[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 32 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOODLING TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GENE
GREEN OF TEXAS
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to the amendment offered
by Mr. Gene Green of Texas:
In the amendment made to page 688, line 8, strike
``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$75,000,000''.
Mr. GOODLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment to 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 Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that I am very
thankful that I was the superintendent of Spring Grove Schools and not
the superintendent of Dade County Schools. Every morning he must wonder
how many hundred new students he has and where he is going to get the
funds in order to finance their education. Until we do something out of
the proper committee in relation to immigration, we certainly have a
responsibility to help the local districts with those students who are
coming into their districts from other countries.
Mr. Chairman, what I do not agree with is that we would move
immediately from an authorization level of $40 million to an
authorization level of $100 million. I realize we are up against the
$40 million figure and the ceiling must be raised. My amendment says
that we will move from the $40 million authorization level to an
authorization level of $75 million, rather than $100 million.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to my chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment to the amendment is reasonable.
It moves us along the road, and I would urge its adoption.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, like the chairman of my
committee, I also think this amendment is acceptable and is a good
compromise. We worked this out to provide that funding for the
children.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Miller-
Johnston amendment to increase the fiscal year 1995 authorization level
for the emergency immigrant education program from $40 to $100 million.
The Federal Government implements and enforces immigration policy. It
is our responsibility. Yet State and local governments have shouldered
much of the financial burden of providing services to illegal and legal
immigrants, particularly in the areas of education, health, and
criminal justice. While illegal immigrants do contribute tax dollars,
most of this money goes to the Federal Treasury.
Federal immigration policy is nothing short of an unfunded mandate on
local and State governments. The Federal Government sets the numbers
that are allowed in legally and has basically failed in keeping
individuals from entering illegally. The education, health, and welfare
costs of these individuals--required by Federal law--are left to
cities, counties, and States. This is simply unfair.
This amendment is a first step in coming to terms with the enormous
costs incurred by local and State governments in the area of education.
Quite frankly, it is not enough. There are currently 700,000 students
in the United States that qualify for support under this program. Only
460,000 students can receive support at a funding level of $40 million.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to fully reimburse local
and State governments for all costs associated with immigration.
Many of my colleagues who do not come from immigration-impacted
States may ask, why should the Federal Government pay for these
programs, especially when the Federal Government has an enormous debt?
Immigration is a Federal responsibility and immigration-related costs
should therefore be a Federal fiscal priority. State and local
governments are experiencing dramatic budgetary shortfalls, and are
being forced to cut vital services, even in the face of growing
populations. Crucial State and local responsibilities are being
compromised by Federal immigration policy.
Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that the Federal Government has an
obligation to fully reimburse State and local governments for the costs
of illegal immigration. I also believe that we need to make
corresponding cuts in the budget in order to fully pay for this
reimbursement. It is the right and the fiscally responsible action to
take.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green], as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to title VII?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
The text of title VIII, as modified, is as follows:
``TITLE VIII--IMPACT AID
``SEC. 8001. FINDINGS.
``The Congress finds that--
``(1) certain activities of the Federal Government place a
financial burden on the local educational agencies serving
areas where such activities are carried out; and
``(2) it is the shared responsibility of the Federal
Government, the States, and local educational agencies to
provide for the education of children connected to those
activities.
``SEC. 8002. PURPOSE.
``In order to fulfill the Federal responsibility to assist
with the provision of educational services to federally
connected children, and to help them meet challenging State
standards, it is the purpose of this title to provide
financial assistance to local educational agencies that--
``(1) experience a substantial and continuing financial
burden due to the acquisition of real property by the United
States;
``(2) educate children who reside on Federal property and
whose parents are employed on Federal property;
``(3) educate children of parents who are in the military
services and children who live in low-rent housing;
``(4) experience sudden and substantial increases in
enrollments because of military realignments; or
``(5) need special assistance with capital expenditures for
construction activities because of the enrollments of
substantial numbers of children who reside on Indian lands or
who are defined in sections 2 and 3 of the Act of September
23, 1950 (Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.).
``SEC. 8003. PAYMENTS RELATING TO FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF REAL
PROPERTY.
``(a) In General.--Where the Secretary, after consultation
with any local educational agency and with the appropriate
State educational agency, determines for a fiscal year ending
prior to October 1, 1999--
``(1) that the United States owns Federal property in the
local educational agency, and that such property--
``(A) has been acquired by the United States since 1938;
``(B) was not acquired by exchange for other Federal
property in the local educational agency which the United
States owned before 1939; and
``(C) had an assessed value (determined as of the time or
times when so acquired) aggregating 10 percent or more of the
assessed value of all real property in the local educational
agency (similarly determined as of the time or times when
such Federal property was so acquired);
``(2) that the ownership by the United States of such
Federal property places a substantial and continuing
financial burden on such agency; and
``(3) that such agency is not being substantially
compensated for the loss in revenue resulting from such
ownership by increases in revenue accruing to the agency from
the conduct of Federal activities with respect to such
Federal property,
then such agency shall be entitled to receive for such fiscal
year such amount as, in the judgment of the Secretary, is
equal to the continuing Federal responsibility for the
additional financial burden with respect to current
expenditures placed on such agency by the ownership of such
Federal property.
``(b) Amount.--
``(1) In general.--The amount to which a local educational
agency is entitled to receive under subsection (a) for a
fiscal year--
``(A) shall not exceed--
``(i) the amount which, in the judgment of the Secretary,
such agency would have derived in such year, and would have
had available for current expenditures, from the property
acquired by the United States; and
``(ii) the amount which is equal to the difference of--
``(I) the maximum amount that such agency is eligible to
receive for such fiscal year under section 8004(b)(1)(C); and
``(II) the amount that such agency receives in such fiscal
year under section 8004(b)(2); and
``(B) shall be reduced by the Secretary by an amount equal
to the amount of revenue, if any, that such agency received
from activities conducted on such property during the
previous year.
``(2) Application of current levied real property tax
rate.--In making a determination of the amount that would
have been derived in such year under paragraph (1)(A)(i), the
Secretary shall apply the current levied real property tax
rate for current expenditures levied by fiscally independent
local educational agencies or imputed, for fiscally dependent
local educational agencies, to the current annually
determined aggregate assessed value of such acquired Federal
property.
``(3) Determination of aggregate assessed value.--Such
aggregate assessed value of such acquired Federal property
shall be determined (on the basis of the highest and best use
of property adjacent to such acquired Federal property as of
the time such value is determined), and provided to the
Secretary, by the local official responsible for assessing
the value of real property located in the jurisdiction of
such local educational agency for the purpose of levying a
property tax.
``(c) Applicability to Tennessee Valley Authority Act.--For
the purposes of this section, any real property with respect
to which payments are being made under section 13 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 shall not be regarded
as Federal property.
``(d) Ownership by United States.--The United States shall
be deemed to own Federal property for the purposes of this
Act, where--
``(1) prior to the transfer of Federal property, the United
States owned Federal property meeting the requirements of
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (a)(1); and
``(2) the United States transfers a portion of the property
referred to in paragraph (1) to another nontaxable entity,
and the United States--
``(A) restricts some or any construction on such property;
``(B) requires that the property be used in perpetuity for
the public purposes for which it was conveyed;
``(C) requires the grantee of the property to report to the
Federal government (or its agent) containing information on
the use of the property;
``(D) except with the approval of the Federal government
(or its agent), prohibits the sale, lease, assignment, or
other disposal of the property unless such sale, lease,
assignment, or other disposal is to another eligible
government agency; and
``(E) reserves to the Federal government a right of
reversion at any time the Federal government (or its agent)
deems it necessary for the national defense.
``SEC. 8004. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED
CHILDREN.
``(a) Computation of Payment.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of computing the amount
that a local educational agency is eligible to receive under
subsection (b) or (f) for any fiscal year, the Secretary
shall determine the number of children who were in average
daily attendance in the schools of such agency, and for whom
such agency provided free public education, during the
preceding school year and who, while in attendance at such
schools--
``(A) resided on Federal property and had a parent employed
on Federal property situated in whole or in part within the
boundaries of the school district of such agency;
``(B) resided on Federal property and had a parent on
active duty in the uniformed services (as defined in section
101 of title 37, United States Code);
``(C) resided on Indian lands;
``(D) had a parent on active duty in the uniformed services
(as defined by section 101 of title 37, United States Code)
but did not reside on Federal property; or
``(E) resided in low-rent housing.
``(2) Determination of weighted student units.--For
purposes of computing the basic support payment under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall calculate the total
number of weighted student units for a local educational
agency by adding together the results obtained by the
following computations:
``(A) Multiply the number of children described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) who are not
eligible to receive services under the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) by a
factor of 1.0.
``(B) Multiply the number of children described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) who are eligible
to receive services under such Act by a factor of 1.50.
``(C) Multiply the number of children described in
paragraph (1)(C) who are not eligible to receive services
under such Act by a factor of 1.25.
``(D) Multiply the number of children described in
paragraph (1)(C) who are eligible to receive services under
such Act by a factor of 1.825.
``(E) Multiply the number of children described in
subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (1) who are not
eligible to receive services under such Act by a factor of
.25.
``(F) Multiply the number of children described in
subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (1) who are eligible
to receive services under such Act by a factor of .375.
``(b) Basic Support Payments and Payments With Respect to
Fiscal Years in Which Insufficient Funds Are Appropriated.--
``(1) Basic support payments.--
``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated under
section 8013(b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is
authorized to make basic support payments to eligible local
educational agencies with children described under subsection
(a).
``(B) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be
entitled to receive a basic support payment under
subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year with respect to a number
of children determined under subsection (a) only if the
number of children so determined with respect to such agency
amounts to the lesser of--
``(i) at least 400 such children, or
``(ii) a number of such children which equals at least 3
percent of the total number of children who were in average
daily attendance, during such year, at the schools of such
agency and for whom such agency provided free public
education.
``(C) Maximum amount.--The maximum amount that a local
educational agency is eligible to receive under this
subsection for any fiscal year is the sum of the total
weighted student units, as computed under subsection (a)(2),
multiplied by--
``(i) the greater of--
``(I) one-half of the average per pupil expenditure of the
State in which the local educational agency is located, or
``(II) one-half of the average per pupil expenditures of
all of the States, or
``(ii) the comparable local contribution rate certified by
the State, as determined under regulations prescribed to
carry out the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st
Congress), as in effect on January 1, 1994.
``(2) Payments with respect to fiscal years in which
insufficient funds are appropriated.--
``(A) In general.--For any fiscal year in which the sums
appropriated under section 8013(b) are insufficient to pay to
each local educational agency the full amount computed under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make payments based upon
the provisions of this paragraph.
``(B) Learning opportunity threshold payments.--For fiscal
years described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
compute a learning opportunity threshold payment (hereinafter
`threshold payment') by multiplying the amount obtained under
paragraph (1)(C) by the total percentage obtained by adding--
``(i) the percentage of federally connected children for
each local educational agency determined by calculating the
fraction, the numerator of which is the total number of
children described under subsection (a)(1) and the
denominator of which is the total number of children in
average daily attendance at the schools served by such
agency; and
``(ii) the percentage that funds under this paragraph
represent of the total budget of the local educational
agency, determined by calculating the fraction, the numerator
of which is the total amount of funds calculated for each
educational agency under this paragraph, and the denominator
of which is the total current expenditures for such agency.
``(C) Ratable distribution.--For fiscal years described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make payments as a
ratable distribution based upon the computation made under
subparagraph (B).
``(c) Prior Year Data.--All calculations under this title
shall be based upon data for each local educational agency
from the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the
agency is making application for payment.
``(d) Use of Funds for Children With Disabilities.--The
local educational agency shall use an amount equal to the
amount of funds generated by the factors in subparagraphs
(B), (D), and (F) of subsection (a)(2) which are in excess of
the factor of 1.0 applied to the amount of payments generated
for each fiscal year applicable to the weighted student unit
factor of 1.0 to provide a free appropriate public education
to children described in subsection (a)(2), in accordance
with part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
``(e) Hold-Harmless Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the total amount that the Secretary shall pay
to a local educational agency under subsections (b) and (f)--
``(A) for fiscal year 1995, shall not be less than 80
percent of the payment such agency received for fiscal year
1994 under section 3(a) of the Act of September 30, 1950
(Public Law 81-874, 81st Congress), as in effect for fiscal
year 1994;
``(B) for fiscal year 1996, shall not be less than 60
percent of such payment received for fiscal year 1994; and
``(C) for fiscal year 1997, shall not be less than 40
percent of such payment received for fiscal year 1994.
``(2) Reduction in payments.--In order to make payments to
local educational agencies in accordance with paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall reduce payments to other local
educational agencies determined under subsection (b).
``(f) Supplemental Assistance.--
``(1) Reservation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
from amounts appropriated under section 8013(b) for a fiscal
year, the Secretary shall reserve not less than 6 percent to
provide supplemental assistance to meet special circumstances
relating to the provision of education in local educational
agencies eligible to receive assistance under this section.
``(B) Reservation in fiscal years when amounts from prior
fiscal year reservations available.--With respect to a fiscal
year in which amounts are available from a reservation made
by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) for a prior fiscal
year, the Secretary shall, from amounts appropriated under
section 8013(b) for the current fiscal year, reserve an
amount which, when added to the amount available from such
prior fiscal year reservation, equals not less than 6 percent
of amounts appropriated under such section for such current
fiscal year.
``(C) Availability.--Amounts reserved under subparagraph
(A) are authorized to remain available until expended.
``(2) Eligibility.--
``(A) In general.--A local educational agency shall be
eligible to receive supplemental assistance under this
subsection only if such agency--
``(i)(I) has an enrollment of federally connected children
described in subsection (a)(1) which constitutes at least 40
percent of the total student enrollment of such agency; and
``(II) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at
least 95 percent of the average tax rate for general fund
purposes (before any State mandated tax rate reductions) of
all local educational agencies in the State;
``(ii)(I) has an enrollment of federally connected children
described in subsection (a)(1) which constitutes at least 35
percent of the total student enrollment of such agency; and
``(II) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at
least 125 percent of the average tax rate for general fund
purposes (before any State mandated tax rate reductions) of
all local educational agencies in the State; or
``(iii) is a local education agency whose boundaries are
the same as a Federal military installation or includes
Federal property under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
``(B) Special rule.--If a local educational agency receives
assistance under this subsection for 3 consecutive fiscal
years because such agency satisfied the requirements of
clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), then such agency
shall be deemed to meet such requirements with respect to
assistance under this subsection for each consecutive
succeeding fiscal year in which such agency applies for
assistance under this subsection.
``(C) Exclusion of remaining cash balances.--In determining
eligibility under this paragraph, the Secretary shall exclude
any cash balances of the local educational agency remaining
at the end of the school year as allowed by State law.
``(3) Current year data.--Notwithstanding subsection (c),
the Secretary shall, for purposes of providing assistance
under this subsection (or section 3(d)(2)(B) of the Act of
September 30, 1950 (Public Law 81-874, 81st Congress), as in
effect on October 1, 1993), use--
``(A) data from the fiscal year in which the local
educational agency is applying for assistance under this
subsection; or
``(B) the most recent data available which is adjusted to
such fiscal year.
``(4) Application procedures.--The Secretary shall
prescribe regulations establishing procedures for the
application for assistance by a local educational agency
under this subsection.
``(5) Prohibition on state restrictions with respect to
assistance.--A State shall not restrict the ability of a
local educational agency to use assistance received by such
agency under this subsection.
``(6) Prohibition on consideration of assistance in state
aid calculation.--Notwithstanding section 8009(b), a State
shall not take into consideration any assistance received
under this subsection in determining a State aid calculation
for a local educational agency.
``SEC. 8005. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO CHILDREN
RESIDING ON INDIAN LANDS.
``(a) In General.--A local educational agency that claims
children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of
receiving funds under section 8004 shall establish policies
and procedures to ensure that--
``(1) such children participate in programs and activities
supported by such funds on an equal basis with all other
children;
``(2) parents of such children and Indian tribes are
afforded an opportunity to present their views on such
programs and activities, including an opportunity to make
recommendations on the needs of those children and how they
may help those children realize the benefits of those
programs and activities;
``(3) parents and Indian tribes are consulted and involved
in planning and developing such programs and activities;
``(4) relevant applications, evaluations, and program plans
are disseminated to the parents and Indian tribes; and
``(5) parents and Indian tribes are afforded an opportunity
to present their views on the agency's general educational
program to such agency.
``(b) Records.--A local educational agency that claims
children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of
receiving funds under section 8004 shall maintain records
demonstrating its compliance with requirements contained in
subsection (a).
``(c) Waiver.--A local educational agency that claims
children residing on Indian lands for the purpose of
receiving funds under section 8004 is excused from the
requirements contained in subsections (a) and (b) for any
year with respect to any Indian tribe from which it has
received a written statement that the agency need not comply
with those subsections because the tribe is satisfied with
the provision of educational services by such agency to such
children.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Enforcement.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) provide technical assistance to local educational
agencies, parents, and Indian tribes to enable them to carry
out this section; and
``(2) enforce this section through such actions, which may
include the withholding of funds, as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate, after affording the affected local
educational agency, parents, and Indian tribe an opportunity
to present their views.
``SEC. 8006. APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 8003 AND
8004.
``(a) In General.--A local educational agency desiring to
receive a payment under section 8003 or 8004 shall--
``(1) submit an application for such payment to the
Secretary; and
``(2) provide a copy of such application to the State
educational agency.
``(b) Contents.--Each such application shall be submitted
in such form and manner, and shall contain such information,
as the Secretary may require, including--
``(1) information to determine the eligibility of the local
educational agency for a payment and the amount of such
payment; and
``(2) where applicable, an assurance that such agency is in
compliance with section 8005 (relating to children residing
on Indian lands).
``(c) Deadline for Submission.--The Secretary shall
establish deadlines for the submission of applications under
this section.
``(d) Approval.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve an
application submitted under this section that--
``(A) is filed by the deadline established under subsection
(c); and
``(B) otherwise meets the requirements of this title.
``(2) Reduction in payment.--The Secretary shall approve an
application filed up to 60 days after a deadline established
under subsection (c) that otherwise meets the requirements of
this title, except that, notwithstanding section 8004(e), the
Secretary shall reduce the payment based on such late
application by 10 percent of the amount that would otherwise
be paid.
