[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1804, GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 393 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 393

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1804) to improve learning and teaching by 
     providing a national framework for education reform; to 
     promote the research, consensus building, and systemic 
     changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities 
     and high levels of educational achievement for all students; 
     to provide a framework for reauthorization of all Federal 
     education programs; to promote the development and adoption 
     of a voluntary national system of skill standards and 
     certifications; and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 393 provides for 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1804, the President's 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Under the rules of the House, 
conference reports are privileged and are considered in the House under 
the 1-hour rule with no amendments in order. The rule waives all points 
of order against the conference report and against its consideration. 
The rule further provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, today's world is much different than it was 50 years 
ago. Advances in technology have changed the entire nature of our work 
force. No longer is it enough to equip our children with basic skills. 
We must also provide our children with the skills to compete in today's 
global economy. The conference report for H.R. 1804 seeks to accomplish 
this goal through the improvement of education for all children.
  Under the conference report over $400 million in grants would be 
awarded to the States as an incentive to improve their elementary and 
secondary schools. Each State could apply for these funds through the 
development of State plans which set standards for education. 
Participating States would establish voluntary content and student 
performance standards--or what children should know in English, math or 
other subjects at certain points in their education. Local school 
districts would also be eligible for subgrants from the State to 
develop and implement comprehensive reform at the local school district 
level as well.
  The conference report establishes a national education goals panel 
charged with building a national consensus for education improvement 
and reporting on the Nation's progress in meeting the national 
educational goals. It also establishes a national education standards 
and improvement council. This council would develop criteria for 
certifying voluntary national content, student performance, and 
opportunity-to-learn standards, as well as standards developed and 
voluntarily submitted by the States. These national standards enable 
America to set voluntary goals for students and would become available 
for use by States as guides or models in developing or modifying their 
academic standards.
  The conference report further establishes a national skill standards 
board intended to serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development of 
a voluntary system of skill standards. The board will encourage and 
facilitate the establishment of voluntary business-labor-education 
partnerships to develop skill standards systems. The conference report 
further provides that the skill standards meet or exceed the highest 
standards used in other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a departure from the way the 
Federal Government has previously dealt with education. Not only does 
the legislation call for voluntary national standards, but it calls for 
the relaxing of regulations and emphasizes academic achievement 
instead. The conference report supports creativity to develop new and 
innovative approaches to educating our Nation's children.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 393 is a fair rule that will expedite 
consideration of the President's education reform bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, the able gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] has described the provisions of the rule. Mr. Derrick, we are 
going to miss you after this session of the Congress. We are sorry you 
are retiring from this House and this body. You are a Trojan hard 
worker, and we are going to miss.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] has described, this rule provides for the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1804, the 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and its consideration.
  Although I do not generally favor waiving the 3-day layover 
requirement--particularly on comprehensive bills such as this--it is 
necessary for both Houses to complete action on this conference report 
expeditiously. Funds have been appropriated for fiscal year 1994 for 
this program, and this bill must be signed into law before April 1 in 
order to use these funds for the purposes provided by this bill. 
Therefore, I will not oppose this rule.
  This bill sets out to improve the quality of education for all 
students while maintaining the principle that although education is a 
major Federal concern, it is primarily the responsibility and function 
of State and local government. Thus, the opportunity to learn standards 
contained in Goals 2000 would be voluntary, and States can establish 
their own standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the conferees and the committee staff 
who worked through the weekend to get this conference report to the 
floor. Hundreds of differences had to be worked out by the conferees, 
and they did a tremendous job. However, the House instructed conferees 
to accept specific Senate language regarding school prayer. The school 
prayer language in the conference report is not the same as the 
original Senate language, and my colleague from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] 
intends to offer a motion to recommit the conference report with 
instruction to include the original Senate language. I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion, and I urge adoption of this rule so 
we can move this legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I think that it is useful to put this particular action into 
context. I do not think any of us are opposed to this rule. It allows 
us to bring the Goals 2000 bill to the floor. It waives certain points 
of order that need to be waived in order to have that happen. I am 
always a little concerned when we are waiving points of order, but in 
this particular case, I do not see any great harm to be done.
  However, this is a part of the ongoing saga of trying to assure that 
we get school prayer language that is widely and broadly accepted in 
both the House of Representatives and in the other body, the U.S. 
Senate. It is clear at this particular point, from a number of votes, 
that the advocates of school prayer have been successful in trying to 
move toward a standard that has each school district set a policy to 
assure that constitutionally protected school prayer can in fact take 
place.
  There have been votes in the Senate on that. There have been votes 
here. They have been passed overwhelmingly. There is no doubt that that 
is the direction that Congress wants to go, and it is a direction that 
the American public has wanted to go for a long, long time.
  Now we come back with the Goals 2000 bill, where this language 
originally arose in the Senate and where language has been included 
that is almost exactly the same as language that was rejected by the 
House just a few hours ago. And what the action that is going to be 
taken here on the conference report will be is to say, let us get all 
of our language together. It is broadly accepted now. We know what we 
want to do. Let us get all the language together. We cannot drop it out 
of this bill. That is not something which is going to happen.
  Why in the world do we adopt language that the House has rejected and 
then will set up a competing standard of what school prayer really 
means?
  Why not stick with the similar kind of approaches?
  In our view, what needs to be done is the conference committee needs 
to meet again and adopt the language that everybody in both bodies has 
now agreed is the direction to go. I believe that we will have, in the 
next little while, such a motion to recommit. I cannot see why other 
than simply to block the inevitable, why anyone is now moving to try to 
adopt language that has been specifically rejected. It seems to me that 
all we have in those kinds of instances is a situation where having 
been thwarted on one bill, that Members are coming back and trying to 
do what they can to stop this movement in another bill. And then, 
because they hope that if we passed different languages in different 
bills, I guess what they think is that the regulatory agencies then 
will have trouble working it out and it may never take place.
  Let us get this thing settled once and for all. We can do it by 
having the motion to recommit be successful.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise not to speak directly to the rule before us but 
to inform Members that I will offer a motion to recommit this bill with 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the House finds itself in a very awkward position today. 
My motion to recommit with instructions is intended to do something 
this House overwhelmingly voted on last month. When I offered a motion 
to instruct House conferees on this bill to agree with the Senate 
language concerning school prayer.
  Mr. Speaker, that motion to instruct passed this body by a huge 
margin of 367 to 55. Moreover, the Senate passed the exact same 
language by an overwhelming vote of 75 to 22.
  And just 2 days ago this House again passed the exact same language, 
the Johnson-Duncan school prayer amendment to H.R. 6, by a vote of 345 
to 64. Mr. Speaker, these are very, very lopsided votes.
  Now, we are here today considering this conference report on the 
Goals 2000 bill and we find that the school prayer language that we 
instructed conferees to agree to is not included.
  Instead, a handful of Members decided to ignore the Senate vote, 
ignore the motion to instruct, and then included the Williams school 
prayer amendment.
  At the time this closed-door decision was made, neither the House nor 
the Senate had even seen the language. Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. 
This is wrong.
  I need to mention that the school prayer language included in this 
conference report, the Williams language, was defeated by this House, 
just 2 days ago, by a vote of 239 to 171.
  Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate have been very, very clear on 
this issue. I find it very disturbing that a few Members can ignore the 
mandate that the overwhelming majority of this Congress has spoken on.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit with 
instructions so that we can right this wrong and include the school 
prayer language that we have all agreed to on a number of occasions in 
this conference report.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just 2 nights ago, 345 Members 
of this body supported a vitally important amendment to H.R. 6 which 
protects voluntary prayer in schools.
  On February 23, this body overwhelmingly instructed conferees on 
another education bill, Goals 2000, to agree with this identical 
language.
  The other body passed this same language by a steadfast 75 to 22 
vote. Judging from the vote margins on three separate occasions, this 
Congress supports protecting the constitutional right of children to 
pray.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that a handful of Members have taken 
the school prayer amendment and, I'm afraid, the constitutional right 
to pray, and played the shell game within the confines of a conference 
committee.
  Let's be consistent on this. We should return to the original 
language which has already been affirmed by both bodies of Congress.
  Let's protect the rights of our schoolchildren and recommit this bill 
back to committee and insist that the will of Congress prevail, not the 
will of a handful of conferees.
  I urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit Goals 2000 with 
instructions. After the overwhelming support that voluntary school 
prayer received this week, there is no better time than today for 
Congress to take action to protect the constitutional right to freely 
exercise one's religion.
  If you supported Mr. Duncan's instructions to conferees on Goals 
2000, if you supported the Johnson amendment to H.R. 6, if you support 
voluntary school prayer, you should support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference agreement to H.R. 1804, Goals 2000. I do so with some 
apprehension, because I strongly support the establishment of national 
education goals, as originally envisioned in President Bush's Educate 
America 2000. These goals sought common ground with every parent and 
teacher in America to create a national benchmark for education 
performance. It made good sense then, as it does now.
  That is why I voted to support this legislation last year, even 
though I had serious reservations about certain mandates included in 
the bill. Unfortunately, those provisions are still in Goals 2000, 
going far afield of the original intent to establish a national 
education benchmark.
  It seems to me that this Congress is becoming more and more intent on 
micromanaging local education decisions. But is more Federal Government 
involvement the solution, or is it becoming part of the problem? Real 
reform should allow local school officials and parents the flexibility 
and choices to meet the goals and needs unique to their local 
educational system. As much as some in Congress and the Federal 
Government may like to think so, we are not smarter or wiser than the 
parents and teachers who are, and should be, responsible for the 
education of individual children.
  With Goals 2000, federal interference in education only gets worse. I 
am speaking in particular of the so-called opportunity-to-learn 
standards included in this bill. H.R. 1804 mandates that each State 
develop a strategy to implement opportunity-to-learn standards, 
although they may or may not actually implement those strategies.
  This is a massive Federal mandate, any way you look at it. Why does 
this bill force States to develop a strategy even if they have no 
intention of implementing the plan? Once we establish federal meddling 
as the standard, where does it stop? You cannot take just one step down 
a slippery slope.
  Those Members who originally fought for a more comprehensive mandate 
will be back next year to force implementation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Charles Kolb, 
former Deputy Undersecretary of Education in the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, argues that:

