[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.

                          ____________________