include--
       ``(A) the degree to which licensure requirements are tied 
     to State standards;
       ``(B) specific increases in the number of elementary and 
     secondary teachers with strong content backgrounds in the 
     core academic subjects;
       ``(C) incorporates effective strategies, techniques, 
     methods, and practices for meeting the educational needs of 
     diverse students, including females, minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, limited-English proficient individuals, 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals, in order to 
     ensure that all students have the opportunity to achieve 
     challenging performance standards; and
       ``(D) specific increases in the number of Board certified 
     teachers licensed in each core subject.
       ``(3) The term `sustained and intensive high-quality 
     professional development' means professional development 
     activities that--
       ``(A) are tied to challenging State or voluntary national 
     content and performance standards;
       ``(B) reflect up-to-date research in teaching and learning 
     and include integrated content and pedagogical components;
       ``(C) incorporates effective strategies, techniques, 
     methods, and practices for meeting the educational needs of 
     diverse students, including females, minorities, individuals 
     with disabilities, limited English proficient individuals, 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals, in order to 
     assure that all students have the opportunity to achieve 
     challenging performance standards;
       ``(D) are of sufficient intensity and duration to have a 
     positive and lasting impact on the teacher's performance in 
     the classroom or the administrator's performance on the job; 
     and
       ``(E) recognize teachers as an important source of 
     knowledge that should inform and help shape professional 
     development.
       ``(4) The term `local standard' means challenging content 
     and performance standards in the core subjects (in addition 
     to State content and performance standards approved by the 
     State for title I).

               ``PART B--TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

    ``Subpart 1--Assistance to State and Local Educational Agencies

     ``SEC. 2201. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Technology Education 
     Assistance Act of 1994'.

     ``SEC. 2202. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) technology can produce far greater opportunities for 
     all students to learn to high standards and promote 
     efficiency and effectiveness in education;
       ``(2) the use of technology as a tool in the teaching and 
     learning process is essential to the development and 
     maintenance of a technologically literate citizenry and an 
     internationally competitive workforce;
       ``(3) the acquisition and use of technology in education 
     throughout the United States has been inhibited by the 
     absence of Federal leadership, the inability of many State 
     and local educational agencies to invest in and support 
     needed technologies, and the limited availability of 
     appropriate technology-enhanced curriculum, instruction, 
     teacher training, and administrative support resources and 
     services in the educational marketplace;
       ``(4) educational equalization concerns and school 
     restructuring needs can be addressed through educational 
     telecommunications and technology by offering universal 
     access to high-quality teaching and programs, particularly in 
     urban and rural areas;
       ``(5) in the absence of appropriate educational technology 
     policies, the disparity between rich and poor students will 
     become even greater in a world where technology and 
     telecommunications increasingly have become an integral part 
     of many households;
       ``(6) the increasing use of new technologies and 
     telecommunications systems in business and industry has 
     furthered the gap between schooling and work force 
     preparation;
       ``(7) telecommunications can be a conduit for ongoing 
     teacher training and improved professional development by 
     providing to teachers constant access to updated research in 
     teaching and learning;
       ``(8) research consistently shows that the planned use of 
     technology combined with teachers who are adequately trained 
     in its use can increase opportunities for more students to 
     develop higher order thinking and technical skills than is 
     possible with traditional instruction;
       ``(9) technology can engage students in learning through 
     media with which they are comfortable, and prove to be an 
     effective learning tool, particularly when correlated with 
     State and national curriculum standards;
       ``(10) schools need new ways of financing the acquisition 
     and maintenance of educational technology; and
       ``(11) the needs for educational technology differ from 
     State to State.

     ``SEC. 2203. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this Act is to support a comprehensive 
     system for the acquisition and use by elementary and 
     secondary schools in the United States of technology and 
     technology-enhanced curricula, instruction, and 
     administrative support resources and services to improve the 
     delivery of educational services, such system shall include--
       ``(1) national leadership with respect to the need for, and 
     the provision of, appropriate technology-enhanced curriculum, 
     instruction and administrative programs to improve learning 
     in the United States;
       ``(2) funding mechanisms which will support the 
     development, interconnection, implementation, improvement and 
     maintenance of an effective educational technology 
     infrastructure;
       ``(3) information dissemination networks to facilitate 
     access to information on effective learning programs, 
     assessment and evaluation of such programs, research 
     findings, and supporting resources (including instructionally 
     based, technology-enhanced programs, research and resources) 
     by educators throughout the United States;
       ``(4) an extensive variety of opportunities for teacher, 
     inservice training, and administrative training and technical 
     assistance with respect to effective uses of technologies in 
     education;
       ``(5) utilizing and strengthening, not duplicating, 
     existing telecommunications infrastructures dedicated to 
     educational purposes;
       ``(6) development and evaluation of new and emerging 
     educational technologies and telecommunications networks;
       ``(7) assessment data regarding state-of-the-art uses of 
     technologies in United States education upon which commercial 
     and noncommercial telecommunications entities, and 
     governments can rely on for decisionmaking about the need 
     for, and provision of, appropriate technologies for education 
     in the United States; and
       ``(8) authorize grants to States that--
       ``(A) improve the academic performance of students through 
     technology;
       ``(B) strengthen the skills of teachers in effectively 
     utilizing technology for student learning;
       ``(C) promote the planned application of technology in 
     education by those who will use the technology; and
       ``(D) encourage collaborative relationships between the 
     State agency for higher education, the State library 
     administrative agency and the State telecommunications agency 
     for education and the State educational agency in the area of 
     technology support to strengthen the system of education.

     ``SEC. 2204. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title--
       ``(1) the terms `library' and `State library administrative 
     agency' shall have the same meaning given to such terms in 
     section 3 of the Library Services and Construction Act 
     (Public Law 84-579);
       ``(2) the term `Regional Education Laboratory' shall have 
     the same meaning given to such term in section 405 of the 
     Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88);
       ``(3) the term `technology' includes closed circuit 
     television systems, public telecommunications entities, cable 
     television, satellite, copper and fiber optic transmission, 
     computer, video and audio laser and CD ROM disc, video and 
     audio tapes or other technologies;
       ``(4) the term `credit enhancement' means a financial 
     arrangement that enhances the credit quality of the issuer or 
     the financial instrument being used; and
       ``(5) the term `interoperability' means the ability to 
     communicate with operating systems developed nationally and 
     internationally using multiple network media.

     ``SEC. 2205. IN-STATE APPORTIONMENT.

       ``(a) Authorizations.--The Secretary is authorized to make 
     grants to States in accordance with the provisions of this 
     title to strengthen the skills of educators and improve 
     learning through the use of technology.
       ``(b) Elementary, Secondary Education Programs.--(1) For 
     each fiscal year, an amount equal to 70 percent of each 
     State's allotment under section 2212(a)(2) shall be used for 
     elementary and secondary education programs by the State 
     educational agency in accordance with section 2206.
       ``(2) Not less than 90 percent of a State's allotment under 
     this subsection shall be available to local educational 
     agencies including services to adults and families of which 
     not more than 5 percent of the funds available to the local 
     educational agency for any fiscal year may be used for local 
     administration.
       ``(3) Not more than 10 percent of the amount allocated 
     under subsection (a) may be used by the State educational 
     agency for technical assistance and administrative costs of 
     which not less than 50 percent shall be used for technical 
     assistance.
       ``(c) Higher Education Programs.--(1) For each fiscal year 
     20 percent of each State's allotment under section 2212(a)(2) 
     shall be used by the State higher education agency designated 
     in the State plan for partnership programs between local 
     educational agencies, including educational services to 
     adults and families and higher education institutions in 
     accordance with section 2207.
       ``(2) Not less than 90 percent of the amount available for 
     this subsection shall be used by the State for grants to 
     institutions of higher education for partnership programs in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 2207.
       ``(3) Not more than 10 percent of the amount allocated to 
     the State's higher education partnership program under this 
     section, may be used for the costs incurred for the 
     evaluation of programs assisted under section 2207; and for 
     administrative costs of the State's higher education agency 
     designated in the State plan.
       ``(d) Library and Literacy Programs.--(1) For each fiscal 
     year 10 percent of each State's allocation under section 
     2212(a)(2) shall be used by the State library administrative 
     agency to support collaborative activities among libraries, 
     literacy programs, and local educational agencies in 
     accordance with section 2208.
       ``(2) Not less than 90 percent of the amount available for 
     this section shall be used by the State for grants to local 
     public libraries and literacy programs in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 2208.
       ``(3) Not more than 10 percent of the amount available 
     under this section may be used by the State for the costs 
     incurred for evaluation of programs assisted under section 
     2208 and for administrative costs of the State library 
     administrative agency.