       Opportunity to learn is the latest euphemism concocted by 
     professional educrats to mask their single-minded 
     determination to boost education spending. To cut through the 
     Orwellian mist, read ``opportunity to spend,'' whenever you 
     see ``opportunity to learn.'' In essence, such standards 
     would mean that we cannot hold our children, schools and 
     teachers accountable for better education performance until 
     we first equalize--and then raise--per-pupil spending across 
     America.

  Unlike some members of this body, I do not believe that Federal 
spending, per se, is the key to improving education.
  As a Nation, we are already spending well over $400 billion annually 
to educate our children. The problems with our education system are not 
caused because we spend too little, but because we spend with too 
little thought. Too much of the money we currently spend goes to the 
education bureaucracy, not students.
  But don't take my word for it. Both President Clinton and Education 
Secretary Riley oppose opportunity-to-learn standards. Here is what the 
President wrote regarding opportunity-to-learn criteria:

       Our proposal deliberately makes no mention whatever of 
     ``opportunity-to-learn'' standards. * * * Both the Department 
     of Education and my staff here at the White House will work 
     vigorously at every stage of the legislative process to 
     ensure that when the ESEA reaches my desk, it does not 
     contain opportunity-to-learn standards. The same principles 
     have guided, and will continue to guide, the Goals 2000 bill.

  Mr. Speaker, beyond the opportunities-to-learn mandate, there are 
plenty of other mandates and restrictions included in this legislation, 
such as a mandated one-year expulsion for any student caught carrying a 
gun in school.
  No flexibility, no questions asked.
  Mr. Speaker, support common sense--and President Clinton--by opposing 
H.R. 1804.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened that the conference committee has 
taken it upon themselves to try to prohibit constitutionally protected 
prayer and inserted their cute little language which we already debated 
at length this week, and which the House has already overwhelmingly 
spoken on this particular issue.
  It seems to me we have a minority of people in this body who are 
constantly trying to thwart the overwhelming majority of this body. 
Members need to really look at this issue, and later, we are going to 
have a motion to recommit, to reinsert the Duncan language as if passed 
this House 367 to 55. I hope Members will vote for that. And I hope 
Members will not have their principles bought, because I have heard 
rumors on the floor that the choice is between losing $105 million, if 
we do not pass this bill by April 1, and changing the rules, or 
inserting the Duncan amendment and substituting it for this new 
language. I hope Members will not approach this important issue in that 
manner.
  I hope the Members, the 300-plus, that have voted in support of the 
Johnson-Duncan approach to protecting children's rights to 
constitutionally protected prayer in school, will continue following 
that principle and vote for the motion to recommit and substitute the 
language that we all overwhelmingly support.
  Overruling the obvious will of both bodies is not the way to do 
business. This sort of business is what the American people have seen 
that disgusts them and frustrates them so much. Despite the will of the 
people and the overwhelming will of the House has spoken, a conference 
committee has decided to take it on themselves to change it. Vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit and protect the right to voluntary 
prayer in public school.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], who does a tremendously good 
job.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House do not permit any 
debate on a motion to recommit legislation back to conference with 
instructions, so I will use the time alloted under the rule to speak in 
favor of the Duncan amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has voted overwhelmingly three times to protect 
the constitutional right of children to pray in school. In fact, the 
very language in the Goals 2000 conference report was defeated 2 days 
ago by a vote of 239 to 171. Why was the will of the majority of the 
Members of Congress thwarted by such a small group of Members of 
Congress in conference? That which Congress tried to do and did do on 
two different occasions was undone in one fell swoop by a small group 
of Members of Congress.
  For those who voted against the Williams amendment on Tuesday, they 
must be consistent and vote for the Duncan motion today. The Duncan 
motion has nothing to do with mandates. It has everything to do with 
constitutional rights. No school can discriminate based on race, 
religion, gender, creed or disability. Yet if schools deny children the 
right to pray in a constitutionally protected manner, this conference 
report would let them off the hook.
  During debate on Tuesday, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
made the following statement. Listen very closely: ``there is no 
reported case in our courts in the history of the Republic involving 
school officials refusing to allow private voluntary prayers by 
individual students.'' That is simply not true. That is why we need to 
support the Duncan motion, once the vote on the rule is over.
  There are very numerous cases on this issue. Just talk to Eileen 
Unander of Champaign, IL, or J.J. Music of Prestonberg, KY, who were 
denied the right to pray around the school flag before classes. Just 
ask Bethany Null, a special education student from Panama City, FL, who 
was told by school officials that she could not pray over her lunch. 
Just call the students at Smithfield High in Virginia, or the high 
school students of Rosslyn, NY, who were prevented by school officials 
from forming a Bible club or pray and study scripture.
  Of course, any student of constitutional history knows the famous 
mergers case, where the Supreme Court in 1990 upheld the 
constitionality of the Equal Access Act, which allows students to form 
religious clubs. Mr. Speaker, this very body passed a law, the equal 
access law, which allows children the right to form those voluntary 
clubs.
  One organization has over 80 active cases dealing with the right of 
students to voluntarily pray in school. Those who say that no one has 
ever been denied the right to voluntarily pray in school are simply 
wrong.
  I find it ironic that the very Members of this body who have no 
problems passing legislation overturning the Grove City College 
decision, which cuts off all Federal funding to institutions that do 
not have equal programs for both genders, raise so many objections to 
the Duncan motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion of my friend, 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] to protect the constitutional 
rights and reject this conference report that circumvents the will of 
the vast majority of both houses of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent survey was taken, and it showed that only 29 
percent of the American people polled have confidence in the U.S. 
congress. I can understand why, myself.
  I am a Member of this body, and have worked very hard to get here. I 
share that lack of confidence in this body, when on two separate 
occasions this body votes for very specific language, only to have that 
very specific language ripped away in a conference committee, and to 
bring the matter back before the floor. It is a matter of fairness, it 
is a matter of equity, it is a matter of justice that we pass and vote 
upon this Duncan provision to recommit.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner].

