[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]
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOL ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 6.
{time} 2016
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 6) to extend for 6 years the authorizations of
appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and for certain other purposes, with Mr. Darden,
Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Johnson] had been disposed of.
Are there further amendments to title IX?
amendment offered by mr. condit
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: Page 762, after line 8,
insert the following new section (and redesignate
accordingly):
``SEC. 9508. PROVISIONS TO BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY UNTIL
FULLY FUNDED.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
provisions relating to opportunity-to-learn standards that
impose requirements on States and local educational agencies
(whether the development of opportunity-to-learn standards or
actions taken to meet such standards) shall be treated as
recommendations to the States and local educational agencies
and compliance with such provisions shall be voluntary on the
part of the State and local educational agencies until the
costs of implementing such provisions are fully funded by the
Federal Government.''
Mr. CONDIT (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 California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment focuses on the opportunity-to-
learn standards contained in title I. My amendment will make the
development and submission as well as the implementation of the
standard voluntary unless the Federal resources are provided to pay the
cost incurred in developing the standards.
So it is a simple, straightforward amendment and I would ask for an
aye vote.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Roberts to the Amendment offered by Mr. Condit
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Roberts to the amendment offered
by Mr. Condit: Page 762, after line 8, insert the following:
``SEC. 9508. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any
requirements relating to reporting, planning, and data
collection established under this Act that were not required
prior to the enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994, shall not be required until funds for the cost of
implementing such requirements are provided in appropriation
acts.
Mr. ROBERTS (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 Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Roberts
amendment to the Condit amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]
reserves a point of other on the amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to the Condit
proposal to ensure that all of the additional spending programs that
are required in this legislation will be funded by the Federal
Government or be considered voluntary for State and local governments
until such funding is provided.
For the past several weeks the House has been debating all sorts of
aspects of this legislation. they have focused on special Sate
programs, individual programs, learning standards and other new
reporting requirements to be placed on State education programs. As
this debate has developed, it has become obvious to many of my
colleagues that there are considerable new spending and reporting
requirements that are contained in this bill, Federal mandates that may
or may not be funded in future years. The Congressional Research
Service has just now completed an analysis of this bill and found 23,
23 additional requirements that require reporting to all of the titles.
{time} 2020
Now, many of us here may disagree on whether this or that new program
or requirement should be enacted, and many of my colleagues would agree
that all new requirements should be voluntary unless some Federal funds
are provided to pay for these new mandates.
I recognize the concerns of the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Ford], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] in regard to their view on
the need for this legislation and their position that this is an
appropriations issue, not an authorizing issue. But unfortunately, Mr.
Chairman, unless action is taken at this time during the authorizing
process, the mandates will remain mandatory. Unless this language is
included at this time to make all mandates voluntary until the Federal
funding is provided, States and local governments will possibly be left
funding millions of dollars in new reporting requirements.
As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Unfunded Mandates, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and I share a concern over the
additional cost being shifted on State and local governments, and for
that reason I urge adoption of both the Roberts amendment and the
Condit amendment.
Now, after visiting with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], I recognize that my amendment
is not in order under the rule, and the amendment can and will be
denied consideration.
But I urge my colleagues to recognize the need to include a universal
exception to all unfunded mandates contained with this bill. If not my
amendment, I at least urge adoption of the Condit amendment.
While many of us here may disagree on whether this or that new
program or requirement should be enacted at the Federal level, many of
my colleagues would agree that all new requirements should be voluntary
unless Federal funds are provided to pay for the new mandates.
I recognize the concerns of Chairman Ford and Congressman Kildee
regarding their view on the need for this legislation and their
position that this is an appropriations issue--not an authorizing
issue. Unfortunately, unless action is taken at this time, during the
authorizing process, the mandates will remain mandatory whether
accompanied or not with the necessary Federal funding from the
Appropriations Committee. Unless this language is included at this time
to make all mandates voluntary until Federal funding is provided,
States and local governments will possibly be left funding millions of
dollars in new Federal programs.