``(3) Late applications.--The Secretary shall not accept or
approve any application that is filed more than 60 days after
a deadline established under subsection (c).
``SEC. 8007. PAYMENTS FOR SUDDEN AND SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN
ATTENDANCE OF MILITARY DEPENDENTS.
``(a) Eligibility.--A local educational agency is eligible
for a payment under this section if--
``(1) the number of children in average daily attendance
during the current school year is at least ten percent or 100
more than the number of children in average daily attendance
in the preceding school year; and
``(2) the number of children in average daily attendance
with a parent on active duty (as defined in section 101(18)
of title 37, United States Code) in the Armed Forces who are
in attendance at such agency because of the assignment of
their parent to a new duty station between July 1 and
September 30, inclusive, of the current year, as certified by
an appropriate local official of the Department of Defense,
is at least ten percent or 100 more than the number of
children in average daily attendance in the preceding school
year.
``(b) Application.--A local educational agency that wishes
to receive a payment under this section shall file an
application with the Secretary by October 15 of the current
school year, in such manner and containing such information
as the Secretary may prescribe, including information
demonstrating that it is eligible for such a payment.
``(c) Children To Be Counted.--For each eligible local
educational agency that applies for a payment under this
section, the Secretary shall determine the lesser of--
``(1) the increase in the number of children in average
daily attendance from the preceding year; and
``(2) the number of children described in subsection
(a)(2).
``(d) Payments.--From the amount appropriated for a fiscal
year under section 8013(c), the Secretary shall pay each
local educational agency with an approved application an
amount, not to exceed $200 per eligible child, equal to--
``(1) the amount available to carry out this section,
including any funds carried over from prior years, divided by
the number of children determined under subsection (c) for
all such local educational agencies; multiplied by
``(2) the number of such children determined for that local
educational agency.
``(e) Notification Process.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall endeavor to
establish, with the Secretary of Defense, a notification
process relating to the closure of Department of Defense
facilities, or the adjustment of personnel levels assigned to
such facilities, which may substantially affect the student
enrollment levels of local educational agencies which receive
or may receive payments under this title.
``(2) Information.--Such process shall provide timely
information regarding such closures and such adjustments--
``(A) by the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary; and
``(B) by the Secretary to the affected local educational
agencies.
``SEC. 8008. FACILITIES.
``(a) Current Facilities.--From the amount appropriated for
any fiscal year under section 8013(e), the Secretary may
continue to provide assistance for school facilities that
were supported by the Secretary under section 10 of the Act
of September 23, 1950 (Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20
U.S.C. 640) as in effect prior to the date of the enactment
of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
``(b) Transfer of Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, as soon as
practicable, transfer to the appropriate local educational
agency or another appropriate entity all the right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to each facility
provided under section 10 of the Act of September 23, 1950
(Public Law 815, 81st Congress; 20 U.S.C. 640), or under
section 204 or 310 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public
Law 874, 81st Congress), as in effect on January 1, 1958.
``(2) Other requirements.--Any such transfer shall be
without charge to such agency or entity, and prior to such
transfer, the transfer must be consented to by the local
education agency or other appropriate entity, and may be made
on such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.
``SEC. 8009. STATE CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENTS IN PROVIDING
STATE AID.
``(a) General Prohibition.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), a State may not--
``(1) consider payments under this title or under the Act
of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) in
determining for any fiscal year--
``(A) the eligibility of a local educational agency for
State aid for free public education; or
``(B) the amount of such aid; or
``(2) make such aid available to local educational agencies
in a manner that results in less State aid to any local
educational agency that is eligible for such payment than it
would receive if it were not so eligible.
``(b) State Equalization Plans.--
``(1) In general.--A State may reduce State aid to a local
educational agency that receives a payment under section 8004
or under the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st
Congress) as such Act existed prior to the enactment of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (other than a payment
under section 2 or an increase in payments described in
paragraphs (2)(B), (2)(C), (2)(D), or (3)(B)(ii) of section
3(d)) for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines, and
certifies under subsection (c)(3)(A), that such State has in
effect a program of State aid that equalizes expenditures for
free public education among local educational agencies in
such State.
``(2) Computation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a program
of State aid equalizes expenditures among local educational
agencies if, in the second preceding fiscal year, the amount
of per-pupil expenditures made by, or per-pupil revenues
available to, the local educational agency in the State with
the highest such per-pupil expenditures or revenues did not
exceed the amount of such per-pupil expenditures made by, or
per-pupil revenues available to, the local educational agency
in the State with the lowest such expenditures or revenues by
more than 10 percent.
``(B) Other factors.--In making a determination under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(i) disregard local educational agencies with per-pupil
expenditures or revenues above the 95th percentile or below
the 5th percentile of such expenditures or revenues in the
State; and
``(ii) take into account the extent to which a program of
State aid reflects the additional cost of providing free
public education in particular types of local educational
agencies, such as those that are geographically isolated, or
to particular types of students, such as children with
disabilities.
``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if the
Secretary determines that the State has substantially revised
its program of State aid, the Secretary may certify such
program for any fiscal year only if--
``(A) the Secretary determines, on the basis of projected
data, that the State's program will meet the 10 percent
disparity standard described in paragraph (2) in that fiscal
year; and
``(B) the State provides an assurance to the Secretary
that, if final data do not demonstrate that the State's
program met such standard for that year (or that it met such
standard with a greater percentage of disparity than
anticipated), the State will pay to each affected local
educational agency the amount by which it reduced State aid
to the local educational agency on the basis of such
certification, or a proportionate share thereof, as the case
may be.
``(c) Procedures for Review of State Equalization Plans.--
``(1) Written notice.--
``(A) In general.--Any State that wishes to consider
payments described in subsection (b)(1) in providing State
aid to local educational agencies shall submit to the
Secretary, not later than 120 days before the beginning of
the State's fiscal year, a written notice of its intention to
do so.
``(B) Contents.--Such notice shall be in the form and
contain the information the Secretary requires, including
evidence that the State has notified each local educational
agency in the State of its intention to consider such
payments in providing State aid.
``(2) Opportunity to present views.--Before making a
determination under subsection (b), the Secretary shall
afford the State, and local educational agencies in the
State, an opportunity to present their views.
``(3) Qualification procedures.--If the Secretary
determines that a program of State aid qualifies under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
``(A) certify the program and so notify the State; and
``(B) afford an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance
with section 8011(a), to any local educational agency
adversely affected by such certification.
``(4) Non-qualification procedures.--If the Secretary
determines that a program of State aid does not qualify under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
``(A) so notify the State; and
``(B) afford an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance
with section 8011(a), to the State, and to any local
educational agency adversely affected by such determination.
``(d) Reductions of State Aid.--
``(1) In general.--A State whose program of State aid has
been certified by the Secretary under subsection (c)(3) may
reduce the amount of such aid provided to a local educational
agency that receives a payment described in subsection (b)(1)
by any amount up to--
``(A) the amount of such payment; multiplied by
``(B) 100 percent minus the percentage of disparity
determined under subsection (b).
``(2) Prohibition.--A State may not make a reduction
described in paragraph (1) before its program of State aid
has been certified by the Secretary under subsection (c)(3).
``(e) Remedies for State Violations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary or any aggrieved local
educational agency may, without exhausting administrative
remedies, bring an action in a United States district court
against any State that violates subsection (a) or subsection
(d)(2) or fails to carry out an assurance provided under
subsection (b)(3)(B).
``(2) Immunity.--A State shall not be immune under the
eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States
from an action described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Relief.--The court shall grant such relief as it
determines is appropriate, which may include attorney's fees
to a prevailing local educational agency.
``SEC. 8010. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Payments in Whole Dollar Amounts.--The Secretary
shall round any payments under this title to the nearest
whole dollar amount.
``(b) Other Agencies.--Each Federal agency administering
Federal property on which children reside, and each agency
principally responsible for an activity that may occasion
assistance under this title, shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, comply with requests of the Secretary for
information the Secretary may require to carry out this
title.
``SEC. 8011. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
``(a) Administrative Hearings.--A local educational agency
and a State that is adversely affected by any action of the
Secretary under this title shall be entitled to a hearing on
such action in the same manner as if such agency were a
person under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Judicial Review of Secretarial Action.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency or a State
aggrieved by the Secretary's final decision following an
agency proceeding under subsection (a) may, within 60 days
after receiving notice of such decision, file with the United
States court of appeals for the circuit in which such agency
or State is located a petition for review of that action. The
clerk of the court shall promptly transmit a copy of the
petition to the Secretary. The Secretary shall then file in
the court the record of the proceedings on which the
Secretary's action was based, as provided in section 2112 of
title 28, United States Code.
``(2) Findings of fact.--The findings of fact by the
Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive, but the court, for good cause shown, may remand
the case to the Secretary to take further evidence. The
Secretary may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact
and may modify the Secretary's previous action, and shall
file in the court the record of the further proceedings. Such
new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive
if supported by substantial evidence.
``(3) Review.--The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in
whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject
to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of
title 28, United States Code.
``SEC. 8012. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title, the following definitions
apply:
``(1) Armed forces.--The term `Armed Forces' means the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
``(2) Average per-pupil expenditure.--The term `average
per-pupil expenditure' means--
``(A) the aggregate current expenditures of all local
educational agencies in the State; divided by
``(B) the total number of children in average daily
attendance for whom such agencies provided free public
education.
``(3) Construction.--The term `construction' means--
``(A) the preparation of drawings and specifications for
school facilities;
``(B) erecting, building, acquiring, altering, remodeling,
repairing, or extending school facilities;
``(C) inspecting and supervising the construction of school
facilities; and
``(D) debt service for such activities.
``(4) Federal property.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
through (E), the term `Federal property' means real property
that is not subject to taxation by any State or any political
subdivision of a State due to Federal agreement, law, or
policy, and that is--
``(i) owned by the United States or leased by the United
States from another entity;
``(ii)(I) held in trust by the United States for individual
Indians or Indian tribes;
``(II) held by individual Indians or Indian tribes subject
to restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States;
``(III) conveyed at any time under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to
a Native individual, Native group, or Village or Regional
corporation; or
``(IV) public land owned by the United States that is
designated for the sole use and benefit of individual Indians
or Indian tribes; or
``(iii) owned by a foreign government or by an
international organization.
``(B) Schools providing flight training to members of air
force.--The term `Federal property' includes, so long as not
subject to taxation by any State or any political subdivision
of a State, and whether or not that tax exemption is due to
Federal agreement, law, or policy, any school providing
flight training to members of the Air Force under contract
with the Air Force at an airport owned by a State or
political subdivision of a State.
``(C) Non-federal easements, leases, licenses, permits,
improvements, and certain other real property.--The term
`Federal property' includes, whether or not subject to
taxation by a State or a political subdivision of a State--
``(i) any non-Federal easement, lease, license, permit, or
other such interest in Federal property as otherwise
described in this paragraph, but not including any non-
Federal fee-simple interest;
``(ii) any improvement on Federal property as otherwise
described in this paragraph; and
``(iii) real property that, immediately before its sale or
transfer to a non-Federal party, was owned by the United
States and otherwise qualified as Federal property described
in this paragraph, but only for one year beyond the end of
the fiscal year of such sale or transfer.
``(D) Certain postal service property and pipelines and
utility lines.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, the term `Federal property' does not include--
``(i) any real property under the jurisdiction of the
United States Postal Service that is used primarily for the
provision of postal services; or
``(ii) pipelines and utility lines.
``(E) Property with respect to which state or local tax
revenues may not be expended, allocated, or available for
free public education.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this paragraph, `Federal property' does not include any
property on which children reside that is otherwise described
in this paragraph if--
``(i) no tax revenues of the State or of any political
subdivision of the State may be expended for the free public
education of children who reside on that Federal property; or
``(ii) no tax revenues of the State are allocated or
available for the free public education of such children.
``(5) Free public education.--The term `free public
education' means education that is provided--
``(A) at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without tuition charge; and
``(B) as elementary or secondary education, as determined
under State law, except that, notwithstanding State law, such
term--
``(i) includes preschool education; and
``(ii) does not include any education provided beyond grade
12.
``(6) Indian lands.--The term `Indian lands' means any
Federal property described in paragraph (4)(A)(ii).
``(7) Local educational agency.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `local educational agency'--
``(i) means a board of education or other legally
constituted local school authority having administrative
control and direction of free public education in a county,
township, independent school district, or other school
district; and
``(ii) includes any State agency that directly operates and
maintains facilities for providing free public education.
``(B) Exception.--The term `local educational agency' does
not include any agency or school authority that the Secretary
determines on a case-by-case basis--
``(i) was constituted or reconstituted primarily for the
purpose of receiving assistance under this title or the Act
of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) or
increasing the amount of such assistance; or
``(ii) is not constituted or reconstituted for legitimate
educational purposes.
``(8) Low-rent housing.--The term `low-rent housing' means
housing located on property that is--
``(A) used for low-rent housing that is located on land
described in subclause (I), (II), (III), or (IV) of paragraph
4(A)(ii) or on land that met one of the descriptions in any
such subclause immediately before its use for such housing;
``(B) part of a low-rent housing project assisted under the
United States Housing Act of 1937;
``(C) located in the State of Oklahoma that--
``(i) is owned by an Indian housing authority and used for
low-income housing (including housing assisted under the
mutual help homeownership opportunity program under section
202 of the United States Housing Act of 1937), and
``(ii) at any time prior to the date of the enactment of
Public Law 103-102--
``(I) was designated by treaty as tribal land, or
``(II) satisfied the definition of Federal property under
section 403(1)(A) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public
Law 874, 81st Congress); or
``(D) used to provide housing for homeless children at
closed military installations pursuant to section 501 of the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11411).
``(9) School facilities.--The term `school facilities'
includes--
``(A) classrooms and related facilities; and
``(B) equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary or
appropriate for school purposes.
``SEC. 8013. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--
For the purpose of making payments under section 8003, there
are authorized to be appropriated $16,750,000 for fiscal year
1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(b) Basic Payments.--For the purpose of making payments
under section 8004(a), there are authorized to be
appropriated $425,500,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999.
``(c) Payments for Children With Disabilities.--For the
purpose of making payments under section 8004(d), there are
authorized to be appropriated $45,000,000 for fiscal year
1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(d) Payments for Heavily Impacted Local Educational
Agencies.--For the purpose of making payments under section
8004(f), there are authorized to be appropriated $42,000,000
for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be necessary for
each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(e) Payments for Increases in Military Children.--For the
purpose of making payments under section 8007, there are
authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1995
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(f) Facilities Maintenance.--For the purpose of making
payments under section 8008, there are authorized to be
appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to title VIII?
amendment offered by mr. fish
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: On page 694, after line 7,
insert the following:
``(e) Additional Assistance for Heavily Impacted Local
Educational Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section
8013(a)(2) for a fiscal year; the Secretary shall provide
additional assistance under this subsection to local
educational agencies that are heavily impacted because of
Federal acquisition of real property in such local
educational agencies.
``(2) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this subsection only if
Federal property in such agency comprised 25 percent or more
of the total land area within such agency during the
preceding fiscal year.
``(3) Maximum amount.--The amount that a local educational
agency may receive under this subsection for a fiscal year
may not exceed the difference of--
``(A) the amount such agency is entitled to receive under
subsection (b) for such fiscal year; and
``(B) the amount such agency actually receives under such
subsection for such fiscal year.
Page , strike line and all that follows through line
(subsection (a) of section 8013) and insert the following:
``(a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of making payments under
section 8003 (except subsection (e) of such section), there
are authorized to be appropriated $16,750,000 for fiscal year
1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(2) Payments for heavily impacted local educational
agencies.--For the purpose of making payments under section
8003(e), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Mr. FISH (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.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a
point of order on the amendment, and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Fish] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate over H.R. 6 has centered
around the role of the Federal Government in education. I am a firm
believer that the primary responsibility for education lies with the
States. However, when the Federal Government directly affects the
ability of a school district to provide the best education it can for
its students, the Federal Government must be involved--hence Congress
established the Impact Aid Program. It is hypocrisy that as this House
has moved toward a greater involvement in education policy--mandates,
standards, and requirements--it has turned it's back on impact aid.
Where is our responsibility to the children in the school districts in
America which have suffered a loss of tax base either because a sizable
number of students reside on military bases, or Indian land, or because
the Federal Government has literally taken land from the school
district.
My amendment deals specifically with section 2 of the Impact Aid
Program. Section 2 provides funds to school districts where tax roles
have been reduced because of acquisition of property by the Federal
Government after 1938. For several years section 2 has been funded at
55 to 60 percent of authorization levels. The result is impacted school
districts have not been compensated with a payment in lieu of taxes
needed to make up for the diminished tax base resulting from the loss
of this land. This to me is a failure of responsibility by the Federal
Government that caused the problem in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, it happens that many of the school districts that
receive section 2 moneys have been able to maintain strong education
programs in their districts because the payments received make up only
a small portion of their overall budgets, or they are still able to
generate adequate revenue from the remaining taxable lands in their
districts. However, there are section 2 school districts that have lost
over 25 percent of their local taxable lands. With a small tax base and
decreasing impact aid payments, the only options for these schools is
to continue to increase local property taxes, and continue to cutback
educational expenditures. How does one explain that a teacher is being
laid off or a child's school is closing because Congress no longer
feels the responsibility to make payments to school districts on land
that was formerly within its boundaries.
I reluctantly accept that section 2 impact aid may never be fully
funded. What this amendment does, is establish a category for severely
impacted school districts. It acknowledges that there are school
districts which cannot absorb steadily decreasing impact aid payments,
and need additional assistance to provide their students with the
education they deserve. I would make eligibility dependent on a 25
percent or greater land taking and cap funding at the level of full
entitlement for eligible school districts.
My amendment mirrors the creation of a new subcategory of funding
created under section 3 of the Impact Aid Program. The section 3
subcategory acknowledges that there are section 3 schools that are
severely impacted by Federal activities. My amendment merely asks this
House to acknowledge that there are section 2 school districts that are
also severely impacted by Federal activities. It demands our support.
{time} 1730
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Representative Fish's impact
aid amendment to H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
Impact aid is a program which compensates school districts for revenue
lost when Federal ownership or Federal activity adversely interferes
with any or all of the basic revenue sources school districts avail
themselves of: residential taxes, property taxes from business and
industry, sales taxes, income taxes, and local licenses and fees. In
essence, impact aid is simply general operating revenue for the loss of
what would otherwise be an existing tax base. For some school
districts, impact aid is their single largest source of revenue.