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, Goals 2000 is on the floor today. We ought 
to remember why we are here and where this process started.
  The process started when 50 Governors came together with then-
President Bush to talk about what can the Governors and the President 
do to bring focus to the efforts to reform America's schools, and the 
whole idea here was to bring together a voluntary framework to help 
each of the Governors reform education. But when the bill came through 
during George Bush's years, it did not get very far because we could 
not come to some agreement on what that bill ought to be. And so it was 
reintroduced under President Clinton, a bill that was not bad, was not 
exactly what George Bush had brought to the Congress, but not much 
different.
  And then, the majority in the House and Senate got hold of it, and 
look what happened then. Instead of empowering communities, instead of 
empowering parents to improve schools in America, all this bill does is 
empower the bureaucracy once again. The most glaring example is the 
language in this bill that puts in opportunity to learn standards, It 
is much better than the House-passed version, but it is still rather 
confusing. It orders the States that they will in fact put opportunity 
to learn standards together. It says, ``You do not have to implement 
them,'' and third, it says, ``We will not check to make sure whether 
you are implementing them or not.''
  Then why in the world are they even in the bill? Because in the 
series of compromises, everybody got a little something. So those who 
wanted opportunity to learn standards have the words in the bill, but 
in fact, it is a waste of paper, it is a waste of words, and nothing is 
going to come of it.
  We had an opportunity when this bill came to the House to support an 
alternative that would have empowered parents and local communities to 
take hold of this reform movement in their schools. The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], and myself would have in fact done 
that, and provided some focus for States to drive reform to its lowest 
level. But no, once again we are going to take reform out of Washington 
and try to mandate it on the States.
  If Members look at all of the quality programs in America that 
American industries have gone through, one of the principles they have 
all learned is we have got to drag decisionmaking down to its lowest 
possible level. If we want real quality in the workplace, if we want 
real quality products, drive decisions to their lowest level. It is 
exactly the opposite of what we are doing in this legislation. It does 
not deserve to be on this floor, and it does not deserve our support.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe].
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. 
I just want to be sure that Members on both sides of the aisle are 
fully aware of what has happened with the language we spent so much 
time on and dwelled so long on on school prayer. The fact is the 
Duncan-Johnson language that merely expresses intent, that we are 
offended by taking prayer out of the schools, and that we support 
voluntary prayer in schools, is now out of this. And we have 345 
Members of Congress who voted for this, and I am sure that all 345 will 
go back and they will campaign on the fact that they wanted to do 
something about reinstating prayer in schools.
  A book by David Barton of Tulsa, OK, ought to be required reading. He 
has charted the behavioral patterns of America all the way back for the 
last 200 years. He charted the behavioral patterns of violent crime, of 
drug addiction, rapes, teenage pregnancies, and for 200 years that line 
was a parallel line until 1963 when it shoots off of the chart. And 
what happened in 1963? That is when the Supreme Court took God out of 
the public schools.
  Now we went to all of this trouble getting that back in, and I have 
no doubt in my mind that those individuals who were embracing taking 
this language out, and are among the 345 who voted for it, are going to 
try to go back and campaign on it. But we will not let them get by with 
it. The language is gone, and they have butchered it, and they have 
again fortified what the Supreme Court did in 1963.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but whenever the 
motion to recommit is heard after the debate on the measure, I urge 
Members to vote for the motion to recommit to be offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that you could not read your Bible 
or say prayers in school, I have fought religiously to get that 
changed. And I think the conference report language does not go far 
enough. We should revert back to what the gentleman from Tennessee's 
amendment did in his motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on his motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 393, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
1804) to improve learning and teaching by providing a national 
framework for education reform; to promote the research, consensus 
building, and systemic changes needed to ensure equitable educational 
opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for all 
students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all Federal 
education programs; to promote the development and adoption of a 
voluntary national system of skill standards and certifications; and 
for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution 
393, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, Mar. 21, 1994, at p. H1625.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
conference report on H.R. 1804, the Goals 2000; Educate America Act. It 
is imperative that the House act today to pass this conference report 
or funds that have been appropriated for programs in this legislation 
will be lost. This comes about because the fiscal year 1994 
appropriation law provides $105 million for 1994 expenditures for Goals 
2000 and $20 million for the Safe Schools Act, only, however, if these 
initiatives are enacted by April 1.
  Both of these programs are contained in the conference report on H.R. 
1804. With the Easter recess pending this Friday, the House must act 
today to give our colleagues in the Senate the time they need to 
consider this legislation.
  Members should understand that if this report is recommitted to 
conference, these funds will be irrevocably lost. A motion to recommit 
the conference report is not like a motion to recommit to the 
committee. If we had a recommit with instructions to the committee, I 
could get together with my ranking member and we could solve the 
problem very quickly and come back to the floor. But what we are 
recommitted to if Members vote to recommit today is to a new conference 
with new conferees appointed by the House and Senate that will go into 
conference with every item in both the Senate and the House bills 
available for debate and discussion. And I can assure Members that 
there is no possibility that I could get back from conference by the 
end of this week. It took literally weeks of work, after many weeks of 
work by the staffs on both sides in the House and the Senate, to get 
this conference report together, and if we have to start all over 
again, it just cannot be done in time for Friday. There is just no time 
to reconvene a conference and negotiate a new report and get it through 
both Houses.
  This conference report is important because it makes the Federal 
Government a partner in education reform by assisting States and school 
districts to undertake school improvement activities.
  I should mention, parenthetically, that we passed basically this bill 
for President Bush in 1990. We passed it again for President Bush in 
1992. And we passed it last year for President Clinton through the 
House, and now the conference is here. In each of the previous 
situations it has been the Senate that was unable to pass the 
conference report. But on the previous attempts in the House, the vote 
for passage of this bill has been overwhelming.
  The conference report on H.R. 1804 contains several education 
initiatives, including safe schools, the authorization for programs and 
activities in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the 
Department of Education. Those programs will assist schools in their 
efforts to provide a quality education to our students.
  Let us not forget that that is what this legislation is all about. It 
is education reform. This is the legislation that was put together by 
President Bush and the National Governors Association when President 
Clinton was the head of that organization.