As members of the Congressional Caucus on Unfunded Mandates,
Congressman Condit and I share a concern over the additional costs
being shifted on State and local governments. For that reason, I urge
adoption of both the Roberts amendment and the Condit amendment.
After visiting with Mr. Ford and Mr. Kildee, I recognize that my
amendment is not in order under the rule--and the amendment can and
will be denied consideration.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the need to include a universal
exception to all unfunded mandates contained within this bill. If not
my amendment, I at least urge adoption of the Condit amendment.
Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC, February 23, 1994.
Subject: ``New'' Report Requirements in H.R. 6, the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994.
This memorandum was prepared in response to your request
for a listing of ``new'' requirements in H.R. 6, the
Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), as reported by the
House Committee on Education and Labor. As you requested,
this list is limited to requirements that are ``new''--i.e.,
essentially different from any current requirements
associated with programs that would be amended and extended
by H.R. 6--and that apply to State or local educational
agencies (SEAs, LEAs). Requirements that SEAs or LEAs make
specific reports to the U.S. Department of Education (ED), or
other Federal agencies, as well as to each other (i.e., LEAs
to SEA), or to the public are included, as are new
requirements for SEA or LEA plans if they are significantly
different from current application requirements. It should be
noted that current report requirements that would be
terminated by H.R. 6, if any, are not included. Further,
report requirements in H.R. 6 that involve only ED or other
Federal agencies, including required evaluations or reports
to Congress, are not included.
Finally, this is referred to below as a ``selected'' list
because we are unable to assure that we have found all such
provisions, due primarily to the limited time available to
complete this request before House floor action on H.R. 6.
``New'' State or Local Reporting Requirements in H.R. 6, as Reported by
the House Committee on Education and Labor--A Selected List
Title I--Improved Education for Disadvantaged Children
1. Sec. 1111--State plans\2\ to be submitted to Ed,
including State content, pupil performance, and opportunity
to learn standards, and reports to be disseminated within the
State on the extent to which participating schools and LEAs
meet the State's opportunity to learn standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sec. 1112--LEA plans (to be submitted to the State).
3. Sec. 1115(c)(2)--Targeted assistance school plans.
4. Sec. 1116(a)--LEAs required to disseminate throughout
their communities annual performance profiles for
participating schools.
5. Sec. 1118(c)--Parental involvement plans for
participating schools.
6. Sec. 1118(e)--School-parent compacts.
7. Sec. 1306--Comprehensive needs assessment and service
delivery plan for State agency migrant program.
8. Sec. 1404--State plan for services to delinquent youth
and youth at risk of dropping out of school.
Title II, Part A--Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development
Program\3\
1. State plan to improve teaching and learning to be
submitted as part of SEA application to Secretary; such plan
is to include an assessment of State and local needs for
professional development.
2. Participating States must submit report to Secretary
every 3 years on progress toward performance indicators.
3. Local plan to be submitted as part of LEA application to
SEA; LEA application is to include a professional development
needs assessment.
4. Participating LEAs must report every 3 years to State on
progress toward performance indicators.
title ii, part b--technology education assistance act of 1994
1. SEAs must file a 5-year educational technology plan with
Secretary of Education.
2. LEAs must receive State approval of a technology use
plan.
3. Sec. 2207(d) appears to require State agencies for
higher education to report annually to SEA on progress of
higher education programs.
4. Sec. 2208(d) appears to require library administrative
agencies to report annually to SEA on progress of library and
literacy programs.
title ii, part c--library media program
State must have a plan for school library media.
title ii, part d--support and assistance
1. Sec. 2343 requires each comprehensive assistance center
to publish and disseminate widely an annual report of
services and accomplishments; and requires the Secretary to
collect information about the availability and quality of
services provided by the centers.
