[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). 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}   1244


                     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 Mrs. 
Kennelly Chairman pro tempore in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Monday, March 21, 1994, title IX of the proposed Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title IX?


                  amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: Page 762, after line 
     8, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 9508. PROHIBITING BENEFITS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.

       ``No funds authorized in this Act may be used to provide 
     any benefit or assistance to any individual who is not-
       ``(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
       ``(2) a permanent resident alien; or
       ``(3) an alien who is a parolee, asylee, or refugee under 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act.''.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, this amendment is one of a series of 
amendments that I intend to offer to end the practice of providing 
Federal benefits to illegal aliens. Each of these amendments will have 
the effect of stemming the huge drain on the Federal budget caused by 
opening the Federal treasury without restriction to people who have 
violated the laws of our country by coming here.
  In this case, my amendment will also eliminate one of the largest 
unfunded Federal mandates in existence. This mandate has come about 
through a combination of the Player versus Doe Supreme Court decision 
and a lack of congressional policy in this area.
  In 1982, the Supreme Court decided by a 5 to 4 vote that, in the 
absence of congressional policy to the contrary, States must provide a 
free education to illegal aliens. Let me repeat that, Madam Chairman. 
This Supreme Court decision was not only decided by one vote, in a more 
liberal Supreme Court than we have today, but even by its terms, it is 
a mandate on the States, not the Federal Government.
  And, as is obvious to anyone who actually reads the majority opinion 
in this case, the only reason the State of Texas was not allowed to 
make the distinction between citizens and legal residents on the one 
hand, and illegal aliens on the other, was because Congress had made no 
such distinction.

  What I am proposing today, Madam Chairman, is for Congress to make 
that distinction--so that the States can then constitutionally make the 
decision that citizens and legal residents from all racial and ethnic 
backgrounds shall come first; that those who have entered our country 
in violation of our laws are not entitled to the same benefits as our 
own citizens and legal residents. Once Congress makes this delineation, 
Plyler versus Doe will no longer keep States from making the same 
decision.
  In my State of California, the most popular initiative currently 
being circulated for placement on the ballot is the SOS initiative. 
This initiative ends State-funded benefits, including education 
benefits, to illegal aliens. The only way this initiative can be fully 
effective, the only way California taxpayers and the taxpayers of other 
States will be able to lift this burden from their backs, is for 
Congress to adopt this amendment.
  Yes, Madam Chairman, it is tough to tell parents that their children 
will not receive a free education, if those children are not here 
legally. And it is tough to tell them they won't receive long-term 
disaster aid, or other Federal benefits. And it is probably even 
tougher to tell them that they, and their children, will be deported 
because they came here illegally.
  But just because it is tough to do doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, 
Madam Chairman. Just because it is tough to say ``no'' doesn't mean we 
should entice everyone in the world with the promise that if they can 
make it here illegally, they will get every benefit Federal, State, and 
local governments provide to citizens and legal residents, including 
educating their children, and in their own native language, no less.
  Madam Chairman, continuing to provide the current panoply of 
taxpayer-paid benefits to anyone who can make it here illegally is 
fueling our deficit, and will eventually bankrupt this Nation, and its 
State and local governments, as well. I ask my colleagues to support 
this step toward fiscal sanity for all levels of government.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairman, this amendment is counterproductive, 
shortsighted, and an unconstitutional attempt to build upon anti-
immigrant sentiment. Not only does the amendment deprive children of 
receiving an education, but it is also an unfunded Federal mandate that 
places a huge financial burden on every local school in every district 
in this Nation. Local schools would be forced to investigate the 
immigration status of its students and their parents without receiving 
any money from the Federal Government. In short, this amendment harms 
schools, and sends the message to some children that they are different 
and not good enough to receive the same education as other children 
who, for some reason, are considered better than they are.
  As proposed, this amendment would expose innocent individuals who are 
U.S. citizens or otherwise legally admitted into this country to 
widespread discrimination. It is likely that only those who look 
different than someone like Mr. Rohrabacher will be asked by untrained 
school officials to produce proof of citizenship when they are detained 
or questioned. In fact, innocent individuals have been mistakenly 
deported, and under this amendment, cases of mistaken identity will be 
enormously increased. This amendment will force teachers to single out 
and discriminate against students in order to receive the funds they 
desperately need.
  Furthermore, school administrators and teachers who are already 
overwhelmed with the educational system would have to enforce complex 
immigration laws. As an unfunded Federal mandate, this amendment would 
place unreasonable administrative and costly burdens on every district 
in this country including those with little immigration. The fact is 
that this amendment will not prevent illegal immigration. Instead, the 
result will be a country where children will grow up poorly educated 
and will be unable to compete in a global economy.
  The amendment also forces Federal, State, and local jurisdictions to 
act against the principles of our constitution. The Supreme Court has 
ruled that all children are allowed access to public education. More 
importantly, the Court determined that children of undocumented 
individuals eventually acquire legal status. Therefore, if these 
children are denied an education, we will be creating an underclass of 
individuals who will be ill-prepared to take on their roles as future 
workers and contributors to society.
  Madam Chairman, school boards as well as the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service oppose this amendment. They do so because they 
understand that our focus needs to be on the enhancement of our 
educational system for all children. By discriminating against our 
children and by adding more burdens and costs to our local schools, we 
would be harming all Americans. We as a Congress, including a majority 
of Republican Members, overwhelmingly voted against an effort to force 
school officials to become INS agents. Let's take the next positive 
step and help schools focus not on additional paperwork and more 
redtape, but on the education of all our children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the penultimate word.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I have one concern about the amendment, 
and that concern is that it would appear to me to be broad enough that 
it would include children of migrant laborers who come in from other 
countries. If that is true, they are probably the most needy and their 
parents are the most needed because, being in the orchard business 
myself, to try to hire locally you might as well let the fruit rot and 
drop because it is too expensive to get it harvested. But after you let 
it rot and drop, you have to go out and pick it up anyway in order to 
protect the soil.
  So I would hope that it does not include children of migrant workers 
who begin, when they come in and start harvesting in Florida, then they 
move up through the South, come into Pennsylvania and Ohio and end up 
in California generally. The youngsters have it difficult enough 
because they are being moved from school district to school district to 
school district. So I am concerned that the language would be broad 
enough that they would not have an exemption because I do not read an 
exemption for them in the legislation.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, if you will recall, about a week and a half ago we 
defeated an amendment that was somewhat similar to the amendment we 
face today by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. At that 
point the amendment would have imposed upon schools a requirement that 
they report the number of children in their schools who did not have 
documents to be in this country, as well as to also document the number 
of children who had a parent who did not have documents to be in this 
country.
  That was an amendment which had no funding behind it and would have 
required schools to become INS agents, teachers to spy on the children, 
children to snitch on their parents as well.
  What we found was that it would have been unworkable and unfundable, 
and it would have cost us millions, if not billions, of dollars to try 
to enforce.
  That amendment was defeated, defeated soundly, I must say, by a vote 
of 78 in favor and 329 against. There were more Republicans who voted 
against that amendment than there were Republicans who supported that 
amendment.
  This amendment does implicitly what that previous amendment did 
explicitly; that is, require schools to document what their children's 
status is, whether or not a child looks as Anglo as any other child in 
this Nation, white or Latino or Africa-American or Asian, it would make 
no difference. A school cannot discriminate and say, ``You look 
foreign-born, and therefore I am going to find out if in fact you are 
here with documentation.'' You would have to go to every child in every 
school and document that this person somehow is not here legally. You 
would have to undertake, if you are a school district, the same type of 
action that the INS is required to take in order to deport someone, 
because if you do not, then you are, in essence, admitting that you are 
discriminating because you are somehow selectively deciding who to 
choose to administer some type of examination to find out if this 
person is here legally or not.

  The worst part about this particular amendment, I would say, is that 
the person whom we are choosing to go after is a child, a child who is 
trying to receive an education.
  I would hope that we keep in mind in this particular debate that we 
are talking about imposing upon a school district, upon administrators, 
and upon teachers and upon children and their parents a requirement 
that they determine somehow what the INS is obligated by law to do--and 
that is, if someone is here, legally or not--and here we are 
pinpointing children.
  What is the biggest problem with this particular amendment? Besides 
the cost and the Federal Government here is providing not a single cent 
to pay for the cost of a school to try to determine the status of a 
child, but the worst part about this is that we are talking about a 
bill, an amendment here that would have virtually no effect, if any at 
all, on those who are coming into this country without documentation. 
Think about it, a person who crosses the borders without documentation 
is coming, for the most part, without children. The person is coming to 
find a job. If someone is coming across these borders without 
documentation and bringing a family, chances are the reason he or she 
is bringing family is to flee conditions which are worse than they are 
here in the United States.
  Chances are the child of that particular immigrant without documents 
will not be afforded education in that home country. Chances are the 
health care for that child is going to be no better than the health 
care in a country like the United States if we were to exclude any 
funding for health care. But in terms of education, we are talking 
about trying to educate a young mind, whether the mind is of a child 
who came with parents, completely innocently, because the parents came 
across this border without documentation, is completely ignored by this 
amendment. What it says is that we will discipline, we will penalize a 
child who is in the school to learn because his or her parent may have 
come across the border without documentation. And I say may because you 
have to prove it. You cannot deny someone access to something or the 
benefit of something without proving he or she is not entitled to it. 
You are innocent in this country until proven guilty. This would 
require schools to determine that someone is guilty, something that 
requires a judicial process.
  So we are not only causing States and school districts to incur 
tremendous costs through this amendment but we have no guarantees that 
it will do anything to reduce the number of people who are coming into 
our borders without documents because people certainly will not leave 
if they hear that their child all of a sudden does not have access to 
education, because what they truly are looking for is a way to provide 
for their family. A lot of these immigrants were not heavily educated 
themselves. They never were expected to have their child get educated 
heavily in their own country. So, depriving the child of a decent 
education probably will have very little effect, deterrent effect on 
people who wish to come into this country without documents.