     ``SEC. 2206. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The amount apportioned under section 
     2205(b) from each State's allotment shall be used by the 
     State educational agency to strengthen elementary and 
     secondary education programs in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(b) Local Educational Agencies.--(1) Each local 
     educational agency, including educational services for adults 
     and families, shall use the educational technology funds 
     available under section 2205(b)(2) for--
       ``(A) developing, adapting, or expanding existing and new 
     applications of technology to support the school reform 
     effort; and
       ``(B) funding projects of sufficient size and scope to 
     improve student learning and, as appropriate, support 
     professional development, and provide administrative support.
       ``(2) To be eligible to receive educational technology 
     funds under this section for school or other school managed 
     alternative learning environment, a local educational agency 
     must submit an application to the State educational agency. 
     If the local educational agency has an application approved 
     by the State under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act, the application required by this section shall 
     be a component of (or if necessary an addendum to) its Goals 
     2000 application. The local educational agency must also 
     receive State approval of a technology use plan which 
     includes--
       ``(A) a description of how the local educational agency 
     plans to use the financial assistance received under section 
     2205(b)(2) to improve the use of technology in instruction, 
     professional development and administration;
       ``(B) a description of how funds under section 2205(b)(2) 
     will be coordinated with other State, local and Federal 
     resources;
       ``(C) a description of how the school programs will use 
     other resources of the community and involve public agencies, 
     private industry, institutions of higher education, public 
     and private nonprofit organizations, and other appropriate 
     institutions;
       ``(D) assurances that the programs will be evaluated and 
     outcomes reported in terms of the level of implementation of 
     the technology-based resources funded by this title, the 
     impact on teaching and learning, the changes in the school 
     program, and the extent to which the school will sustain the 
     project after funding is terminated;
       ``(E) a description of how the plan will support State and 
     local content and performance standards;
       ``(F) provisions to support, as needed, individual teachers 
     to develop and implement technology-based intervention 
     projects, including those which respond to the needs of 
     students with disabilities;
       ``(G) a description of how the financial assistance will be 
     used as appropriate for the expansion and improvement of 
     professional development of teachers and other appropriate 
     personnel regarding the use of technology, including the 
     educational use of computers, videos, and telecommunications 
     to enhance learning such training and instruction may be 
     carried out through agreements with public agencies, private 
     industry, institutions of higher education, regional 
     educational laboratories and national research centers, 
     nonprofit organizations, (including museums) libraries, 
     educational television stations;
       ``(H) a description of a strategy for the enhanced 
     involvement of parents through the use of technology; and
       ``(I) a description of how the plan will address the needs 
     of students with disabilities.
       ``(3) A local educational agency for any fiscal year may 
     apply for financial assistance as part of a consortium with 
     other local educational agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, intermediate educational units, libraries, or 
     other appropriate educational entities to provide local 
     programs. The State educational agency may assist in the 
     formation of consortia between local educational agencies, 
     providers of educational services for adults and families, 
     institutions of higher education, intermediate educational 
     units, libraries, or other appropriate educational entities 
     to provide services for the teachers and students in a local 
     educational agency at the request of such local educational 
     agency.

     ``SEC. 2207. HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The amount apportioned under section 
     2205(c) from each State's allotment shall be used by the 
     State for education programs in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(b) Grants to Institutions of Higher Education.--(1) The 
     State agency for higher education, in accordance with the 
     State educational technology plan filed under section 2209, 
     shall make grants available on a competitive basis to 
     institutions of higher education in the State which form 
     partnerships with one or more local educational agencies.
       ``(2) The amount available under section 2205(c)(2) shall 
     be used for--
       ``(A) professional development for new teachers in the use 
     of technology as an educational tool;
       ``(B) professional development for elementary, secondary, 
     adult and family, and vocational school teachers and training 
     for other appropriate school personnel to improve their 
     ability to use educational technology in their teaching; and
       ``(C) programs to improve student performance in academic 
     and work skill areas through the use of technology.
       ``(3) No institution of higher education may receive 
     assistance under paragraph (2)(A), (B), and (C) unless the 
     institution enters into an agreement with a local educational 
     agency, or consortium of such agencies, to provide 
     professional development for the elementary and secondary 
     school teachers in the public and private schools of the 
     school district of each agency.
       ``(c) Cooperative Program.--The State higher education 
     agency may use funds described in section 2205(c)(2) to 
     achieve the objectives of section 2207 by establishing 
     cooperative programs among institutions of higher education, 
     private industry, and non-profit organizations, that include 
     one or more local education agencies, for the development and 
     dissemination of projects to improve student performance in 
     academic or work skill areas.
       ``(d) Reporting.--In accordance with section 2205(c), 5 
     percent of the funding available for higher education 
     partnerships may be used by the agency for higher education 
     for evaluating the programs funded under this section. 
     Reports on the progress of programs shall be provided to the 
     State educational agency annually.

     ``SEC. 2208. LIBRARY AND LITERACY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amount apportioned under section 2205(d) from each State's 
     allotment under this section shall be used by the State to 
     assist literacy and education programs in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(b) Grants to Local Public Libraries.--(1) In accordance 
     with the State education technology plan filed under section 
     2209, the State library administrative agency shall make 
     grants available on a competitive basis to local public 
     libraries in the State which demonstrate involvement of one 
     or more local educational agencies and literacy programs or 
     organizations in their activities.
       ``(2) The amount available under section 2205(d)(2) shall 
     be used for--
       ``(A) developing programs that help libraries, local 
     educational agencies, and literacy programs use technology to 
     share services and resources and develop collaborative 
     activities that improve their performance and that of the 
     students in academic and work skill areas; and
       ``(B) professional development for library, literacy, and 
     other appropriate personnel to improve their skills in the 
     use of educational technology and telecommunications.
       ``(c) Cooperative Program.--The State library 
     administration agency may use funds described in section 
     2205(d)(2) to achieve the objectives of section 2208 by 
     establishing cooperative programs among public libraries, 
     literacy organizations, private industries, and nonprofit 
     education organizations, if such programs include one or more 
     local educational agencies.
       ``(d) Reporting.--In accordance with section 2205(d), 
     funding available for library and literacy programs may be 
     used by the library administrative agency for reporting and 
     evaluating the programs funded under this section. Reports on 
     the progress of programs shall be provided to the State 
     educational agency annually.

     ``SEC. 2209. STATE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN.

       ``(a) Application.--(1) Each State educational agency which 
     desires to receive a grant under this title shall, in 
     consultation with the State agency for higher education and 
     the State library administrative agency, file a single 
     educational technology plan with the Secretary of Education 
     which covers a period of 5 fiscal years. The State 
     educational agency shall be responsible for funding, 
     supervising, and coordinating programs described under this 
     title and shall file the educational technology plan at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such 
     financial, educational and technological information as this 
     section requires or as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(2) Such plan shall be--
       ``(A) integrated with the State's plan either approved or 
     being developed under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 
     and shall satisfy the requirements of this section that are 
     not already addressed by that State plan; or
       ``(B) if the State does not have an approved plan under the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act and is not developing such a 
     plan, integrated with other State plans under this Act and 
     satisfy the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Contents of the Plan.--Each such plan shall--
       ``(1) designate the State agency or agencies responsible 
     for administering the elementary and secondary adult and 
     family programs under section 2206, and the higher education 
     programs under section 2207 and designate the State library 
     administrative agency to administer the library and literacy 
     programs under section 2208 in support of improved student 
     learning;
       ``(2) describe a financial plan developed by the State 
     educational agency, which shall describe--
       ``(A) financial assistance mechanisms to best fit the 
     technology needs of the State. Such mechanisms, which must be 
     included in the plan, may include, but not be limited to--
       ``(i) grants;
       ``(ii) matching grants;
       ``(iii) loans;
       ``(iv) loan guarantees; and
       ``(v) other credit enhancements.
       ``(B) describe criteria and approving procedures for 
     submitting applications for programs described in sections 
     2206, 2207, and 2208 for funding assistance under section 
     2205 within the State;
       ``(C) delineate processes for auditing and monitoring the 
     use of funds by recipients;
       ``(D) describe priorities for awarding funds under various 
     funding mechanisms; and
       ``(E) construe nothing in subsection (b)(2) to implicitly 
     or explicitly imply that the funds made available under this 
     subsection, through whatever mechanism is chosen by the State 
     agency, and recommended for approval to the Secretary are 
     backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal 
     Government;
       ``(3) designate the State education agency or another 
     single agency to carry out the financial plan developed by 
     the State education agency and to allocate funds received 
     under sections 2205 and 2212(a)(2). Such designated agency 
     shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) maintaining appropriate records of allocation of 
     funds, and, in the case of loans, adequate collection 
     procedures and records;
       ``(B) reporting annually to the Secretary on the use of 
     funds received under section 2212(a)(2);
       ``(4) describe an implementation strategy to coordinate the 
     expenditure of financial assistance paid under sections 2205 
     and 2212(a)(2) with other State and local funds, other 
     Federal funds and resources;
       ``(5) provide assurances that financial assistance provided 
     under section 2205 shall supplement, not supplant, State and 
     local funds;
       ``(6) describe how business, industry, and other public and 
     private agencies, including libraries, literacy programs, and 
     institutions of higher education, can participate in the 
     implementation, ongoing planning, and support of the plan;
       ``(7) delineate educational problems and needs in the 
     State, describe all learning environments supported by the 
     State plan, and specify how the application of technology 
     will address those and other needs including but not limited 
     to the special needs of--
       ``(A) urban and rural schools;
       ``(B) students with disabilities; and
       ``(C) disadvantaged students;
       ``(8) provide assurances that--
       ``(A) during the 5-year period of the plan, the State shall 
     evaluate its standards for teacher preparation in the use of 
     technology; and
       ``(B) programs conducted with State funds available under 
     this title shall be evaluated and an evaluation report shall 
     be submitted to the Secretary at the close of the third year 
     of funding;
       ``(9) describe how the State educational agency will 
     promote the purchase of equipment by local school districts 
     and schools that, when placed in operation, will provide the 
     greatest accessibility and equity for students and meet the 
     highest level of interoperability and open system design 
     within the emerging broad-based electronic information 
     highway that includes schools within the State;
       ``(10) describe the State's strategy for ensuring that 
     teachers, administrators and other education personnel have 
     access to the necessary staff development and technical 
     assistance to improve teaching and learning, school 
     administration, and the electronic transfer of, and access 
     to, information;
       ``(11) establish a method for continuously gathering and 
     disseminating current and emerging information on all aspects 
     of educational technology to all educators within the State;
       ``(12) describe how the State's planned use of technology 
     is supportive of the national education goals;
       ``(13) provide performance indicators and an evaluation 
     method for the State plan; and
       ``(14) create a planning process through which such plan is 
     reviewed and updated periodically.
       ``(c) Approval of Plans.--(1) The State educational agency 
     shall submit a plan for approval to the Secretary who shall 
     expeditiously review such State plan.
       ``(2) Any State that submits a plan that is not approved 
     shall receive assistance from the Secretary to improve its 
     plan.

     ``SEC. 2210. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PLAN.