Mr. Fish's amendment deals specifically with section 2 of the impact
aid program, which provides funds to school districts where tax roles
have been reduced because of procurement of property by the Federal
Government. One must look at the dollars a school district receives
from impact aid as a payment from the Federal Government to help pick
up the cost of running a school, just as one looks at the dollars paid
to the school district from local property taxpayers. The one thing all
these dollars, Federal and local property taxpayers have in common, is
that they provide the school district with the flexibility needed to
operate a school districtwide program. Take away or reduce any of these
funding sources and the district loses its ability to effectively
operate a districtwide educational reform program. Without the Federal
dollars received from impact aid, a federally impacted school district
will have little success at developing an educational reform effort.
The Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District, the site of the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, is an example of a school district
that has been recognized for its high quality, but whose quality is
threatened by the continued negative economic circumstances that have
forced the district schools to cut staff, services, and programs.
Unless a correcting formula is found to balance the economic
instability, the quality, upon which students and parents have a right
to defend, will be in danger of being lost.
Mr. Chairman, the Fish amendment establishes a category for severely
impacted school districts. It acknowledges that there are school
districts which cannot absorb steadily decreasing impact aid payments,
and need additional assistance to provide their students with quality
education. Additionally, this amendment would make eligibility
dependent on a 25 percent or greater land taking and cap funding at the
level of full entitlement for eligible school districts.
The greatest challenge for the Impact Aid Program is to provide
school districts the resources to create a learning environment
necessary to achieve the national goals established by the President
and the governors. Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District is
meeting these goals. More than 20 million students are affected by the
Impact Aid Program. These students deserve a chance. Accordingly, I
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
point of order
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee] insist on his point of order?
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my good friend,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], proposes to amend the amendment
to H.R. 6 offered by myself on February 24, 1994, and found in the
Congressional Record of February 24, 1994, on pages H850 through H854.
The amendment was previously agreed to. Accordingly, this amendment
is not in order.
I call the Chair's attention to section 27.1 of chapter 27 of
Deschler's Procedure, which provides as follows: ``It is fundamental
that it is not in order to amend an amendment already agreed to.''
Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, No. 1, it was only in the last 2 or 3 minutes
that I learned the point of order would lie against this amendment. I
would hope that we could have some debate as to why it is unseemly to
do what we have done in another section of this bill for section 2
school recipients. I think the burden falls on the leadership of the
committee to tell the House the answer.
Specifically, I would say that the background that brings the
gentleman to make this point of order is quite unusual, and I doubt if
Mr. Deschler had this in mind.
The fact of the matter was, there was an error in the drafting by
legislative counsel that required a change when the bill was brought to
the House floor. It is not a question of an amendment to change
anything that the committee had agreed to. It was the committee's work
product which was not faithfully reported by legislative counsel. If
anything, it was the most technical of amendments to put back in what
they had intended from the beginning. This could be called an
oversight, a printing error, but not a substantive amendment.
I do think that my amendment is within the purview and the context of
an amendment to an amendment under the rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Is there further discussion on
the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepare to rule.
The Chair rules that the Fish amendment would, in fact, insert
language in a portion of the bill which has already been amended; that
is, on page 694.
The Chair further finds that on February 24, an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] and adopted in the committee
rewrote the bill from page 689 to page 729.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
{time} 1740
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do that because I want to emphasize that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] was completely in order. It was the
subcommittee's language that was inadvertently included in the bill
reported by the full committee, which was a mistake. In order to get
the full committee's language into the bill, it had to be offered as
part of an en bloc amendment. So, I am merely rising to say that that
was not my understanding that this was the way this was going to be
handled, and I think it was not handled properly.
Mr. KILDEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I share the same concern that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] shares. I think, however, the outcome
would have been the same. I have great respect for the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Fish] and I have great respect for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], but I am convinced in my own heart that
the outcome would have been the same.
However, I will assure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] that I
will be most happy to have hearings on this issue and see whether we
can come up with some approach to the problems the gentleman seeks to
solve. I am convinced, as I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania is,
that the outcome would have been the same, that the amendment would
have been defeated. I felt reluctantly compelled to raise the point of
order.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would not question the fact that the
outcome would have been the same. I probably would have assisted in
that effort. However, the understanding that we thought we had was that
he would be allowed to offer his amendment because the mistake was made
in drafting the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Are there further amendments
to title VIII?
amendment offered by mr. machtley
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Machtley: Page 695, line 6, insert
``or employed on property under the jurisdiction of the
uniformed services'' after ``United States Code)''.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order on
the amendment, and the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Machtley] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, in view of the last order from the Chair,
my intentions are to speak on this amendment and to offer an
opportunity for other Members to speak on this amendment, and then we
will withdraw this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
(Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the proposition which
the Machtley amendment would have placed before the House. It is
something that needs to be done, ought to be done, and I hope we will
find a vehicle by which it can be done.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, today along with the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott], I am offering an amendment to strengthen the Education
Department's Impact Aid Program.
For many years and with strong support in Congress, impact aid has
helped literally thousands of school districts cope with lost revenue
resulting from Federal activities and employees who did not fully
contribute to the local tax base.
In my home State of Rhode Island impact aid helps many of our school
districts enhance the level of education for our children. In fact,
without impact aid our children would be given an inferior education.
Without this critical support, the adverse impact of our naval base
would be far too much for our local school districts to meet with their
property taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 6 continues the Impact Aid
Program at a reasonable level of support, providing some $775 million
in funding in fiscal year 1995. However, while the bill includes what
are called military `'b''s as eligible for impact aid, it does not
address the impact of what are called civilian ``b''s which have been
covered for many years by our Federal Government.
Those familiar with impact aid know that ``b'' students, and I am not
talking about the grades which they get but the category in which they
fall, are children of parents who work but do not live on the military
base, while ``a'' students' parents both work and live on the military
base. My amendment would deal with the defense aspect of this, only.
Mr. Chairman, last year civilian ``b''s accounted for some $43
million, which was merely 6.4 percent of the entire impact aid. Our
amendment would simply aid the civilian ``b''s, as has been done in the
past, and which all of the communities are now counting on, in
determining which Federal employees' children are to be counted for
impact aid support.
Our reasoning for this amendment is, I think, solid, and has been the
reasoning which has permitted this to be used in the past. Although
local school districts receive property taxes from the Nation's
civilian employees, they are unable to levy taxes on the employees'
place of work. As a result, over 2,100 school districts nationally are
adversely impacted, in that they are unable to raise the revenue were a
private sector entity to be located on the Federal property.
Oftentimes, military facilities are located on very valuable
property, which would generate literally millions of dollars in local
tax revenue. For those who argue, ``But communities across America
fight tooth and nail to keep their military bases,'' I would also
suggest that while those are going to be kept in some districts, that
the school districts within these communities will not share the
sentiment when their impact aid is not equally distributed, both for
civilian as well as military people who live on the base.
We simply ask to address a small inequity in what I consider to be a
generally well-crafted bill. I urge support for this modest amendment.
Mr. ORTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MACHTLEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves his point of order.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Machtley-Orton
amendment to H.R. 6. As the gentleman has indicated, this amendment
would restore a portion of the impact aid funding for students whose
parents are civilian employees of the Defense Department and work but
do not live on Federal installations.
I would just like to note that the funding levels in this bill
originally included the impact aid, so we have funded it at a greater
level than would be necessary if in fact we do not include ``b'' impact
aid. Therefore, by adopting this amendment, and I certainly hope that
we can resolve this issue before final passage of the bill, but by
adopting this amendment it would not take money from any other aid or
for aid to any other schools or students.
Mr. Chairman, just let me indicate that in my district, I know that
2,100 schools around the country are impacted by this aid, in Utah
there are 25 schools districts who receive this aid and would be faced
with reductions of the tax base due to Federal ownership of property
and increased civilian student enrollments attributable to the Federal
activity taking place on that land.
I do believe that these students, although they do have a less
dramatic impact than students of parents residing on Federal lands,
there is still an impact, and civilian type ``b'' aid has been adjusted
to take into consideration that lesser impact with a lesser subsidy.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I
rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves his
point of order.
The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of that time.
I will just say that, in closing, impact aid is the only source of
revenue that the school districts have in order to make up for this
loss, and unless schools have some opportunity to expand their tax
base, we could see over 2,100 schools in this country losing funding,
vital funding necessary to be able to stay open and provide benefits
and education for these students.
Mr. Chairman, I would just urge my colleagues to support this
concept. I understand that we are going to withdraw this particular
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that at some point, however, we
could place back into the bill the civilian type ``b'' impact aid as
the Machtley-Orton amendment would restore.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]
continues to reserve his point of order.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words, even though the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.
I think it is important for us to understand exactly what this is. I
lived impact aid. For example, I registered in the State of Illinois.
When I got orders to California, I still paid Illinois State taxes.
Those taxes were not forward to the State of California, so my children
impacted the State of California's education system.
What I would love to do is to have, when the military shifts around,
that the military would be paying the State taxes, but we cannot affect
State laws, so there is a direct impact on that school district by
military ``a''s and ``b''s that are moving.
On the hand of the civilian side, the civilians who live and reside
in that State are paying State taxes in that State. They are paying
Federal Taxes, like the military does, so that there is not the impact
on those particular school districts for the State taxes. Ninety-five
percent of all the aid that goes to the schools is from the States.
For that, Mr. Chairman, I would go against my friend, the gentleman
from Rhode Island [Mr. Machtley] and his amendment, and ask the Members
not to support it in the future.
{time} 1750
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Machtley-Orton
amendment. Most of my colleagues, have over the years, realized the
impact that Federal installations place on our local school districts
and the students they want to teach. Fortunately, Congress has remedied
that Federal impact by providing funding for districts who must educate
the dependents of our Federal employees. I am pleased to see that this
reauthorization again compensates for these government-caused
shortfalls by providing $533 million in impact aid to mitigate the lost
revenue created by dependents of federally employed personnel.
Unfortunately, a misperception exists and has thus caused us to
overlook an equally important segment of those previously assisted
through impact aid funding. This amendment would restore impact aid for
dependents of civilian employees of the Federal Government whose
parents work, but do not live, on Federal property. These parents of
civilian ``b'' students work for a variety of employers located on
Federal Government property. In a normal community, these local
businesses employ workers and pay property taxes to the local school
district. However, these businesses located on Federal property are
exempt from local property taxes and thus undercut the financial base
of the local school district. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, for
example, located in my district in Bremerton, WA, employs the parents
of over 5,000 civilian ``b'' students, a third of the district's school
students, and would lose just under $1 million in impact aid funds that
have previously helped keep our local school districts operating.
Similar situations exist across the Nation as over 2,100 schools face
reduced tax bases due to Federal ownership of property and increased
civilian student enrollments. Although, civilian ``b'' students account
for only 6.4 percent of the total impact aid payment or $43.2 million,
that loss of funding would be detrimental to many districts unable to
recoup that tax base.
I urge my colleagues acceptance of the Machtley-Orton amendment which
would signal continued support of our Nation's students. We can not
penalize those families who have chosen to serve their country through
Federal employment nor the school districts faced with educating those
federally connected students.
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.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to the
amendment, primarily because I cannot go before the Base Closing
Commission and put forth an argument why they positively cannot take
the New Cumberland Army Depot and Mechanicsburg Navy Depot and Army War
College away from my district because it will devastate the district,
and then come in and say that I also realize that I make out like a
bandit on Civilian B payments under impact aid due to their presence,
and, therefore, we should continue it.
So for that reason, I have to be true to my colors.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to impact aid would expand the eligible
children served under this title to include dependents of nonmilitary
personnel employed on property under the jurisdiction of the uniformed
services. These include children of vital personnel such as machinists,
engineers, medical professionals, and other support staff that help to
keep our military installations and personnel functioning at their peak
capacity. These families are often as closely tied to Federal activity
as military personnel; when bases close or personnel are transferred,
these families are less able to contribute to the tax base of their
communities. While they do contribute tax dollars from home ownership
or other personal property, these revenues represent only part of the
total educational budget of most local educational agencies.
Employers generally contribute a significant share of the cost of
educating their employees' children, in the form of property taxes
assessed by local governments. Where the Federal Government employs
significant numbers of people, both military and civilian, we have an
obligation to help defray the cost of educating their children. Impact
aid funds have been provided to help defray these costs, but local
governments cannot collect taxes from the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, there are over 8,000 civilian category B children living
in my district, and over 500,000 of these children nationwide. We have
restored funding for some category B children in subcommittee with the
inclusion of children living in low-rent housing and military
dependents in the markup. Under the current proposal, however, the
third district of Virginia stands to lose over $1.3 million dollars in
funds for civilian category B children. It is unfair to ask school
districts to carry the weight of this burden. Let us show our support
for our schools and our military by helping to ensure that dependents
of civilian personnel have the same opportunities for a quality
education as the children of our uniformed personnel.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, while I feel I am technically correct, and
the parliamentarian has so upheld my point of order, in the interest of
comity and in the interest of clearing up any misunderstandings that
may have been created in dialog between the two staffs, I will both
withdraw my point of order and ask that the amendment by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Fish] be added to the Machtley amendment, and we
will hopefully have a brief debate on that and then vote on it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The point of order of the
gentleman from Michigan is withdrawn.
Mr. KILDEE. If we could join the two amendments, having the Fish
amendment as an amendment to the Machtley amendment and have a
discussion, then we could vote on that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] of
course would have to offer his amendment as an amendment to the pending
amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Does the gentleman from Michigan submit to the Chair a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Fish] be allowed to offer his amendment as an
amendment to the Machtley amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. MACHTLEY Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, before I
make my unanimous consent I would ask that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] be permitted to strike the requisite number of
words and address my amendment. My intention then is to ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment so that the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Fish] can then proceed.
Mr. KILDEE Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield under his
reservation, at that point if he withdraws his amendment, I want to
make sure that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] has the
opportunity to offer his amendment, and if he cares for a vote on that,
to have a vote on that. I want to do a nunc pro tunc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee] now withdraw his unanimous consent request?
Mr. KILDEE. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his request.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
Mr. Machtley's amendment to add DOD civilian part B students to the
list of those to be counted for impact aid.
One school system in my district is greatly impacted by the
elimination of the civilian part B, Impact Aid Program in H.R. 6.
Sierra Sands Unified School District, which has been negatively
affected by the impact aid formula over the years, would be devastated
by this proposal to eliminate category B funding.
Sierra Sands Unified School District is located in the desert
community of Ridgecrest, CA, and serves the children of military and
civilian personnel at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake [NAWC].
In fact, over 50 percent of the district's students are dependents of
NAWC/China Lake scientists, engineers, and support personnel. However,
since the Navy decided to get out of the housing business in 1968 and
eliminate 1,600 housing units, a majority of base personnel no longer
live on base. This has resulted in the redesignation of students from
category A to category B, and severe funding shortfalls in the
district.
Impact aid funding for Sierra Sands has dropped from approximately 40
percent in 1974, even though a majority of their students were already
category B, to under 3 percent of the district's budget due to cutbacks
in category B funding.
The district's funding problems are exacerbated by the fact that the
Department of Defense is still the primary employer and a significant
land holder in the Ridgecrest area. Only 13 percent of the district's
annual revenue is from local property tax. The district has had to rely
on the State of California for additional funding in the past, but
current State budget problems have forced this funding to also
diminish. All of these factors have caused the district's annual per
pupil funding to fall $674 over the past 2 years to only $3,473.
Because of the testing and evaluation nature of NAWC-China Lake's
mission, the Ridgecrest area has one of the most highly educated
populations in the United States. These scientists and engineers are
particularly concerned about the education of their children. Unless
Sierra Sands Unified School District receives the Federal assistance
they need to offset the effect of Federal presence in the area, per
pupil spending will continue to decline, much-needed physical plant
maintenance will continue to be put off, and the quality of education
could begin to decline. If this should occur, prospective employees
could decline to move to the area and current employees could decide to
move out of the area, endangering the successful completion of NAWC-
China Lake's mission.
I urge the House to adopt the Machtley amendment to restore. For
schools such as Sierra Sands where the only difference between them and
category A districts is where personnel are housed, the elimination of
part B would be greatly unfair to the students--those we wish to help.
{time} 1800
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Rhode Island.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman's
support of this amendment, as I do appreciate very much the support of
other Members.
There are over 150 Members who are going to be adversely impacted
should category B not be included in this impact aid.
School districts for many years have counted on this money, as they
should have, because it was creating a level playing field. We have
determined, in anticipation of a point of order being raised, that we
would not go forward with this amendment today, but it is my hope the
chairman and ranking minority member of this subcommittee would
recognize there is enormous support for inclusion of category B, and
that when they get to conference on this issue that they would
recognize there are many Members in this House who, on a bipartisan
basis, are very much concerned about providing adequate educational
resources for all students.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say only that we have
got to be able to work out some way to continue B. I do not care what
threshold screening is put upon the category B, frankly, my school
district can meet any level of screening necessary, and we ought not
leave these people unsupported.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Machtley
amendment to extend the coverage of the Impact Aid Program to include
category ``B'' students whose parents are military civilians. If we are
truly interested in improving the educational standards of this Nation,
Federal aid to compensate local communities who are financially
burdened by the presence of a military facility is essential.
I do not have to tell the Members of this Chamber how important
impact aid is to federally impacted school systems. As you all know,
this funding is basically a reimbursement for tax revenues these
communities would otherwise receive. Without this assistance, the
addition of military-connected students in the classrooms would
unfairly burden the entire school system. I firmly believe this is a
quality-of-life issue for the children of military families who deserve
to have access to a decent education.
The complete reauthorization of the Impact Aid Program should be a
vital and an integral part of any effort to reform our national
education system. The policy of the United States should continue to
support financial assistance to school districts, either because of a
loss of real property due to Federal acquisition, or because of the
financial burdens placed upon them when they are responsible for
educating the dependents of all people who live and, or work on
military facilities.
Although we have a new administration in the White House, ``B''
category students continue to be ignored as relevant factors to the
impact aid formula. Unfortunately, the legislation before us endorses
the Clinton administration's intention to phase out ``B'' students from
the formula by determining that military civilians are less of an
impact on local communities than active duty military. That premise is
simply unfounded.