                              {time}  1300

  It is an unfunded mandate, a heavy burden on school districts, and I 
would urge my colleagues to vote against this particular amendment 
because it does nothing to address the issue of immigration which we 
should do through immigration laws.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit debate 
on this amendment to 30 minutes, to be equally divided between both 
sides.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman desire to include in his 
unanimous consent request all amendments thereto?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Yes, Madam Chairman, to include all amendments thereto.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chairman, I guess the best way to start this 
discussion this time, as I look at the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], is to quote a Member of his party some years ago and 
simply say: ``Here you go again.''
  Madam Chairman, I have no understanding why the gentleman from 
California continues to believe that this kind of an amendment can have 
any real effect on the issue that he wishes to address, an issue of 
whether or not we have an immigration problem or an immigration 
situation in the country. If, in fact, it is a problem for some of us, 
the time to deal with that is not when a child enters school. As the 
gentleman from California on our side clearly stated, Madam Chairman, 
this amendment is no different than the gentleman's original amendment 
because that amendment stated that we had to count everyone. It said:

       For this amendment to be carried out you have to count 
     everyone, and, if you make a mistake in counting, a district 
     runs the risk under this amendment of losing its funding.

  Now we are not talking about funding only for undocumented children, 
Madam Chairman. We are talking about funding for all children. So 
technically, my colleagues, take a district anywhere in California, a 
district anywhere in Michigan, in Illinois, in New York, in Florida. I 
can say as a former school employee of a school district, what you have 
to go through to find out who these children are takes weeks, months, 
perhaps half a year, and the gentleman doesn't speak at all to what 
happens to those funds during that time. So technically anyone, under 
this amendment, could then sue in any court in the land to say ``Don't 
allow New York City, San Diego, Pasadena, or anyplace in Hawaii, 
wherever, to receive funding this fiscal year because they still have 
not completed their study,'' and we would be in violation of the law.
  Then we go to the point that we bring up every time which is: How the 
heck do you get around finding out who is documented and who is not?
  Well, the first unfair part of this continues to be, and it is like, 
as my colleague knows, we are repeating ourselves all the time, but the 
gentleman keeps coming up with these amendments. The first thing is 
that only those who look foreign will be asked to prove that they are 
citizens, and only those who look foreign will be asked to ask their 
parents if they are citizens or not, and I think that that is, first of 
all, improper, it is unfair, and it creates a problem because, as the 
gentleman well knows, someone that would go in with my first name would 
be asked to prove that he is a citizen, and, having been born an 
American citizen, I have no proof, and I carry no proof with me, that I 
am an American citizen.

  So, I continue to implore the gentleman who every other time of the 
day is one of the nicest people I know in this country, but the minute 
he gets behind these amendments, Madam Chairman, he becomes an 
individual that is so hard to understand. I implore the gentleman to 
reconsider these kinds of amendments. I know he is going to come up 
with one on every single bill every time we are allocating any dollars 
to any area of this country. I ask him to reconsider what he is doing 
and say, If you, in fact, believe that there is an immigration problem 
in this country, then deal with it under an immigration package of 
bills that deals with that issue. Once a child is here, once a person 
is in a flood, once a person is in an earthquake, do not single them 
out to be the only ones in the society that have to prove that they are 
citizens.
  Madam Chairman, this is costly. This is going to cost the local 
districts a lot of money, and for a person who is known to be a fiscal 
conservative I am surprised that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] would put on different districts of the Nation such 
difficult costs.
  I say to the gentleman, Don't pass it on. Don't even consider going 
through with this amendment today. Our rules allow us to pull the 
amendments back, and you would get a standing ovation from this side if 
you did so.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I would just like to have a colloquy 
with my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. This 
particular amendment, and other amendments that he has had, have 
brought up the question from the other side in terms of Federal 
mandates, and I thought we might explore that a little bit because I 
think there is some misinformation out here. I think this side 
recognizes that we have an immigration problem, a situation, as the 
colleague who just spoke, and we have to get to the heart of this 
matter.
  Another area I would like to explore with him is the idea of how the 
Supreme Court's decision on this has been and how the gentleman's 
amendment would tie in with the Supreme Court, and I think there has 
been some statements by the Supreme Court on this matter.
  So I think we should try and talk about the fact, and I would like to 
yield to my colleague from California to talk about this, two areas, in 
terms of the Federal mandates, what that means in the schools, and the 
idea of what the Supreme Court has said on this, and how the 
gentleman's legislation would affect that decision.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, the requirement, or the mandate, 
that local school districts provide education for illegal aliens just 
as they provide education for legal residents and U.S. citizens was 
dictated by Pyler versus Doe. However a reading of Pyler versus Doe, 
which was only a 5-to-4 decision in a court that was much more liberal 
than it is today, a reading of that decision makes very clear that the 
States are not mandated if the Federal Government sets a policy. What I 
am attempting to do today and with the amendments which I will offer on 
other bills in the future is for us to state the policy, which is what 
the justices of the Supreme Court asked us to do, in terms of whether 
or not benefits should be made available or be mandated for States to 
be made available to illegal immigrants. If we indeed pass resolutions 
and amendments like the one I am suggesting today, it complies with 
what the Supreme Court suggested was necessary, for us to take the 
mandate off of the local government and the local schools.
  In other words, Madam Chairman, when we are talking about mandated 
education costing billions of dollars, that is not mandated if the 
Congress acts. It is very clear in that Supreme Court decision.
  So, those on the other side of the aisle who are suggesting that the 
mandate will be held if we indeed set the policy are wrong. In fact, we 
are talking about saving the taxpayers billions of dollars by 
eliminating that mandate on our local schools and our States.
  Mr. STEARNS. So, to emphasize what the gentleman is saying here, 
Madam Chairman, the Pyler versus Doe Supreme Court decision said States 
are not mandated if the Federal Government sets a policy, and in this 
amendment, the one that the gentleman had yesterday on striking the 
provisions in dealing with bilingual education and in many of his 
amendments, they have been shown to be setting the policy by the 
Federal Government in the gentleman's amendment. So that precludes the 
idea that there is any Federal mandates, so I think my colleagues 
should realize this whole argument on the basis of this is that all 
Federal mandates on the States is erroneous if we in Congress set the 
policy.
  Is that not true?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman is correct. The purpose of my 
amendment is to eliminate the Federal mandate on the State and the 
local government, a mandate that today costs the taxpayers of this 
country billions of dollars in order to provide benefits for people who 
may not have contributed at all to the tax base--which may or may not 
have contributed to the tax base which is being taxed in order to 
provide that benefit.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. STEARNS. So in this case there are going to be extra funds 
required, there is a stipulation, and we are setting the policy. We 
hear on the other side that we are forcing children to spy on their 
parents and things like that. The gentleman might want to address that 
because we hear that continually from the other side.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, the amendment which would have 
required the schools to count the number of illegal aliens at no time 
suggested that those schools turn any name of anyone over to any 
Federal authority. It is understood the amendment, of course, was a 
tactic used to obfuscate the central point, and the purpose of that 
amendment was to get a count. The amendment was very clear and the 
newspaper accounts of my amendment were very clear that at no time did 
I require, suggest, or in any way make any type of hint that local 
school districts should be taking the names of the children and turning 
them over to the INS. We specifically by that amendment wanted a count. 
All we needed to do was to get a count of the problem.
  In California we have millions of people who have come there from 
other countries, not just from Latin America and Mexico but from other 
countries of the world as well, who are now receiving educational 
benefits for their children. It is breaking the budget.
  Governor Chiles from the gentleman's own State of Florida complained 
that the same thing is happening in Florida. The budgets of States are 
being broken by the fact that people naturally want to come here. Good 
and decent people want to come here from all over the world, but we 
have to determine this today: Where does our allegiance lie? With the 
people who have been here legally and are U.S. citizens, at a time of a 
budget crunch, should we be spending the money, our limited dollars, 
for their benefit, or shall we open it up to everybody in the world who 
can come here illegally and thus hurt our own people?
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, taking back my own time, I have just one 
other point. In Florida we have a number of illegal immigrants who are 
in prisons, and we are trying to prevent that. Governor Chiles is suing 
the Federal Government because of the illegal immigrants who are in 
Florida.
  I would just like to say in summary that all the gentleman is trying 
to do is get information so we can have a handle on this problem. So 
the gentleman's amendment is specifically saying, ``Let's find out how 
many children there are.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, the first thing is to set the 
principle and then let us get the numbers, and then let us try to find 
the enforcement mechanism.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I only wish to speak for just a short moment for the purpose of 
clarifying the colloquy that went on between the 2 gentleman on the 
other side of the aisle.
  I do not think anyone is saying that if the Federal Government 
could--and it can at this stage--tell States they do not have to 
provide education to a particular individual, that therefore there 
would be some demand upon a State. Clearly there would not if in fact 
there were no requirement by the Federal Government to do so.
  But what the 2 gentleman forget completely in their colloquy is that 
there has to be a determination made that someone is here without 
documentation. Someone has to adjudicate that a child or an adult is 
not legally here.
  I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] that his 
amendment does nothing to provide school districts the money they need 
to go through the adjudicatory process to determine that. The gentleman 
leaves it up to the States and the school districts, the schools 
themselves, to pay for the cost of adjudication, and, therefore, that 
is a heavy, large unfunded mandate.
  What some of us on this side of the aisle are saying is, ``Let's deal 
with those immigration issues, but let's deal with the issues in the 
immigration law, not in education law, where we are going to impact 
tremendous numbers of children.''
  We do not know who we are going to attack, if we are not attacking 
those who are here with or without documentation. So let us not fool 
anyone. This is a magnificent unfunded Federal mandate the gentleman is 
proposing. It may not be an unfunded mandate the way the gentleman has 
explained it, but it certainly is an unfunded mandate that will require 
schools to do something they are not right now required to do.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  Madam Chairman, I think that this amendment is an egregious attempt 
to alter what has been the basic philosophy of this country, and that 
is to assume the fundamental responsibility of educating our children 
in our public school systems by those who do not want to be in the 
public school systems to preserve the integrity of the private schools.
  But we have always felt undergirded by the Supreme Court decision 
that the responsibility of all of us in our communities through our 
local school boards, in our States, and indeed through the Congress, is 
to afford educational opportunity to our children.
  he mischief of this amendment is to say that there are some children 
in our society that ought not to be educated, and that if a school 
system does not segregate out from its population those who are not 
entitled to an education, it could suffer the harm of losing Federal 
funds, and that is a very, very difficult predicament that school 
systems are going to find themselves in.
  There is no doubt that there is an illegal immigration problem in 
this country, but why use the children of our country to enforce the 
laws that ought to be enforced by the Justice Department and by all the 
other law enforcement agencies that we have put this responsibility 
upon? Why do we want to do this to our children and to our school 
systems that now have to segregate among our children to try to 
determine whether indeed any one of them is receiving an education that 
they ought not to receive because of this prohibition?
  This is a very harmful amendment. It will divide our children, it 
will divide our families, and it will cause egregious harm in our 
communities.
  Madam Chairman, I beg this House not to use the children of America 
or our schools to enforce the laws with regard to immigration, and I 
hope that this amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, we do not want to use our children, that is right. We 
are not talking about setting up a policy for our children. We are 
talking about setting a policy for the children of the world and the 
parents of the world. Let the word go forth from this Congress to 
anyone in the world who wants to improve the life of their children if 
they can make it across the borders of the United States legally or 
illegally. The Members on that side of the aisle who are making that 
argument at this time want to provide those children with all their 
educational benefits.
  Is that a threat to the well-being of the people of the United States 
of America, to our children? Darned straight, it is a threat. We have 
only limited funds in this country to provide education and health 
benefits for our people. We are not talking about our children. We are 
talking about all the people who would bring their children to our 
country, good people, decent people, who are concerned about their 
families. But we cannot afford to take care of them because it is going 
to hurt the quality of education for our own children.
  Let us not kid ourselves. The people out there who are listening to 
this debate are not being kidded by this. We cannot afford to do this. 
We say that anyone from far-off foreign lands, whether it is Latin 
America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or wherever they are, do not have the 
right to these benefits because we cannot afford to take care of 
everybody in the world. They know that is a threat.
  The fact is that there have been some legitimate arguments presented 
today. Let me take care of one argument. This ends the mandate. Here is 
the Supreme Court decision. We can read the Supreme Court decision. We 
are talking about lifting the mandate that costs billions of dollars. 
That is what we are talking about right now. The Supreme Court said 
that Federal policy will determine whether or not there is a mandate to 
educate illegal alien children, and until the Congress acts, the States 
must educate those children.
  Now what we are asking right now is to end that mandate in the way 
the Supreme Court asks us to end the mandate.
  Yes, our friends on the other side of the aisle have made these 
arguments. They say people of color may feel humiliated because they, 
more than other people, will be asked to provide identification, and 
that, I think, is a legitimate argument, and one of legitimate concern. 
It is not a concern, however, that cannot be met. We are trying to set 
the principle down, and we can find enforcement methods once that 
principle has been set down on how to do this without violating the 
rights of our own people or humiliating our own citizens, of whatever 
color or racial background.
  For example, once we set the principle down, perhaps the American 
people will go along with creating a tamperproof Social Security card 
with a chip in it which will permit all citizens to identify themselves 
without any racial or ethnic humiliation whatsoever, because it will 
let everyone be able to prove their citizenship and their legal status 
right there on the spot. That is one thing we are moving to once we get 
down and recognize the problem.
  Madam Chairman, in California and in many other States this is a 
major problem and a major threat to the well-being of our people.