                              {time}  1510

  Both of them had a very strong commitment to the purposes of this 
legislation, and I hope now we are going to be able to finally bring 
this to a conclusion.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference report on H.R. 
1804, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. It is imperative that the 
House act today to pass this conference report, or funds which have 
been appropriated for programs in this legislation will be lost.
  The fiscal year 1994 appropriations law provides $105 million for 
Goals 2000, and $20 million for the Safe Schools Act if these 
initiatives are enacted by April 1, 1994. Both of these programs are 
contained in the H.R. 1804 conference report. With the Easter recess 
pending this Friday, the House must act today to give our colleagues in 
the Senate the time they need to consider this legislation.
  Members should understand that if this report is recommitted to 
conference, these funds will be irrevocably lost. There is not time to 
reconvene the conference, negotiate a new report, and pass it in both 
Houses before the end of the week.
  This conference report is important because it makes the Federal 
Government a partner in education reform by assisting States and school 
districts to undertake comprehensive school improvement activities.
  While President Bush proposed similar school reform legislation, we 
were unable to enact the Bush bills because of Mr. Bush's focus on 
school choice programs. President Clinton has sent us, and we are 
passing today, legislation which focuses on the key issues of education 
reform, not on gimmicks like vouchers.
  The conference report on H.R. 1804 contains several other education 
initiatives, including Safe Schools, and the authorization for programs 
and activities in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at 
the Department of Education. These programs will assist schools in 
their efforts to provide a quality education to our students by making 
our schools free from violence and crime, and by funding crucial 
research in education.
  The conference report also contains the National Skills Standards 
Board. This Board will serve as a catalyst in stimulating the 
development of a voluntary national system of skill standards which 
will connect the skills needed in the workplace with the skills 
imparted through education and training.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this conference report today or these funds 
for school reform and safe schools will be lost. We must not delay. I 
urge my colleagues to support the conference report and oppose any 
attempts to recommit this measure back to the conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the conference report.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, for the last 6 years I have been trying to 
shepherd legislation of this nature through the Congress of the United 
States so it could actually become law. As the chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford] said, it began with the Governors and former 
President Bush meeting in Charlottesville, setting six national goals 
and then trying to figure out how we can help States and local school 
districts move toward those goals. I probably raised my voice louder on 
this legislation more often than any other legislation, hammered my 
fists more often on the table on this legislation than any other 
because I wanted to make very sure that we did not micromanage State 
and local education efforts.
  I am trying the same thing in H.R. 6. It is very difficult to rail 
against the majority and tell them not to micromanage and then say that 
when my side of the aisle does it, it is all right.
  It is not all right on either side.
  So I tried to make sure that we do not micromanage local and State 
efforts, I tried to make sure that we do not set equalization formulas 
from the Federal level on how State and local governments spend their 
money for education; I tried to make sure there is no national 
curriculum; I tried to make sure we do not have unfunded mandates; I 
have tried to make sure that our major interest is what has the child 
learned, rather than the input effort into the education of that child.
  Why have I done this, and why have I worked so long? Because I happen 
to believe that even though this is a very little program, a very small 
program, it might be one of the most effective things we have done 
perhaps in the history of this Congress in relation to bringing about 
quality in education rather than just access. In the past, that is all 
we have considered: access, access, access. As I have indicated many 
times, we spent $82 billion on chapter 1 and we are not sure whether we 
helped the disadvantaged become more disadvantaged or whether we may 
have just helped some to become less disadvantaged.
  We spent $22 billion on Head Start, and we are not sure what the 
outcome of that is, because our emphasis has never been on quality, it 
has always been on access.
  Well, the time has come when, if we are going to survive as a great 
nation, we are going to have to get above the business of mediocrity. 
Access to mediocrity is of no value whatsoever to a National such as 
ours in the competitive world in which we live.
  That is what we are doing with Goals 2000.
  From a small program like displaced homemakers, which is about the 
smallest program we have ever done, we have probably gotten more bang 
for the buck than any other program that we have ever developed in the 
past in the Congress of the United States. Yet it is just a small 
program.
  Even Start appears like it may be working, that the whole emphasis on 
family literacy and parenting skills may be helping, and it is a small 
program.
  This is a small program, and yet a great opportunity that we have, 
not to micromanage local and State efforts as far as reforming their 
school system, but giving them some help, some support, and some 
guidance.
  Now, it is very important that I repeat, even though it really does 
not matter whether you say what is in the legislation or not, those who 
want to believe what is in the legislation even if it is not in it will 
believe that no matter what I say; but it is important to understand 
that in the legislation it says, ``Notwithstanding any other provisions 
of Goals 2000, no State, local education agency, or school will be 
required to implement OTL standards or strategies.'' It is important to 
understand that in the legislation it says, ``No State is required to 
have their OTL content or performance standards certified by the goals 
panel.''
  It also says that nothing in this act creates a legally enforceable 
right to sue on a standard or assessment certified by NESIC.
  It also says nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an 
officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or 
control a State, local educational agency, or schools' curriculum, 
program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or 
mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur 
any costs not paid for under this act. I do not know how you can get a 
greater guarantee from the Federal level that we are not micromanaging 
local and State efforts. Again, I repeat, I think this is a small step 
but a very important step, and maybe the most important that we will 
take to bring about quality in education in the United States rather 
than just access.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of final passage of the 
conference report on S. 1150/H.R. 1804, the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act. While I am not satisfied with many of the final provisions of this 
legislation, this conference agreement does contain many improvements 
to the House-passed bill.
  As a former educator who is extremely interested in education reform, 
I was very hopeful that we could work together in conference to ensure 
that the version of Goals 2000: Educate American Act which emerged from 
conference would be a vehicle for education reform. Unfortunately, this 
legislation falls far short of what our Nation truly needs to meet the 
national education goals developed 5 years ago by President Bush and 
the Nation's Governors.
  Indeed, because the Goals 2000 bill produced by this conference 
committee contains a truckload of new reporting requirements and 
provides very few dollars in return, I fear that many States, local 
education agencies, and schools may choose not to participate in this 
program. That would truly be a sad commentary on the ability of 
Congress to play much of a role in reforming education.
  Nevertheless, after nearly 6 years of negotiations spanning nearly 
the entire Bush administration and the first 1\1/2\ years of the 
Clinton administration, I am reluctantly convinced this bill is the 
best that Congress can do. For that reason, as well as the fact that 
this agreement removes nearly all of the worst opportunity to learn 
provisions that were in the bill that passed the House, I will vote for 
this bill.

  Because this issue has generated such controversy, let me take a few 
moments to explain the opportunity to learn provisions in this bill. 
First, while a State must develop opportunity to learn standards or 
strategies, they only have to include those factors it seems 
appropriate to achieve a State's content and performance standards. In 
other words, OTL standards or strategies are whatever a State wants 
them to be as long as they are focused on improved student learning.
  Let me also point out the single most important section of the bill 
dealing with opportunity to learn: No State, local education agency, or 
school will be required to implement OTL standards or strategies. So, 
while a State must develop OTL standards or strategies, they do not 
have to be implemented.
  There are a number of other opportunity to learn provisions that I 
helped to draft in this bill prohibiting unfunded Federal mandates and 
ensuring local control of education.
  There are, however, two OTL provisions in the statement of managers 
that are of concern to me. These provisions directly contradict some of 
the actual bill language dealing with opportunity to learn. I spoke to 
Secretary Riley about my concerns about the statement of manager, and 
he made it clear the Department intends to implement the actual 
language in the bill, and does not plan to follow the instructions 
found in the statement of managers. I am gratified with the Secretary's 
assurances, and I will work closely with him on the implementation of 
all of the opportunity to learn provisions.

  Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear there should be no mention of 
opportunity to learn standards or strategies in Goals 2000. However, 
the opportunity to learn sections of this bill have been watered down 
to such a degree that they may as well not be in this bill at all. As 
such, these provisions are acceptable to me.
  There are some positive things about this bill. Goals 2000 enshrines 
into law the national education goals and a National Education Goals 
Panel to monitor our country's progress toward attaining these goals. 
It sets high academic standards for America's children, and it makes it 
clear that we have high expectations for our future generations.
  Goals 2000 contains a very important provision that provides 
regulatory flexibility to States, local educational agencies, and 
schools. For many years I have urged my colleagues on the Education and 
Labor Committee to trust local educators to do what is best for their 
students. The flexibility provisions in Goals 2000 would permit States, 
local educational agencies, and schools to apply for waivers from 
statutory or regulatory requirements which impede their ability to 
carry out a State or local education reform plan. Although waivers may 
only be obtained for seven existing elementary and secondary education 
programs, this is an acknowledgment that State and local education 
officials know best how to develop programs to meet the needs of their 
students.
  Under title V of the Goals 2000 legislation, we have provided for the 
establishment of a national board for the development of voluntary, 
national industry-recognized occupational skill standards. While I 
support the conference agreement on this title, I remain convinced that 
success is dependent on making this an industry-led effort--otherwise 
the standards will not be used. While I would have preferred 
establishment of a national board that provided more of a leadership 
role to business and industry, I feel that the compromise reached 
during conference will move this effort along the right path.

  Other important parts of this conference agreement include the 
reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
and a Safe Schools Program to provide grants to local educational 
agencies to fight crime and violence in local schools. It is my hope 
that the Safe Schools Program will provide us with some effective 
models for combating the violence problem in our Nation's schools.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a strong need for education reform in our 
country, and due to outreach efforts undertaken by both the Bush and 
Clinton Education Departments, many States and local communities have 
already begun reform efforts which may be undertaken as a part of Goals 
2000. This legislation may give them the assistance and guidance needed 
to implement their reform plans.
  In light of the fact that we have been able to neuter most of the 
onerous provisions of the Goals 2000 bill that passed the House, I see 
no reason that we should not go forward with this legislation. We have 
spent over 5 years working on education reform and it is time to move 
on to other equally pressing issues.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] chairman of the subcommittee, who has worked 
so long and hard on this legislation.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me and for 
his very hard and effective work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this conference report on 
H.R. 1804, a bill which I introduced over a year ago. It represents a 
very thorough and very thoughtful consideration of the President's 
education reform bill, which he sent to the Congress at the beginning 
of this 103d Congress.
  It is similar in structure, indeed, to the bill sent to us by George 
Bush during his Presidency. The conference report includes these 
features: establishment of national education goals and national 
standards and improvement council as part of a process for building a 
national consensus for education improvement and for overseeing the 
development of voluntary national education standards.
  These standards would be available as guides that States may use to 
develop their own high standards for student achievement.
  The bill also includes authorization of formula grants to States for 
locally based reform activities. It also establishes a national skills 
standards board to serve as a catalyst for development of a national 
system of skills standards to better prepare our workers for high-skill 
jobs in this very competitive global economy.
  It also reauthorizes the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement. It authorizes the Safe Schools program to help schools 
deal with school violence.
  The Goals 2000 Educate America Act is the means for the Federal 
Government to help States and local school districts to help themselves 
to improve education for all children. It is based upon the principle 
that, to be effective, school reform must be developed on the local 
level.
  I want to insert in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the 
Business Coalition for Education Reform, among whose membership is the 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National Alliance of 
Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, very strong 
conservative bodies.
  One thing they say in their letter supporting this bill: ``The final 
conference report creates neither unfunded Federal mandates nor a 
national school board, nor national building codes.''
  The letter referred to is as follows:
                                            Business Coalition For


                                             Education Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ford and Congressman Goodling: The 
     Business Coalition for Education Reform urges all members of 
     the House to give the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, H.R. 
     1804, their full support. We believe the conference report 
     establishes the appropriate federal framework for creating, 
     for the first time in this country, an education and training 
     system which is performance-based and results oriented.
       The Coalition firmly believes that enactment of the Goals 
     2000 bill is essential to building a world class workforce 
     and ensuring our long term economic strength. Now, more than 
     ever, establishing the federal role in a voluntary national 
     system of academic content standards and assessments to help 
     guide states, schools, teachers, parents, and students is 
     critical to the nation's ability to compete with the other 
     industrialized countries of the world.
       The Goals 2000 legislation describes a new federal role in 
     education and training: one of leadership, incentives, and 
     assistance, coupled with the state and local flexibility 
     necessary to design the appropriate instructional programs 
     for individual communities. The final conference report 
     creates neither unfunded federal mandates nor a national 
     school board, nor national building codes. Discretion in 
     developing and implementing academic standards, assessments, 
     and opportunity to learn standards or strategies, is left 
     where it belongs--with the states.
       We also believe the conference report ensures there will be 
     strong business leadership on the national skill standards 
     board. The business community believes skill standards, if 
     developed properly, in conjunction with academic standards, 
     skill standards will enhance economic security by providing 
     workers with nationally recognized certifications. With 
     strong business leadership on the board, a national system of 
     skill standards and certifications will ensure the relevance 
     of worker skills and training to jobs.
       We commend the Senate and the House for their leadership 
     and persistence in the development and passage of the Goals 
     2000: Educate America Act, and we urge swift action on the 
     conference report.
           Sincerely,
     William H. Kolberg.
     Michael Jackson.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to this body that Mr. Goodling and 
I, in crafting this bill, were very careful to make sure that 
participation in Goals 2000 is totally voluntary and is not a 
prerequisite for receipt of funds under any other Federal education 
program.
  If a State or school district does apply for funds and receives them, 
it must develop its own reform proposal with broad public input, 
including parents. I urge parents to get involved in that reform in the 
local school districts, at that level, because that is where it will 
take place.
  Goals 2000 envisions many types of reform, many types of reform 
activities, throughout the Nation, developed to meet individual 
community needs. This bill recognizes that which I have always 
believed, that education is a Federal concern but it is essentially a 
State responsibility and a local function. I think, in crafting this 
bill, Mr. Goodling and I have been very careful to make sure that these 
are voluntary and that the reform will take place at the local level 
and with local input.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``This is it. 
Either today you vote for education reform or you go back home and 
admit you're not really in support of it.''
  There is not a Member among us who cannot come to the floor today, 
after the 6 years that the distinguished leaders on both sides have 
referred to of working on education reform, there is not one of us that 
could not come here today and say there are some things in this bill 
that I do not like. I know there are some things the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] does not like. I know there are some things 
that I do not like. I am sure there are things that the chairman of the 
committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees do not like either. But 
this is what governing is all about, and this is the day, and this is 
the afternoon, when we will have to decide whether we are going to go 
home and say that we truly are committed to education reform. That is 
what this is about, my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes the framework for education 
reform, nothing more, nothing less.
  I showed this to my colleagues in the debate a few weeks ago, the 
learning revolution. This is what we are talking about here, enabling 
every State and enabling every local school district in America that so 
chooses to respond in its own unique way to the challenges of education 
reform in that community, and I hope my colleagues have listened 
carefully to what I just said because I said ``enables every State and 
every local education agency that so chooses.''
  There is, my colleagues, not one mandate in this bill. There is not a 
State in the country that has to participate in Goals 2000 if they 
choose not to. There is not a local school in this country that has to 
participate in education reform under Goals 2000 if they choose not to. 
But if they choose to, then they have the power through their locally 
created reform panel to determine what works best for them, and, my, is 
there a lot of compromise in that area.
  The chairman of the committee has allowed public school choice as one 
of the options, if they so choose. We have allowed in this bill 
education flexibility, if it is a part of an education reform proposal.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the ranking 
Republican, said, there are absolutely no mandates anywhere in this 
bill on any local community, and yet we return the bulk of those funds 
to the local schools. Year one, 60 percent of all the money that goes 
to those States that choose to participate must go to those local 
education agencies. In year two and beyond, 90 percent of all of the 
money must go to the local schools.
  My colleagues, name me another program adopted by the U.S. Congress 
where 90 percent of the money actually goes into the delivery of a 
program at the local level, and yet that is exactly what happens under 
this particular program.
  A few years ago, when George Bush first articulated Goals 2000, in my 
home area of western Wisconsin they got all excited, and under the 
leadership of a Dr. Charles Edwards, who was the dean of school 
education, still is the dean of school education at one of our 
universities, we created a Western Wisconsin 2000 Education Reform 
Panel. They got excited about it, and they put together this handbook, 
and they have done that without any money.
  But the interesting and exciting thing about this program, Mr. 
Speaker, is one of those schools, which is the larger school, said: You 
know what? We have looked at our program, and we do nothing to prepare 
our young people for the international global economy. We want to set 
up a program, probably a charter school, focused on international 
education where they focus on world history, and bilingual education, 
and metric mathematics, and so forth.