       ``(a) Application.--A local educational agency that desires 
     to receive financial assistance under section 2205, shall 
     submit to the State educational agency (singly or in 
     conjunction with other local educational agencies, 
     institutions of higher education, or an intermediate 
     educational unit) a plan which covers a 3-year period.
       ``(b) Contents of the Plan.--A local educational agency 
     plan shall--
       ``(1) assure that the programs will be evaluated, and 
     outcomes reported in terms of --
       ``(A) the level of implementation of the technology-based 
     resources funded by this title;
       ``(B) the impact on teaching and learning; and
       ``(C) the extent to which the school or other appropriate 
     learning environments will sustain the project after funding 
     is terminated;
       ``(2) be consistent with district level planning for 
     educational technology, and shall support the local and 
     State's curriculum frameworks;
       ``(3) make provision for technical support and professional 
     development as needed for individual teachers to develop and 
     implement technology-assisted instruction; and
       ``(4) provide a strategy for the enhanced involvement of 
     parents through the use of technology.

     ``SEC. 2211. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Evaluation Procedures.--The Secretary shall, with 
     State and local representatives, develop procedures for State 
     and local evaluations of the programs under this title.
       ``(b) Evaluation Summary.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     the Congress 4 years after the enactment of this bill a 
     summary of the State evaluations of programs under this 
     subpart.

     ``SEC. 2212. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) From the amount appropriated under 
     section 2213 for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve--
       ``(A) not more than one half of one percent for allocation 
     among Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands according to their respective needs for assistance 
     under this subpart; and
       ``(B) one half of 1 percent for programs for Indian 
     students served by schools funded by the Secretary of the 
     Interior consistent with the purposes of this subpart;
       ``(2) The remainder of the amount so appropriated after 
     meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) shall be allocated 
     among the States (for purposes of this section, the District 
     of Columbia and Puerto Rico shall be considered as States) 
     with approved State plans under section 2209 as follows--
       ``(A) \1/2\ of such remainder shall be allocated among the 
     States by allocating to each State an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to such \1/2\ of such remainder as the number of 
     children aged 5 to 17, inclusive, in the State bears to the 
     number of such children in all States;
       ``(B) \1/2\ of such remainder shall be allocated among the 
     States according to each State's share of allocations under 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965, except that no State shall receive less than \1/
     2\ of 1 percent of the amount available under this subsection 
     in any fiscal year or less than the amount allotted to such 
     State for fiscal year 1988 under title II of the Education 
     for Economic Security Act;
       ``(C) for the purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``State'' does not include Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin 
     Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands; and
       ``(D) the number of children aged 5 to 17, inclusive, in 
     the State and in all States shall be determined by the 
     Secretary on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data 
     available to the Secretary.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall make payments under paragraphs 
     (1)(A) and (1)(B) on whatever terms the Secretary determines 
     will best carry out the purposes of title I of this Act.
       ``(b) Reallotment of Unused Funds.--(1) The amount of any 
     State's allotment under subsection (a) for any fiscal year 
     which the Secretary determines will not be required for such 
     fiscal year to carry out part B of title II shall be 
     available for reallotment from time to time, on such dates 
     during such year as the Secretary may determine, to other 
     States in proportion to the original allotments to such 
     States under subsection (a) for such year, but with such 
     proportionate amount for any of such other States being 
     reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Secretary 
     estimates such State needs and will be able to use for such 
     year.
       ``(2) The total of reductions under paragraph (1) shall be 
     similarly reallotted among the States whose proportionate 
     amounts were not so reduced. Any amounts reallotted to a 
     State under this subsection during a year shall be deemed a 
     subpart of its allotment under subsection (a) for such year.

     ``SEC. 2213. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $300,000,000 for 
     this subpart for 1995 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the fiscal years 1996 through 1999.

 ``Subpart 2--Research, Development, and Demonstration of Educational 
                               Technology

     ``SEC. 2214. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) technology has the potential to assist and support 
     the improvement of teaching and learning in schools and other 
     settings;
       ``(2) technology can provide students, parents, teachers, 
     and other education professionals with increased access to 
     information, instruction, and educational services in schools 
     and other settings, including homes, libraries, preschool and 
     child-care facilities, and postsecondary institutions;
       ``(3) technology can produce far greater opportunities for 
     all students to learn to high standards and to promote 
     efficiency and effectiveness in education; and
       ``(4) the rapidly changing nature of technology requires 
     coordination and flexibility in Federal leadership.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subpart are to 
     promote achievement of the National Education Goals and to 
     increase the opportunity for all students to achieve to 
     challenging State standards by--
       ``(1) promoting awareness of the potential of technology 
     for improving teaching and learning;
       ``(2) supporting State and local efforts to increase the 
     effective use of technology for education;
       ``(3) demonstrating ways in which technology can be used to 
     improve teaching and learning, and to help ensure that all 
     students have an equal opportunity to meet challenging State 
     education standards;
       ``(4) ensuring the availability of knowledge drawn from 
     research and experience that can form the basis for sound 
     State and local decisions about investment in, and effective 
     uses of, educational technology;
       ``(5) promoting high-quality professional development 
     opportunities for teachers and administrators on the 
     integration of technology into instruction and 
     administration;
       ``(6) ensuring that Federal technology-related policies and 
     programs facilitate the use of technology in education; and
       ``(7) ensuring that, as technological advances are made, 
     the educational uses of these advances are considered and 
     their applications are developed.

     ``SEC. 2215. OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY.

       ``There is established in the Department an Office of 
     Educational Technology, which shall be administered by a 
     Director of Educational Technology appointed by the 
     Secretary. The Office of Educational Technology, in 
     consultation with other appropriate agencies, shall provide 
     leadership to the Nation in the use of technology to promote 
     achievement of the National Education Goals and to increase 
     opportunities for all students to achieve to challenging 
     State standards, and shall perform such additional functions 
     as the Secretary may require.

     ``SEC. 2216. NATIONAL LONG-RANGE PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary shall develop and 
     publish by September 30, 1995, and update when appropriate, a 
     national long-range plan to carry out the purposes of this 
     subpart.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) develop the plan in consultation with other Federal 
     agencies, State and local education practitioners and policy-
     makers, experts in technology and the educational 
     applications of technology, and providers of technology 
     services and products;
       ``(B) transmit the plan to the President and to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress; and
       ``(C) publish the plan in a form that is readily accessible 
     to the public.
       ``(b) Contents of the Plan.--The national long-range plan 
     shall describe the Secretary's activities to promote the 
     purposes of this subpart, including--
       ``(1) how the Secretary will encourage the effective use of 
     technology to provide all students the opportunity to achieve 
     to challenging State standards, especially through programs 
     administered by the Department;
       ``(2) joint activities with other Federal agencies, such as 
     the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National 
     Endowment for the Arts, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the 
     Departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, 
     and Labor, to promote the use of technology in education, and 
     training and lifelong learning, including plans for the 
     educational uses of a national information infrastructure, 
     and to ensure that the policies and programs of such agencies 
     facilitate the use of technology for educational purposes to 
     the extent feasible;
       ``(3) how the Secretary will work with educators, State and 
     local educational agencies, and appropriate representatives 
     of the private sector to facilitate the effective use of 
     technology in education;
       ``(4) how the Secretary will promote--
       ``(A) increased access to the benefits of technology for 
     teaching and learning for schools with high concentrations of 
     children from low-income families;
       ``(B) the use of technology to assist in the implementation 
     of State systemic reform strategies;
       ``(C) the application of technological advances to use in 
     education; and
       ``(D) increased opportunities for the professional 
     development of teachers in the use of new technologies;
       ``(5) how the Secretary will determine, in consultation 
     with appropriate individuals, organizations, and agencies, 
     the feasibility and desirability of establishing guidelines 
     and protocols to facilitate effective use of technology in 
     education; and
       ``(6) the Secretary's long-range measurable goals and 
     objectives relating to the purposes of this subpart.

     ``SEC. 2217. FEDERAL LEADERSHIP.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--(1) In order to provide Federal 
     leadership in promoting the use of technology in education, 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the National Science 
     Foundation, the Department of Commerce, and other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, may carry out activities designed to 
     achieve the purposes of this subpart directly or by awarding 
     grants (pursuant to a peer review process) to, or entering 
     into contracts with, State educational agencies, local 
     educational agencies, institutions of higher education, or 
     other public and private nonprofit or for-profit agencies and 
     organizations.
       ``(2) For the purpose of carrying out coordinated or joint 
     activities consistent with the purposes of this subpart, the 
     Secretary may accept funds from, and transfer funds to, other 
     Federal agencies.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--The Secretary may use funds 
     appropriated under this subpart for activities designed to 
     carry out the purpose of this subpart, and to meet the goals 
     and objectives of the national long-range plan under section 
     2216, including--
       ``(1) planning grants to States and local education 
     agencies, to enable such entities to examine and develop 
     strategies for the effective use of technology to help 
     achieve the objectives of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act 
     and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993;
       ``(2) development grants to technical assistance providers, 
     to enable them to improve substantially the services they 
     offer to educators on the educational uses of technology, 
     including professional development;
       ``(3) consulting with representatives of industry, 
     elementary and secondary education, higher education, and 
     appropriate experts in technology and its educational 
     applications in carrying out activities under this subpart;
       ``(4) research on, and the development of, guidelines and 
     protocols to facilitate efficient and effective use of 
     technology in education;
       ``(5) research on, and the development of, educational 
     applications of the most advanced and newly emerging 
     technologies;
       ``(6) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of 
     applications of existing technology in preschool education, 
     elementary and secondary education, training and lifelong 
     learning, and professional development of educational 
     personnel;
       ``(7) the development and evaluation of software and other 
     products, including television programming, that incorporate 
     advances in technology and help achieve the National 
     Education Goals and challenging State standards;
       ``(8) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of 
     model strategies for preparing teachers and other personnel 
     to use technology effectively to improve teaching and 
     learning;
       ``(9) the development of model programs to demonstrate the 
     educational effectiveness of technology in urban and rural 
     areas and economically-distressed communities;
       ``(10) research on, and the evaluation of, the 
     effectiveness and benefits of technology in education;
       ``(11) conferences on, and dissemination of information 
     about, the uses of technology in education;
       ``(12) the development of model strategies to promote 
     gender equity concerning access to, and the use of, 
     technology in the classroom; and
       ``(13) such other activities as the Secretary determines 
     would meet the purposes of this subpart.
       ``(c) Non-Federal Share.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary is authorized to require any recipient of a grant 
     or contract under this subpart to share in the cost of its 
     project, which share shall be announced through a notice in 
     the Federal Register and may be in the form of cash or in-
     kind contributions, fairly valued.
       ``(2) The Secretary may increase the non-Federal share 
     required of such recipient after the first year of the 
     recipient's project, except that such share may not exceed 50 
     percent at any time during the recipient's project.