Category ``B'' students represent 350,000 military dependents--from
both civilian and active duty personnel. If the reauthorization of
impact aid does not include the coverage of all ``B'' students, these
students will become the full financial burden of local school
districts, and will undoubtedly impair the quality of education offered
by these elementary and secondary schools.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the Second Congressional District of
Alabama which is heavily impacted by two major military installations:
Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, including the Gunter Annex,
and the Army's Aviation Center at Fort Rucker.
Sixteen separate school systems in my district are impacted by these
military bases, with almost 14,000 students who are federally
connected--more than 13,000 are ``B'' category students. In fiscal year
1992, that amounted to a direct payment of almost $1.5 million. That
may not seem like much here in Washington, but to those school systems
in my district, it's a matter of survival. It was made very clear to me
by some of the school superintendents from my district that this
program represents the only Federal dollar to Alabama school systems
that is not specifically earmarked, giving each school system the
flexibility to manage their schools in a way that best suits their
individual needs.
We talk a good deal around here about the need to improve the quality
of education for our children if we want them to be able to function in
this increasingly competitive and technologically demanding society in
which we live. The Impact Aid Program is basic to the need of equitable
funding for all school districts, and I would urge all Members to
support the full reauthorization of this program. Support the Machtley
amendment.
Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Machtley-
Orton-Scott impact aid amendment. While there are a number of wealthy
school districts that will not suffer from the deletion of a
substantial part of their Federal impact aid money, this across the
board cut of allowances for students of nonmilitary parents who work on
Federal installations would deal a devastating blow to the budgets of
financially strapped schools in my district and in others throughout
the Nation.
In my district 16 school districts receive impact aid funds. Three of
these school systems currently receive approximately $630,000 in impact
aid funds for civilian ``B'' students. One system is the 11 largest
system in the State, but the lowest per-student funding in the State.
The loss of these federal funds will work real hardships on education
in these schools. As the result of closures of other military
facilities, the Naval aviation Depot in Cherry Point, in my district is
expected to employ another 1,100 civilian employees within the next
year, causing a severe Federal impact on the local school system in
years to come.
The compensatory funds provided for civilian ``B'' impact aid student
are vital to the curricula of these schools.
Mr. Chairman, if there are wealthy districts that use the civilian
``B'' category funds as gravy, then perhaps it is time to means test
this program. It is unfair to cut funding that is desperately needed
just to maintain the status quo in poorer, severely impacted districts.
If there are justifiable cuts, they should be made on a district-by-
district basis, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The civilian ``B's'' have been targeted year after year, and better
sense has prevailed to restore them. It would be ironic if this
administration--with its ambitious educational goals--should be the one
to succeed in wrecking a program that has been successful and fair in
North Carolina and has never suffered any taint of scandal or misuse.
I ask my colleagues to restore this funding.
Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fish
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 694, after line 7 (at
the end of section 8003), insert the following:
``(e) Additional Assistance for Heavily Impacted Local
Educational Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section
8013(a)(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide
additional assistance under this subsection to local
educational agencies that are heavily impacted because of
Federal acquisition of real property in such local
educational agencies.
``(2) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be
eligible to receive assistance under this subsection only if
Federal property in such agency comprised 25 percent or more
of the total land area within such agency during the
preceding fiscal year.
``(3) Maximum amount.--The amount that a local educational
agency may receive under this subsection for a fiscal year
may not exceed the difference of--
``(A) the amount such agency is entitled to receive under
subsection (b) for such fiscal year; and
``(B) the amount such agency actually receives under such
subsection for such fiscal year.
Page , strike line and all that follows through line
(subsection (a) of section 8013) and insert the following:
``(a) Payments for Federal Acquisition of Real Property.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of making payments under
section 8003 (except subsection (e) of such section), there
are authorized to be appropriated $16,750,000 for fiscal year
1995 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
``(2) Payments for heavily impacted local educational
agencies.--For the purpose of making payments under section
8003(e), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995, 1996,
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Mr. FISH (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.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] that I know there are
several problems throughout the country on impact aid, and I cannot say
100 percent sure we have addressed all of them in this bill.
For that reason, I would be most happy to have a hearing just on
those districts that feel that they have not been treated as fairly as
they could be, and would be most happy to have you be the leadoff
witness on that hearing. Other people have come to me with some
problems.
We have worked very, very hard to try to wrestle with the problems of
impact aid within the Federal budget and the Federal deficit, but I
recognize that nothing is perfect. So I would hope to have hearings
very soon just on that issue and have you certainly lead off as a
witness to bring to the committee the special needs you may have in
your district.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FISH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the Fish amendment, as I
indicated earlier. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee] for permitting this amendment to go forward and withdrawing his
point of order. I am also very much impressed with the gentleman's
willingness to have his committee conduct hearings on the need for
impact aid.
For as long as I have been in Congress, and that has been a number of
years, the impact aid problem has become an annual, a perennial
problem, only because we have never developed a satisfactory formula to
help these impacted school districts. When there is a township, like we
have in our own area, in New York's Hudson Valley, affecting both the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] and my area in the Hudson River
Valley where the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, along with the
Palisades Park Commission, takes up over 9 percent of the taxable
property, leaving less than 10 percent of taxable property burdening
the taxpayers in trying to finance their school district. We have a
serious problem, and that is not just unique to our own area in New
York State. This problem exists in regions throughout our Nation.
Accordingly, I hope your proposed committee hearings will not be
limited to just those few districts that are impacted but will try to
develop an equitable, reasonable formula for helping all those school
districts burdened by nontaxable Federal lands.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I previously spoke on this amendment and the need for
it because of the underfunding of section 2 and the problem we have
created by the Federal Government taking lands from school districts.
I appreciate very much what the chairman has said with respect to
allowing this to go forward and that he promises to have hearings on
this very important issue, because we simply cannot walk away from
this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr. Kildee)
there were--ayes 6, noes 8.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title VIII?
If not, the clerk will designate title IX.
The text of title IX is as follows:
``TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
``PART A--DEFINITIONS
``SEC. 9101. DEFINITIONS.
``Except as otherwise provided, for the purposes of this
Act, the following terms have the following meanings:
``(1)(A) Except as provided otherwise by State law or this
paragraph, the term `average daily attendance' means--
``(i) the aggregate number of days of attendance of all
students during a school year; divided by
``(ii) the number of days school is in session during such
school year.
``(B) The Secretary shall permit the conversion of average
daily membership (or other similar data) to average daily
attendance for local educational agencies in States that
provide State aid to local educational agencies on the basis
of average daily membership or such other data.
``(C) If the local educational agency in which a child
resides makes a tuition or other payment for the free public
education of the child in a school located in another school
district, the Secretary shall, for purposes of this Act--
``(i) consider the child to be in attendance at a school of
the agency making such payment; and
``(ii) not consider the child to be in attendance at a
school of the agency receiving such payment.
``(D) If a local educational agency makes a tuition payment
to a private school or to a public school of another local
educational agency for a child with disabilities, as defined
in section 602(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Secretary shall, for the purposes of this
Act, consider such child to be in attendance at a school of
the agency making such payment.
``(2) The term `average per-pupil expenditure' means, in
the case of a State or of the United States--
``(A) without regard to the source of funds--
``(i) the aggregate current expenditures, during the third
preceding fiscal year (or, if satisfactory data for that year
are not available, during the most recent preceding fiscal
year for which satisfactory data are available) of all local
educational agencies in the State or, in the case of the
United States for all States (which, for the purpose of this
paragraph, means the 50 States and the District of Columbia);
plus
``(ii) any direct current expenditures by the State for
operation of such agencies; divided by
``(B) the aggregate number of children in average daily
attendance to whom such agencies provided free public
education during such preceding year.
``(3) The term `child' means any person within the age
limits for which the applicable State provides free public
education.
``(4) The term `community-based organization' means a
private nonprofit organization that--
``(A) is representative of a community or significant
segments of a community; and
``(B) provides educational or related services to
individuals in the community.
``(5) The term `consolidated State application' means an
application submitted by a State educational agency pursuant
to section 9302 of this Act.
``(6) The term `county' means one of those divisions of a
State used by the Secretary of Commerce in compiling and
reporting data regarding counties.
``(7) The term `covered program' means each of the programs
authorized by--
``(A) part A of title I of this Act;
``(B) part C of title I of this Act;
``(C) part A of title II of this Act; and
``(D) part A of title IV of this Act except section 4104.
``(8) The term `current expenditures' means expenditures
for free public education--
``(A) including expenditures for administration,
instruction, attendance and health services, pupil
transportation services, operation and maintenance of plant,
fixed charges, and net expenditures to cover deficits for
food services and student body activities; but
``(B) not including expenditures for community services,
capital outlay, and debt service, or any expenditures made
from funds received under title I and part A of title II of
this Act.
``(9) The term `Department' means the Department of
Education.
``(10) The term `educational service agency' means regional
public multiservice agencies authorized by State statute to
develop, manage, and provide services and programs to local
educational agencies.
``(11) The term `elementary school' means a nonprofit day
or residential school that provides elementary education, as
determined under State law.
``(12) The term `free public education' means education
that is provided--
``(A) at public expense, under public supervision and
direction, and without tuition charge; and
``(B) as elementary or secondary school education as
determined under applicable State law, except that such term
does not include any education provided beyond grade 12.
``(13) The term `institution of higher education' has the
meaning given that term in section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
``(14)(A) The term `local educational agency' means a
public board of education or other public authority legally
constituted within a State for either administrative control
or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a State,
or for such combination of school districts or counties as
are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its
public elementary or secondary schools.
``(B) The term includes any other public institution or
agency having administrative control and direction of a
public elementary or secondary school.
``(15) The term `mentoring' means a program in which an
adult works with a child or youth on a 1-to-1 basis,
establishing a supportive relationship, providing academic
assistance, and exposing the child or youth to new
experiences that enhance the child or youth's ability to
excel in school and become a responsible citizen.
``(16) The term `other staff' means pupil services
personnel, librarians, career guidance and counseling
personnel, education aides, and other instructional and
administrative personnel.
``(17) The term `outlying area' means the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and Palau (until the effective date of the
Compact of Free Association with the Government of Palau).
``(18) The term `parent' includes a legal guardian or other
person standing in loco parentis.
``(19) The terms `pupil-services personnel' and `pupil
services' mean, respectively--
``(A) school counselors, school social workers, school
psychologists, and other qualified professional personnel
involved in providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling,
educational, therapeutic, and other necessary services as
part of a comprehensive program to meet student needs; and
``(B) the services provided by such individuals.
``(20) The term `secondary school' means a nonprofit day or
residential school that provides secondary education, as
determined under State law, except that it does not include
any education beyond grade 12.
``(21) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of
Education.
``(22) The term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
each of the outlying areas.
``(23) The term `State educational agency' means the agency
primarily responsible for the State supervision of public
elementary and secondary schools.
``SEC. 9102. APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.
``Parts B through F of this title do not apply to title
VIII of this Act.
``SEC. 9103. REFERENCES IN OTHER ACTS.
``References to section 1471 of this Act, as it existed
prior to the enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994, shall be deemed to refer to this section.
``PART B--FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER FUNDS
``SEC. 9201. CONSOLIDATION OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS FOR
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
``(a) Consolidation of Administrative Funds.--(1) A State
educational agency may consolidate the amounts specifically
made available to it for State administration under one or
more of the programs specified under paragraph (2) if such
State educational agency can demonstrate that the majority of
such agency's resources come from non-Federal sources.
``(2) This section applies to title I of this Act and the
covered programs specified in sections 9101(7)(C) and (D).
``(b) Use of Funds.--(1) A State educational agency shall
use the amount available under this section for the
administration of the programs included in the consolidation
under subsection (a).
``(2) A State educational agency may also use funds
available under this section for administrative activities
designed to enhance the effective and coordinated use of
funds under such programs, such as--
``(A) the coordination of programs specified in subsection
(a)(2) with other Federal and non-Federal programs;
``(B) the establishment and operation of peer- review
mechanisms under this Act;
``(C) the administration of this title;
``(D) the dissemination of information regarding model
programs and practices; and
``(E) technical assistance under programs specified in
subsection (a)(2).
``(c) Records.--A State educational agency that
consolidates administrative funds under this section shall
not be required to keep separate records, by individual
program, to account for costs relating to the administration
of programs included in the consolidation under subsection
(a).
``(d) Review.--To determine the effectiveness of State
administration under this section, the Secretary may
periodically review the performance of State educational
agencies in using consolidated administrative funds under
this section and take such steps as the Secretary finds
appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of such
administration.
``(e) Unused Administrative Funds.--If a State educational
agency does not use all of the funds available to it under
this section for administration, it may use such funds during
the applicable period of availability as funds available
under one or more programs included in the consolidation
under subsection (a).
``SEC. 9202. SINGLE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY STATES.
``A State educational agency that also serves as a local
educational agency shall, in its applications or State plans
under this Act, describe how it will eliminate duplication in
the conduct of administrative functions.
``SEC. 9203. CONSOLIDATION OF FUNDS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) General Authority.--In accordance with regulations of
the Secretary, a local educational agency, with the approval
of its State educational agency, may consolidate and use for
the administration of one or more covered programs for any
fiscal year not more than the percentage, established in each
covered program, of the total amount available to that local
educational agency under those covered programs.
``(b) State Procedures.--Within one year from the date of
enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, a
State educational agency shall, in collaboration with local
educational agencies in the State, establish procedures for
responding to requests from local educational agencies to
consolidate administrative funds under subsection (a) and for
establishing limitations on the amount of funds under covered
programs that may be used for administration on a
consolidated basis.
``(c) Conditions.--A local educational agency that
consolidates administrative funds under this section for any
fiscal year shall not use any other funds under the programs
included in the consolidation for administration for that
fiscal year.
``(d) Uses of Administrative Funds.--A local educational
agency that consolidates administrative funds under this
section may use these consolidated funds for the
administration of covered programs and for the purposes
described in section 9201(b)(2).
``(e) Records.--A local educational agency that
consolidates administrative funds under this section shall
not be required to keep separate records, by individual
covered program, to account for costs relating to the
administration of covered programs included in the
consolidation.
``SEC. 9204. ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS STUDY.
``(a) Study.--(1) The Secretary shall conduct a study of
the use of funds under this Act for the administration, by
State and local educational agencies, of covered programs,
including the percentage of grant funds used for such purpose
in covered programs.
``(2) Based on the results of such study, the Secretary
shall develop a definition of what types of activities
constitute the administration of programs under this Act by
State and local educational agencies.
``(3) Based on the results of such study, the Secretary may
publish regulations or guidelines regarding the use of funds
for administration under those programs, including the use of
such funds on a consolidated basis and limitations on the
amount of such funds that may be used for administration
where such limitation is not otherwise specified in law.
``(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President
and the appropriate committees of the Congress a report
regarding the study conducted under this section within 30
days of its completion.
``SEC. 9205. CONSOLIDATED SET-ASIDE FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR FUNDS.
``(a) General Authority.--(1) The Secretary shall transfer
to the Department of the Interior, as a consolidated amount
for covered programs, the Indian education programs under
part A of title VI of this Act, and the education for
homeless children and youth program under subtitle B of title
VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, the
amounts allotted to the Department of the Interior under
those programs.
``(2)(A) The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior
shall enter into an agreement, consistent with the
requirements of the programs specified in paragraph (1), for
the distribution and use of those funds under terms that the
Secretary determines best meet the purposes of those
programs.
``(B) The agreement shall--
``(i) set forth the plans of the Secretary of the Interior
for the use of the amount transferred, the steps to be taken
to achieve the National Education Goals, and performance
measures to assess program effectiveness, including
measurable goals and objectives; and
``(ii) be developed in consultation with Indian tribes.
``(b) Administration.--The Department of the Interior may
use up to 1.5 percent of the funds consolidated under this
section for its costs related to the administration of the
funds transferred under this section.
``SEC. 9206. AVAILABILITY OF UNNEEDED PROGRAM FUNDS.
``(a) Unneeded Program Funds.--With the approval of its
State educational agency, a local educational agency that
determines for any fiscal year that funds under a covered
program other than part A of title I of this Act are not
needed for the purpose of that covered program may use such
funds, not to exceed five percent of the total amount of its
funds under that covered program, for the purpose of another
covered program.
``(b) Coordination of Services.--A local educational
agency, individual school, or consortium of schools may use a
total of up to 5 percent of the funds it receives under this
Act for the establishment and implementation of a coordinated
services project consistent with the requirements of Title X
of this Act.''.
``PART C--COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS; CONSOLIDATED STATE AND LOCAL
APPLICATIONS
``SEC. 9301. PURPOSE.
``It is the purpose of this part to improve teaching and
learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination,
planning, and service delivery under this Act and enhanced
integration of programs under this Act with educational
activities carried out with State and local funds.
``SEC. 9302. OPTIONAL CONSOLIDATED STATE APPLICATION.
``(a) General Authority.--(1) In order to simplify
application requirements and reduce burden for State
educational agencies under this Act, the Secretary shall, in
accordance with subsection (b), establish procedures and
criteria under which a State educational agency may submit a
consolidated State application meeting the requirements of
this section for each of the covered programs in which the
State participates.
``(2) A State educational agency may also include in its
consolidated application--
``(A) the Even Start program under part B of title I of
this Act;
``(B) the education of neglected and delinquent youth
program under part D of title I of this Act;
``(C) part A of title II of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
and Applied Technology Education Act;
``(D) Goals 2000: Educate America Act;
``(E) School-to-Work Opportunities Act; and
``(F) such other programs as the Secretary may designate.
``(3) A State educational agency that submits a
consolidated State application under this section shall not
be required to submit separate State plans or applications
under any of the programs to which its consolidated
application under this section applies.
``(b) Collaboration.--(1) In establishing criteria and
procedures under this section, the Secretary shall
collaborate with State educational agencies and, as
appropriate, with other State agencies, local educational
agencies, public and private nonprofit agencies,
organizations, and institutions, private schools, and
representatives of parents, students, and teachers.
``(2) Through the collaboration process described in
subsection (b), the Secretary shall establish, for each
program under the Act to which this section applies, the
descriptions, information, assurances, and other material
required to be included in a consolidated State application.
``(3) The Secretary shall require only descriptions,
information, assurances, and other materials that are
absolutely necessary for the consideration of the State
application.