  Then there was this medium-sized school in a rural farm area that 
says:

       You know, we have got a lot of economic stress in our area, 
     and we have got to recognize that a lot of these young kids 
     are not getting the kind of preparation for learning they 
     ought to have, and they don't start school today ready to 
     learn. So, we want to set up a program in our rural community 
     to guarantee that under education reform every child in our 
     school starts school ready to learn.

  Then there is an even smaller community along the Mississippi River, 
and the superintendent actually came to me, and he said:

       You know what? Not too many of my kids are probably going 
     to go to college. They really need technical education, but 
     very frankly we don't have the resources and the tools to 
     give to them the 1990's or 21st century technical education. 
     We would like to find a way under educational reform to 
     uplink and downlink those kinds of courses and bring them 
     into our school to empower our students.

  My colleagues, that is what we are talking about this afternoon, 
enabling those local communities to chart under their own plans their 
best methods for improving education for their kids.
  One final note before I sit down--I would hope every one of my 
colleagues, when they come here to vote today, would give this vote to 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher]. Anybody who knows the 
gentleman from Kentucky at all, knows that he never appropriates money 
for something that is not authorized. In all the years that I have been 
here, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I know of that the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] has ever put money into an appropriation 
bill because he had confidence in the secretary, he had confidence in 
those of us in the Committee on Education and Labor, and he had 
confidence in this Congress that we were going to do what was right, 
and by April 1, we were going to have passed and sent to the President 
an education reform framework.
  I say to my colleagues,

       My guess is he is sitting in that hospital bed watching us 
     on TV this afternoon, and I think we could give him a vote of 
     confidence and a vote of well wishes to say, ``Bill, your 
     confidence in this Congress for your grandchildren and for 
     all the children of this country was well placed. Thank you 
     very much.''

  Mr. FORD of Michigan. My Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] for 
his comments about our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Natcher], and for reminding everyone in here of how steadfast he has 
been over so many years in refusing to put any money on the stump, as 
the expression goes. This was not money put on the stump. The gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] was convinced that we were going to be able 
to do it in time for April 1, and that is why he made this $125 million 
contingent on us passing this legislation before this weekend.
  As the gentleman said, it would be a terrible recognition of that 
break from the past by him if we were unwilling to break from anxieties 
and angers of the past to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Reed], a new, but very valuable and very active, member of the 
committee.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report, and I first want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ford] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for their efforts, 
as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania indicated, we did have some rather 
frank and vigorous discussions about this bill which resulted in the 
principal resolution of all these issues and resulted in, as he 
indicated in his remarks, a conscious recognition of the importance of 
local control of school policy, and I think this bill recognizes that 
fundamental tenet of American educational law that is truly the local 
communities and the States will guide educational reform.
  But what we have been able to do in this legislation is to provide a 
Federal catalyst to help those local reformers. This bill does not 
purport, nor in any way will it require, the Federal Government to 
manage reform, but it will, I hope, stimulate through these funds and 
through these programs vigorous efforts at the local level to reform 
our educational system.
  Now there are two basic components of this legislation. First, the 
establishment of voluntary standards, and I should hasten to add: 
voluntary national standards.

                              {time}  1530

  So that there is a national consensus on what each child should know 
at relevant positions in their education. In addition to these national 
standards, there is a framework of reform, a framework which we hope 
will encourage the States to address the difficult questions they face 
each day.
  Included in these questions are the resources that should be 
available to education. They have been described in this legislation as 
the ``opportunity-to-learn standards,'' but they are basically a set of 
questions about what resources are necessary to young people to truly 
master the content standards.
  This legislation does not dictate standards, but what it does is 
encourage the States to ask the hard questions, questions like what 
they will do when a school or a school system fails to meet the content 
standards. By asking these questions, by starting a process of sincere 
and thorough analysis, I think we are going to do remarkably great 
things for education in the United States without taking upon ourselves 
at the Federal level the mantle of educational policy in the United 
States.
  This is critical legislation at a critical time in our history. The 
world economy is expanding. Our competitiveness is at stake unless we 
can learn all the skills necessary to be successful in a very 
competitive and very challenging world.
  That is why a host of business organizations, as the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], indicated, such as 
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National Alliance of 
Business, and the National Association of Manufacturers, have all urged 
us to act today. In their words, in the words of the Business Coalition 
for Education Reform, they say, ``We commend the Senate and the House 
for their leadership and persistence in the development and passage of 
Goals 2000. Educate America Act, and we urge swift action on the 
conference report.''
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge swift action on the conference report.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of recommitting the 
legislation to conference to restore the protections for 
constitutionally permitted prayer that have been approved repeatedly in 
both the House and Senate.
  The House has voted overwhelmingly to include language in this bill 
prohibiting any local school district from infringing on the right of 
children to engage in constitutionally protected prayer. We reaffirmed 
this position earlier this week by approving identical language in the 
elementary and secondary education reauthorization. And the Senate also 
approved this language with only token opposition.
  Why then does this bill not cover constitutionally protected prayer? 
Apparently, because some of the conferees on this bill have chosen to 
strike it in favor of language explicitly rejected by this House 
earlier this week.
  Everyone in this House is in favor of education, and even those of us 
who don't believe this bill is perfect want the process to move forward 
fairly. However, we should not accept a blatant rejection of the 
clearly stated will of both Houses on an issue as important as the 
freedom of religion.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to recommit this conference 
report so that the will of the House on this issue can be done.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
subcommittee chairman who wrote the Office of Education and Research 
Improvement provisions that are in this conference report.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the fact that in this 
monumental bill, we have discussed primarily Goals 2000, but also it 
contains the reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement.
  Mr. Speaker, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement is 
reauthorized, updated, modernized and provided with a structure that 
brings it into the 20th century. For the first time, education ceases 
to be second-class citizen here in Washington; for the first time it is 
recognized that the education function is an important as the defense 
function, the commerce function, the health function. For the first 
time it is recognized that a research and development component is 
necessary for any modern activity to go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also recognized that at the level of the States, 
the States will never have the funds, the resources necessary to do the 
kind of research that has to be done.
  So we now have an Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
which has 3 major innovations that will carry it forward into the 
future.
  One is an innovation which establishes a Priorities Review Board. 
This is a board consisting of people who come from the education 
community, some people chosen from the educators at the level of 
teaching, some people chosen at the level of researchers, 
businesspeople, a cross section of people to make up this board 
appointed by the President.