     ``SEC. 2218. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this subpart, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of the fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

                   ``Subpart 3--Star Schools Program

     ``SEC. 2219. FINDINGS.

       ``Sec. 3121. The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the Star Schools program has helped to encourage the 
     use of distance learning strategies to serve multi-State 
     regions primarily by means of satellite and broadcast 
     television;
       ``(2) in general, distance learning programs have been used 
     effectively to provide students in small, rural, and isolated 
     schools with courses and instruction, such as science and 
     foreign language instruction, that the local educational 
     agency would not otherwise have been able to provide; and
       ``(3) distance learning programs could also be used to--
       ``(A) provide students in all types of schools and local 
     educational agencies with greater access to high-quality 
     instruction in the full range of core academic subjects that 
     would enable them to meet challenging, internationally 
     competitive, educational standards;
       ``(B) expand professional development opportunities for 
     teachers;
       ``(C) contribute to achievement of the National Education 
     Goals; and
       ``(D) expand learning opportunities for everyone.

     ``SEC. 2220. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this subpart is to encourage the expansion 
     and use of distance learning programs and technologies to 
     help--
       ``(1) improve teaching and learning;
       ``(2) achieve the National Education Goals;
       ``(3) all students learn to challenging State content 
     standards; and
       ``(4) increase participation in State and local educational 
     reform.

     ``SEC. 2221. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Star School Awards.--The Secretary is authorized, in 
     accordance with this subpart, to make grants to eligible 
     entities for the Federal share of the cost of providing 
     distance learning programs, including--
       ``(1) developing, constructing, and acquiring 
     telecommunications facilities and equipment;
       ``(2) developing and acquiring instructional programming; 
     and
       ``(3) providing technical assistance regarding the use of 
     such facilities and instructional programming.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subpart, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       ``(c) Limitations.--(1) A grant under this section shall 
     not exceed--
       ``(A) five years in duration; and
       ``(B) $10,000,000 in any one fiscal year.
       ``(2) Not less than 25 percent of the funds available to 
     the Secretary for any fiscal year under this subpart shall be 
     used for the cost of instructional programming.
       ``(3) Not less than 50 percent of the funds available to 
     the Secretary for any fiscal year under this subpart shall be 
     used for the cost of facilities, equipment, teacher training 
     or retraining, technical assistance, or programming, for 
     local educational agencies that are eligible to receive 
     assistance under part A of title I of this Act.
       ``(d) Federal Share.--(1) The Federal share of the cost of 
     projects funded under this section shall not exceed 75 
     percent for the first and second years of the award, 60 
     percent for the third and fourth years, and 50 percent for 
     the fifth year.
       ``(2) The Secretary may reduce or waive the requirement of 
     the non-Federal share under paragraph (1) upon a showing of 
     financial hardship.
       ``(e) Authority To Accept Funds From Other Agencies.--The 
     Secretary is authorized to accept funds from other agencies 
     to carry out the purposes of this section, including funds 
     for the purchase of equipment.

     ``SEC. 2222. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Eligible Entities.--(1) The Secretary may make a 
     grant under section 2221 to any eligible entity, provided 
     that at least one local educational agency is participating 
     in the proposed project.
       ``(2) An eligible entity may include--
       ``(A) a public agency or corporation established for the 
     purpose of developing and operating telecommunications 
     networks to enhance educational opportunities provided by 
     educational institutions, teacher training centers, and other 
     entities, except that any such agency or corporation shall 
     represent the interests of elementary and secondary schools 
     that are eligible to participate in the program under part A 
     of title I of this Act; or
       ``(B) any two or more of the following, which will provide 
     a telecommunications network:
       ``(i) a local educational agency that has a significant 
     number of elementary and secondary schools that are eligible 
     for assistance under part A of title I of this Act, or 
     elementary and secondary schools operated or funded for 
     Indian children by the Department of the Interior eligible 
     under section 1121(b)(1) of this Act;
       ``(ii) a State educational agency;
       ``(iii) an institution of higher education or a State 
     higher education agency;
       ``(iv) a teacher training center or academy that--
       ``(I) provides teacher pre-service and in-service training; 
     and
       ``(II) receives Federal financial assistance or has been 
     approved by a State agency;
       ``(v)(I) a public or private entity with experience and 
     expertise in the planning and operation of a 
     telecommunications network, including entities involved in 
     telecommunications through satellite, cable, telephone, or 
     computer; or
       ``(II) a public broadcasting entity with such experience; 
     or
       ``(vi) a public or private elementary or secondary school.

     ``SEC. 2223. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) General Requirement.--Each eligible entity that 
     desires to receive a grant under this subpart shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary in such form, at such time, and 
     containing such information and assurances as the Secretary 
     may require.
       ``(b) Star School Award Applications.--Each application for 
     a grant authorized under section 2221 shall--
       ``(1) describe--
       ``(A) how the proposed project will assist in achieving the 
     National Education Goals set out in title I of the Goals 
     2000: Educate America Act, how it will assist all students to 
     have an opportunity to learn to challenging State standards, 
     and how it will assist State and local educational reform 
     efforts;
       ``(B) the telecommunications facilities and equipment and 
     technical assistance for which assistance is sought, which 
     may include--
       ``(i) the design, development, construction, and 
     acquisition of district, multidistrict, State, or multistate 
     educational telecommunications networks and technology 
     resource centers;
       ``(ii) microwave, fiber optics, cable, and satellite 
     transmission equipment, or any combination thereof;
       ``(iii) reception facilities, satellite time, production 
     facilities, and other telecommunications equipment capable of 
     serving the intended geographic area;
       ``(iv) the provision of training services to instructors 
     who will be using the facilities and equipment for which 
     assistance is sought in using such facilities and equipment, 
     and in integrating programs into the class curriculum; and
       ``(v) the development of educational and related 
     programming for use on a telecommunications network;
       ``(C) the types of programming that will be developed to 
     enhance instruction and training, including an assurance that 
     such programming will be designed in consultation with 
     professionals who are experts in the applicable subject 
     matter and grade level;
       ``(D) how the eligible entity has engaged in sufficient 
     survey and analysis of the area to be served to ensure that 
     the services offered by the eligible entity will increase the 
     availability of courses of instruction in English, 
     mathematics, science, foreign languages, arts, history, 
     geography, or other disciplines;
       ``(E) the professional development policies for teachers 
     and other school personnel to be implemented to ensure the 
     effective use of the telecommunications facilities and 
     equipment for which assistance is sought;
       ``(F) the manner in which historically underserved students 
     (such as students from low-income families, limited English 
     proficient students, disabled students, or students who have 
     low literacy skills) and their families will participate in 
     the benefits of the telecommunications facilities, equipment, 
     technical assistance, and programming assisted under this 
     subpart;
       ``(G) how existing telecommunications equipment, 
     facilities, and services, where available, will be used;
       ``(H) the activities or services for which assistance is 
     sought, such as--
       ``(i) providing facilities, equipment, training services, 
     and technical assistance;
       ``(ii) making programs accessible to individuals with 
     disabilities through mechanisms such as closed captioning and 
     descriptive video services;
       ``(iii) linking networks around issues of national 
     importance (such as elections) or to provide information 
     about employment opportunities, job training, or student and 
     other social service programs;
       ``(iv) sharing curriculum materials between networks;
       ``(v) providing teacher and student support services;
       ``(vi) incorporating community resources such as libraries 
     and museums into instructional programs;
       ``(vii) providing professional development for teachers, 
     including, as appropriate, training to early childhood 
     development and Head Start teachers and staff and vocational 
     education teachers and staff; and
       ``(viii) providing programs for adults at times other than 
     the regular school day in order to maximize the use of 
     telecommunications facilities and equipment; and
       ``(I) how the proposed project as a whole will be financed 
     and how arrangements for future financing will be developed 
     before the project expires;
       ``(2) provide an assurance that a significant portion of 
     any facilities, equipment, technical assistance, and 
     programming for which assistance is sought for elementary and 
     secondary schools will be made available to schools in local 
     educational agencies that have a high percentage of children 
     counted for the purpose of part A of title I of this Act; and
       ``(3) provide an assurance that the applicant will provide 
     such information and cooperate in any evaluation that the 
     Secretary may conduct under this subpart.
       ``(c) Priorities.--The Secretary shall, in approving 
     applications for grants authorized under section 2221, give 
     priority to applications that--
       ``(1) propose high-quality plans to assist in achieving one 
     or more of the National Education Goals as set out in title I 
     of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, would provide 
     instruction consistent with State content standards, or would 
     otherwise provide significant and specific assistance to 
     States and local educational agencies undertaking systemic 
     education reform under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act; and
       ``(2) would serve schools with significant numbers of 
     children counted for the purposes of part A of title I of 
     this Act.
       ``(d) Geographic Distribution.--In approving applications 
     for grants authorized under section 2221, the Secretary 
     shall, to the extent feasible, ensure an equitable geographic 
     distribution of services.