2. Sec. 2347 requires the National Diffusion Network State
facilitators to disseminate information about school reform
and promising practices and to facilitate communications
among educators.
title ii, part e--education program strategies
Sec. 2444 requires LEAs using funds for community learning
centers to provide information to SEAs describing activities
and projects funded under this part.
title iii, part c--public charter schools
Applicant must provide annually to Secretary such
information required to determine if charter school is making
satisfactory progress toward school's objectives.
h.r. 6, title ii--general education provisions act
Sec. 424 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), as
amended, requires each State educational agency to submit a
biennial report to the Secretary regarding uses of Federal
funds.\4\
h.r. 6, title iii, part b--homeless children and youth
Sec. 722 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
(McKinney Act), as amended, requires each State Office of
Coordination of Education of Homeless Children and Youth to
estimate the number of homeless children and youth served
under this program, collect information on the educational
problems such children and youth, and report every third year
to the Secretary.
footnotes
\1\Note: Title, part, and section references are to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as it would be
amended by H.R. 6, not to H.R. 6, itself.
\2\While SEAs and LEAs are currently required to submit
applications for Title I (Chapter 1) assistance that contain
some of the same elements as the plans required in H.R. 6,
State and local plans, as such, are not currently required,
nor are the current application requirements as extensive as
the H.R. 6 plan requirements.
\3\Currently, the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science
Education Act requires SEAs to submit a 3-year application
which is referred to as a ``plan''; State applications must
have a projection of teacher supply and demand, and an
assessment of curriculum needs in math and science; SEAs have
to assess effects of their pros and submit results and
summaries of local assessments to the Secretary; LEAs have to
assess effects of their programs and report results to the
SEA.
\4\This is a modification of a current requirement.
Point of Order
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] in that it is not
germane.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is
more general in scope than the amendment of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit], and, therefore, is not germane.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Does the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts] desire to be heard on the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I realize the amendment is not germane under the rule considered. I
realize the gentleman's point is well taken under the rule of the
House, and my amendment is not germane under the rules of the House to
this particular bill.
But it sure as heck is germane to each school district that is going
to have to pay for 23 reporting requirements in regards to unfunded
mandates.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For the reasons stated by the gentleman
from Michigan and agreed to by the gentleman from Kansas, the point of
order is sustained.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and say
this: That the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Condit] is well intentioned and certainly put before the House with
good intentions. But I think it is no longer necessary inasmuch as the
Goodling-Kildee amendment was adopted, which takes care of the very
problem which the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] wished to
address.
So I think in light of the fact that the Goodling-Kildee amendment
has been adopted, this amendment is not necessary.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, based on the compromise with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Kildee], I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 is the eighth
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
[ESEA]. With the possible exception of the 1978 House consideration of
ESEA, the number of amendments offered on the House floor to that act
during consideration of past reauthorizations were far fewer than the
number that have been offered to H.R. 6.
In general, the types of House floor amendments to ESEA
reauthorizations in the past have been concerned with the title I/
chapter 1 formula, impact aid, eliminating programs, amending specific
program provisions, and, in the early 1970's, school busing for
desegregation purposes.
Generally, the House floor amendments to H.R. 6 have been concerned
with eliminating programs or creating new programs, and with social
issues such as illegal aliens, school prayer, homosexuality, and sex
education. Well over 100 amendments were in order to be offered to H.R.
6.
A more detailed analysis of past House consideration of ESEA
legislation follows.
1965
With the original consideration of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, an amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted,
along with an amendment limiting the Commissioner of Education to
appointing one advisory council with 10 members.
Among the 11 amendments that were rejected, one sought to strike
funding for school libraries and text books, another limited funding to
areas serving large numbers of educationally and economically
disadvantaged children, and one substituted the title ``Commissar'' for
``Commissioner'' wherever that title appeared in the bill.
