[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.

                          ____________________