     ``SEC. 2224. LEADERSHIP AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Set-Aside.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     2221(b), the Secretary may reserve up to 10 percent for 
     national leadership, evaluation, and peer review activities.
       ``(b) Method of Funding.--The Secretary may fund the 
     activities described in subsection (a) directly or through 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.
       ``(c) Uses of Funds.--(1) Funds reserved for leadership 
     activities may be used for--
       ``(A) disseminating information, including lists and 
     descriptions of services available from recipients; and
       ``(B) other activities designed to enhance the quality of 
     distance learning activities nationwide.
       ``(2) Funds reserved for evaluation activities shall be 
     used to conduct independent evaluations of the Star Schools 
     program under this subpart and of distance learning in 
     general, including--
       ``(A) analyses of distance learning efforts, including both 
     Star Schools projects and efforts not funded by the program 
     under this subpart; and
       ``(B) comparisons of the effects, including student 
     outcomes, of different technologies in distance learning 
     efforts.
       ``(3) Funds reserved for peer review activities may be used 
     for peer review of both proposals and funded projects.

     ``SEC. 2225. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For the purpose of this subpart, the following terms have 
     the following meanings:
       ``(1) The term `educational institution' means an 
     institution of higher education, a local educational agency, 
     or a State educational agency.
       ``(2) The term `instructional programming' means courses of 
     instruction and training courses for elementary and secondary 
     students, teachers, and others, and materials for use in such 
     instruction and training that have been prepared in audio and 
     visual form on tape, disc, film, or live, and presented by 
     means of telecommunications devices.
       ``(3) The term `public broadcasting entity' has the same 
     meaning given that term in section 397 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934.

      ``Subpart 4--Development of Educational Technology Products

     ``SEC. 2226. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to 
     support the development of curriculum-based learning 
     resources and systems using state-of-the-art technologies and 
     techniques designed to improve student learning.
       ``(b) Federal Assistance Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide assistance, 
     on a competitive basis, to eligible consortia to enable such 
     entities to develop, produce, and distribute state-of-the-art 
     technology-enhanced instructional resources and programming 
     for use in the classroom or to support professional 
     development for teachers.
       ``(2) Grants and loans authorized.--In carrying out the 
     purposes of this section, the Secretary is authorized to pay 
     the Federal share of the cost of the development, production, 
     and distribution of state-of-the-art technology enhanced 
     instructional resources and programming--
       ``(A) by awarding grants to, or entering into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with eligible consortia; or
       ``(B) by awarding loans to eligible consortia which--
       ``(i) shall be secured in such manner and be repaid within 
     such period, not exceeding 20 years, as may be determined by 
     the Secretary;
       ``(ii) shall bear interest at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary which shall be not more than the total of one-
     quarter of 1 percent per annum added to the rate of interest 
     paid by the Secretary on funds obtained from the Secretary of 
     the Treasury;
       ``(iii) may be forgiven by the Secretary, in an amount not 
     to exceed 25 percent of the total loan, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
       ``(3) Federal share.--The Secretary shall require any 
     recipient of a grant, contract, or loan under this section to 
     share in the cost of the activities supported with such 
     assistance.
       ``(4) Eligible consortium.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term `eligible consortium' means a consortium 
     consisting of--
       ``(A) State or local educational agencies in partnership 
     with business, industry, or telecommunications entity;
       ``(B) a business, industry, or telecommunications entity;
       ``(C) a public or private nonprofit organization; or
       ``(D) an institution of higher education.
       ``(5) Private sector advisory board.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an advisory board which shall provide advice and 
     counsel to the Secretary concerning the most effective means 
     of implementing the provisions of this section. Such board 
     shall--
       ``(A) include educators, school administrators, and 
     policymakers knowledgeable about the technology and 
     curriculum needs of State and local education agencies;
       ``(B) include representatives of private for-profit and 
     nonprofit entities engaged in the production and development 
     of educational software and other technology-based learning 
     resources;
       ``(C) make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the 
     types and terms of Federal financial assistance which promise 
     to be most effective in advancing the purposes of this 
     section;
       ``(D) regularly evaluate the implementation of this 
     section.
       ``(6) Priorities.--In awarding assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give priority to applications 
     describing programs or systems that--
       ``(A) promote the acquisition of higher-order thinking 
     skills and promise to raise the achievement levels of all 
     students, particularly disadvantaged students who are not 
     realizing their potential;
       ``(B) are aligned with challenging content standards and 
     State and local curriculum frameworks;
       ``(C) may be adapted and applied nationally at a reasonable 
     cost;
       ``(D) covert technology resources developed with support 
     from the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies for 
     effective use in the classroom;
       ``(E) promise to reduce the costs of providing high-quality 
     instruction;
       ``(F) promise to expand access to high-quality instruction 
     in content areas which would otherwise not be available to 
     students in rural and urban communities or who attend other 
     educational agencies with limited financial resources.
       ``(7) Requirements for federal assistance.--Each eligible 
     consortium desiring Federal assistance under this section 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and 
     in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Each 
     application shall include--
       ``(A) a description of how the program or system shall 
     improve the achievement levels of students;
       ``(B) a description of how teachers associated with the 
     program will be trained to integrate technology in the 
     classroom;
       ``(C) a description of how the design, development, 
     piloting, field testing, and distribution of the program or 
     system will be carried out;
       ``(D) an assurance that the program or system shall 
     effectively serve a large number or percentage of 
     economically disadvantaged students;
       ``(E) plans for dissemination to a wide audience of 
     learners; and
       ``(F) provisions for closed captioning or descriptive video 
     where appropriate.
       ``(c) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     independent evaluation of programs or systems developed with 
     assistance under this section and shall regularly collect and 
     disseminate to State and local educational agencies and to 
     the public information about the usefulness and effectiveness 
     of such programs or systems.
       ``(d) Royalties.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary is authorized to require that a portion of 
     any royalty paid as a result of assistance provided under 
     this section be deposited in a central fund for the purposes 
     of--
       ``(1) recovering all or part of the Federal share of the 
     costs of developing, producing, and distributing the product 
     for which such royalty is paid; and
       ``(2) carrying out the provisions of this section.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 
     1999.

                    ``PART C--LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 2231. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       ``The Secretary shall award grants from allocations under 
     section 2232 to States for the acquisition of school library 
     media resources for the use of students, library media 
     specialists, and teachers in elementary and secondary 
     schools.

     ``SEC. 2232. ALLOCATION TO STATES.

       ``From the amount appropriated pursuant to section 2205 in 
     each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate to each State 
     having an approved plan under section 2233 as follows:
       ``(1) For appropriations below $50,000,000, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, taking into account such factors 
     as the age and condition of the State's existing library 
     media collections.
       ``(2) For appropriations of $50,000,000 and above to each 
     State an amount which bears the same ratio to such funds as 
     the amount such State received under section 1122 of title I 
     bears to the amount all States received under section 1122 in 
     such year; except that no State shall receive less than one-
     half of one percent of such funds.

     ``SEC. 2233. STATE PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--In order for a State to receive an 
     allocation of funds under section 2232 for any fiscal year, 
     such State shall have in effect for such fiscal year a State 
     plan. Such plan shall--
       ``(1) designate the State educational agency as the State 
     agency responsible for the administration of the program 
     described in this part;
       ``(2) set forth a program under which funds paid to the 
     State from its allocation under section 2202 will be expended 
     solely for--
       ``(A) acquisition of school library media resources, 
     including foreign language resources, for the use of 
     students, school library media specialists, and teachers in 
     elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and
       ``(B) administration of the State plan, including 
     development and revision of standards, relating to school 
     library media resources; except that the amount used for 
     administration of the State plan in any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 5 percent of the amount allocated to such State under 
     section 2232 for such fiscal year; and
       ``(3) set forth the criteria to be used in allotting funds 
     for school library media resources among the local 
     educational agencies of the State, which allotment shall take 
     into consideration the relative need of the students, school 
     media specialists, and teachers to be served.
       ``(b) Plan Submission.--The State plan may be submitted as 
     part of a consolidated application under section 9302.

     ``SEC. 2234. DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       ``From the funds allocated to a State under section 2202 in 
     each fiscal year, such State shall distribute not less than 
     99 percent of such funds in such year to local educational 
     agencies within such State according to the relative 
     enrollment of students in elementary and secondary schools 
     within the school districts of such State, adjusted to 
     provide higher per-pupil allotments to local educational 
     agencies that have the greatest number or percentages of 
     students whose education imposes a higher than average cost 
     per child, such as those students--
       ``(1) living in areas with high concentrations of low-
     income families;
       ``(2) from low-income families; and
       ``(3) living in sparsely populated areas.

     ``SEC. 2235. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 
     and 1999.

           ``PART D--SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE FOR ESEA PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 2341. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) high-quality technical assistance can enhance the 
     improvements in teaching and learning achieved through the 
     implementation of programs under this Act;
       ``(2) comprehensive technical assistance and effective 
     program dissemination are essential ingredients of the 
     overall strategy of the reauthorization of this Act to 
     improve programs and to provide all children opportunities to 
     meet challenging State performance standards;
       ``(3) States, local educational agencies, tribes, and 
     schools serving students with special needs, such as students 
     with limited English proficiency, have great need for 
     comprehensive technical assistance in order to use funds 
     under this Act to provide such students with opportunities to 
     learn to challenging State standards;
       ``(4) current technical assistance and dissemination 
     efforts are fragmented and categorical in nature, and thus 
     fail to address adequately the needs of States and local 
     educational agencies and tribes for help in integrating into 
     a coherent strategy for improving teaching and learning the 
     various programs under this Act with State and local programs 
     and other education reform efforts;
       ``(5) too little creative use is made of technology as a 
     means of providing information and assistance in a cost-
     effective way;
       ``(6) comprehensive technical assistance can help schools 
     and school systems focus on improving opportunities for all 
     children to reach challenging State performance standards, as 
     they implement programs under this Act;
       ``(7) comprehensive technical assistance would provide 
     coordinated assistance to help States, local educational 
     agencies, tribes, participating colleges and universities, 
     and schools integrate Federal, State, and local education 
     programs in ways that contribute to improving schools and 
     entire school systems;
       ``(8) technical assistance in support of programs under 
     this Act should be coordinated with the Department's regional 
     offices, the regional educational laboratories, State 
     Literacy Resource Centers, vocational resource centers, and 
     other technical assistance efforts supported by the 
     Department;
       ``(9) technical assistance providers should prioritize 
     assistance to local educational agencies and schools; and
       ``(10) technical assistance should both encourage the 
     integration of categorical programs and ensure that students 
     with special needs, such as limited English proficiency 
     students, are served fully.