``SEC. 9303. GENERAL APPLICABILITY OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
AGENCY ASSURANCES.
``(a) Assurances.--A State educational agency that submits
a State plan or application under this Act, whether
separately or under section 9302, shall have on file with the
Secretary a single set of assurances, applicable to each
program for which a plan or application is submitted, that
provides that--
``(1) each such program will be administered in accordance
with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and
applications;
``(2)(A) the control of funds provided under each such
program and title to property acquired with program funds
will be in a public agency, in a nonprofit private agency,
institution, or organization, or in an Indian tribe if the
statute authorizing the program provides for assistance to
such entities; and
``(B) the public agency, nonprofit private agency,
institution, or organization, or Indian tribe will administer
such funds and property to the extent required by the
authorizing statutes;
``(3) the State will adopt and use proper methods of
administering each such program, including--
``(A) the enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on
agencies, institutions, organizations and other recipients
responsible for carrying out each program;
``(B) the correction of deficiencies in program operations
that are identified through audits, monitoring, or
evaluation; and
``(C) the adoption of written procedures for the receipt
and resolution of complaints alleging violations of law in
the administration of such programs;
``(4) the State will cooperate in carrying out any
evaluation of each such program conducted by or for the
Secretary or other Federal officials;
``(5) the State will use such fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of,
and accounting for, Federal funds paid to the State under
each such program;
``(6) the State will--
``(A) make reports to the Secretary as may be necessary to
enable the Secretary to perform the Secretary's duties under
each such program; and
``(B) maintain such records, provide such information to
the Secretary, and afford access to the records as the
Secretary may find necessary to carry out the Secretary's
duties; and
``(7) before the application was submitted to the
Secretary, the State has afforded a reasonable opportunity
for public comment on the application and has considered such
comment.
``(b) GEPA Provision.--Section 440 of the General Education
Provisions Act does not apply to programs under this Act.
``SEC. 9304. CONSOLIDATED LOCAL APPLICATIONS.
``(a) General Authority.--A local educational agency
receiving funds under more than one covered program may
submit applications to the State educational agency under
such programs on a consolidated basis.
``(b) Required Consolidated Applications.--A State
educational agency that has submitted and had approved a
consolidated State application under section 9302 may require
local educational agencies in the State receiving funds under
more than one program included in the consolidated State
application to submit consolidated local applications under
such programs.
``(c) Collaboration.--A State educational agency shall
collaborate with local educational agencies in the State in
establishing procedures for the submission of the
consolidated applications under this section.
``(d) The State educational agency shall require only
descriptions, information, assurances, and other material
that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the
application of the local educational agency.
``SEC. 9305. OTHER GENERAL ASSURANCES.
``(a) Assurances.--Any applicant other than a State
educational agency that submits an application under this
Act, whether separately or pursuant to section 9304, shall
have on file with the State educational agency a single set
of assurances, applicable to each program for which an
application is submitted, that provides that--
``(1) each such program will be administered in accordance
with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and
applications;
``(2)(A) the control of funds provided under each such
program and title to property acquired with program funds
will be in a public agency or in a nonprofit private agency,
institution, organization, or Indian tribe, if the statute
authorizing the program provides for assistance to such
entities; and
``(B) the public agency, nonprofit private agency,
institution, or organization, or Indian tribe will administer
such funds and property to the extent required by the
authorizing statutes;
``(3) the applicant will adopt and use proper methods of
administering each such program, including--
``(A) the enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on
agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients
responsible for carrying out each program; and
``(B) the correction of deficiencies in program operations
that are identified through audits, monitoring, or
evaluation;
``(4) the applicant will cooperate in carrying out any
evaluation of each such program conducted by or for the State
educational agency or the Secretary or other Federal
officials;
``(5) the applicant will use such fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of,
and accounting for, Federal funds paid to such applicant
under each such program;
``(6) the applicant will--
``(A) make reports to the State educational agency and the
Secretary as may be necessary to enable such agency and the
Secretary to perform their duties under each such program;
and
``(B) maintain such records, provide such information, and
afford access to the records as the State educational agency
or the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the State
educational agency's or the Secretary's duties; and
``(7) before the application was submitted, the applicant
afforded a reasonable opportunity for public comment on the
application and has considered such comment.
``(b) GEPA Provision.--Section 442 of the General Education
Provisions Act does not apply to programs under this Act.
``PART D--WAIVERS
``SEC. 9401. WAIVERS OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the
Secretary may waive any requirement of this Act or of the
General Education Provisions Act, or of the regulations
issued under such Acts, for a State educational agency,
Indian tribe, or other agency, organization, or institution
that receives funds under a program authorized by this Act
from the Department and that requests such a waiver if--
``(1) the Secretary determines that such requirement
impedes the ability of the State educational agency or other
recipient to achieve more effectively the purposes of this
Act; and
``(2) in the case of a waiver proposal submitted by a State
educational agency, the State educational agency--
``(A) provides all interested local educational agencies in
the State with notice and an opportunity to comment on the
proposal; and
``(B) submits the comments to the Secretary; and
``(3) in the case of a waiver proposal submitted by a local
educational agency or other agency, institution, or
organization that receives funds under this Act from the
State educational agency, such request has been reviewed by
the State educational agency and is accompanied by the
comments, if any, of such agency.
``(b) Waiver Period.--(1) A waiver under this section shall
be for a period not to exceed three years.
``(2) The Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary
determines that--
``(A) the waiver has been effective in enabling the State
or affected recipients to carry out the activities for which
it was requested and has contributed to improved performance;
and
``(B) such extension is in the public interest.
``(c) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary may not waive,
under this section, any statutory or regulatory requirement
relating to--
``(1) comparability of services;
``(2) maintenance of effort;
``(3) the equitable participation of students attending
private schools;
``(4) parental participation and involvement;
``(5) the distribution of funds to States or to local
educational agencies or other recipients of funds under this
Act;
``(6) maintenance of records;
``(7) applicable civil rights requirements;
``(8) the requirements of sections 444 and 445 of the
General Education Provisions Act; or
``(9) the requirements related to the element of a charter
school described in paragraph (1) of section 3407 of this
Act.
``(d) Termination of Waivers.--The Secretary shall
terminate a waiver under this section if the Secretary
determines that the performance of the State or other
recipient affected by the waiver has been inadequate to
justify a continuation of the waiver or if it is no longer
necessary to achieve its original purposes.
``PART E--UNIFORM PROVISIONS
``SEC. 9501. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
``(a) General.--A local educational agency may receive
funds under a covered program for any fiscal year only if the
State educational agency finds that either the combined
fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of
that agency and the State with respect to the provision of
free public education by that agency for the preceding fiscal
year was not less than 90 percent of such combined fiscal
effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding
fiscal year.
``(b) Reduction in Case of Failure To Meet.--(1) The State
educational agency shall reduce the amount of the allocation
of funds under a covered program in any fiscal year in the
exact proportion to which a local educational agency fails to
meet the requirement of subsection (a) by falling below 90
percent of both the combined fiscal effort per student and
aggregate expenditures (using the measure most favorable to
such local agency).
``(2) No such lesser amount shall be used for computing the
effort required under subsection (a) for subsequent years.
``(c) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this section if the Secretary determines that such a waiver
would be equitable due to--
``(1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a
natural disaster; or
``(2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of
the local educational agency.
``SEC. 9502. PROHIBITION REGARDING STATE AID.
``No State may take into consideration payments under this
Act (other than under title VIII) in determining the
eligibility of any local educational agency in that State for
State aid, or the amount of State aid, with respect to free
public education of children.
``SEC. 9503. PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE SCHOOL CHILDREN AND
TEACHERS.
``(a) General Requirement.--(1) Except as otherwise
provided in this Act, to the extent consistent with the
number of eligible children in a State educational agency,
local educational agency, or intermediate educational agency
or consortium receiving financial assistance under a program
specified in subsection (b), who are enrolled in private
elementary and secondary schools in such agency or
consortium, such agency or consortium shall, after timely and
meaningful consultation with appropriate private school
officials, provide such children and their teachers or other
educational personnel, on an equitable basis, special
educational services or other benefits under such program.
``(2) Educational services or other benefits, including
materials and equipment, provided under this section, must be
secular, neutral, and nonideological.
``(3) Educational services and other benefits provided
under this section for such private school children,
teachers, and other educational personnel shall be equitable
in comparison to services and other benefits for public
school children, teachers, and other educational personnel
participating in such program.
``(4) Expenditures for educational services and other
benefits provided under this section to eligible private
school children, their teachers, and other educational
personnel serving them shall be equal, taking into account
the number and educational needs of the children to be
served, to the expenditures for participating public school
children.
``(5) Such agency or consortium may provide such services
directly or through contracts with public and private
agencies, organizations, and institutions.
``(b) Applicability.--(1) This section applies to--
``(A) each covered program; and
``(B) programs under title VII of this Act.
``(2) For the purposes of this section, the term `eligible
children' mean children eligible for services under a program
described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Public Control of Funds.--(1) The control of funds
used to provide services under this section, and title to
materials, equipment, and property purchased with these
funds, shall be in a public agency for the uses and purposes
provided in this Act, and a public agency shall administer
such funds and property.
``(2)(A) The provision of services under this section shall
be provided--
``(i) by employees of a public agency; or
``(ii) through contract by such public agency with an
individual, association, agency, or organization.
``(B) In the provision of such services, such employee,
person, association, agency, or organization shall be
independent of such private school and of any religious
organization, and such employment or contract shall be under
the control and supervision of such public agency.
``(C) Funds used to provide services under this section
shall not be commingled with non-Federal funds.
``SEC. 9504. STANDARDS FOR BY-PASS.
``If, by reason of any provision of law, a State, local, or
intermediate educational agency or consortium is prohibited
from providing for the participation in programs of children
enrolled in, or teachers or other educational personnel from,
private elementary and secondary schools, on an equitable
basis, or if the Secretary determines that such agency or
consortium has substantially failed or is unwilling to
provide for such participation, as required by section 9503,
the Secretary shall--
``(1) waive the requirements of that section for such
agency or consortium; and
``(2) arrange for the provision of equitable services to
such children, teachers, or other educational personnel
through arrangements that shall be subject to the
requirements of this section and of sections 9503, 9505, and
9506.
``SEC. 9505. COMPLAINT PROCESS FOR PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE
SCHOOL CHILDREN.
``(a) Procedures for Complaints.--The Secretary shall
develop and implement written procedures for receiving,
investigating, and resolving complaints from parents,
teachers, or other individuals and organizations concerning
violations by an agency or consortium of section 9503 of this
Act. Such individual or organization shall submit such
complaint to the State educational agency for a written
resolution by such agency within a reasonable period of time.
``(b) Appeals to the Secretary.--Such resolution may be
appealed by an interested party to the Secretary within 30
days after the State educational agency resolves the
complaint or fails to resolve the complaint within a
reasonable period of time. Such appeal shall be accompanied
by a copy of the State educational agency's resolution, and a
complete statement of the reasons supporting the appeal. The
Secretary shall investigate and resolve each such appeal
within 120 days after receipt of the appeal.
``SEC. 9506. BY-PASS DETERMINATION PROCESS.
``(a) Review.--(1)(A) The Secretary shall not take any
final action under section 9504 until the agency or
consortium affected by such action has had an opportunity,
for at least 45 days after receiving written notice thereof,
to submit written objections and to appear before the
Secretary to show cause why that action should not be taken.
``(B) Pending final resolution of any investigation or
complaint that could result in a determination under this
section, the Secretary may withhold from the allocation of
the affected State or local educational agency the amount
estimated by the Secretary to be necessary to pay the cost of
those services.
``(2)(A) If such affected agency or consortium is
dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action after a
proceeding under paragraph (1), it may, within 60 days after
notice of such action, file with the United States court of
appeals for the circuit in which such State is located a
petition for review of that action.
``(B) A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted
by the clerk of the court to the Secretary.
``(C) The Secretary thereupon shall file in the court the
record of the proceedings on which the Secretary based this
action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United
States Code.
``(3)(A) The findings of fact by the Secretary, if
supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, but
the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the
Secretary to take further evidence and the Secretary may
thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may
modify the Secretary's previous action, and shall file in the
court the record of the further proceedings.
``(B) Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise
be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.
``(4)(A) Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall
have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to
set it aside, in whole or in part.
``(B) The judgment of the court shall be subject to review
by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or
certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
States Code.
``(b) Determination.--Any determination by the Secretary
under this section shall continue in effect until the
Secretary determines, in consultation with such agency or
consortium and representatives of the affected private school
children, teachers, or other educational personnel that there
will no longer be any failure or inability on the part of
such agency or consortium to meet the applicable requirements
of section 9503 or any other provision of this Act.
``(c) Payment From State Allotment.--When the Secretary
arranges for services pursuant to this section, the Secretary
shall, after consultation with the appropriate public and
private school officials, pay the cost of such services,
including the administrative costs of arranging for those
services, from the appropriate allocation or allocations
under this Act.
``(d) Prior Determination.--Any by-pass determination by
the Secretary under this Act as in effect on the day before
enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
shall remain in effect to the extent the Secretary determines
that it is consistent with the purpose of this section.
``SEC. 9507. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
OR INSTRUCTION.
``Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to
authorize the making of any payment under this Act for
religious worship or instruction.''.
``PART F--GUN POSSESSION
``SEC. 9601. POLICY FOR GUN POSSESSION.
``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency which
receives assistance under this Act shall have a policy that
addresses student possession and use of a gun on school
property.
``(b) Policy Content.--The content of such policy may
include--
``(1) punishment requirements for possession and use of a
gun on school property, including expulsion and suspension;
``(2) alternative placement for an individual who violates
the policy;
``(3) educational services for a student expelled from
school for violation of the policy; and
``(4) opportunities for a hearing to address expulsion or
suspension decisions for violation of the policy.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to title IX?
amendment offered by ms. woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey: To Title IX, on p. 763,
add a new Part G.
After line 3 add ``Part G--Sense of the Congress to
Increase the Total Share of Federal Spending on Education''.
The Congress finds that--
(1) in order to increase our Nation's standard of living
and to increase the number of good jobs, the United States
must increase its productivity and ability to compete in the
international marketplace by improving the educational level
of our workforce;
(2) although efforts are being made to establish higher
educational standards and goals, there is a substantial
shortage of resources to meet such standards and goals;
(3) States and local communities are finding it
increasingly difficult to meet even higher educational
standards and goals, and States will not be able to fund
needed changes without Federal help to reach such standards
and goals;
(4) the Federal Government has established many education
programs but failed to provide adequate funding for such
programs, for example one such program provides education to
our Nation's disabled students and was established with a
promise of 40 percent Federal funding but currently receives
only 8 percent Federal funding;
(5) the annual shortfall in Federal education programs is
approximately half of the promised funding:
(6) many needed education improvements will not need
Federal funds, however, other suggested changes such as
lengthened school years, better pay, after-school activities,
mentoring for students at risk, programs for gifted students,
and replacing substandard buildings will require substantial
Federal assistance; and
(7) the Federal contribution to education is less than 2
percent of the total Federal budget, and in order to make
education a national priority, the total percentage of
Federal education funding should be increased by 1 percent
each year over the next 8 years to reach 10 percent of the
total Federal budget.
(b) It is the sense of the Congress that the total share of
the Federal spending on education should increase by at least
1 percent each year until such share reaches 10 percent of
the total Federal budget.
Ms. WOOLSEY (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
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a sense of the Congress
resolution to increase the total share of Federal spending on education
by 1 percent of spending each year until total education spending
equals 10 percent of the Federal budget.
Ten years ago, the National Commission on Excellence in Education
published a landmark report on education in America titled, ``A Nation
at Risk.'' That report said, ``Our Nation is at Risk.'' And, that our
educational performance is ``being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation, and, a people.''
That report was right, Mr. Chairman. In a 1992 study conducted by the
Department of Education, eighth grade students in the United States
ranked 13th out of 14 nations in mathematics proficiency, and 12th out
of 14 in science proficiency.
Today, the education budget makes up 2 percent of total Federal
spending. If we are truly committed to our children's future--this
country's future--we must do better by backing up that commitment with
increased Federal funding.
How would we spend these funds? We have heard alot of talk about
unfunded Federal mandates while debating this bill. The increase I am
proposing would fully fund all currently existing Federal education
mandates: We could extend successful education programs to all eligible
students; we could increase participation in Head Start and Chapter I
programs; we could ensure that every eligible student received his or
her full Pell grant; we could support violence and drug prevention
programs, adult literacy programs, and repair unsafe school buildings.
And you know what? By increasing our investment in education, we will
save money in the long run, because more Americans will be trained for
the jobs of the future; health care costs will be reduced; there will
be less dependence on welfare; and decreased crime and violence.
As a member of the House Budget Committee, I am particularly aware of
the need for more funds for education. Along with other members of the
Budget Committee, I spent the last week fighting to make funds for
education a higher budget priority.
This sense of the Congress resolution will give needed support to
members of both the Budget and the Appropriations Committees who want
to increase the share of Federal funds that go to education. It also
sends a clear message that this Congress values education.
Mr. Chairman, this sense of the Congress resolution has already been
passed by the other body, and I ask my colleagues to join with our
colleagues in the other body to unite Congress in a commitment to
improving education in America.
{time} 1810
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I realize this is just a sense-of-the-Congress
amendment and not a mandate, but it really does not make a lot of sense
to try to create false expectations that we are going to spend a lot
more money out of our Federal budget on education. We just do not have
the money.
I recognize that education is very important, so important because it
is the cause of violence, crime, health care problems, teen pregnancy,
and it means so much. But the problem is we only have so much money.
Last week we spent 2 days debating the balanced budget amendment,
which unfortunately was defeated. We had a majority of the House that
supported it. We want to get serious.
I am on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Education
and Labor, and I recognize the need for the money in education. But if
you do not have the money, you do not have the money.
We are talking about $150 billion if we use today's budget. We are
spending approximately $30 billion now. To go to $150 billion under
pay-go, how do you get to that number?
The other assumption that is made is that throwing money at education
on the Federal level solves the problem. Education, in my opinion,
belongs to the family, the State and local levels; it is not a Federal
money issue. We just cannot throw money. Let us not try to create a
false impression that we are going to come up with another $100
billion-some when the money is not there. And we cannot get it under
the pay-go rule, and where do we cut to get that money?