                              {time}  1320

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The Chair would announce 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, we expect a lot out of our teachers in America today.
  We expect them to be educators and role models, counselors and 
motivators, babysitters, and disciplinarians.
  And we ask them to do all that in the face of budget cuts and metal 
detectors, turf wars and teenage angst, decreasing resources, and 
increasing diversity.
  And even with all that, most of them do a wonderful job.
  But the supporters of this amendment feel that our teachers do not do 
enough.
  That they do not have enough responsibility.
  So supporters of this amendment want teachers and school districts to 
get into the Perry Mason business.
  They do not just want teachers to be trained in reading, writing, and 
arithmetic.
  They want them to be trained as agents of the INS.
  Instead of spending money on computers and books, supporters of this 
amendment want to require schools to set up INS offices next to the 
lunchroom.
  Make no mistake about it, that is what this amendment does.
  It not only requires local schools to police Federal immigration 
laws. But it requires schools to conduct investigations of their own 
students to make sure they are legal.
  Madam Chairman, this is not what schools are for and that is why the 
House overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment a few weeks ago.
  What is more, this amendment requires all of this--the 
investigations, the background checks, the constant monitoring by 
teachers--without providing so much as a dime of Federal money to help.
  Madam Chairman, talk about redtape.
  Talk about unfunded mandates.
  This amendment is the mother load of all unfunded mandates.
  But above everything else, this amendment does one substantial, 
unforgivable thing, one thing that no government should ever be a party 
to, this amendment codifies discrimination.
  Ask yourself this: How are teachers supposed to decide who to check 
and who not to check?
  Will it be based strictly on appearances?
  Will every student who doesn't have blond hair and blue eyes be 
forced to line up in the gym and flash their papers?
  Or will teachers just randomly pick students out of study halls and 
recess lines who do not look quite right?
  Is that how it works?
  Madam Chairman, what kind of message does that send to the other 
students? That it is OK to discriminate?
  That it is OK to suspect somebody is guilty of wrongdoing just 
because they look different or sound different?
  Madam Chairman, maybe I come from the old school.
  I believe teachers should focus on report cards, not green cards.
  I believe they should prepare all of our students for the future, not 
just a select few.
  Let us be honest: This amendment will not improve schools or increase 
test scores.
  All this amendment will do is divert our teachers away from teaching 
and burden schools with more redtape.
  Madam Chairman, a first grade classroom is not the place to 
interrogate students and enforce immigration laws.
  We have other agencies to do that.
  Yes, we need realistic approaches to solve our immigration problems.
  But this amendment is nothing but a cost-shifting, teacher-
exploiting, student-discriminating amendment, and just as we did a few 
weeks ago with an equally hateful amendment, I urge my colleagues to 
reject it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chairman, just to make a clarification, I asked 
the city of New York to let me know how much it would cost just to 
count 1 million school children, and they said $5 to $10 a head. That 
is $5 to $10 million in New York City. In New York State it would be 
from $15 to $30 million. In California, where there are 5 million 
students, it would be $25 to $50 million just to count. Before a 
hearing, any court case, any cleaning up of the system, just to count 
the children, it would cost in California from $25 to $50 million.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, just a question. It costs $5 to $10 just 
to count a child. Let me ask you this question: When a child comes into 
school, do they not register and provide lots of identification when 
they do this? Why could this not be done at the same time? So that 
maybe the estimate that was given to you was on the basis of going out 
separately and doing this. But this all could be done simultaneously.
  First of all, I cannot believe it is going to cost $10 to count. But 
let us set that aside. Let us talk about the idea, when you collect all 
this other information when a child comes in, can you not at the same 
time establish their citizenship and at that point have the 
information?
  Second, would not the gentleman concede that once this information is 
provided that my colleague's amendment is offering, we might be able to 
save money in the long-term, because we will have a handle on a very 
significant problem, and we can come back here and actually tackle the 
problem of what are we going to do about these large number of illegal 
immigrants and how to correct this situation.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
new York [Mr. Fish].
  (Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FISH. Madam Chairman, many of us are growing increasingly 
concerned with two trends in Federal aid to education. The first is the 
creation of unfunded mandates and the second is the erosion of local 
control and flexibility in determining such matters as curriculum, 
textbooks, and teacher certification.
  There are far too many examples of unfunded mandates. The Asbestos 
Schools Hazard Abatement Act once again has not been funded. Public Law 
94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act promised a 40-
percent Federal share. This year the Federal share is only 8 percent.
  Goals 2000 for all its virtues is clearly more prescriptive than 
necessary to meet the desirable national standards.
  Madam Chairman, amendments we are considering to H.R. 6 attempt to 
dictate to school authorities who they should teach and not teach 
despite State laws to the contrary--the case in my State of New York. 
We are asked to prohibit Federal funding if certain life styles are 
presented in a positive way.
  Madam Chairman, it is hard to imagine a deeper or more subjective 
intrusion into curriculum decisions than what is before us.
  I urge my colleagues to place the higher principle of local control 
of what is taught in our classrooms over their particular bias.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I apologize to this body for coming late to this 
argument.
  I rise in opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment for two reasons. 
First, in trying to implement the amendment, we risk damaging the 
entire learning environment and undermining the purpose of the 
amendment. Second, the amendment imposes unworkable requirements on 
schools.
  We had this debate nearly 5 years ago. I would like to think I know 
something or have had some involvement with the counting of the 
population of this country.
  In the fall of 1989 we confronted the question of whether or not we 
were going to try to distinguish between legal and illegal residents in 
the broader sense.
  We came to the conclusion it would undermine public confidence in the 
entire undertaking, that citizens and noncitizens alike would be 
affected, that accuracy of the overall count would go out the window, 
and the same arguments apply here.
  These were not just my arguments. These were the arguments of the 
Secretary of Commerce of the Bush administration and a very bipartisan 
majority of this body.
  In trying to implement the amendment we have before us, we risk 
damaging the learning environment and unermining the purpose of the 
amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is to target resources at entitled 
students. But what we are talking about here is disturbing an entire 
classroom by our effort. In doing so, we affect not only those children 
who would be denied education, but our children as well, the majority 
of children in that classroom that is so disturbed. The teacher's 
relationships to students, parents, and the community would be affected 
as a whole.
  The real problem, however, is that the undertaking will not work. The 
amendment assumes that schools know the students' immigration status or 
that they will be able to find out. The fact is that there are dozens 
of categories that range from seasonal agricultural workers, to 
refugees, and parents and students can move from one category to 
another without realizing it.
  Students and teachers would need extensive training simply to carry 
out the duties mandated by the requirement. According to the National 
Academy of Sciences, even highly trained statisticians find categories 
complex and confusing, and the same problem applied in the census. 
Temporary enumerators cannot know the intricacies of immigration law 
and carry out the normal duties.
  As a result, accuracy goes out the window. After disrupting the 
school environment, we would have, at best, flawed information, 
students categorized by untrained personnel, miscategorized students 
being denied benefits, and policymakers who will want to use these 
numbers for a wide variety of additional purposes according to the 
argument of the sponsors of the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, for these reasons, and so many more that have been 
laid here before us today, I hope that we can reject this amendment on 
bipartisan grounds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, what we have got to determine here is do we have a 
problem? And the fact is, I believe we have a problem. And I believe 
that no matter what happens in the votes on this floor, the people of 
the United States understand we have a problem when we are providing a 
benefit level to illegal aliens to such a degree that it is attracting 
people from all over the world to come here.
  This is a major threat to the well-being of the people of my State. I 
want Members to know that those illegal aliens coming to my State, the 
people providing those services are taxpayers from all over the 
country. And the flood of illegal aliens we have experienced will 
continue to grow and grow until it affects every State, if we send the 
message to the world that anyone who can come here is going to get the 
same benefits as an American citizen or a legal resident.
  It is a giant, 100-mile-high welcome home or welcome here sign to 
anybody who wants to improve the well-being of their family. Most of 
the people in the world who want to come here and most of the people 
who come here are good and decent people, people we can respect and 
identify with. If we were in their position, we would do exactly the 
same thing.
  But we cannot afford to take care of everyone in the world. This, 
what we are determining today and by the amendments I will present in 
the future, is whether or not the scarce resources that are paid for by 
the taxpayers of our country will be first used to provide benefits and 
services at the very least to our own citizens and legal residents.
  Yes, we have a problem. This is immigration policy. Anybody who tells 
the American people that we can solve this flood of illegal immigration 
that is coming into our country now and still provide those benefits 