     ``SEC. 2342. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to create a national 
     technical assistance and dissemination system to make 
     available to States, local educational agencies, tribes, 
     schools, and other recipients of funds under this Act 
     technical assistance in--
       ``(1) implementing programs authorized by this Act in a 
     manner that improves teaching and learning for all students;
       ``(2) coordinating those programs with other Federal, 
     State, and local education plans and activities, so that all 
     students are provided opportunities to meet challenging State 
     performance standards, in particular students at risk of 
     educational failure; and
       ``(3) adopting, adapting, and implementing promising and 
     proven practices for improving teaching and learning.

     ``SEC. 2343. PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Comprehensive Assistance Centers.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants or enter into contracts with 
     public or private nonprofit entities or consortia to 
     establish a networked system of 15 centers to provide 
     comprehensive research-based training and technical 
     assistance to States, local educational agencies, schools, 
     tribes, community-based organizations, and other recipients 
     of funds under this Act in their administration and 
     implementation of programs authorized by this Act. In 
     establishing centers and allocating resources among the 
     centers, the Secretary shall consider the geographic 
     distribution of title I students; the geographic and 
     linguistic distribution of students of limited English 
     proficiency; the geographic distribution of Indian students; 
     the special needs of students living in rural areas; and the 
     special needs of States and territories in geographic 
     isolation.
       ``(b) State-Based Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to award grants or enter into contracts with public and 
     private nonprofit entities to establish an assistance agency 
     in each State and territory and in the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs. This program shall be called the National Diffusion 
     Network and will assist States, local educational agencies, 
     and schools in identifying and securing appropriate, high-
     quality technical assistance, provide information on and 
     assistance in adopting effective programs and practices, and 
     work cooperatively with the Comprehensive Assistance Centers 
     to improve teaching and learning and raise standards for all 
     students.
       ``(c) Accountability.--To ensure the quality and 
     effectiveness of the comprehensive assistance centers 
     supported under this part, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide for an external peer review (including 
     representatives of the populations served under this Act) of 
     the centers under this part every 2 years;
       ``(2) develop, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary 
     for Elementary and Secondary Education, the Director of 
     Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, and the 
     Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement, 
     a set of performance indicators, for use during the peer 
     reviews required by paragraph (1), that assesses whether the 
     work of the centers assists in improving teaching and 
     learning under this Act for all children, in particular 
     children at risk of educational failure;
       ``(3) require each center to publish, and disseminate 
     widely throughout its region, an annual report on its 
     services and accomplishments and how those services and 
     accomplishments relate to the performance indicators 
     developed under paragraph (2);
       ``(4) conduct periodic surveys of users of the centers' 
     services to determine if users are satisfied with the access 
     to and quality of such services;
       ``(5) collect, as part of the Department's reviews of 
     programs under this Act, information about the availability 
     and quality of services provided by the centers, and share 
     that information with the centers;
       ``(6) take whatever steps are reasonable and necessary to 
     ensure that each center performs its responsibilities in a 
     satisfactory manner, which may include termination of an 
     award under this part (if the Secretary concludes that 
     performance has been unsatisfactory) and the selection of a 
     new center, as well as whatever interim arrangements the 
     Secretary determines are necessary to ensure the satisfactory 
     delivery of services under this part to the affected region; 
     and
       ``(7) provide for an independent evaluation of the system 
     of technical assistance centers authorized by this part and 
     report the results of that evaluation to Congress prior to 
     the next reauthorization of this Act.
       ``(c) Contract Period.--Grants or contracts awarded under 
     this section shall be awarded for a period of 5 years 
     following the extension of contracts and grants under section 
     2206(c).

     ``SEC. 2344. REQUIREMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE ASSISTANCE 
                   CENTERS.

       ``Each comprehensive assistance center established under 
     section 2343(a)--
       ``(1) shall maintain staff expertise in at least all of the 
     following areas:
       ``(A) Instruction, curriculum improvement, assessment, 
     school reform, and other aspects of title I of this Act.
       ``(B) Meeting the needs of children served under this Act, 
     including children in high-poverty areas, migratory children, 
     immigrant children, children with limited English 
     proficiency, neglected or delinquent children, homeless 
     children and youth, Indian children, and children with 
     disabilities and where applicable, Alaskan Native children 
     and Native Hawaiian children.
       ``(C) Professional development for teachers, other school 
     staff, and administrators to help students meet challenging 
     State performance standards.
       ``(D) Bilingual education, including programs that 
     emphasize English and native language proficiency and promote 
     multicultural understanding.
       ``(E) Safe and drug-free schools.
       ``(F) Educational applications of technology.
       ``(G) Parent involvement and participation.
       ``(H) The reform of schools and school systems.
       ``(I) Program evaluation.
       ``(J) Coordination of services.
       ``(K) School governance and management.
       ``(L) Partnerships between the public and private sector, 
     including the formation of partnerships between schools and 
     businesses.
       ``(2) shall ensure, where appropriate, staff expertise in 
     the special needs of students living in rural areas and in 
     the special needs of local education agencies serving rural 
     areas;
       ``(3) shall ensure that technical assistance staff have 
     sufficient training, knowledge, and expertise in how to 
     integrate and coordinate programs under this Act with each 
     other, as well as with other Federal, State, and local 
     programs and reforms, and reflect the diverse linguistic and 
     cultural expertise appropriate to the region served;
       ``(4) shall provide technical assistance using the highest 
     quality and most cost-effective strategies possible;
       ``(5) shall coordinate services, work cooperatively, and 
     regularly share information with the regional education 
     laboratories, the Eisenhower Regional Math and Science 
     consortia, research and development centers, and other 
     entities engaged in research, development, dissemination, and 
     technical assistance activities which are supported by the 
     Department of Education as part of a Federal technical 
     assistance system, to provide a broad range of support 
     services to schools in the region while minimizing the 
     duplication of such services; and
       ``(6) shall provide services to States, local educational 
     agencies, tribes, and schools through or in coordination with 
     the State Facilitators of the National Diffusion Network as 
     authorized in section 2343(b) in order to better implement 
     the purposes of this section and provide the support and 
     assistance diffusion agents need to carry out their mission 
     effectively.

     ``SEC. 2345. DUTIES OF COMPREHENSIVE ASSISTANCE CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each center established under section 
     2303(a) shall provide comprehensive, integrated technical 
     assistance services focused on improving teaching and 
     learning.
       ``(b) Support and Assistance.--Comprehensive centers shall 
     provide support and assistance to State educational agencies, 
     tribal divisions of education, local educational agencies, 
     schools, and other grant recipients under this Act in--
       ``(1) the development of plans for integrating programs 
     under this Act with other Federal programs and with State, 
     local and tribal reform efforts;
       ``(2) the development, selection, and use of challenging, 
     high-quality curricula aligned with high standards and 
     assessments;
       ``(3) the identification, adaptation, or development of 
     instructional strategies and materials which meet the needs 
     of children receiving assistance under this Act;
       ``(4) the development of valid, reliable, and 
     nondiscriminatory systems of assessment which reflect recent 
     advances in the field of education assessment;
       ``(5) the development, selection, and implementation of 
     effective schoolwide projects;
       ``(6) improving the capacity of educators, school 
     administrators, counselors, and other school personnel to 
     assist students to reach challenging standards, especially 
     those students furthest from such standards, through the 
     expansion and strengthening of professional development 
     activities;
       ``(7) expanding and improving opportunities for parents to 
     participate in the education of their children at home and at 
     school;
       ``(8) creating safe and drug-free environments, especially 
     in areas experiencing high levels of drug use and violence in 
     the community and schools;
       ``(9) the coordination of services and programs to meet the 
     needs of students so that they can fully participate in the 
     educational program of the school;
       ``(10) the evaluation of educational programs;
       ``(11) educational applications of technology, when 
     appropriate, in coordination with the regional mathematics 
     and science education consortia;
       ``(12) reforming the governance and management of schools; 
     and
       ``(13) establishing public/private education partnerships, 
     including school/business partnerships.
       ``(c) Additional Duties.--Additional duties include--
       ``(1) assisting States, local educational agencies, tribal 
     divisions of education, and schools in replicating and 
     adapting exemplary and promising educational programs, 
     policies, and practices through or in coordination with the 
     National Diffusion Network State Facilitator;
       ``(2) assisting State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies to develop school support teams to work 
     with schoolwide programs under title I of this Act; and
       ``(3) assisting State educational agencies, local 
     educational agencies, and the National Diffusion Network 
     State Facilitators to increase their capacity to provide 
     high-quality technical assistance in support of programs 
     under this Act.

     ``SEC. 2346. MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE.

       ``(a) Maintenance of Effort.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the comprehensive assistance centers funded under this 
     part provide technical assistance services that address the 
     needs of bilingual, migrant, immigrant, and Indian students 
     that are at least comparable to the level of such technical 
     assistance services provided under programs administered by 
     the Secretary prior to the date of the enactment of the 
     Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
       ``(b) Minimum Funds.--
       ``(1) Maintenance of effort.--In awarding grants or 
     contracts for comprehensive assistance centers, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the proportion of funds used to provide 
     services that address the needs of limited-English-
     proficient, immigrant, and migrant students shall be no less 
     than the proportion of funds expended under grants or 
     contracts expiring in fiscal year 1995 for categorical 
     technical assistance centers serving limited-English-
     proficient and migrant students.
       ``(2) Indian students.--In awarding grants or contracts for 
     comprehensive assistance centers, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the proportion of funds used to provide services that 
     address the need of Indian students through the comprehensive 
     centers established in section 2343(a) shall be no less than 
     the proportion of funds expended under grants or contracts 
     expiring in fiscal year 1995 for technical assistance centers 
     serving Indian students.
       ``(c) Application.--Applications for funds under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall include how centers will--
       ``(1) provide expertise in the areas listed in section 
     2344(l);
       ``(2) work with the National Diffusion Network authorized 
     in section 2343(b) to conduct outreach to local educational 
     agencies prioritized in section 2348;
       ``(3) demonstrate support from States and local educational 
     agencies and tribes in the area to be served;
       ``(4) ensure a fair distribution of services to urban and 
     rural areas;
       ``(5) utilize technology to provide technical assistance; 
     and
       ``(6) provide other information the Secretary may require.
     In approving applications to comprehensive centers serving 
     Indian students, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     applications from consortia that include Indian educational 
     agencies, organizations, or institutions.
       ``(d) Transition.--The Secretary shall, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, use funds appropriated under section 
     2351 to extend or continue existing contracts and grants for 
     categorical technical assistance centers and for National 
     Diffusion Network State Facilitator and Developer 
     Demonstrators through fiscal year 1995 and take other 
     necessary steps to ensure a smooth transition of this part.