I oppose the sense-of-Congress amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Woolsey].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title IX?
amendment offered by mr. sam johnson of texas
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. This
amendment was printed on page 684 of the Congressional Record of
February 23, by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Page 762,
after line 8, insert the following:
``SEC. 9508. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDS FOR PROTECTED PRAYER.
``Notwithstanding any provision of law, no funds made
available through the Department of Education under this Act,
or any other Act, shall be available to any State or local
educational agency which has a policy of denying or which
effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally
protected prayer in public schools by individuals on a
voluntary basis. Neither the United States nor any State nor
any local educational agency shall require any person to
participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any
constitutionally protected prayer in such public schools.''.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow
students and teachers in public schools across the Nation to
voluntarily pray. My amendment is identical to the language offered
February 23 by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan]. In fact, it
is Mr. Duncan's language which was overwhelmingly supported by the
Members of this body by a margin of 367 to 55.
As you will remember, the House voted to instruct conferees on Goals
2000 to accept a Senate amendment of the same language which I am
offering now. The other body passed this same language by a steadfast
75-to-22 vote. Judging by these margins, this Congress supports
protecting the constitutional right of children to pray.
Let me just tell you a couple of stories. One, which is out of St.
Louis, where kids were in school and one of them, a 10-year-old boy,
was praying before eating his lunch on three separate occasions.
Finally, he was disciplined with detention during recreation periods
for 1 week.
The boy's mother was told that it was against the law to pray in
school and that the decision to punish her son would not be overturned.
That is not America. That is not what this country was built on. This
country is one Nation under God, and prayer is part of our legal right.
The Congress, this Congress, will not tolerate abridgement of this
right, nor discrimination against those who would seek to exercise it.
There is no better time than today on this bill for Congress to take
action to protect the constitutional right to freely practice one's
religion.
When I was in school, participation in religious programs, the Pledge
of Allegiance, pregame prayers, were every day occurrences. In fact,
the Ten Commandments were posted on the walls.
I think even today right here in Washington, DC, we see that coming
back when Marion Barry, who used to be the mayor and is currently a
councilman, said, ``With all the violence and other problems, we need
to get back to trying to allow those who want to pray to do it.'' Barry
said, referring to shootings and beatings in the schools, ``It may set
a moral tone at the schools.'' That is out of the paper. You all read
it. I think you realize, and so does the rest of the country, finally,
realizing that it is time to get prayer back to school.
When I took my oath of office, I pledged to uphold the Constitution
just like every Member of this body, and that is what we would do today
by passing this amendment.
The courts have affirmed that students in public schools do not shed
their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the
school gate-house. That is from Wallace versus Jeffrey.
The court concluded that there is no constitutional barrier to a
State protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer.
It does not require State education agencies or local education
agencies to do anything except uphold our Constitution. An abiding
belief in and a love of God were the building blocks of our Founding
Fathers. That laid the foundation for this wonderful Nation. This
Nation's heritage is rooted in religious faith.
I believe those same values have helped to maintain its strength.
Over 200 years ago, George Washington affirmed this belief when he
stated, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.'' And I
believe that the omission of voluntary prayer in school removes from
children the very values on which this great Nation was founded.
The right to voluntary prayer is vital to the future of our children
and this Nation. I think we need to put this amendment on this bill
just to uphold that right.
By voting for this amendment today, you would be casting a vote to
uphold the U.S. Constitution; you are fighting discrimination against
voluntary prayer, but above all you are allowing our children, who are
the future of our Nation, the freedom to pray.
{time} 1820
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
Mr. Chairman, I probably prayed every day of my life since I was 3
years old, which goes back about 60 years, and I commend it to
everyone. I think it is very good, and I know that there are sometimes
some overzealous teachers or some overzealous administrators who are
uninformed and really interfere with private prayer. When I taught in
public school, that was not the case then, and in most public schools
it is not the case now, but there are some occasions where there is
interference.
In a school cafeteria when I was on cafeteria duty, Mr. Chairman, I
would see students sometimes bowing their heads before they began to
eat, or making the sign of the cross, giving some religious indication,
privately before they began to eat, and I certainly feel that is
protected prayer. That is their own voluntary prayer.
I looked at the language. I think the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] has some language that might be acceptable to the gentleman
that is probably a little briefer but still achieves the same purpose,
so I would ask us to take a look at the amendment to the gentleman's
amendment which Mr. Williams may offer.
But I certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, that there are instances where
people are interfered with in their constitutional right of privately
praying.
amendment offered by mr. williams to the amendment offered by mr. sam
johnson of texas
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Williams to the amendment offered
by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: In section 9508, as proposed to
be added by the amendment--
(1) in the heading, strike ``PROHIBITION AGAINST''; and
(2) in the text, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and all that
follows through ``in such'', and insert the following:
``No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may
be used by any State or local educational agency to adopt
policies that prevent voluntary prayer and medication in''.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw my colleagues' attention
to the fact that the gentleman from Texas offers a serious amendment
about which he and many people in this Chamber and around this country
have considered for many years now, and that is the appropriate and
proper way to allow America's school children a moment of contemplation
in which they might pray in school, if they so choose and do so in a
way that does not violate the Constitution of the United States. I
thank my gentleman friend for raising this issue before the House.
I do hold, however, that my colleague's amendment, although it does
not intend to, would, in fact, unfairly punish schools with a drastic
penalty; that is, the loss of every dime of their Elementary and
Secondary Education Act money, and it would penalize them simply if a
school official guessed wrong about what prayer is constitutionally
acceptable and what prayer is not.
Now we all understand that this is an exceedingly complex and
unsettled area of law. It is far from clear, both to the Members of
this body, as well, of course, to all school officials in the land, as
to what is constitutionally protected prayer. The law in this area
continues to evolve, and there are flatly contradictory opinions and
decisions from the Federal courts about voluntary prayer in the public
schools, and yet the amendment offered by my friend from Texas would
ask people who are trained as teachers to make these difficult, complex
constitutional decisions, and, if they decided wrong in the opinion of
an all-powerful and omnipotent Federal Government, then every child
under their charge, every child in that school district, would lose
every dime of money envisioned in this bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am simply trying to perfect what I think is an
alarmingly flawed amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Sam Johnson]. My perfecting amendment does not take us down the path I
have described. What my amendment does is, I think, very simple. It
does protect two important principles. First, it upholds our time-
honored tradition of local control of schools; and, second, it supports
voluntary prayer.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, it keeps the Federal Government out of the
business of telling local schools what they must do and how they must
do it while making it clear that no Federal funds, and this is the
heart of my amendment, no Federal funds may be used to prevent
voluntary prayer and meditation in our public schools. So, my amendment
says, ``You simply can't use any Federal funds under this act to
prevent school prayer,'' but it does not threaten students with the
elimination of every dime of Federal money. It just says, ``You can't
use Federal funds to deny someone the chance to engage in voluntary
prayer and meditation.''
Mr. Chairman, let me spend another minute or so talking to my
colleagues about what I think the unintended consequences are of the
Johnson-Duncan amendment. First, as it is now drafted, Mr. Chairman,
the amendment places significant Federal control over some fundamental
local school matters. Does this Chamber really want to empower Federal
officials to review local school decisionmaking concerning the
disposition of State and local education dollars?
Equally disturbing, Mr. Chairman, is that these Federal officials
would be authorized under the gentleman's amendment to pronounce upon
issues of constitutional law and to terminate all support, financial
support, to a school district if the Federal officials disagree with
the local decision that the local administrators have made. I ask,
``Isn't that the reverse of what my friends on the other side of the
aisle say they are for?'' They want the Federal Government out of it,
and here they are going to empower the Federal Government to come in
and tell a local official they were wrong and, not only they were
wrong, but we have now stripped every dime of the money in this act
from every child in that school district.
Mr. Chairman, that is an arrogant use of Federal authority over the
local decisionmaking power of the schools. Why would our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle want to empower Federal officials?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The time of the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams] has expired.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
3 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Montana?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just withdraw my
objection. I would like to listen to the gentleman, but I would just
like to be able to ask him some questions before he is done.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson]
withdraws his objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] for 3
additional minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Sam Johnson] withdrawing his objection.
Mr. Chairman, the point is that the gentleman's amendment, as I
understand it, is trying to help local school children, but what he is
really doing is empowering Federal officials to walk into our school
districts, decide whether or not our local officials are correct when
they make a decision over a child's personal decision regarding prayer.
Federal officials can come in and decide whether that local official's
decision about that personal time that a child may or may not want to
spend with his or her God is the right decision, and, if a Federal
official decides it is not right, they can strip that school of all
their money.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in a thoughtful way to
consider this:
Wouldn't this amendment, as offered by my friend from Texas, risk
dividing communities and encouraging costly litigation?
{time} 1830
You are a Federal school official. You wake up in the morning and
what you really want to do is go administer the schools, or maybe even
teach a couple of classes. But what you are faced with is a memo from
the American Center for Law and Justice taking one side of the school
prayer issue, and another memo on your desk from the American Civil
Liberties Union or the National Education Association taking another
side of the complex evolving school prayer issue.
All you want to do is teach the children. But because the Johnson-
Duncan amendment passed the Congress a few months earlier, you must now
make a decision in this terribly complex and personal area as to how
the children can best pray according to the Constitution.
As soon as you make that decision, are you not going to divide the
community of parents and children within that district? And are you not
going to invite litigation? Absolutely, and every Member of this
Chamber knows it.
Let us not put that burden on our local school officials. Let us not
put that burden on our teachers. Let us simply say to them, school
officials, teachers, you cannot use a dime of this money in this bill
to deny constitutionally protected prayer by your students in your
schools. That is what my amendment would do.
Mr. Chairman, now I yield to my friend the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Sam Johnson].
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell Members
that the Supreme Court, first of all, says it is unconstitutional to
deny a student the right to pray. According to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams], the gentleman wants to not have the Federal
Government get involved because he says it is not unconstitutional for
a student to pray.
I say the gentleman is wrong. I cannot believe that the gentleman
would try to say, it is kind of humorous at best, that allowing a child
to pray on his own accord is a Federal mandate. The Johnson-Duncan
amendment does not do anything that requires a school to do anything.
All it says is they must not prevent a constitutional right to pray.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] has expired.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think what you have got to look at is the language in
the amendment. The language in the amendment strikes the whole Duncan-
Johnson amendment, the whole thing. It strikes the words prohibition
against protected prayer. It strikes constitutionally protected prayer
in public schools voluntarily. Nothing is left that protects prayer in
school.
I think it is also interesting to note that in 1989 the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams] voted against a school prayer amendment
passed by a margin of 269 to 135. Clearly the gentleman has created for
himself a problem of conflicting votes on the issue of voluntary prayer
in school, trying to raise just another issue, that of Federal
mandates.
To begin with, this whole bill is a Federal mandate of pretty large
degree. I think since we understand now that it does not perfect the
amendment, it guts the entire language, it is creating a giant loophole
for schools to violate the Constitution, not uphold it. I still say it
is our constitutional right in this Congress to protect the
Constitution as written, and this language in our bill will do it, not
the amendment that is on hand. I suggest Members vote against it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying the Federal
Government should have a role in protecting the constitutional rights
of freedom of religion of the students of this country?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I say we should, and I think the gentleman
trying to amend our amendment is taking that constitutional authority
away from the Congress.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further,
your position is basically that the Federal Government, by coming in to
the local schools to protect students' right to pray, is something that
the Federal Government should be responsible for, protecting the
constitutional rights of peoples' rights to the freedom to pray and the
freedom of religion.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Exactly.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman is saying our friend's amendment
actually guts your intention of having the Federal Government protect
this constitutional right and make that one of its responsibilities?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Precisely.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a question to the author of the
amendment, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], if he is so
inclined to answer the question.
Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding the gentleman from Montana's
intent is to place the educational system in a situation where it does
not have to pass judgment upon whether a particular activity is
constitutional or not?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is
impossible to craft a law that would remove that dilemma from
officials. It seems to me that every official that attempts to find
their way through the Constitution to allow voluntary prayer is in a
briar patch, and I do not know how to craft a law to prevent that
dilemma.
What I am trying to do is stop Federal officials from forcing that
dilemma.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is that inconsistent
with the vote of the gentleman from Montana when he voted for Mr.
Duncan's language in February on Goals 2000?
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman would remind me what the vote was?
Mr. MANZULLO. That is on the amendment that is present now, the
Johnson-Duncan amendment that is present now.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The gentleman from Montana was incorrect and cast a bad
vote.
Mr. MANZULLO. I would like to ask another question.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As did, unfortunately, a majority of the House and
Senate.
Mr. MANZULLO. We all make mistakes.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding, again, is that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is saying the schools
should now be placed in a position of determining what is or what is
not constitutional with regard to the activities of children, is that
correct?
Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman will yield further, I could teach that
one round or flat, I guess.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the answer, I am sorry.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman rephrase his question?
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the reason for
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is
that the gentleman does not feel that school authorities, including
teachers, should be placed in the position of determining whether or
not a certain activity is constitutional? Is that the purpose of the
gentleman's amendment?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
purpose of my amendment is to deny any school official from using the
money in this act to deny constitutionally permitted voluntary prayer.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, that did not answer the question of this
speaker here. Let me rephrase that.
Do schools have to make decisions from time to time as to whether or
not a particular conduct is permissible, either under the general, at
that time, statutory law, or under the Constitution?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They do.
Mr. MANZULLO. And my understanding of the amendment that is offered
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] and the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is the schools would have a ready forum in the
event a question arises, so instead of being barraged by letters from
both sides, they could have a quick forum in the Federal courts.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me answer the question by
asking the gentleman a question. What if the schools guess wrong? The
gentleman is asking whether or not the schools have to guess. I am
saying, yes, they have to guess. What if they guessed wrong under the
gentleman's amendment?
{time} 1840
If they are going to be litigated against, they are going to be sued.
The community is going to be divided. If they guessed wrong, the
Federal Government is going to deny every dime of money under this act.
Does the gentleman support that?
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is opposed to Federal
restrictions on schools that place schools and all local government
entities in that particular position.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did not answer my question.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is very simple. As I
understand the Johnson-Duncan amendment, it simply says that if a
school receives Federal funds that it should, as part of its tutorial
role, ensure that students have the full range of constitutional
rights. There are all kinds of issues that come up, for example, dress
codes, the manner in which students can publish newspapers, that went
to the Supreme Court. And teachers and schools deal on a day-to-day
basis with the rights of students.
My understanding of the Johnson-Duncan law is, all it says is that
students are entitled to constitutional rights and, to the extent that
schools are receiving Federal funding, they should be guarding the
constitutional rights of those children.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas and in opposition to the amendment of the
gentleman from Montana. This amendment incorporates the same language
passed last week by the House as a motion to instruct conferees on
Goals 2000 legislation that I offered along with Congressman Duncan
from Tennessee. In addition, it is similar to the one recently passed
by the Senate concerning school prayer. The amendment offered by
Senator Helms overwhelmingly passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23. I
think it is important to note that an almost identical amendment to
this one was passed by the House of Representatives in 1989 by a vote
of 269 to 135--almost a 2-to-1 margin.
First, let me spell out what this language does do and then make it
clear what it doesn't do. This language will prevent any school
district which has a policy of prohibiting voluntary student-initiated
prayer in the schools from receiving any Federal funds authorized by
this act or any other act. In other words, it simply forbids school
districts from setting up official policies or procedures with the
intent and purpose of prohibiting individuals from voluntarily saying
prayers at school.
This language does not mandate school prayer or require schools to
write any particular prayer. Under this language, a school is not
required to do anything in favor of voluntary prayer. It simply must
refrain from instituting policies prohibiting voluntary student prayer.
The Founding Fathers intended religion to provide a moral anchor for
our democracy. Wouldn't they be puzzled to return to modern-day America
and find, among elite circles in academia and the media, a scorn for
the public expression of religious values.
One of the many liberties our forefathers founded this great Nation
upon was freedom of religion; a freedom to pray to the God we want,
when we want, and where we want. Unfortunately, this freedom has been
eroded by the Supreme Court over the last few decades. I firmly believe
that no one should be forced to pray, especially if a certain prayer is
contrary to an individual's beliefs. But, there can be no question that
every American citizen has the right to pray voluntarily whenever and
wherever he or she chooses, and that includes children in public
schools. This is protected under the first amendment; ``Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.'' It is that second part that I ask you to pay
special attention to today.
As President Reagan so eloquently stated in 1982, ``the first
amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of
this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious
values from government tyranny.'' I urge you to vote for the Johnson
amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana. Let us understand what we are not voting on
today. We are not voting on the right of students to pray in school.
That right is protected by our Constitution and is respected in our
schools. Any child who wants to say a prayer before the day begins or
recite a blessing before a meal at school or seek divine intervention
before an exam is free to do so.
The Williams substitute would ensure that that right will remain
protected. It will ensure that no Federal funds can be used to prohibit
constitutionally permitted voluntary school prayer.
Moreover, there is no reported case in our courts in the history of
the Republic involving school officials refusing to allow private
voluntary prayers by individual students. And this practice goes on all
the time.
As William Safire, the noted advisor to President Nixon once
observed, so long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in
schools.
The gentleman's amendment would protect the taxpayers in our school
districts from defending nuisance lawsuits and from the threat of
losing all federal education aid.
What does the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas really
do? It would, by applying Draconian penalties to only one side of the
church-state debate, effectively encourage schools and schools boards
to violate the rights of all students to be free from the coercive
effects of government-sponsored religious practices. It would make
school boards feel vulnerable to the threats of lawsuits from the most
unreasonable person in the community.
It would give to some Federal bureaucrat in the local office of the
Department of Education the right to decide in his or her own volition
that the policy of the local school board is inadequate and all the
Federal aid ought to be cut off, and then the school board would have
to go sue in Federal court to restore the Federal aid. What a one-sided
threat that is.
What the proponents of officially sponsored prayer, and make no
mistake about it, that is what the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas would lead to, officially sponsored prayer, ignore is that
the establishment clause exists to protect religious liberty. It is
difficult to understand why some of the same Members who do not trust
the machinery of state to regulate railroad tariffs nonetheless seem
perfectly at ease with the possibility that local bureaucrats would be
involved in school prayer decisions.
For religion to be truly free, it must flow from individual faith,
not from government coercion.