simply by reinforcing the border, I do not believe that they are giving 
an answer to the American people that the people will believe.
  If there is an unworkable solution to trying to solve the immigration 
problem, it is giving thousands of dollars worth of benefits to anybody 
who can sneak across the border, and then claiming that the INS is 
going to solve the problem at the border.
  We also hear that asking, just asking, this is supposedly a 
unsolvable problem, just asking someone to prove their citizenship or 
legal residency is some type of a violation. Yet there is a vast, vast 
majority of people in this hall, including on the other side of the 
aisle, that believe employers should do this.
  What we have now, and what has changed in our country in the last few 
years, in the last 10 years, is illegal immigrants did not apply in the 
past for these services because they were afraid they would be deported 
and they would be reported by those people who run these services. That 
is not the way it is now. In fact, what we have said is that an 
employer must determine this status, must go through these procedures, 
so we give a disincentive for illegal aliens to come here to work and 
provide them an incentive not to work, but instead to apply for 
Government services and programs.
  What a travesty that is.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment, because I believe it undermines the 
constitutional principle which guarantees education to all children 
regardless of their citizen status.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Rohrabacher 
amendment which would deny the use of Federal funds to educate 
undocumented students.
  The Rohrabacher amendment would impose unfunded mandates on local 
school districts by requiring all schools which receive Federal funding 
to identify and collect data on the citizenship status of every 
student. The mission of our public schools is to educate our children--
all of our children. Our schools have neither the capacity nor the 
desire to track their students' immigration status. Forcing our 
educators to serve as agents of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service [INS] diverts them from their appropriate mission.
  In addition, this provision would undermine a constitutional 
principle which guarantees the right of all children, regardless of 
their citizenship status, access to a public education. The 1982 
Supreme Court decision, Plyer versus Doe, requires that States provide 
a public education to all children. By prohibiting Federal money from 
being used for undocumented students, the Rohrabacher amendment would 
shift the costs of educating these children to State and local 
governments.
  Madam Chairman, the Rohrabacher amendment would not serve any 
legitimate public policy purpose. Denying students an education will 
not prevent or discourage undocumented immigrants from entering the 
United States. Rather, this provision would result in discrimination 
U.S. citizens and documented residents who look or sound foreign.
  This amendment would perpetuate an undereducated population in our 
country. Uneducated children will likely grow up as illiterate adults, 
unable to function in society and contribute to our tax base. This 
provision would ultimately have a negative affect on all our children 
and our society as a whole.
  Immigration is an issue which need not and should not be addressed in 
this bill. The Rohrabacher amendment would do no good and much harm to 
our schools, our students, and our country.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join in voting against this 
amendment to H.R. 6.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Rohrabacher amendment, because I believe it would threaten the very 
fabric of our society by creating a permanent subclass of undereducated 
children in this country.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment. 
Over the past few weeks, this House has overwhelmingly defeated 
amendments to H.R. 6 which would have imposed unreasonable 
administrative burdens on our public schools and denied Federal funding 
for essential educational programs. In both cases, the amendments 
unfairly impacted the most vulnerable members of our society--our 
children.
  The Rohrabacher amendment would be even more harmful to our schools 
and to our children by denying the use of Federal funds for any benefit 
to undocumented children. Apart from violating the basic, 
constitutionally guaranteed right of all children to a public 
education, this amendment would have the devastating effect of denying 
school districts a critical source of funding unless they assume the 
role of the INS and somehow determine the immigration status of all 
students. Clearly, this is a function our already overburdened schools 
are neither equipped for nor should be required to undertake.
  Perhaps even more tragically, this amendment, if adopted, would 
threaten the very fabric of our society by creating a permanent 
subclass of undereducated children in our country. The Federal 
Government must not sanction a two-tiered educational system where the 
quality of a child's education is determined by his or her parentage.
  This amendment will do nothing toward either improving our schools or 
addressing immigration policy and must be soundly defeated.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Chairman, this is not a debate between Members on one side who 
are a bunch of scrooges, who do not like people who come here from 
other countries. In fact, the fact is that immigrants have played an 
important role in the development of our country. They continue to play 
a positive role in our country, as we bring in more legal immigrants 
into the United States of America than all the rest of the nations 
combined.
  If Members look at my voting record, they will see that I support a 
high level of positive legal immigration, because legal immigrants who 
come here are required to take care of themselves and required not to 
be people who are dependent on government services for their lives when 
they get here. That is what differentiates legal immigration from 
illegal immigration.
  Illegal immigration now is threatening the well-being of the people 
of the United States. We have a responsibility to watch out for them. 
This includes legal residents and immigrants who have come here, gone 
through the system, immigrants who have gone through the process.
  They are the ones, by the way, who are the most insulted by this 
argument that we have got to provide the same services to illegal 
immigrants that we provide to them, after they have waited years and 
gone through the process and obeyed the law.
  This is a decision, what we are deciding on today and will be 
deciding on with future amendments that I will propose, whether or not 
this is the principle we will want to operate under, whether or not 
this Government should accept that principle, that benefits and 
services should be provided by Government only to those people who are 
here legally and U.S. citizens and that people who come here illegally 
are not, do not have the right to those same benefits.
  If we continue to accept the principle that is being espoused by the 
Members on the other side of the aisle, our country is going to go 
broke. We are going to go broke in the fast lane. There is nothing, 
nothing that we can do to afford to pay for all of the services that 
will be needed to provide benefits for everyone in the world who can 
come here, even if they come here legally.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The amendment was rejected.


                   amendment offered by mr. doolittle

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle: Page 762, after line 8, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 9506. SEX EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Sex Education Instruction.--All public elementary and 
     secondary schools receiving assistance under this act in 
     classes that teach sex education or discuss sexual 
     intercourse, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including 
     acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), shall 
     continuously stress throughout the sex education program and 
     sexual intercourse discussion that abstinence from sexual 
     intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent 
     effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, STDs, and AIDS 
     when transmitted sexually. All material and instruction in 
     classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual 
     intercourse shall be age appropriate.
       ``(b) Criteria.--All sex education courses that discuss 
     sexual intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
       ``(1) Course material and instruction shall be age 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Course material and instruction shall stress that 
     abstinence is the only contraceptive method which is 100 
     percent effective, and that all other methods of 
     contraception carry a risk of failure in preventing unwanted 
     teenage pregnancy. Statistics based on the latest medical 
     information shall be provided to pupils citing the laboratory 
     and real-life failure and success rates of condoms and other 
     contraceptives in preventing pregnancy.
       ``(3) Course material and instruction shall stress that 
     STDs are serious possible hazards of sexual intercourse. 
     Pupils shall be provided with statistics based on the latest 
     medical information citing the laboratory and real-life 
     failure and success rates of condoms in preventing AIDS and 
     other STDs among elementary and secondary pupils.
       ``(4) Course material and instruction shall include a 
     discussion of the possible emotional and psychological 
     consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual 
     intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of 
     unwanted adolescent pregnancy.
       ``(5) Course material and instruction shall stress that 
     pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are 
     ready for marriage.
       ``(6) Course material and instruction shall teach honor and 
     respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
       ``(7) Course material and instruction shall advise pupils 
     of the laws pertaining to their financial responsibility to 
     children born in and out of wedlock.
       ``(8) Course material and instruction shall advise pupils 
     that it is unlawful for males of any age to have sexual 
     relations with females under a certain age to whom they are 
     not married.
       ``(9) Course material and instruction shall emphasize that 
     the pupil has the power to control personal behavior. Pupils 
     shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-
     discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control, and 
     ethical considerations, such as respect for one's self and 
     others.
       ``(10) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils 
     to refrain from making unwanted physical and verbal sexual 
     advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. 
     Pupils shall be taught that it is wrong to take advantage of, 
     or to exploit, another person. The material and instruction 
     shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure.