1966
The next House consideration of ESEA occurred in 1966. During that
consideration, 3 amendments were agreed to and 17 were rejected. The
amendments which were agreed to dealt with school busing to correct
racial imbalance; the Commissioner's compliance with the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 regarding the withholding of funds; and allowing State
educational agencies to research the first three grades of education.
Most of the amendments that were rejected concerned the title I
formula.
1967
During the 1967 House consideration of ESEA, a substitute and six
amendments were agreed to; seven amendments were rejected. Among the
amendments agreed to were several concerning desegregation and measures
to strengthen State educational agencies. The House rejected amendments
to block grant several programs, to provide additional funds for
children of migratory children; and a teacher-intern program at
universities.
1969
In 1969, a substitute amendment and an amendment which prohibited the
National Advisory Council on Education from hiring its own staff were
adopted; another substitute, along with four other amendments, were
defeated. The House rejected amendments that prohibited Federal funds
to be used in the busing of students and several impact aid amendments.
1974
The 1974 consideration of ESEA saw 11 amendments agreed to and 19
amendments defeated. The House adopted amendments which concerned
involvement of private schools in Federal education programs; the title
I set-aside for the territories; the prohibition of Federal funds to be
used for busing; the protection of pupil and parent rights; and the
requiring of the Commissioner to evaluate programs under the act. The
House defeated several amendments to the title I formula, an amendment
to phase out the title I program over 4 years, several impact aid
amendments, two amendments concerning teacher unions and school
district participation in programs, and amendments that sought to
change the length of time for which the programs in ESEA were
authorized.
1978
In 1978, the House agreed to 38 amendments and rejected 19. Among the
amendments agreed to were amendments that addressed title I
comparability; the noninstructional duties of school
personnel paid with title I funds; the small State minimum for title I
concentration grant funds; a new program for early childhood, family,
and parenthood education; and Federal assistance to school districts
with high incidents of crime to combat vandalism and crime. The House
also adopted several bilingual education amendments and several
amendments concerning school district compliance with Federal
requirements. The House rejected amendments to terminate the follow
through and bilingual education programs; to change the threshold on
title I concentration grants; and impact aid.
1981
Because the ESEA reauthorization was done as part of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act, there were no floor amendments to ESEA.
1988
In 1988, the House adopted a substitute amendment and seven
additional amendments; one amendment was rejected; and three amendments
were offered and withdrawn. Among the amendments adopted by the house
were amendments to provide grants for the improvement and expansion of
critical foreign language study; to require States to include in their
application for Federal assistance an assessment of the impact that the
programs will have on the family; a study of the impact of the chapter
1 allocation method on States; and encouragement of school districts to
recognize the contribution of teachers to the education of students;
and two Indian education amendments. The House rejected an amendment to
prohibit the use of funds to conduct special projects for the
development or operation of programs related to youth suicide
prevention or death education before the completion of a study by the
Secretary to determine the effects of such curricula on students.
Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 6,
the Improving America's Schools Act, and specifically, title III, part
F of the bill which funds the important ``We the People'' civic
education program.
``We the People'' is an outstanding program of instruction and
competition in the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Every
year, close to 1 million students in classrooms across our Nation spend
months studying our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Students work
together to learn about the development and the basic principles of
constitutional democracy.
After gaining a core understanding of the principles of our
Government and the rights and responsibilities of citizens, classmates
then compete together in the annual ``We the People'' National
Bicentennial Competition on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The program culminates in a national final competition in Washington.
Importantly, the ``We the People'' Program is extremely cost
effective. For a relatively minor investment, we are educating and
empowering close to 1 million students every year to be informed
citizens who are willing and able to make a positive contribution to
addressing the critical issues of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, the ``We the People'' Program has been a huge success
in my congressional district on Long Island. I have been enormously
impressed by the knowledge and enthusiasm of students participating in
the program. I am pleased that the Education and Labor Committee is
reauthorizing this important program.
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.
____________________