The Williams substitute will protect that most precious of our
liberties without threatening to bankrupt our local schools or permit
the enemies of religious freedom to use the courts and the schools to
coerce the religious practices of our children.
The gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] is in the tradition of
Roger Williams.
I urge adoption of the Williams substitute.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, what is it that leaves the gentleman,
the gentleman said that this proposal is leading to officially, an
official prayer, something, officially-sanctioned prayer, what leads
the gentleman to the conclusion that someone who has stated over and
over again that what he is really concerned about is protecting the
rights of students to exercise their own right of voluntary prayer,
that that leads to officially-sanctioned prayer, protecting people's
right to pray as they so choose?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I note two things in answer to the
question. Number one, the right of voluntary school prayer is not
threatened. There is no case on record in the courts of this country
that has ever stopped voluntary school prayer, number one, so there is
no threat there.
And I note, secondly, that the amendment of the gentleman from Texas
would threaten a local school district, would give the power to a local
bureaucrat to determine in his opinion that the policy of a local
school district is not sufficiently protective of his opinion of the
constitutional right, let that bureaucrat cut off the Federal aid, and
that would be a heck of an incentive to local school districts to lean
over backward in favor of officially sponsored prayer.
{time} 1850
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, before I start to present my support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] and the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], I would like to compliment the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams], who candidly admitted he thought he had
made a mistake on this vote. We rarely hear that kind of candor here on
the House floor, so I wanted to compliment the gentleman, and also have
him think carefully about his amendment today, that he might perhaps be
wrong again.
Mr. Chairman, the language of the Johnson amendment has been accepted
overwhelmingly by both the House and the Senate with regards to
constitutionally protected school prayer. As recently as February 23,
this House voted 367 to 55 in favor of identical language for the
Education legislation.
Apparently, for the opponents of the Johnson amendment,
constitutionally-protected prayer ranks low on the list of
constitutional freedoms, and local schools should have broad discretion
to limit the exercise of that right. The only protection they would
like to place against local school systems infringing on that right is
that schools cannot use funds provided in this bill to do so.
What I am concerned about is that the small constitutional protection
that has been carved out for our children must be protected by all
persons who are concerned with the protection of civil liberties. The
violation of these rights should not be responded to with a slap on the
wrist. We should bring the full force of the law to see that these
protections are maintained.
The Supreme Court has been very strict in drawing a line between
voluntary and involuntary prayer. And, once again, let me say this
amendment affects only constitutionally protected prayer--only the
right to say grace before a meal, a silent prayer in the morning or a
voluntary student-led invocation at graduation.
This House has stood firmly for that principle in the past and again
this year. We should not dilute that message with the Williams
amendment.
I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Williams amendment and yes on
the amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Johnson of Texas, and Mr.
Duncan of Tennessee.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] and the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Duncan]. Back in 1963 when the Supreme Court outlawed compulsory
religious services, that is what we are talking about, in the public
schools, there was a lot of compulsory religious services all over this
Nation.
The Supreme Court found that terribly sad things were happening,
children of different religions were going through horrible experiences
in portions of the country, well, we will say in Mormon country, where
most of the children happen to be Mormons and the prayers always
followed that religion, and in Baptist country, and in Catholic areas,
and so forth. So the children who were not of that denomination, who
did not believe that, children were hurt and humiliated by the fact
that prayers were being held in religions other than theirs and which
they might have strongly disagreed with.
Really, it was a very controversial decision of the Supreme Court
based on the First Amendment that says that the Government is supposed
to stay out of religion. It must stay out. It cannot support, it cannot
demand, it cannot countenance compulsory religious services in schools.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt, absolutely, no doubt, that freedom
of prayer is protected in schools. A child in a public school can pray,
can read the Bible, all in his or her free time. They cannot interrupt
classes and things to do that.
Behind this, behind this amendment, too, is a campaign being waged by
the radical right, the born again, to some extent conservative
religious people who are determined to get public schools with
compulsory religious services, religious prayer. That is what is behind
this.
Mr. Chairman, there is one case out there that sort of triggered it.
In the first place, in 1992 it infuriated these people that the Supreme
Court would not allow or outlawed as unconstitutional a prayer at a
graduation. They were right, it was compulsory, because it was done by
majority vote, we will say by the students, but majority vote is not
necessarily constitutional. The purpose of the Constitution is
generally to protect the minority, the person who is to be destroyed or
humiliated by the majority, the minority.
Then there was a case in one circuit, one court, that held that where
the students got together and voluntarily, absolutely with no adult or
church supervision, wanted to have a prayer, that that was all right.
That is the only case there is. The Supreme Court has never
countenanced anything like this, and I do not think they will.
This is what they have grasped. They want to get the camel's nose
under the tent, because what they want and what a lot of my colleagues
that I respect want is compulsory school prayer. They want, as
President Reagan used to say over and over again, ``What about our
little children? They are not allowed to pray in schools,'' and so
forth.
Let me tell my colleagues, children can pray in public schools any
time they want to. Nobody is threatening the right of children to pray.
What we cannot countenance, though, is to have compulsory prayer, and
that is really what they are talking about.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, what about just last year in Corpus Christi,
students at various high schools and junior highs were offered by
school officials in Corpus Christi, TX, to disperse, and were advised
that they would receive disciplinary action for gathering before school
to pray around a flag pole?
What about in Dallas, where students at Skyline High School were
threatened by their principal that if they continued to read audibly
from their Bible and pray on the school lawn before school, they would
receive disciplinary action?
We could give case by case by case, maybe not legal cases, because
these people cannot afford to go through the gentleman's system, but
with the Johnson amendment they would be protected from this kind of
abuse by school officials.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Edwards] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards of California was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not think they would be
protected. What the gentleman wants is compulsory. The gentleman wants
there to be compulsory prayer in schools. Is that not correct? I would
ask the gentleman, is that what he really wants?
Mr. DeLAY. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. We do not want to
discourage those who want to practice religions on school grounds from
doing so.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. They can practice it anytime they want.
Mr. DeLAY. It has nothing to do with compulsory religion.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, advocates for school prayer
want us to believe that without the Johnson-Duncan amendment children
would be denied the opportunity to pray in school. This is simply not
true and that kind of inflammatory rhetoric should be rejected by the
Members of this body. Before casting a vote on this issue, everyone
should know what is really happening in our schools.
The Johnson-Duncan amendment appears to support voluntary,
constitutionally permissible school prayer. If that is all proponents
of this amendment want, they should be aware that truly voluntary
prayer is permissible under current law. Students may read the Bible
during their free time, as well as pray voluntarily and silently
anytime they desire. No school system has tried to deny a student this
right. Therefore, if voluntary prayer is permissible, what do
proponents of this amendment really want? I believe the real motivation
behind this amendment is the reinstatement of compulsory prayer in the
public schools. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
The problems currently plaguing schools have been constant and deeply
troubling. Armed with misrepresentations of the law and one lower court
case, the religious right has sent out self-described SWAT teams to put
prayer back in the schools. Letters were sent to public school
officials around the country advising them on ways to circumvent a 1992
Supreme Court ruling banning school-sponsored graduation prayers. One
fundamentalist leader has suggested that teachers ``get [their]
Christian students, get them to speak out'' during class. In Jackson,
MS, 490 students--a bare 54 percent--voted for prayer and the school
principal allowed the student body president to read a prayer over the
loudspeaker. Ironically, all of this has been done in the name of
voluntary prayer. If this amendment passes, these problems will only
increase.
The Johnson-Duncan amendment would only serve to confuse public
school administrators and subject public schools to the threat of being
sued or losing their Federal funds. The bottom line is that the Federal
courts are split--a minority of one favors student-led and initiated
prayer--and the Supreme Court has not spoken. Yet this amendment would
force school administrators to determine what constitutes voluntary
prayer and where and when it is permissible during the school day. We
simply cannot put school principals in that precarious position,
particularly since the funds used to educate our children are at risk.
I urge Members to vote against the Johnson-Duncan amendment as it is
currently written and support the Williams amendment.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, I think the motives and intent of my colleague,
the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams], are honorable, but I am not
sure, frankly, that it is necessary. If I read and understand the
Johnson amendment correctly, I think it is an amendment which we,
frankly, can support.
Those who know my record here know that I am not one who believes in
the mixture of church and state, but I would like the Members to listen
to both the amendment and then to the American Law Division's
definition of what is constitutionally protected prayer in the schools.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Johnson] says that no funds shall be available to any
State or local education agency which has a policy of denying or
effectively preventing participation. That tells me that we are not
going to have quite the concerns that the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] raises; that, very frankly, you have to have on the books as
a State education agency or local education agency an effective policy
and procedure saying, ``If you do this or this, we are not going to
allow it in this particular school.''
There is not a school in this country that does not have a policies
and procedures book, so I think we are going to know up front exactly
what we are talking about in this area.
Let me read from what the American Law Division has to say about
constitutionally protected prayer, because I think that is the issue
that many of us have struggled with. They suggest, and now I am
quoting,
The Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that
government sponsorship of devotional activities in the public
schools violates the establishment of religion clause of the
First Amendment. With respect to prayer in the public
schools, it has held the constitutional prohibition of
government sponsorship and promotion to apply (1) regardless
of whether the prayer is composed by the State, is taken from
religious literature, or is composed by a teacher or student;
(2) regardless of whether students can be excused from
participating; and (3) to both regular devotional activities
during the school day and to prayers at such singular events
as graduation exercises. The proscription has even been held
to extend to moments of silence in the public schools where
the State has prescribed that the moments are to be used for
prayer.
None of these prayer activities, in other words, are
constitutionally protected; and SEA or LEA policies or
actions to prevent students and teachers from engaging in
such activities, thus, would not, or should not, trigger the
cutoff of funds under the Helms-Lott amendment.
But while the Court has been clear in holding government to
be barred by the establishment clause from sponsoring or
promoting prayer in the public schools, it has had less
occasion to address the converse issue of what prayer
activities must be allowed in the public schools, i.e., what
prayer activities might be considered to be
``constitutionally protected.'' In general the Court has
affirmed that students in public schools do not ``shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at
the schoolhouse gate''; but it has also made clear that the
``First Amendment rights of students in the public schools
`are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults
in other settings' and must be `applied in light of the
special characteristics of the school environment.''' Yet
specific rulings illuminating the parameters of those
generalities and, consequently, the scope of the standard
articulated in the Helms-Lott amendment are few. One can
surmise, for instance, that it would violate both the free
speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment for a
SEA or LEA to forbid a student from praying silently during
the school day or, perhaps, even from praying aloud, at least
so long as the prayer activity was not disruptive of the
school environment and did not connote school endorsement.
But our research has found no case directly on point.
Other areas involving prayer in the public schools have
more decisional authority, but the parameters of what is
constitutionally protected or mandated or permissible have
not been fully defined. For instance, the Court has indicated
in dicta that it would be constitutionally permissible for a
State to provide for a moment of silence in the public
schools that could be used by students, inter alia, for
voluntary prayer. But in the one case in which it considered
the issue, it struck down the specific silent prayer or
meditation statute that was before it on the grounds the
State adopted the statute to promote prayer; and it has so
far chosen not to address the issue again. The one subsequent
lower Federal court decision also struck down a particular
moment of silence statute. Thus, although it seems possible
for a constitutional policy relating to moments of silence to
be articulated, the courts have not as yet provided certain
guidance.
Some degree of uncertainty about what is constitutionally
protected also attends the issue of commencement prayer. In
Lee v. Weisman, supra, the Supreme Court held school-
initiated and clergy-delivered prayer at a public secondary
school's commencement ceremony to be unconstitutional.
Subsequently, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, as well as a Federal district court in Idaho,
differentiated student-initiated and student-delivered prayer
at a public secondary school's commencement ceremony and held
that kind of commencement prayer to be constitutional. The
Supreme Court chose not to review the Fifth Circuit's
decision, despite the fact that analogous decisions involving
school prayer suggested it might not be correct. Thus,
student-initiated prayer at commencement ceremonies might for
now be considered to be constitutionally protected in the
jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit and in Idaho, but its
status elsewhere, as well as its ultimate constitutional
status in the Fifth Circuit and Idaho, remains uncertain.
{time} 1900
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The time of the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. GUNDERSON was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I read this into the Record because I
think it is important in this dialog that we have some understanding of
what we mean by constitutionally protected school prayer, and I think
it is important that we do so, that we do understand that we are within
the limits as defined by the American Law Division and within the
amendment, as I understand, within the Johnson amendment to require a
specific policy prohibiting such.
I do not think we are entering the legal quagmire some Members would
suggest. I think this amendment does promote a better effort to refine
what we mean by constitutionally protected school prayer, and frankly I
encourage its adoption.
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond briefly, if I may, to some of
the arguments that have been made here today. This is a troubling
issue, and quite frankly, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Johnson] for pressing us on this matter, because by his repeated
raising of this issue it will undoubtedly force us to grapple with the
issue and sooner or later to arrive at the appropriate policy.
I find myself in opposition though today to his amendment and in
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams]. Let me make a few remarks in response to some of the points
that have been raised.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] previously talked about some
cases, very disturbing cases indeed to every Member of this body, which
have occurred in school districts, I assume, in cases in which he has
some personal knowledge or familiarity. And with regard to those cases,
he said that some of these have been litigated and some have not been
litigated because the fact is that some people have access to lawyers
and some people do not. But he said for those people who do not, the
Johnson amendment would protect them. But I fail to see how that is so,
because in any case, whether it is the current sanctions of the court
which are responsible for enforcing the Constitution, or whether it
would be the added action that would be provided by the amendment of a
court withdrawing funding under this important act, nevertheless there
would be litigation and lawyers and courts required in order to
effectuate the amendment.
A second argument that has been made here today that I think requires
a response is that those of us who supported the instruction to the
conferees on the Education 2000 bill must necessarily support this
amendment because it is crafted in identical language, and indeed it
is. And let me say first that the statement by the gentleman from
Montana about that vote being incorrect I think is only a partially
correct statement, because the stakes in this issue are very much
higher and the subject of the Education 2000 bill we were creating a
new and very voluntary program into which some school districts might
wish to participate if they chose to try and involve themselves in the
process of education and goals, and the Johnson language, new to this
body at that time, gave us some thought about how we might wish to
enforce this constitutional issue of voluntary prayer in that context.
But in this case, the stakes are much higher. In this case, the
Johnson amendment seeks to ban the use of Federal funds from the most
broadly used Federal funding program for education, education that is
used by virtually every school district in the country, certainly by
every school district in my congressional district. And what it says to
each and every one of those school districts is that they are at risk,
if they make an error, or even if any member of their constituency
seeks to take them to court believing they have made an error, they are
at risk of losing the most significant source of Federal funds that
exists.
Now Mr. Chairman, I respect, as I say, the issue that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Johnson] is trying to bring before us, and I hope that
over the course of these many times of debate that we will reach an
appropriate policy. But I believe very strongly that if we are here to
protect taxpayer dollars, if we are here to protect the local autonomy
of our school districts, which is the backbone of education in this
country, the local decisionmaking, then we must reject this amendment
at this time, and we must ask that we go back and craft language that
does not make our school districts constantly at risk of litigation,
constantly at risk of losing this vital source of Federal funds.
Students who are aggrieved have access to the courts today. The
Constitution protects them and the courts protect them. To put our
school districts at risk of losing all of the funds that are provided
under this because of the threat of this kind of litigation is wrong at
this stage and at this time, given the state of the law. This is an
important issue. There are many people in my district and many of my
constituents who care deeply about it and want to see us protect this
constitutional right. I want to see us protect this constitutional
right. But if we read the language of this amendment and we think about
the impact of this very important, significant source of Federal
funding, I strongly recommend that the House reject today the Johnson
formula. Let us accept the responsible compromise by the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams], and let us continue to debate and discuss and
work with our local school officials, who after all are the ones who
are on the line here in finding the appropriate language to accomplish
what it is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] seeks to accomplish.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that for today we reject this amendment and
accept the Williams amendment.
{time} 1910
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], and I oppose
the Williams amendment.
As was mentioned earlier, this amendment is exactly the same language
that the House voted on last month when I offered a motion to instruct
conferees on the Goals 2000 bill. That motion to instruct passed the
House by an overwhelming vote of 367 to 55, and the other body has also
approved this same language by an overwhelming vote of 75 to 22.
Contrary to the statement by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Edwards] a few minutes ago, this amendment does not make any type of
prayer compulsory. It simply allows voluntary student-initiated,
nondenominational prayer in our public schools.
Most of the arguments, both pro and con, have already been made on
this issue, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to read something that was
in the Washington Times this past Friday, and I quote from this story
on the front page of the Washington Times:
Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday said she sees calls
to permit school prayer as a symptom of violence-plagued
communities trying to instill in young people ``a sense of
self-respect, a sense of regard for others.'' In an interview
with the Washington bureau of Hearst newspapers, Ms. Reno
said a renewed interest in school prayer reflects efforts to
rehabilitate communities plagued by street shootings and
family disintegration, and while Ms. Reno did not endorse
repeal of the Supreme Court decision outlawing school prayer,
she did go on to say this,
Or the story says this,
but she said school prayer advocacy, especially in inner
cities, is a symptom of people trying to figure every way
possible, every way they can to reinforce people's ability to
work together, to live together in families, to have a sense
of purpose, a sense of self-respect, a sense of regard for
others and how we get along with each other.
What a great argument in favor of school prayer are those words by
our Attorney General, Janet Reno.
Mr. Chairman, let me add this: William Raspberry, the great
syndicated columnist, has written several very fine columns in the last
few months about governmental policy toward religion. Mr. Raspberry
said in one recent column, ``It is a species of intolerance to require
the religious to make a secret of their beliefs.'' In a Christmas
column, he wrote this:
Unfortunately the ACLU also opposes the moment-of-silence
substitute for school prayer. Why? After all, the
constitutional requirement is that government not establish
religion, not that it root out religion, or to put it another
way, our Founding Fathers came here in large part to get
freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
In my home county this past spring, they would not even allow
nondenominational prayers at high school graduation, the very same kind
of prayers that we hear every day when our sessions are opened here in
this House and also over in the Senate.
In a column printed around the country a few months ago, Mr.