  Mr. DOOLITTLE (during the reading). Madam 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. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, we face today a crisis of family 
disruption due, among other things, to the explosion in out-of-wedlock 
teenage pregnancies.
  As this chart shows, teenager out-of-wedlock pregnancies have nearly 
doubled over the past two decades, and this development is causing an 
enormous problem that we confront every day as a country, when we talk 
about the problems of criminal activity, of drug abuse, of 
underachievement in school, etc.
  In my opinion, and in the opinion of experts who have examined it, 
these things all tie back into the problem of family disruption, much 
of which is due to, in addition to separation or divorce or death of a 
parent, out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
  Illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent since 1960. 
We know that we can do something that makes a difference, and that 
something is to give teenagers the skills that they need in order to 
refuse early sexual activity.
  Now, for decades we have tried the approach of teaching about 
sexuality and about the pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases 
and so forth. And it has not had any impact.
  In Atlanta, one prominent gynecologist in the mid-1970's, who 
instituted these programs, discovered that it was not having an impact 
in terms of people reducing their sexual activity as teenagers or in 
terms of increasing birth control efforts. And so this gynecologist, in 
a program for junior high school students added to the existing 
curriculum an element that taught people skills to resist advances for 
sexual activity, to do some role playing, to give people some practical 
reasons why abstinence was a good thing, not preaching, but simply to 
explain to people why abstinence helped them avoid certain very serious 
problems, among which were, of course, pregnancies or sexually 
transmitted diseases or the reality of caring for an infant when they 
are not financially equipped to do so or the impact that a baby can 
have on a teenager's life.
  These were the sorts of things that were added to the curriculum. And 
lo and behold, it made quite a difference. This chart here illustrates 
this difference.
  In this program in Atlanta, which applied to the junior high grades, 
Members can see at the end of the eighth grade for those who were in 
the program, 4 percent initiated sexual activity. Whereas for those who 
did not have the program, 20 percent did so.

  Of course, as my colleagues can see, the older they get, the closer 
these bars get. But they can still see, even here at the end of the 
ninth grade, 24 percent of the students in this program, initiated 
sexual activity versus 39 percent of the students initiated sexual 
activity who did not have the abstinence-based sex education program.

                              {time}  1340

  Madam Chairman, this translates for our purposes into many, many 
billions of dollars that we can avoid spending on emotionally crippled 
young people who got that way because they were born out of wedlock. We 
can prevent this by undertaking measures which demonstrably work.
  For that reason, I bring this amendment to the floor of the House, 
feeling that we are genuinely in a crisis of family deterioration.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The time of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Doolittle] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, it is costing the taxpayers of this 
country billions and billions of dollars. Any time we pick up the 
papers and we read about the crime in the District of Columbia or any 
other urban area across the United States, we ask ourselves, ``What can 
we do about this situation? How are we going to change this?'' This is 
one of the ways, I would submit, that we can begin to change the 
deteriorating social conditions within the United States.
  Yes, building prisons and having tougher laws are part of one 
approach that we need to have, I stipulate to that, but we will never 
build enough prisons or have laws Draconian enough that in and of 
themselves they are going to stem this problem. We need to start right 
at the beginning, on the other end of things, before we spend money to 
build those expensive prisons and deal with people, equip our young 
people to live better lives, to avoid the pitfalls of promiscuous 
sexual activity, and the results from that will be much fewer problems 
that we are going to have to deal with later on as a society, when all 
we know to do ultimately is to lock people up and keep them locked up. 
That is really not a very good solution. It may be part of the 
solution, because we have to have some immediate answer, but the long-
term answer is to deal with this side of the equation.
  Madam Chairman, this chart shows that abstinence-based sex education 
works. I offer this amendment today in the hopes of encouraging more 
districts, all districts who get Federal funds, to begin to incorporate 
abstinence-based sex education into their programs.


   amendment offered by mrs. unsoeld to the amendment offered by mr. 
                               doolittle

  Mrs. UNSOELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Unsoeld to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Doolittle:
       In the subsection (a) of the amendment made to page 762, 
     strike ``in classes that teach'' and insert ``which use such 
     funds to teach''.
       In subsection (b) of the amendment made to page 762, strike 
     ``shall satisfy'' and insert ``may use''.
       Add at the end of the amendment made to page 762, after 
     line 8, add the following:
       ``(c) No Federal Control of Curriculum.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local 
     educational agency, or schools' instructional content, 
     curriculum, or related activities;
       ``(2) to limit the application of the General Education 
     Provisions Act;
       ``(3) to require the distribution of scientifically or 
     medically false or inaccurate materials or to prohibit the 
     distribution of scientifically or medically true or accurate 
     materials; or
       ``(4) to create any legally enforceable right.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--In carrying out the provisions 
     of this section, the Secretary shall not--
       ``(1) review any curricula or instructional materials;
       ``(2) promulgate regulations; or
       ``(3) take any administrative or legal action against a 
     State or local educational agency or school.