     ``SEC. 2347. STATE-BASED ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The Secretary shall establish a State-
     based outreach, dissemination, training, and consultation 
     component of the National Technical Assistance and 
     Dissemination System through the National Diffusion Network 
     and its State Facilitators.
       ``(b) In General.--The Department of Education, through the 
     Office of Educational Research and Improvement shall award 
     grants or enter into contracts with public or private 
     nonprofit educational organizations or institutions in each 
     State with demonstrated experience, expertise, and commitment 
     in the areas of applied education research and program 
     dissemination to carry out activities described in subsection 
     (c).
       ``(c) National Diffusion Network State Facilitator.--
     National Diffusion Network State Facilitators shall work in 
     coordination with the comprehensive assistance centers to 
     assist State educational agencies, local educational 
     agencies, tribal divisions of education, and schools to--
       ``(1) define their technical assistance needs and align 
     them with school reform, professional development, and 
     technology plans;
       ``(2) secure the technical assistance services that can 
     best fulfill their needs by utilizing Department of Education 
     technical assistance centers, regional education 
     laboratories, Eisenhower Regional consortia, State Literacy 
     Resource Centers, and other technical assistance providers 
     including local providers of professional development 
     services;
       ``(3) identify educational technology needs and secure the 
     necessary technical assistance to address them;
       ``(4) prepare for on-site, intensive technical assistance 
     provided by the comprehensive centers, labs, or other service 
     providers;
       ``(5) utilize technology, including regional and national 
     electronic networks, to increase their access to technical 
     assistance, professional development services, and 
     dissemination of exemplary practices and materials;
       ``(6) deliver high-quality professional development 
     services to their school-based educators; and
       ``(7) provide organizational development services to 
     facilitate school-based change.
       ``(d) Additional Duties.--In addition, National Diffusion 
     Network State Facilitators shall--
       ``(1) disseminate information about school reform and 
     effective and promising practices and help local educational 
     agencies and schools adapt them to their needs;
       ``(2) facilitate communications between educators to assist 
     the sharing of promising practices and to foster school 
     reform and professional development;
       ``(3) coordinate their activities with school support teams 
     and distinguished educators in their State;
       ``(4) coordinate, work cooperatively with, and regularly 
     share information with the comprehensive centers, the 
     Regional Education Laboratories, and other entities engaged 
     in research, development, dissemination, and technical 
     assistance activities which are supported by the Department 
     of Education;
       ``(5) develop and implement an aggressive outreach plan for 
     reaching the local educational agencies and schools 
     identified as priorities in section 2308; and
       ``(6) provide technical, dissemination, and support 
     assistance to States, local educational agencies, and schools 
     using the highest quality and most cost-effective methods 
     available.
       ``(e) National Diffusion Network Effective Practices.--The 
     Secretary shall develop a system of validating effective 
     programs and promising practices for dissemination through 
     the National Diffusion Network. Such programs may include 
     exemplary programs funded through any office of the 
     Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, or 
     other Federal agencies. Such a system should be coordinated, 
     aligned with, and administered by the Office of Educational 
     Research and Improvement Office of Reform Assistance and 
     Dissemination. The Secretary shall give priority to 
     identifying, validating, and disseminating effective 
     schoolwide projects, programs addressing the needs of high 
     poverty schools, and programs with the capacity to offer 
     high-quality, sustained technical assistance. The Office of 
     Educational Research and Improvement Office of Reform 
     Assistance and Dissemination shall also administer a grants 
     program to such validated Effective Practices for the purpose 
     of dissemination and the provision of technical assistance.

     ``SEC. 2348. PROGRAM PRIORITIES.

       ``Both the comprehensive centers and the National Diffusion 
     Network shall give priority service to schoolwide projects, 
     local educational agencies, and Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     schools with the highest percentage or numbers of poor 
     children.

     ``SEC. 2349. TECHNOLOGY-BASED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Secretary is also authorized to provide a technology-
     based technical assistance service that will--
       ``(1) support the administration and implementation of 
     programs authorized by this Act by providing information, 
     including legal and regulatory information, and technical 
     guidance and information about best practices; and
       ``(2) be accessible to all States, local educational 
     agencies, schools, and others who are recipients of funds 
     under this Act.

     ``SEC. 2350. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``The program authorized by this part shall be jointly 
     administered by the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 
     Secondary Education, the Director of Bilingual Education and 
     Minority Languages Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for 
     Educational Research and Improvement.

     ``SEC. 2351. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purposes of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $70,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Of the funds appropriated 
     under this part, not less than $25,000,000 shall be made 
     available to support activities of the National Diffusion 
     Network authorized in section 2343(b).

                 ``PART E--EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES

     ``SEC. 2401. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that chapter 2 of the 
     Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 has been 
     successful in achieving the goals of increasing local 
     flexibility, reducing administrative burden, providing 
     services for private school students, encouraging innovation, 
     and contributing to the improvement of elementary and 
     secondary educational programs.
       ``(b) Statement of Purpose.--It is the purpose of programs 
     under this part:
       ``(1) To support local education reform efforts which are 
     consistent with and support statewide reform efforts under 
     Goals 2000.
       ``(2) To support State and local efforts to accomplish the 
     National Education Goals.
       ``(3) To provide funding to enable State and local 
     educational agencies to implement promising educational 
     reform programs that can be supported by State and local 
     sources of funding after such programs are demonstrated to be 
     effective.
       ``(4) To provide a continuing source of innovation, 
     educational improvement, and support for library services and 
     instructional materials, including media materials and,
       ``(5) To meet the special educational needs of at risk and 
     high cost students.
       ``(c) State and Local Responsibility.--The basic 
     responsibility for the administration of funds made available 
     under this part is within the State educational agencies, but 
     it is the intent of Congress that the responsibility be 
     carried out with a minimum of paperwork and that the 
     responsibility for the design and implementation of programs 
     assisted under this part will be mainly that of local 
     educational agencies, school superintendents and principals, 
     and classroom teachers and supporting personnel, because they 
     have the most direct contact with students and are most 
     likely to be able to design programs to meet the educational 
     needs of students in their own districts.

     ``SEC. 2402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; DURATION OF 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Authorization.--To carry out the purposes of this 
     part, there are authorized to be appropriated $435,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1995 and such sums in each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1999.
       ``(b) Duration of Assistance.--During the period beginning 
     October 1, 1994, and ending September 30, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall, in accordance with the provisions of this part, make 
     payments to State educational agencies for the purpose of 
     this section.

                 ``Subpart 1--State and Local Programs

     ``SEC. 2411. ALLOTMENT TO STATES.

       ``(a) Reservations.--From the sums appropriated to carry 
     out this subpart in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not to exceed 1 percent for payments to Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of 
     the Pacific Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, to be 
     allotted in accordance with their respective needs.
       ``(b) Allotment.--From the remainder of such sums the 
     Secretary shall allot to each State an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to the amount of such remainder as the school-age 
     population of the State bears to the school-age population of 
     all States, except that no State shall receive less than an 
     amount equal to one-half of 1 percent of such remainder.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
       ``(1) The term `school-age population' means the population 
     aged 5 through 17.
       ``(2) The term `States' includes the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

     ``SEC. 2412. ALLOCATION TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       ``(a) Distribution Rule.--From the sums made available each 
     year to carry out this part, the State educational agency 
     shall distribute not less than 85 percent to local 
     educational agencies within such State according to the 
     relative enrollments in public and private, nonprofit schools 
     within the school districts of such agencies, adjusted, in 
     accordance with criteria approved by the Secretary, to 
     provide higher per pupil allocations to local educational 
     agencies which have the greatest numbers or percentages of 
     children whose education imposes a higher than average cost 
     per child, such as--
       ``(1) children living in areas with high concentrations of 
     low-income families,
       ``(2) children from low-income families, and
       ``(3) children living in sparsely populated areas.
       ``(b) Calculation of Enrollments.--(1) The calculation of 
     relative enrollments under subsection (a) shall be on the 
     basis of the total of--
       ``(A) the number of children enrolled in public schools, 
     and
       ``(B) the number of children enrolled in private nonprofit 
     schools that desire that their children participate in 
     programs or projects assisted under this part, for the fiscal 
     year preceding the fiscal year in which the determination is 
     made. Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the 
     responsibility of local educational agencies to contact, on 
     an annual basis, appropriate officials from private nonprofit 
     schools within the areas served by such agencies in order to 
     determine whether such schools desire that their children 
     participate in programs assisted under this part.
       ``(2)(A) Relative enrollments under subsection (a) shall be 
     adjusted, in accordance with criteria approved by the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (B), to provide higher per pupil 
     allocations only to local educational agencies which serve 
     the greatest numbers or percentages of--
       ``(i) children living in areas with high concentrations of 
     low-income families,
       ``(ii) children from low-income families, or
       ``(iii) children living in sparsely populated areas.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall review criteria submitted by a 
     State educational agency for adjusting allocations under 
     paragraph (1) and shall approve such criteria only if the 
     Secretary determines that such criteria are reasonably 
     calculated to produce an adjusted allocation that reflects 
     the relative needs within the State's local educational 
     agencies based on the factors set forth in subparagraph (A).
       ``(c) Payment of Allocations.--
       ``(1) From the funds paid to it pursuant to section 2402 
     for a fiscal year, a State educational agency shall 
     distribute to each eligible local educational agency which 
     has submitted an application as required in section 2423 the 
     amount of its allocation as determined under subsection (a).
       ``(2)(A) Additional funds resulting from higher per pupil 
     allocations provided to a local educational agency on the 
     basis of adjusted enrollments of children described in 
     subsection (a), may, at the discretion of the local 
     educational agency, be allocated for expenditures to provide 
     services for children enrolled in public and private 
     nonprofit schools in direct proportion to the number of 
     children described in subsection (a) and enrolled in such 
     schools within the local educational agency.
       ``(B) In any fiscal year, any local educational agency that 
     elects to allocate such additional funds in the manner 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall allocate all additional 
     funds to schools within the local educational agency in such 
     manner.
       ``(C) The provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) may not 
     be construed to require any school to limit the use of such 
     additional funds to the provision of services to specific 
     students or categories of students.