Raspberry quoted Kevin Hanson, the founder of the Beckett Fund, as
saying this about the men who wrote the first amendment:
They would not have dreamed they were banning Christmas
trees or the ability of people to pray in legislatures or to
offer simple invocations in high school graduations,
And then Mr. Raspberry asked this pointed question:
Is it not just possible that antireligious bias
masquerading as religious neutrality is costing more than we
have been willing to acknowledge?
We need Government neutrality toward religion, not Government
hostility toward religion. We need to defeat the watered-down Williams
amendment and pass, instead, the amendment offered by my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson]. It is well meaning. It is
well intentioned. It would not lead to a quagmire in the courts,
because it is clear, Mr. Chairman, and it is more specific, Mr.
Chairman, than is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana.
I urge passage of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Sam Johnson], which is a version of an amendment that I offered
earlier.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, when I first came to this institution several years
back, along with the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Everett
Dirksen, I would introduce the prayer in public buildings, or prayer in
school amendment, and have done so from time to time, relying on the
Founding Fathers' intentions that there be no mandatory imposition of
religion upon the citizens of the newly named colonies, upon their
separation from England, and that is a very simple process. They never
denied; they implored the Almighty in all of their deliberations, in
everything that they did. They implored the blessings even in the
separation itself.
Therefore, I am concerned and disturbed this evening that we are
somehow arguing about the how to do it or how to protect it, and
deviating from what we need to do, which is to bring prayer back into
the families, into the communities, into the schools, into the public
meetings, as we do daily when we meet here.
I do not know the intricacies of the amendments. I hear the arguments
on both sides, but what we should be doing is that we be given some
guidance to the courts that have not given us finite definitions of
what is prohibited, what is sanctioned. All that I know is that if we
are going to attack crime, if we are going to attack the dissolution of
families, if we are going to attack all of the evils that are eating
into the heart of our institutions and our country, we need to bring
prayer back into the system.
How to do it is probably a very intricate question, but this evening
I am disturbed as I hear the amendments pro and con, and I probably
would support either one of the amendments, but I think that one of the
prior speakers said that we will work it out later. That is not the
answer this evening, that we would work it out later. What we need to
do is a very simple ``yea'' or ``nay'' whether you take the money away
or whether you give money to entice. I do not know that that would be a
final resolution.
All that we need to do is say that a prayer or prayers can be made or
offered in public buildings or in the schools without interfering at
all with the prohibition of State-imposed, or the guarantee of, that
you have a right, and I may not have added much to the debate here this
evening except to add that we need to bring prayer back into the hearts
of the American people and into our institutions and everywhere where
we need to implore the Almighty as was done by those that founded this
great country of ours.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman on his very heartfelt
words, and you did add to this debate, because I think you said it very
well.
I think Members really ought to get past the buzzwords and
inflammatory phrases like ``risk of losing funds,'' ``officially
sanctioned religion,'' ``compulsory religion.'' That is not what we are
talking about here.
What we are talking about is allowing students or teachers, for that
matter, to do the things that the Supreme Court and other courts said
that they can do on school campuses. That is all we are talking about.
We are taking two approaches to it. It is amazing to me, and I think
the Williams amendment is a giant loophole that allows principals or
school boards to use to continue the practices that I outlined earlier
where students are discouraged from practicing their own religion,
discouraged from holding Bible readings before school, discouraged from
praying even before school, and they will not get sanctions against
them at all.
I will explain in a moment.
But it is amazing to me, as the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, has so eloquently pointed out,
that we would be debating discouraging constitutionally protected
prayer, and that is what we are talking about here, discouraging it.
In light of where we are today, and I quote our distinguished
Republican whip when he so often says we have a nation now that has 12-
year-olds having children, 15-year-olds being shot, 17-year-olds dying
of AIDS, and 18-year-olds graduating with diplomas that they cannot
read, and we have gangs proliferating in our schools.
Even here in Washington, DC, they are starting to reassess their
school systems and understanding that one of the problems we have in
our schools and in our families and in our society is the lack of
values, the lack of understanding that the work ethic is important,
that stealing is wrong, that having sex outside of marriage is wrong,
that doing these kinds of things that we are sanctioning our children
to do is wrong, and it is tearing at the very fabric of our society.
{time} 1920
All the Johnson amendment says is that you cannot use any funds, you
cannot use any funds, Federal funds, if you deny or have a policy that
denies constitutionally protected prayer. That is all it says.
Now, the loophole that the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams]
provides is that you cannot use money for setting unconstitutional
prayer policy. Now, how much money did it cost or did it cost anything
in Corpus Christi, TX, to stop students from praying around a flagpole
before school? No money at all. How much money did it take in Dallas,
where the students at Skyline High School were threatened by their
principal if they continued to read audibly from their bible and pray
on the school lawn before school? No money at all.
Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman began his statement by saying we should
not rely on buzzwords and then he listed a variety of them. He said,
``Including the risk of losing Federal funds.'' The gentleman just
stated that the precise sanction in this amendment, which is what
concerns this Member so much, is that the punishment, if a school
district makes a mistake, is a withdrawal of the Federal funds, whether
or not the action of the school district is wrong. The courts can do
that, but this amendment punishes them for that. It is not a buzz word,
it is an actual punishment. The debate is not whether or not the action
of the school district is wrong, the courts can do that. The debate is
whether we are punishing them by removing the Federal funds.
Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I will answer the gentleman. It is a
real message. The gentleman says, ``Well, these students at Skyline
High School can go to court and sue for damages.'' But let me tell you,
if we pass this into law, that is a very real message to Skyline High
School that you will support constitutionally protected prayer. Skyline
High School can decide whether they want Federal funds or not. If they
are going to discourage children from practicing their religion freely
under constitutionally protected mandates, that is just simply the
fact.
I want to continue to explain the loophole the gentleman from Montana
[Mr. Williams] provides in his amendment.
The loophole is you only get sanctioned if you use money to set these
policies. We know setting these policies costs no money. You talk about
creating lawsuits; I say to the gentleman from Ohio it will create
lawsuits all over the place when a principal threatens children from
praying or reading their bibles before school. You will have to take
that principal to court. Rather, the principal, getting a directive
from the U.S. Congress and the Federal Government that you will not use
funds, he will not do that.
So I urge my colleagues to really take a look at these two
amendments. The Williams amendment is trying to discourage.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in support of the Johnson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DeLay] if he wants to wrap up.
Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the Williams amendment is a
loophole and totally guts the idea of not discouraging children from
practicing their religion, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the Williams amendment and vote ``yes'' on the Johnson/Duncan
amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have been following this debate
on the Johnson amendment with some interest from my television set in
my office. I had not intended to participate. But it reminds me of the
conversation that I observed when I was a White House Fellow in the
Department of Energy in the early 1980's. I had the honor to attend a
staff meeting involving assistant secretaries. We had--obviously the
Secretary of Energy was chairing the meeting.
At the end of the meeting, the Secretary of Energy said, ``Gentlemen,
I just heard a nonintersecting conversation.'' That is what we have
been hearing on this debate on this particular amendment this
afternoon. The opponents of the Johnson amendment would have us believe
that if it passes, there is the danger that bible-toting missionaries
are going to be turned loose in the public classrooms, perhaps even
federally funded.
Actually, all the Johnson amendment does is codify that you can have
a moment of silent meditation at the beginning of school and, heaven
forbid, maybe even having vocal prayer at public events like
graduations, if it is student-led and totally voluntary.
Some of the opponents talked about the possible abridgement of civil
rights because the student might actually have to hear some sort of a
prayer that he or she did not want to listen to or perhaps even observe
somebody silently bowing their head in the classroom.
While we have been worrying about these kinds of abridgements of
civil rights, we had a student shot to death here in the public schools
in Washington, DC, not too long ago. Many parents are afraid to even
send their children to school because of dangers about physical safety.
We have metal detectors, we have searches, we have dogs looking for
drugs. We are worried about some of these issues that have been
listened to today.
I think it is very interesting that last week the school board here
in Washington, DC, voted to at least investigate the possibility of
public prayer in the public schools here. The mayor of Washington said
that she was supportive of this idea. I think it is time for a reality
check.
I think we ought to pass the Johnson amendment, we ought to defeat
the Williams amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Johnson] and try to give our local school boards the
opportunity to exercise a little common sense.
My grandmother and great-aunt were teachers in a two-room schoolhouse
at Spring Creek, TX, in Bosque County at the turn of this century. They
allowed voluntary prayer at the beginning of each day. There were no
guard dogs in that classroom--there were dogs, but they were dogs that
came to school with the children. If they wanted to be converted, they
went across the creek, literally, to the Baptist Church that also
served as the Methodist Church on alternating Sundays. To my knowledge,
no one who attended that school at that time period went to prison, but
almost everybody became good citizens and served their country well in
whatever capacity.
I support the Johnson amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my good friend, Congressman
Johnson, from the great Long Star State of Texas, for offering this
amendment and opening up this debate.
Ladies and gentleman, we are all so very, very concerned these days
about our children. So, hopefully, when we send our youngsters away to
school, they will be in a healthy environment and that good things will
happen.
There are so many things going on in our schools today that are
worrisome and controversial.
One of my favorite controversies that I unfortunately get involved in
with people all too often is this concern about sexual behavior among
adolescents. It bothers me a great deal that some people are so
insensitive in America today that they think only that if a child does
not contract some horrible disease or get pregnant, that the child has
had safe sex. And because they reason children are going to do it
anyway, there is no need to talk to them about alternative behaviors
but to hand out condoms in schools at public expense. Surrender to the
most dangerous possible impulse a child may have, and accommodate to
that by handing out condoms in the school.
But they have standards, ladies and gentleman; the condom
distributors must be properly trained in the distribution of condoms.
What bothers me more than this is the insensitivity of it. Do those
people who believe safe sex is not contracting a horrible disease or
not getting pregnant, are they so insensitive, Mr. Chairman, that they
do not understand about the emotional, the psychological trauma that
children go through? Do they not understand the risks that go beyond
the physical in this business?
And yet they accommodate to that. Where and when did we as a nation
of adults decide that it was the only course of action, to accommodate
the most dangerous impulses that we find in our children?
Now, there are other threats that our children face. Congressman
Barton just referred to a child who was murdered on the school grounds
with a weapon. Many of us think that the second amendment is as
precious as any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
{time} 1930
However, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
because he perceives this threat, this very real threat to children, is
offering a rigorous sanction against the carrying of weapons to
schools. I voted for it in committee, and I will vote for it on the
floor, because the children must be kept safe, and, if that makes some
modest compromise in the second amendment rights of those in the school
that will bring things to a school that are inappropriate, then we
should address that.
Let us talk then about children. I am told that so long as there are
math tests there will be prayer in school and there is nothing we can
do about it. Is it possible, my colleagues, that there are some among
our school children that have a healthy impulse, a reverend impulse, an
impulse to demonstrate their religious convictions even on the school
grounds where all the danger is afoot? And, my colleagues, might not we
see it in our interests, as adults in this world, to surrender to that
impulse with equal fervor and with equal enthusiasm as we surrender to
the impulse for children to engage in sexual activity during these
childhood years? I do not think that so much. I do not think we put the
Bill of Rights at risk if we surrender to the impulse of school
children to express their religious belief privately and publicly on
school grounds so long as it is voluntarily and freely come to. Can we
not surrender, my colleagues, to the impulse to pay respect to their
religious beliefs as we have so eagerly rushed forward to pay our
respect to their impulse and surrender to their impulse to have
childhood sexual activities? Certainly, if we can afford the risk of
handing out condoms to children, Mr. Chairman, we can afford the risk
that some of them may carry a Bible to school. Can that be such a
horrible danger facing our school children? I think not.
So, in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to
differentiate between that which is real and that which is not, that
which respects the impulse of children and that which does not. Vote
against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Williams] and vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. UNSOELD. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington
[Mrs. Unsoeld] for yielding to me, and maybe we can come near to
concluding what has been an important debate about a very important
subject.
Let me first say that I and everyone in this Chamber I know has a
deep and abiding respect for the zealous beliefs of individual
Americans. I want to do nothing with my amendment, nor do I do a single
thing with my amendment, to discourage voluntary constitutional prayer
in school. In fact my amendment says:
No funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may
be used by any State or local education agency to adopt
policies to prevent voluntary prayer and meditation.
Mr. Chairman, like all of my colleagues, I went to school, and I will
bet, like all of my colleagues, I prayed in school, particularly every
time there was a Spanish test or an algebra test. So, all of us have a
deep respect for morality, religion, ethical behavior, and I refuse to
allow my colleagues on either side of the aisle, particularly those on
the far right, to claim some corner or monopoly over morality and
ethical behavior. We believe in it, too. That is not at stake here.
That is not what this amendment, either my amendment or the other
amendment which I seek to displace this with, is about.
Here, my colleagues, is what I believe is going on:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson]
would say that all money from the Department of Education will be
denied any school district, and, by the way, it says not just the money
in this act, but school-to-work money, welfare money, all money
administered by the Department of Education, will be denied a school
district unless they have appropriately dealt with this school prayer
issue.
Now that is a hammer, and let me tell my colleagues who the hammer is
going to be used by. The hammer is the denial of all Federal money from
the Department of Education.
Here is a recent memo to school administrators from a group called
the American Center for Law and Justice who commends this very
amendment, commends this very amendment which they say was offered by
Senator Jesse Helms in the Senate, and they commended it, and then a
few days later they sent out another release which says:
We will soon release details of employing legal swat teams
around the country to file lawsuits against offending school
districts.
That is then followed by a letter from the ACLU which warns the same
school administrators that we are prepared to challenge school
districts that disregard their constitutional obligation.
So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would set up the wall. It
would divide the communities. It would place teachers and
administrators into the briar patch. It would foster the inevitable
entanglement between church and state. That is what the gentleman's
amendment would do.
My amendment is simple. It simply says that no funds in this act can
be used to deny voluntary prayer, meditation, in the schools.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Williams voluntary prayer
amendment.
Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and urge its passage.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there is one problem with the language the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams] would offer us here. It is weaker than
present law. The fact is that under present law, in the appropriations
bills that have been passed every year since 1978, there is specific
language that says none of the funds appropriated under this act may
deny participation in voluntary school prayer. This gentleman's
amendment today weakens the language which is already a part of law,
and so what he is asking us to do is not only to turn down the Duncan-
Johnson amendment, but he is asking us to go a step further and weaken
what is already present law as it applies to voluntary school prayer.
Now I think the House wants to think twice about that, Mr. Chairman,
because we have for a period now of about 16 years had a policy very
similar to what the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] offers us
here this evening, except stronger. And now the gentleman from Montana,
I guess knowingly, has come to the floor and suggested he wants to set
aside that policy and instead go with this new weaker policy.
I would suggest that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] and
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] have, in fact, moved us in
the direction, if we want to have stronger language; and all across
American I believe that middle-class Americans have decided that we
need to have a stronger something to say about school prayer; but all
they are suggesting is that schools ought to make certain that
constitutionally protected prayer is allowed to take place in those
schools and that they have a program for ensuring that it take place.
That is all it says.
Now that is stronger than what present law is; I happen to think
appropriately so, but the gentleman from Montana wants to weaken even
present law.
{time} 1940
So I would suggest to the House that what you want to look at here as
you consider this amendment is do you want to go with what the
gentleman from Montana is suggesting and weaken what is already in
present law, or do you want to strengthen our commitment to volunteer
school prayer by voting for the Johnson-Duncan amendment.
I would hope that we would turn down the Williams substitute, turn
down weakening present law, and instead endorse the Johnson-Duncan
amendment, which allows us to have voluntary school prayer for real.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can understand this debate. We have
assault in school, we have no prayer. We have theft in school, we have
no prayer. We have drugs in school, we have no prayer. We have condoms
in school, we have no prayer. We have all kinds of crime in school, but
there is no prayer. There is racism in our schools, there is no prayer.
There is hate in our schools, there is no prayer. It is evident from
assault to theft to guns to drugs to condoms, there is no God at all,
and I think Congress has something to do with that.
The Constitution may have separated church and state from one
specific religion, but the Constitution never intended to separate God
and the American people. This debate should not be occurring here.
Congress is responsible for the schools of our country in their sad
shape.
I want to commend the authors of this amendment on the Republican
side. I am going to vote with you, and I am going to oppose the
Democrat amendment. It is a sad day, Congress, when the only time you
hear God mentioned in our public schools is when God's name is taken in
vain. Congress has a responsibility for what is happening in this
country, and we have split hairs to the point of constitutional debates
over whether or not the Constitution would recognize God or in fact
prohibit God from our schools.
I think we have gone too far. I think it is time that Congress look
in the mirror and Congress take a look at the public school system of
America, and pat itself on the back for doing exactly what should not
be done.
I am proud to join and support the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam
Johnson] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and I wish the
Congress would also.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that
may be ordered on the Johnson of Texas amendment without intervening
business or debate.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 239, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 74]
AYES--171
Abercrombie
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Coppersmith
Coyne
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Hughes
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
NOES--239
Allard
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chapman
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lancaster
Lazio
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Machtley
Mann
Manzullo
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Valentine
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--28
Ackerman
Bacchus (FL)
Buyer
Byrne
Clay
Cox
Deutsch
Faleomavaega (AS)
Gallo
Gillmor
Grandy
Hastings
Hoke
Hoyer
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Meek
Murphy
Natcher
Pickle
Ridge
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rostenkowski
Santorum
Slattery
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Wheat
{time} 2003
Messrs. McCLOSKEY, PETERSON of Florida, McCANDLESS, and MOLLOHAN, and
Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SWIFT and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair announces that this is a 5-minute
vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345,
noes 64, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 75]
AYES--345
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
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
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Valentine
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--64
Abercrombie
Andrews (ME)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Cardin
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Coyne
Dellums
Dingell
Edwards (CA)
Engel
Eshoo
Filner
Fingerhut
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gonzalez
Hamburg
Harman
Kopetski
Lewis (GA)
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
McKinney
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Reed
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Schenk
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Swift
Synar
Torres
Towns
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--29
Ackerman
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Buyer
Clay
Cox
Deutsch
Faleomavaega (AS)
Gallo
Gillmor
Grandy
Hastings
Hoke
Hoyer
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Meek
Murphy
Natcher
Nussle
Pickle
Ridge
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rostenkowski
Santorum
Slattery
Underwood (GU)
Washington
Wheat
{time} 2013
Mr. COYNE, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. McKINNEY, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. THURMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Peterson of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Darden, 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.
____________________