  Mrs. UNSOELD (during the reading). Madam 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 Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Madam Chairman, although some Members have insisted 
that they support the local control of education, the Doolittle 
amendment would for the first time in history establish a Federal 
curriculum that all schools would be required to follow. This 
unprecedented and unwarranted Federal intrusion into the classrooms of 
America must be opposed. The Doolittle amendment would establish 
several pages of detailed requirement that every sex education class in 
the country would be required to follow, even if the instruction was 
paid for entirely by local funds.
  The adoption of this amendment would subject every school in the 
country to curriculum policing by the Department of Education to 
maintain Federal funding. State and local educational agencies will end 
up submitting textbooks and instructional materials to the department 
for approval or evaluating them, again, checklists set out in Federal 
regulations. Federal auditors may also be deployed to monitor classroom 
instruction.
  Madam Chairman, is it appropriate to request that the chart be 
removed while I am speaking?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, it is. The Chair would request that 
someone please remove the chart while a new amendment is on the floor.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Madam Chairman, the issues raised by the Doolittle 
amendment are important, but they are ones that parents and local 
communities are more than capable of deciding for themselves. They do 
not want, nor do they need, Congress to tell them what to do, nor do 
they wish to see the U.S. Congress become a national school board that 
usurps the right of local communities.
  My amendment clarifies that nothing in the section shall interfere 
with the right of local communities to select curricula appropriate to 
the needs of the children in their communities. My amendment preserves 
local autonomy and acknowledges that local communities have the right 
and the ability to determine what is taught in their schools.
  Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment to the Doolittle 
amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It would substantially 
dilute the amendment which I have offered. To hear the talk about local 
control, that ``we cannot have Congress becoming a national school 
board,'' Congress is a national legislature to bail out people around 
the country, to pay for welfare benefits and medical benefits of people 
who are poor, and to provide for housing assistance for people who are 
poor, to help States fight crime, so come on, these are the social 
problems we are trying to avoid.
  That is what my amendment goes to, by taking an approach that works, 
and it has been proven that it works in various places across the 
country, and it is helping young people to resist the pressures for 
early sex.
  When I contrast the benefits of that approach versus the supposed 
negative, that Congress is mandating to local school districts, 
violating something that is supposedly sacrosanct, we dictate to local 
school districts all the time what they can and cannot do in various 
programs in the Federal Government.
  Madam Chairman, I just cannot see sitting here as a Congress and year 
in and year out, borrowing money we do not have in order to fund 
programs that do not work, remedial programs, that deal with people who 
are already hardened criminals, or people who have been born out of 
wedlock, and they are living in poverty, and trying to help them 
somehow, and generally failing.
  It just seems to me that my amendment is a better way to go, Madam 
Chairman. This amendment is a proactive approach, to deal with the 
problem before it is a problem, rather than taking the reactive or the 
reactionary approach and simply dealing with the results of teenagers' 
promiscuous sexual activity, results that in many cases could have been 
avoided if we had taken an aggressive stand before real trouble 
happened.
  The California Legislature, of which I was a part a few years go, 
passed a bipartisan program that basically stresses abstinence and we 
are seeing positive results. There are positive results in the program 
in Maryland, and in other programs around the country. I described with 
the chart the program in Atlanta. It does work.
  The Unsoeld amendment represents business as usual; throw in a word 
or two about the virtues of abstinence, but just keep passing out the 
condoms and keep the old traditional approach, which is not working.
  We know what works. Traditional sex education, overlaid with 
abstinence-based education, actually works. Interestingly enough, even 
when the young people initiate sexual contacts, when they have come out 
of this program the numbers of contacts are fewer and the rate of 
condom use is higher, so it is a complete program. It does work, and 
for that reason, in order to take what we know and give it to the 
Nation as a whole, we need to defeat the Unsoeld amendment because, 
basically, it will dilute the effect of the amendment which I have 
offered.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield for some 
questions?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Madam Chairman, there are questions meant in all 
sincerity, because I frankly think some of the goals of what the 
gentleman is trying to pursue here are not all bad.
  I am a little confused as to the enforcement mechanism. How would 
this operate, if the gentleman's amendment is passed? It is a 
requirement that any school, any LEA in America, before they teach a 
sex education course, would submit a study plan or a curriculum or a 
textbook to the Department for approval? How do we accomplish that, No. 
1?
  No. 2, if a school should teach a sex education course that does not 
comply, then what are the penalties in enforcement mechanisms? I am 
asking these questions in good faith.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman will find the 
requirements are set forth in the amendment, setting forth that course 
material and instructions shall emphasize abstinence and emphasize a 
variety of things pertaining thereto.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the 
State education agency, under the gentleman's amendment, approve this? 
Does the Federal Department of Education approve it?
  Who determines whether small town school district America complies 
with the standards of the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. It would be consistent with the process we have now 
where these standards have been set forth in the bill, and the 
districts receiving the funds from the Federal Government are obligated 
to abide by them.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. But under most of the plans what is done right now is 
the State develops a plan and that State plan is approved by the 
Federal Government, and then the States implement that within their 
State.
  Is it the gentleman's intent under this amendment that States would 
be the enforcement tool, or is it your intent that LEA's must apply to 
the Federal Department of Education for approval of a particular 
curricula before they can teach it?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I anticipate it would work the way it does now with 
the planning going to the State and then that plan being approved by 
the Government.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to just continue the discussion because 
I did not have any time of my own previously.
  What happens if a school does not comply under the gentleman's 
amendment? What is the intent? Is it the gentleman's intent that all 
funds in that school, all Federal funds from school lunch to chapter 1 
to chapter 2, to bilingual to handicapped education, that all of those 
would be eliminated? I am just asking, is that the intent?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. The intent, of course, is to get the abstinence-based 
sex education in their existing sex education or sexually transmitted 
disease programs, and we use money as the enforcement mechanism for 
this, like so many other things around here.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. But that gets back to my question, because I do not 
think, I hope there is no Member of Congress who disagrees with at 
least the sense of Congress that we ought to promote abstinence. I am 
not arguing that at all. I am just trying to figure out how this works 
in the real today world of education. Where is the enforcement section 
of your amendment that would say that the Department of Education shall 
monitor or the States are monitors, and if schools fail to comply with 
this curriculum, that that language would require the elimination of 
any Federal funds?
  This is a good faith discussion. I am honestly asking questions.
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. HANCOCK. I realize there has to be certain enforcement 
mechanisms, but can we not rely on the schools to enforce the law, the 
schools themselves to enforce the law? And then if they do not, rely on 
the parents to bring it to the attention of either the Federal 
Department of Education or to the proper officials to enforce the law? 
I did not realize that we have to come up with all types of mechanisms 
to force our public schools to comply with the laws that are written in 
the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. There are a number of laws written that have no 
penalty provisions. It is sort of like a sense of the Congress. They 
are there, but if you do not comply, so what?
  What I am trying to find out is if this is intended to be a sense of 
the Congress, along that line, then hopefully the department will 
encourage the States to encourage the local education agencies who 
pursue sexual education courses to include and emphasize abstinence. I 
mean if that is the goal, that is fine. The gentleman has a number of 
criteria here in the course. I can only tell the gentleman from my 
general discussions I think with most people, the No. 1 problem in sex 
education courses in America is, frankly, the training of the teacher. 
In all due respect, we have too many retired football coaches teaching 
sex education in this country who do not know anything about it.
  Mr. HANCOCK. If the gentleman will yield, I think one of the major 
problems in all education in the United States is the training of the 
teachers.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. That might be. And frankly, I was tempted to offer an 
amendment to the Doolittle amendment that has some kind of requirement 
that the person teaching the course knew what they were talking about. 
We dealt with the teacher certification issue 2 weeks ago, and I do not 
think anybody wants to get back to that issue on the Federal level. I 
am simply trying to figure out if this is mainly a sense of the 
Congress, if it is our goal that States and the Federal Government 
would encourage local education agencies to do these things.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the gentleman will yield again, I will respond that 
this would all be done, as I understand it, through the existing plans 
that are put together by the States, and then sent to the Secretary of 
Education where I guess they are approved. And the enforcement 
mechanism for that would be similar to what is done in other parts of 
the bill relative to making sure that money is spent. In order to get 
districts to pay attention to some of the successes around the country, 
we would like to have the enforcement mechanism. I did not draft a 
separate enforcement mechanism other than what already exists for other 
moneys.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Perhaps the chairman of the subcommittee can help us 
on this, because there are a number of sections in the bill where, as a 
condition of receiving chapter 1 funds or chapter 2 funds, you have to 
do certain things. And I am not attacking the amendment. I am honestly 
trying to figure out where we are. I do not see that in this amendment. 
The gentleman may want to offer that as an amendment to it.
  Is there any enforcement tool? Does the chairman see any enforcement 
tools in the amendment as written? What happens if the Osseo school 
district in Wisconsin has a sex education course but does not comply?
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will yield, I would suggest he address 
that question to the author of the amendment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. The gentleman is suggesting that there may be an 
ordinary enforcement tool for the entire Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act that would apply. But I am not sure that there is such a 
thing.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, let me say that I find, and most Members in this 
Chamber find the goal of the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] 
very laudable. I raised three children. They are all young adults now, 
and I certainly tried to install that goal in my efforts to teach them 
about the wonderful gift of sexuality. I think his goal is wonderful. 
But I am wondering whether the Federal Government should get involved 
in that goal.
  We have voted on several amendments in the last few weeks during 
consideration of H.R. 6 that would have limited local control of 
curriculum, and all those amendments were defeated, and rightfully so. 
Both in GEPA and in the act which established the Department of 
Education, Members may recall that was a very hotly debated issue. We 
put strict provisions into that legislation establishing the Department 
to make sure that the Federal Government would not get involved in 
matters of curriculum.
  Very often all of us are tempted, because of some priority we may 
have, to ignore that and try to inject ourselves into the local or 
State curriculum, but we are forbidden to do that. And I think it is a 
dangerous step, once we start moving into the area of curriculum, that 
we open the door and more and more the Federal Government will be 
dictating to the local school districts what their curriculum should 
contain.
  Let me read the language that was written in that law in 1979:

       No provision of any applicable program shall be construed 
     to authorized any department, agency, officer or employee of 
     the United States to exercise any direction, supervision or 
     control over the curriculum, program of instruction, 
     administration or personnel of any educational institution, 
     school or school system, or over the selection of library 
     resources, textbooks and other printed or published 
     instructional materials.

  I submit we take that language very carefully. That language was for 
many an essential ingredient in their voting for the establishment of 
the Department of Education. And I think while many of us on both sides 
of the aisle are tempted to skirt around that, that we create a very 
dangerous path when we do that.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The 
programs about which the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] was 
speaking, that is funding and also congressional Federal requirements 
that went with them were federally funded programs. But the Doolittle 
amendment imposes a Federal curriculum on how local school boards can 
use their own dollars. It has not been done before in our history, and 
it is not appropriate now for the Federal Government to dictate to 
local governments how they would use their own education funding money.
  Mr. KILDEE. Many of my colleagues heard me state many times that 
education is a local function, a State responsibility and a very 
important Federal concern, and I think that balance is very important.