                      ``Subpart 2--State Programs

     ``SEC. 2421. STATE USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Authorized Activities.--A State educational agency 
     may use funds reserved for State use under this section only 
     for--
       ``(1) State administration of programs under this section 
     including--
       ``(A) supervision of the allocation of funds to local 
     educational agencies;
       ``(B) planning, supervision, and processing of State funds; 
     and
       ``(C) monitoring and evaluation of programs and activities 
     under this part; and
       ``(2) technical assistance and direct grants to local 
     educational agencies and statewide education reform 
     activities which assist local educational agencies to provide 
     targeted assistance.
       ``(b) Limitations and Requirements.--Not more than 25 
     percent of funds available for State programs under this part 
     in any fiscal year may be used for State administration under 
     subsection (a)(1).

     ``SEC. 2423. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Requirements.--Any State which desires to 
     receive a grant under this subpart shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application which--
       ``(1) designates the State educational agency as the State 
     agency responsible for administration and supervision of 
     programs assisted under this part;
       ``(2)(A) provides for an annual submission of data on the 
     use of funds, the types of services furnished, and the 
     students served under this section; and
       ``(B) in fiscal year 1998 provides for an evaluation of the 
     effectiveness of programs assisted under this subpart;
       ``(3) provides that the State educational agency will keep 
     such records and provide such information to the Secretary as 
     may be required for fiscal audit and program evaluation 
     (consistent with the responsibilities of the Secretary under 
     this section);
       ``(4) provides assurance that, apart from technical and 
     advisory assistance and monitoring compliance with this part, 
     the State educational agency has not exercised and will not 
     exercise any influence in the decision making processes of 
     local educational agencies as to the expenditure made 
     pursuant to an application under section 2433; and
       ``(5) contain assurances that there is compliance with the 
     specific requirements of this chapter.
       ``(b) Period of Application.--An application filed by the 
     State under subsection (a) shall be for a period not to 
     exceed 3 years, and may be amended annually as may be 
     necessary to reflect changes without filing a new 
     application.
       ``(c) Audit Rule.--Notwithstanding section 1745 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, local educational 
     agencies receiving less than an average of $5,000 each under 
     this section need not be audited more frequently than once 
     every 5 years.

            ``Subpart 3--Local Targeted Assistance Programs

     ``SEC. 2431. TARGETED USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Funds allocated for use under this 
     subpart shall be used by local educational agencies for 
     targeted assistance described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Targeted Assistance.--The targeted assistance 
     programs referred to in subsection (a) include--
       ``(1) technology related to the implementation of school-
     based reform programs, including professional development to 
     assist teachers and other school officials regarding how to 
     use effectively such equipment and software;
       ``(2) instructional and educational materials, assessments, 
     and library services and materials (including media 
     materials) tied to high academic standards and which are part 
     of an overall education reform program;
       ``(3) promising education reform projects, including 21st 
     Century Learning Center school projects in accordance with 
     subpart 4; and
       ``(4) computer hardware and software purchased under this 
     section should be used only for instructional purposes.

     ``SEC. 2432. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

       ``In order to conduct the activities authorized by this 
     part, each State or local educational agency may use funds 
     reserved for this part to make grants to and to enter into 
     contracts with local educational agencies, institutions of 
     higher education, libraries, museums, and other public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, organizations, and institutions.

     ``SEC. 2433. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Contents of Application.--A local educational agency 
     or consortia of local educational agencies may receive an 
     allocation of funds under this subpart for any year for which 
     an application is submitted to the State educational agency 
     and such application is certified to meet the requirements of 
     this section. The State educational agency shall certify any 
     such application if such application--
       ``(1) sets forth the planned allocation of funds among 
     targeted assistance programs described in section 2431 of 
     this part and describes the programs, projects and activities 
     designed to carry out such targeted assistance which it 
     intends to support, together with the reasons for selection 
     of such programs, projects and activities; and
       ``(2) describes how assistance under this section will 
     contribute to meeting the National Education Goals and 
     improving student achievement or improving the quality of 
     education for students;
       ``(3) agrees to keep such records, and provide such 
     information to the State educational agency as may reasonably 
     be required for fiscal audit and program evaluation, 
     concession with the responsibilities of the State agency 
     under this part; and
       ``(4) provides in the allocation of funds for the 
     assistance authorized by this part, and in the design, 
     planning and implementation of such programs, for systematic 
     consultation with parents of children attending elementary 
     and secondary schools in the area served by the local agency, 
     with teachers and administrative personnel in such schools, 
     and with other groups involved in the implementation of this 
     section (such as librarians, school counselors, and other 
     pupil services personnel) as may be considered appropriate by 
     the local educational agency.
       ``(b) Period of Application.--An application filed by a 
     local educational agency under subsection (a) shall be for a 
     period not to exceed 3 fiscal years, may provide for the 
     allocation of funds to programs for a period of 3 years, and 
     may be amended annually as may be necessary to reflect 
     changes without filing a new application.
       ``(c) Local Educational Agency Discretion.--Subject to the 
     limitations and requirements of this part, a local 
     educational agency shall have complete discretion in 
     determining how funds under this subpart shall be divided 
     among the areas of targeted assistance. In exercising such 
     discretion, a local educational agency shall ensure that 
     expenditures under this subpart carry out the purposes of 
     this subpart and are used to meet the educational needs 
     within the schools of such local educational agency.

          ``Subpart 4--21st Century Community Learning Centers

     ``SEC. 2441. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) there are influences outside of school which affect 
     the ability of a child to achieve academically and schools 
     are in a unique position to identify student and family needs 
     to coordinate programs;
       ``(2) access to health and social service programs can 
     assist children and their families to improve the ability of 
     the family to take an active role in their child's education;
       ``(3) coordination of health and social service programs 
     with education can help the Nation meet the National 
     Education Goals and ensure better outcomes for children;
       ``(4) the high technology, global economy of the 21st 
     century will require lifelong learning to keep America's 
     workforce competitive and successful;
       ``(5) 21st Century Community Learning Centers enable the 
     entire community to develop an education strategy that 
     addresses the educational needs of all members of local 
     communities; and
       ``(6) local public schools should provide centers for 
     lifelong learning and educational opportunities for 
     individuals of all ages.

     ``SEC. 2442. FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Local educational agencies may use funds 
     provided under section 2412 to pay the Federal share of the 
     cost for enabling schools to serve as centers for the 
     delivery of education and human services for members of a 
     community.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Local educational agencies may use 
     funds provided under section 2412 for projects described 
     under this subpart.

     ``SEC. 2443. PROGRAMS.

       ``Local educational agencies that receive funds under this 
     subpart may develop programs that include--
       ``(1) literacy education programs;
       ``(2) senior citizen programs;
       ``(3) children's day care services;
       ``(4) integrated education, health, social service, 
     recreational, or cultural programs;
       ``(5) summer and weekend school programs in conjunction 
     with summer recreation programs;
       ``(6) nutrition programs;
       ``(7) expanded library service hours to serve community 
     needs;
       ``(8) telecommunications and technology education programs 
     for all ages;
       ``(9) parenting skills education programs;
       ``(10) support and training for child day care providers;
       ``(11) employment counseling, training, and placement;
       ``(12) services for students who withdraw from school 
     before graduating high school, regardless of age; and
       ``(13) services for individuals who are either physically 
     or mentally challenged.

     ``SEC. 2444. REQUIREMENTS.

       ``A local educational agency that uses funds to develop 
     programs under this subpart shall, at the end of the first 
     year for which funds are used for this purpose, provide 
     information to the State educational agency which describes 
     the activities and projects established with funds under this 
     subpart and includes--
       ``(1) information on the comprehensive local plan that 
     enables such school to serve as a center for the delivery of 
     education and human services for members of a community; and
       ``(2) information on the initial evaluation of needs, 
     available resources, and goals and objectives for the 
     proposed community education program and how such evaluation 
     was used to determine the program developed to address such 
     needs; including--
       ``(A) the mechanism used to disseminate information in a 
     manner understandable and accessible to the community;
       ``(B) identification of Federal, State, and local programs 
     merged or coordinated so that public resources could be 
     maximized;
       ``(C) a description of the collaborative efforts of 
     community-based organizations, related public agencies, 
     businesses, or other appropriate organizations;
       ``(D) a description of how the school will assist as a 
     delivery center for existing and new services; and
       ``(E) the establishment of the facility utilization policy 
     that specifically states rules and regulations for building 
     and equipment use and supervision guidelines.

     ``SEC. 2445. DEFINITION.

       ``For purposes of this subpart, the term `Community 
     Learning Center' means the provision of educational, 
     recreational, health, and social service programs for 
     residents of all ages of a local community in public school 
     buildings, primarily in rural and inner city areas, operated 
     by the local educational agency in conjunction with local 
     governmental agencies, businesses, vocational education 
     programs, community colleges, universities, cultural, 
     recreational, and other community and human service entities.

  Mr. KILDEE. 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. 
Rangel) having assumed the chair, Mr. Valentine, Chairman pro tempore 
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.

                          ____________________