                              {time}  1400

  But with this amendment we make education a Federal function. We are 
getting involved in the nitty-gritty of curricula, and again, all of us 
from time to time have had something we would like to inject in that. I 
think we are always safer when we avoid that path.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment to the amendment is as good a time as 
any to express some very basic concerns about H.R. 6 and the amendments 
proposed to it.
  I would urge that my colleagues who want to be educational activists 
for elementary and secondary education run for the State legislatures 
or the local school boards, or that they go back to those bodies, 
because that is primarily where the responsibility for elementary and 
secondary public education lies.
  Madam Chairman, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, 
this Member has strong concerns regarding the intrusion of the Federal 
Government in State and local education policy which is contained in 
H.R. 6. For the same reason I am also especially concerned about a 
number of amendments to be offered to this legislation. I agree with 
the sentiment expressed in most of those amendments; however, the 
Federal Government has no constitutional role in determining local 
school policy or curriculum. The basic legislation before us, H.R. 6, 
is similarly flawed by mandates of all kinds--regardless of the subject 
matter or motives of the authors.
  I want to remind my colleagues that under the determination set out 
by article X of the U.S. Constitution, the responsibility to provide 
and regulate education is left to the States; there is no primary 
Federal role in public education specified by the U.S. Constitution, in 
spite of the views of activists inside and outside of Congress.
  Madam Chairman, again for these reasons this Member urges his 
colleagues to reject H.R. 6 as a usurpation of the education 
responsibilities of the States and their school districts.
  This enlargement of the Federal role in certification and regulation 
of education is in direct contradiction to our Federal system of 
Government as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.
  This Member considers himself to be an activist on education, very 
much interested in encouraging education at all levels. But in my 
judgment, my colleagues, the responsibilities of the Federal Government 
are primarily two, when it comes to education.
  First is to assure equal access to public education to all Americans. 
That is a primary role given to the Federal Government by several 
amendments. That is our duty.
  The second responsibility, to be exercised on rare occasions, it 
seems to this Member, is to act in a few cases where there is 
compellingly large public concern across the Nation about some 
important aspect of education and encourage appropriate actions by the 
States and their school districts to meet that concern of high public 
priority.
  A few years ago, for example, it was felt across the country, and 
then reflected in this Congress, that there was a major deficiency in 
the quality of science and math education, especially in our secondary 
schools. And Congress at that time acted to provide encouragement to 
the States and their school districts to act to meet this problem. That 
is an example of the second and limited role for the Federal Government 
in the field of elementary and secondary education.
  Madam Chairman, beyond that, the Federal Government should permit the 
States to do their job in education, and to give them encouragement for 
their responsibilities. No mandates, no certifications, no requirements 
from the Federal Government are justified in H.R. 6 or in well-intended 
amendments.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the clarifying amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] to the Doolittle 
amendment to H.R. 6.
  Quite frankly, I am very surprised and appalled by some of the 
statements from my friends on the other side of the aisle who have 
always professed to be opposed to Federal mandates, to be opposed to 
the Federal bureaucracy, who say they are for States' rights and for 
local control and against the heavy-handedness of Washington coming 
down and telling the States and localities what to do, and here we have 
just such an attempt to try to do that, to mandate local education 
policy from Washington.
  I do not think we ought to do that. I do not think the American 
people want us to do that.
  I think the American people understand that the communities 
themselves should decide what is appropriate, and that Washington 
should not be saying, ``We are smarter than everyone. We are going to 
tell you back, Mr. and Mrs. Hometown Person, what your schools ought to 
be doing. We know better in Washington than you do back home.'' I do 
not think we do.
  I do not think that is what we want to do.
  The Unsoeld amendment modifies the Doolittle language to make it 
consistent with the prohibitions against Federal control of education 
set forth in the GEPA in the Department of Education Organization Act.
  If the Unsoeld amendment is not adopted, the Doolittle provision 
would essentially direct Department of Education employees to perform 
duties to which they are prohibited from doing by two other statutes. 
The curriculum mandate that would be established by the Doolittle 
amendment would involve the making of subjective judgments by Federal 
bureaucrats about the extent to which curricula and the resources of 
local schools comply with its requirements.
  If a school's sex education curriculum included 5 days of instruction 
and discussion of abstinence, is it meeting the Doolittle amendment's 
mandate to stress abstinence, or are 2 days required, or are 20 days 
required?
  Under the Doolittle amendment as originally introduced, a bureaucrat 
in Washington, not the parents and the local school boards, would make 
this decision. The Unsoeld amendment would ensure that all of these 
subjective decisions will continue to be made at the local level where 
it ought to be made.
  Finally, the Unsoeld amendment includes provisions which are 
identical to provisions included in amendments offered by some of our 
Republican colleagues regarding content, student performance, and 
opportunity-to-learn standards. The purpose of the Unsoeld amendment, 
as with these earlier Republican amendments is to ensure that States 
and localities retain exclusive control over the content of curricula 
and that the Federal Government does not impose any mandates on the 
content of instruction in our schools.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Unsoeld amendment.
  The Federal Government does not have the authority to mandate sex 
education curriculum. I would also say those of us on the Education 
Committee have labored long and hard to make H.R. 6 the document that 
it should be.
  During the course of the past several days, we have time and time 
again seen amendments come before this body that, in my opinion, have 
no place here. It certainly tries our patience in terms of open rules 
when amendments get defeated by more than hundreds of votes, and here 
they are again and again.
  I think that this amendment should be defeated, and the Unsoeld 
clarifying amendment to the Doolittle amendment should be supported.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gutting Unsoeld 
substitute and in strong support of the Doolittle amendment, which 
would encourage teenagers to practice abstinence as the best method of 
birth control and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS.
  Our antidrug education programs tell young people that drug abuse is 
dangerous and that alcohol use is inappropriate for minors, who do not 
have the judgment or maturity to make responsible decisions in this 
area. We tell kids to just say no to drugs and alcohol abuse. It is a 
simple, clear message that young people can understand. It conveys the 
values we want to transmit about drug abuse.
  Why then, in the face of an AIDS epidemic, and with the explosion of 
teenage pregnancy and illegitimacy, don't we use the same message in 
our sex education classes? What's wrong with telling young people to 
just say no to sexual activity when they are too young to engage in it 
responsibly?
  This is not an issue of attempting to force one sectarian viewpoint 
on our public schools. Virtually every major religious tradition I can 
think of discourages premarital sex.
  Why? Because it makes sense. Teenagers who engage in early sexual 
activity are far more likely to become pregnant. They are more likely 
to drop out of school. They become vulnerable to deadly killer diseases 
like AIDS.
  Sex education programs that do not stress abstinence in essence give 
students permission to engage in sexual activity. They tell them ``if 
it feels good, do it, but do it with a condom.''
  Where has this led? First of all, it has led to the explosion of 
illegitimate births in this country. Since the permissive let it all 
hang out decade of the 1960's illegitimacy has increased more than 400 
percent.
  The percentage of unmarried teenagers getting pregnant has nearly 
doubled in the last 20 years. We have a welfare crisis in this country 
as a result.
  We also have an increasingly violent generation of virtually 
parentless youths who carry guns and kill people for their sneakers. 
The system is not working, and the failure to instill positive values 
in our young people is the main cause of this misery.
  The Doolittle amendment takes a step toward promoting positive values 
that young people will respect. Sure, it will not be 100 percent 
effective, but it is bound to be more effective than our current policy 
of doing nothing to promote sound values. It will give young people the 
power to resist peer pressure, and a reason not to do something they 
are not ready to do.
  The school systems that have tried abstinence education find that it 
works. In the State of Washington, for example, students who 
participated in the abstinence-based teen-aid program are 27 percent 
less likely to begin sexual activity than those who do not take the 
course once. When teen sexual activity could mean contracting AIDS, 
that means young lives are being saved.
  Let us do something positive to restore values in our school systems.

                              {time}  1410

  Let us defeat the Unsoeld gutting amendment and adopt the Doolittle 
amendment.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise to support the Unsoeld amendment 
and oppose the Doolittle amendment.
  Many people think that ignorance is bliss. They think if you just do 
not teach about sex education, that sex will just go away. They think 
that if you just say ``no,'' that what you want will prevail. But we 
know that that is simplistic at best.
  The Federal Government has absolutely no right and no business to 
legislate curriculum. Yes, I believe abstinence is best, yes, our 
churches believe abstinence is best, our parents and schools believe 
abstinence is best, but you do not legislate abstinence.
  If you could do that, then it would have worked a long time ago. But 
since biblical times it does not work.
  What we have to do is educate our young children. Our young children 
need to know about sex education, they need to know about birth 
control, they need to know exactly what is fact and what is fantasy.
  Yes, it is good to just say no; it is good to emphasize abstinence, 
but what does emphasis mean, Madam Chairman? Does emphasis mean that 
the instructor should mention it once and no more? Does it mean that 
for every day of sex education the instructor should start off with 
abstinence?
  I think we are going into deep waters, Madam Chairman. I think that 
the gentleman's motives are probably very good, but I think his message 
is wrong.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington [Mrs. 
Unsoeld].
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, some speeches coming from across the aisle would be 
much more appropriately made before a local school board. This is not 
an amendment about values, it is not an amendment about abstinence, it 
is not an amendment about those things that we feel would better our 
teenagers. What it is about is who makes the decisions for local school 
boards, the men and women from the community who run for the school 
board or who work with the school officials, who work with the parents 
on a daily basis? Are they rightly the ones to make the decisions about 
what will be in their curricula and how their local money will be used?
  I submit that that is where these decisions should be made, and not 
imposed by a big-brother government that is drafting a curriculum at 
the Federal level and imposing it on local schools.
  For gosh sakes, get Government off their backs.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle amendment and 
in support of the second degree amendment offered by Representative 
Unsoeld.
  Regardless of the intent of Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Hancock whose 
amendments will be offered subsequently, these amendments place Federal 
control over local school matters. Congress has always uniformly and 
consistently deferred all decisions with respect to curriculum content 
to State and local officials.
  The amendments would interfere with the authority of local school 
boards to determine the content of their programs. In my own district 
in Montgomery County, MD, the schoolboard is in the process of debating 
some controversial changes in the sex education program in the local 
schools. Members of the school board know the local community well. 
They have received input from parents, teachers, and principals 
regarding what is appropriate to address the needs of the children who 
live in the county.
  Madam Chairman, I believe abstinence should be emphasized as the most 
effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancies, but the Federal 
Government should not usurp the local government.
  I have received numerous calls from constituents asking me to please 
make sure that this important education bill does not interfere with 
the decisionmaking powers of local education agencies. The Hancock and 
Doolittle amendments would involve the making of subjective judgements 
by Federal officials about the extend to which curricula and resources 
of local schools comply with Federal mandates.
  The Doolittle and Hancock amendments would burden Federal, State, and 
local education officials with massive administrative requirements. The 
Department of Education would be required to issue detailed regulations 
setting forth what is and is not permissible. Local schools would have 
to evaluate their curricula, school library resources, and 
instructional materials to determine whether or not they meet these new 
requirements.
  The amendments could entangle our courts with new litigation cases. 
Any citizen or advocacy group could file suit against a school charging 
that elements of its curricula or the remarks of a classroom teacher 
violated the provisions of the Hancock and Doolittle amendments.
  The Unsoeld amendment limits the administrative burden imposed by the 
Hancock amendment on Federal, State, and local governments. They would 
prohibit the Federal Government from issuing regulations setting out 
what can and cannot be taught in our schools. The Unsoeld amendment 
would prevent Federal employees from monitoring and approving the 
contents of instruction in our schools. The Unsoeld amendment would 
protect local schools against having to refund Federal assistance 
whenever department employees objected to the content of their 
curriculum.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
second degree amendment offered by Congresswoman Unsoeld and preserve 
the right of local school boards to develop programs that conform to 
local community standards.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Unsoeld amendment. I do not 
want to be redundant, but this is not an amendment about values, this 
is an amendment about miromanaging and local control. Monstrous, 
monumental micromanagement would have to take place in order carry out 
the Doolittle amendment. The Doolittle amendment invades the 
prerogatives of the local school boards as very few other amendments 
have done. Throughout all of our debate on Goals 2000, where the 
Federal Government seeks to set certain standards in content and 
curricula and standards in performance, everything has been voluntary, 
everything has been in terms of, We will state certain models and the 
States, in the final analysis, will decide what they want to do. Local 
control in curriculum has not been violated in any of the legislation 
for education that we have pursued so far. If there are people who 
really want to have the Federal Government have a greater role in 
promoting values and preventing teenage pregnancies and providing more 
positive sex education, then there are many things the Federal 
Government can do.

                              {time}  1420

  Madam Chairman, let us be brave enough to take on the media, be brave 
enough to use the power of the Federal Government through the Federal 
Communications Commission. The No. 1 problem in America with respect to 
the values of young people is the influence of the media, television, 
radio, and motion pictures. The Federal Government has direct control 
over the airwaves either through the FCC broadcast regulations or 
through the FCC regulation of cable.
  I say to my colleagues, if you are interested in having this body do 
what this body can do best and what local school boards cannot do, then 
try to promote more stringent requirements on the manner in which sex 
and the wanton participation in sex is encouraged via our media via the 
radio, television, and motion picture formats.
  We have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the movement of 
pornographic magazines. There are a number of things we can do. 
Corporations are responsible for most of the programming that appears 
on broadcast television and much of the programming that appears on 
cable television. We have power with respect to the regulation of 
corporate activity. We have power with respect to regulation of how 
they spend their advertising dollars.
  If you want to be brave and do something about trying to influence 
teenage values, then why not take on a greater regulation role with 
respect to the FCC, with respect to corporate power and the kinds of 
things they finance? Why not take on a greater regulation role with 
respect to the motion picture industry, the magazine industry? There 
are a number of ways in which you can deal with, and deal more 
effectively with, your agenda to better promote more positive attitudes 
among teenagers with respect to sex education. We have no business in 
interfering, and we hope that they will take the necessary steps to 
provide enough sex education to guarantee that the youngsters know how 
to protect their own health to guarantee they know how to survive.
  Madam Chairman, AIDS is a very deadly disease. Schools must not 
ignore teaching about AIDS in a way which helps teenagers to survive. 
Everybody is in favor of that. Nobody in America, no responsible adult, 
and certainly nobody in this House, no school board in America, is 
against teaching abstinence, and my colleagues will probably find no 
school board in America where abstinence is not already a major part of 
this concern. Everybody does it. We do not need to have regulations 
handed down by the Federal Government to do what has been embedded in 
our tradition and our culture. All the religions, as some have pointed 
out, all the religions promote abstinence.
  I say to my colleagues, If you want to do something about the 
degrading influences of sex on teenagers, do what we can do best. Deal 
with the FCC. Deal with those agencies that are under the Federal 
Government that we do have power to regulate. Leave the school boards 
alone. Leave local control of education alone.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I feel it is critical that my colleagues understand 
the meaning of the Doolittle amendment to the children of our Nation.
  The Centers for Disease Control estimates that over 1 million 
Americans are infected with HIV. This same agency estimates there are 
12 million other cases of sexually transmitted diseases occurring each 
year in the United States.
  If sex education is going to be taught in school, it is apparent that 
the lesson plan should include teaching abstinence. This is the 
practice in my State of California, and that is why 180,000 teenagers 
are learning to resist the message of rap lyrics by choosing education 
and future success rather than settling for pregnancy and future 
poverty.
  The Doolittle amendment will ensure that all public elementary and 
secondary school classes on sex education shall continuously stress 
that abstinence is the only protection that is 100 percent effective 
against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and 
acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
  After decades of programs which emphasized contraception--the so-
called experts can look at their dismal results. The percentage of 
teenagers getting pregnant has nearly doubled in 20 years and 
illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent in the last 30 
years. Each year one in nine girls ages 15 to 19 become pregnant.

  We as a nation should not be proud of these numbers. We need to make 
changes. We need to find another way. The Doolittle amendment is 
clearly a step in the right direction.
  In the last 10 years some schools have been including abstinence in 
their sex education curriculum. And the results have been clearly 
positive.
  I ask my fellow colleagues, if you believe we should reduce the 
spread of sexual transmitted disease vote in favor of the Doolittle 
amendment.
  If you believe we should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy in 
this country vote for the Doolittle amendment.
  It is time to go back to the basics. It is time to embrace the virtue 
of chastity. Support the Doolittle amendment and give our children an 
opportunity for a better life.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, in 1940 teachers named the top 
problems in public schools as talking out of turn, chewing gum, making 
noise, and running in halls. In 1990 teachers named the top problems as 
drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, and rape.
  A recent Roper Starch Worldwide poll amongst 12- to 17-year-olds and 
parents found that pressure to have sex at too young an age tops the 
list of issues that both see as a threat to children. The pollsters 
found that 46 percent of the parents and 44 percent of the children 
ranked pressure for early sex as somewhat or extremely threatening to 
young people. AIDS was ranked as the next biggest threat to young 
people.
  Madam Chairman, my amendment will ensure that all public elementary 
and secondary school classes that teach sex education shall stress that 
abstinence is the only protection that is 100 percent effective. It is 
just that simple.
  I believe in local control, too, and I do not believe this in any way 
infringes on local control, but this goes right to the heart of the 
issue. By passing my amendment and defeating the Unsoeld amendment we 
are going to help young people help themselves.
  Madam Chairman, we know abstinence-based sex education works. It has 
been proven, so I ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] and yes on the 
Doolittle amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXIII, clause 2(c), the 
Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the recorded vote following 
the vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Unsoeld] if there is no intervening debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 166, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 76]

                               AYES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--166

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Grams
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Meek
     Natcher
     Olver
     Sundquist
     Thompson

                              {time}  1450

  Messrs. APPLEGATE, BORSKI, PAYNE of Virginia, VOLKMER, and BRYANT, 
Mrs. LLOYD, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. RAHALL, and Mr. QUILLEN changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KIM and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  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 California [Mr. Doolittle], as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407, 
noes 20, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 77]

                               AYES--407

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     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)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--20

     Abercrombie
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Edwards (CA)
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Kopetski
     Mink
     Nadler
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Scott
     Thompson
     Underwood (GU)
     Waters
     Watt

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     de Lugo (VI)
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Grandy
     Hastings
     Meek
     Natcher
     Sundquist
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1458

  Ms. WATERS, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, and 
Mr. EDWARDS of California changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SAWYER and Mr. MILLER of California changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''

                              {time}  1508

  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point, and that the debate on the remainder of the bill and all 
amendments be limited to 3 hours.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to 
ask a couple of questions. Would the gentleman tell us how many more 
amendments there are to the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, there are five more amendments on the 
Clerk's desk.
  Mr. WALKER. There are five amendments left for consideration. There 
is no doubt that this has become kind of the forever bill on the floor.
  Mr. KILDEE. The continuing saga of H.R. 6, right.
  Mr. WALKER. I know of a number of our colleagues who have literally 
hung around for days waiting for their amendments to come up. It seems 
to me that by placing a limitation on five amendments, we could reach a 
time where a couple of those amendments would literally have no time at 
all for debate.
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would ask the 
gentleman if he would be willing to have 1 hour of debate on each 
amendment?
  Mr. WALKER. I wish the gentleman would withhold the request until we 
have had a chance to check that out with the Members who offered the 
various amendments. It may well be that when we come back into session 
the next time, we could agree to that and agree to a time limitation at 
that point. I am concerned that we do not understand at this point 
whether or not that would be sufficient time for various Members to 
debate their amendments.
  Mr. KILDEE. We may very well not come back until after the Easter 
recess. The gentleman understands that?
  Mr. WALKER. However, at that point, certainly, the gentleman at that 
time could raise a time limit request that would have been thoroughly 
talked through with the Members who have potential amendments on the 
floor.
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, my only point 
would be that it would be easier to go back to the floor if we know how 
much time was to be consumed so the leadership could make plans 
accordingly.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, as I would understand it, you could in fact 
get permission in the full House at some other time to do that kind of 
time limitation, once it is agreed to. But as far as I know, we have 
not consulted with the Members on our side of the aisle as to whether 
or not an hour of time would be sufficient for them. It may well be in 
some cases that is more than enough time. But I do not know that to be 
the case and so, therefore, at this time I would have to object.
  Mr. KILDEE. I understand.
  The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Objection is heard.
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the link between 
education and earning potential--the more you learn, the more you earn. 
In order to increase the potential that the youth of our Nation 
complete high school, we need to take preventive steps to ensure that 
those most at-risk of dropping out--pregnant teens--are given the 
support they need to stay in school.
  A program currently operating in Indiana has successfully addressed 
the needs of pregnant teens and, as a result, has increased the 
birthweight of their babies and improves the potential that they will 
return to high school after they give birth. This program, the ``Have a 
Healthy Baby'' program, focuses on prenatal nutrition and wise 
lifestyle choices for pregnant teens and adults. It is taught in 138 
high schools in Indiana and is designed to address the issues of daily 
nutritional choices and the relationship of life-style choices, such as 
drugs, alcohol and smoking, which affect the health of the baby. Only 
2.6 percent of the 1,716 females enrolled in the program gave birth to 
low birthweight infants, compared to Indiana's average of 6.7 percent 
of births being low birthweight. The savings to the Medicaid system 
from this program are estimated at over $4 million. In addition, these 
teens are more likely to stay in school while pregnant and return to 
school after they give birth, giving them a better chance of obtaining 
a job that would make them self-sufficient.
  We cannot ignore the fact that teen pregnancy is a serious problem in 
our country. However, it can be addressed constructively by improving 
their chances of having healthy babies, staying in school and becoming 
contributing members of society. Everyone benefits from programs such 
as this and I am pleased to support the inclusion of programs like 
``Have a Healthy Baby'' in H.R. 6.
  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. de 
la Garza) 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.

                          ____________________