  Mr. Chairman, it is important to have such a board because OERI 
throughout its history has been plagued by partisan swings one way or 
the other depending on who was in the White House, and sometimes those 
swings have taken it off on orbits that have almost destroyed the 
agency. If a group of educators are there to anchor the agency and to 
provide an ongoing objective evaluation of the kind of research that 
needs to be done, the likelihood that this agency will be bogged down 
in partisan wrangling is lessened greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, another important innovation is the establishment of 
several institutes similar to the Institutes of Health. Those 
institutes will focus in on particular problems.
  One institute will focus on the problem of at-risk students. There 
will be an institute for the education of at-risk students, there will 
be an institute for governance and management, and several other 
institutes which will serve as backdrops and supportive systems for 
whatever kind of reform does take place at the local and the State 
level.
  Mr. Chairman, the Institute for Governance and Management is needed 
all over the country. School boards are made up of amateurs who really 
do not know a lot about how to manage. They are often swindled. A large 
part of the money that should be going into instructional cost goes 
into money for buildings and supplies and bus contracts, and, in my 
hometown of New York, custodian services that are overpriced; and it 
appears that laymen who are appointed to the boards are not able to 
deal with these situations.
  Therefore, to have an institute working at the national level to 
support and back up these school boards across the country would 
greatly benefit the educational reform effort.
  Mr. Speaker, we also have a district education agent plan in there 
which is the heart of a dissemination process to make certain that 
whatever new research is done, there will be a system similar to the 
system established many years ago under the Morrill Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the way we became the leading power in the world in 
respect to agriculture and food production was that very early in the 
life of this country, we established land-grant colleges, and those 
land-grant colleges were linked up with county agents and they were 
linked up with experimental stations at universities so that the 
dissemination of the information that came out of the universities went 
right down to the farmer at the local level.
  Mr. Chairman, we now have a system which will carry the educational 
research benefits right down to the classroom so that a teacher at the 
local level can immediately make use of whatever new techniques and 
approaches are developed. This is a proven approach. We did it long ago 
in the Department of Agriculture, and it made us the unchallenged 
producer of food in the world. We are now bringing the education 
function in parity with the other functions like the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department of Health, and the Department of Defense, 
in terms of a first-class, modernized research and development 
approach, a first-class modernized effort for disseminating 
information, and a respect for the scientific approach. If science 
worked to give us Patriot missiles and make us the leading military 
power in the world, then science and a scientific approach will 
certainly work to give us a world-class education system and make us 
the leading innovator in the world.
  The children in our classrooms suffer from an outdated, antiquated 
approach to education, and here is an opportunity to see that they get 
the very best in terms of a research and development system to produce 
a world-class leading education system.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
H.R. 1804, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
  I want to highlight two important parts of this legislation which 
will provide critical assistance to the Nation's schools: Title VII, 
which contains the Safe Schools Act, and title IX, which contains the 
reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
  When the House finally passes H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools 
Act, we will have the opportunity to approve legislation which would 
provide every school district in the Nation with additional resources 
to prevent violence in and around their schools by the start of the 
next fiscal year.
  Unfortunately, there are schools in our country who cannot afford to 
wait that long. They need help today.
  By incorporating provisions of my bill, the Safe Schools Act of 1994, 
Title VII will provide the Department of Education with the means to 
respond immediately to this crisis, providing emergency assistance to 
those schools which now face severe violence problems and enabling the 
Department to develop model antiviolence programs which schools 
throughout America will be able to implement when H.R. 6 is signed into 
law.
  These provisions, in short, will jump-start Federal efforts to 
respond to the epidemic of violence which now threatens too many 
students and teachers throughout our Nation, providing the immediate 
and meaningful Federal response that is now urgently needed in central 
Brooklyn and in too many other communities in the Nation.
  I also want to highlight the dramatic reform of the Federal 
educational research and development effort that is set out in title IX 
of H.R. 1804. This legislation reauthorizes and restructures the Office 
of Educational Research and Improvement to establish a world-class 
research and development system to guide and drive the national effort 
to improve education.
  If we are to achieve the national education goals, OERI must be moved 
from the periphery to the center of educational reform and innovation 
in America. It must become the locomotive which pulls and guides the 
national effort to improve education with sound, research-based 
leadership for change.
  Title IX creates a stable system of governance modeled upon the 
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to 
guide OERI's activities. A 15-member national educational research 
policy and priorities board consisting of both educational researchers 
and representatives of teachers, parents, and other stakeholders in 
education is established to oversee and guide OERI. The board's key 
function is to work with the Assistant Secretary to develop a 
comprehensive research priorities plan to end the incoherent, flavor of 
the month approach to research which has limited OERI's effectiveness 
for so long. This would be a long-term agenda for OERI's research and 
development efforts, reflecting a national consensus which would set 
out priorities and objectives for OERI.
  Title IX also realigns OERI's activities according to an institute 
structure to provide an enduring focus for its efforts. Currently, OERI 
is organized by how it conducts research and not by what is being 
studied. This has contributed to the overall lack of coherence and 
stability at OERI. Title IX would restructure OERI's research and 
development activities according to an institute framework, with 
institutes focused in the following areas: The education of at-risk 
students; educational governance, finance, policymaking, and 
management; early childhood education and development; student 
achievement, curriculum, and assessment; and postsecondary education, 
libraries, and lifelong learning. These institutes would conduct 
research through the same means that OERI now employs, including 
through centers and field-initiated research.
  To assure that the results of educational research are fully 
translated into real improvements in practice, title IX creates an 
office of reform assistance and dissemination within OERI which would 
be responsible for managing and directing multiple efforts to 
synthesize, disseminate, and promote the use of knowledge gained 
through research. These efforts include the ERIC clearinghouses and the 
regional educational laboratories.
  Title IX also establishes the Goals 2000 community partnerships to 
support sustained collaborations among institutions of higher 
education, community-based organizations, local education agencies, and 
others to use research and development to improve education in low-
income communities. This district education agent program is inspired 
and derived from the county agricultural extension agent, a program 
which proved enormously successful in the first part of this century in 
transforming American agriculture, community by community, to a 
position of world dominance. Following this model, a district education 
agent would be based in a learning grant institution and would work 
with the local community to develop and implement a comprehensive plan 
to improve education from the preschool to postdoctoral level. The 
agent will also help schools and community members evaluate the success 
of Federal educational programs within the community and assist in 
improving their implementation. Other activities which may be supported 
by the partnerships include preservice and inservice professional 
development for educators within the community, facilitating the 
coordination of social, health and other services to children, and 
school- and community-based research by teachers and others designed to 
solve specific problems within the community.
  This legislation has been crafted through a uniquely open and 
participatory process. We have worked hard to achieve a consensus on 
the fundamental reforms which must be made at OERI. The Subcommittee on 
Select Education and Civil Rights has held 18 hearings and heard from 
112 witnesses over a period of 5 years about the kinds of changes which 
must be made in the structure and authorities of OERI. We have 
carefully considered and, in most cases, adopted the recommendations of 
two complementary studies of OERI completed by the National Academy of 
Sciences and the National Academy of Education. We have also 
incorporated many useful insights and suggestions provided by the 
administration and Assistant Secretary Sharon Robinson. The end product 
of this lengthy, exhaustive process is a very strong, consensus bill 
which sets OERI on a bold, new course.
  I want to acknowledge the contributions and dedication of some of the 
many individuals who have worked with us to craft this legislation. Dr. 
Art Wise, Dena Stoner, New York regent Adelaide Sanford, Gerry Sroufe, 
Carolyn Breedlove, and Gregg Jackson have worked alongside with us 
throughout this process, contributing many thoughtful ideas. This 
legislation also reflects countless hours of work by the staff of both 
the majority and minority of the Education and Labor Committee: Kris 
Gilbert, Andy Hartman, Maria Cuprill, Braden Goetz, Laurence Peters, 
and Theda Zawaiza have all worked long and hard on this legislation 
over the past 5 years. These and other individuals believed that 
meaningful, visionary reform was possible and they helped us to make it 
happen.
  With this legislation, we can provide meaningful support to the 
national movement to reform and improve the quality of our children's 
education. With this legislation, we can assure that the kind of 
research-based knowledge they need will be systematically and 
abundantly produced by OERI. No longer will OERI be a faint and 
flickering light; it will be a powerful and reliable beacon for reform 
and change in education.
  Mr. Speaker, to significantly improve education in America we need an 
overwhelming campaign. This legislation provides the Office of 
Educational Research and Improvement with the capability to lead this 
overwhelming campaign for the improvement of education.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this legislation. Goals 
2000, which I call bureaucracy 2000, was a bad bill when it went into 
conference, and it is still a bad bill.
  Faced with a clear choice between bureaucratic control and parental 
freedom, the American people choose parental freedom, hands down. But 
this bill insists on giving a big thumbs up to bureaucratic control.
  Instead of giving parents more accountability over what goes on in 
their children's classrooms, it gives more power to a new National 
Education Standards and Improvement Council, a new National Skills 
Standards Board, a new National Education Goals Panel, and, of course, 
the old Federal Education Department in Washington. All of which means 
more power for the National Education Association and less discretion 
for America's parents.
  And true to the NEA agenda, the bill still mandates gender-sensitive 
and multicultural textbooks; still contains language carefully crafted 
to lead to the race-norming of educational and employment tests; and 
still pours money into school-based health clinics.
  But most troubling of all is the bill's mandates on the States--
mandated content standards, mandated performance standards, mandated 
opportunity-to-learn standards. The folks that are calling this bottom-
up reform must be standing on their heads.
  Mr. Speaker, a while back, Al Shanker, head of the American 
Federation of Teachers labor union, got caught in a moment of 
unintended candor.
  He said, ``When school children start paying [union] dues, that's 
when I'll start representing the interests of school children.''
  Today, Mr. Shanker must be popping his champagne cork.
  Goals 2000 is a great bill for the teachers unions, but it's a bad 
deal for parents and children.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 1804 and to congratulate my subcommittee and 
the full committee chairman for the heavy lifting that this conference 
report represents.
  As many of my colleagues may know, this was a very difficult 
agreement to reach. I believe that it was worth all the effort that 
produced it. This conference report represents real change. With the 
passage and implementation of this proposal, for the first time in 
decades, education reform on the national level will be pulling in the 
same direction as the efforts underway in States and local communities 
across this country.
  This proposal encourages States to develop improved curricula tied to 
competitive standards. This is an invaluable organizing principle that 
will give all schools, all teachers and all students a common set of 
flexible goals. By endorsing this systemic approach to education reform 
we are stating our belief that all children can meet high expectations 
and develop the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind that we once 
expected only of our top students. This is a message of profound 
optimism for our Nation.
  We can achieve all of this and continue to preserve the rich 
diversity of educational decisionmaking on the local level. Meaningful 
education reform has been, and always will be, locally driven. This 
legislation does nothing to inhibit that; in fact the entire proposal 
assumes that unless reform is based on the needs of individual 
communities it will never thrive. That is to say: it aligns these 
national goals of State and locally developed curriculum professional 
development efforts, and the tools needed to achieve them on a 
voluntary basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. By 
providing incentives to State and local educational agencies to adopt 
content standards in the core academic disciplines we will be driving 
reform in the area where it is needed most--upgrading curriculum. To 
change the way students learn and teachers teach--we can not do less.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say this: A comment was made a few 
minutes ago that if this body adopted my motion to recommit, it would 
unduly delay this bill for quite some time. I think the truth is to the 
contrary. The language that is in my motion to instruct is very clear 
and straightforward. It has been adopted overwhelmingly by this body 
twice in recent weeks, and also by the Senate. It could be worked into 
this conference report very easily and very quickly, probably with a 
few simple phone calls, and I do not think it would delay it at all.
  Also to the contrary, I am told if this language is not placed in the 
bill this time, that there will be a serious effort made to hold this 
bill up in the other body. So the way to speed this bill to final 
passage is by adopting my motion to instruct.
  What this is all about, Mr. Speaker, and everyone knows, is that 
those who want to do something real about putting prayer back in our 
public schools will vote for my motion to recommit and give students 
the right to have student-initiated, voluntary, 
nondenominational, constitutionally protected 
prayer. Those who want to keep the status quo will vote against my 
motion to instruct.
  The best argument for this was made by our own Attorney General, 
Janet Reno, last week when she told the Hearst newspapers this:

       School prayer advocacy, especially in inner cities, is a 
     symptom of people trying to figure every way they can to 
     reinforce people's ability to work together, to live together 
     in families, to have a sense of purpose, a sense of self 
     respect, a sense of regard for others, and how we get along 
     with each other.

  What a great argument in favor of this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I might add this. William Raspberry, the great 
syndicated columnist, said in a resent column:

       It is not just possible that anti-religious bias 
     masquerading as religious neutrality has cost us far more 
     than we have been willing to admit.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of my motion to recommit.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Bacchus].
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong support 
of this legislation and this conference report. In fact, I cannot even 
begin to say how strongly I support this legislation. To my mind, the 
enactment of this legislation may well prove to be the most important 
act of the Congress in this decade.
  Everywhere I go and every issue I see and every challenge I confront, 
I see the compelling need for this Goals 2000 legislation: Crime, 
drugs, disease, unemployment, racial hatred, intolerance of all kinds, 
the unwillingness, the reluctance, of so many to accept responsibility 
for their own lives and their own actions, much less for the faith of 
our democracy.
  These challenges, these concerns, these problems, have may causes. 
But in each of them, I see a single common cause. That common cause is 
ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance is the enemy. Education is the answer.
  Mr. Speaker, the pathway toward quality education for every American 
is to be found in the goals established in this legislation. These are 
broad bipartisan goals. They are voluntary goals. They will not be 
imposed upon our people, but our people will embrace them, because they 
understand these are goals that we do share.
  That is why President Bush was for them. That is why President 
Clinton and all the governors at that time endorsed them. That is why 
we have endorsed them. We need now to make them a reality, and make 
them a reality today, for these goals will begin to give each child in 
America the chance for the broad foundation of a liberal arts education 
that will enable them to be citizens, achievers, Americans in the 
truest, finest sense of the word.
  Mr. Speaker, I recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who understood 
the importance of education for America. Mr. Jefferson said:

       A nation that expects to be both ignorant and free, expects 
     what never was and never will be.
  Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Jefferson were with us today, he would vote for 
Goals 2000.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report and seek unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  This conference report, which will cost taxpayers over $645 million 
in fiscal year 1994 alone, will do little, if anything, to enact true 
education reform.
  Tragically, we allowed yet another education reauthorization bill to 
pass us by without seizing the opportunity to enact real education 
reform. True education reform must be driven locally by teachers, 
administrators, parents, and community leaders and participants. To 
seize even more of their responsibility, and place it on an already top 
heavy Federal bureaucracy, is to further reduce the chance that real 
education reform will ever take place. Yet that is exactly what Goals 
2000 does.
  By agreeing to this conference report, this body does our children 
and grandchildren a serious disservice. Goals 2000 retains the highly 
controversial Opportunity To Learn [OTL] Standards that focus on the 
conditions of teaching and learning--not the results. These standards 
wrongfully emphasize superficial conditions, ignoring the content of 
instruction and whether or not the children are actually learning.
  Not only are the OTL standards going to misdirect the energies of 
educators on nonessentials, States will be required to develop OTL 
standards, but implementation will be voluntary. States will be forced 
to spend time and money developing the standards, only to have them sit 
on a shelf or in a drawer, never to be used. I can not understand how 
this possibly will improve education for our children.
  I addition to the objectionable Opportunity To Learn Standards, Goals 
2000 creates a new bureaucratic, federally-controlled 19-member 
National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] to certify 
and periodically review the national and State content standards, 
performance, and Opportunity To Learn [OTL] Standards. This panel, 
composed of members nominated by the President, the Secretary of 
Education and congressional leaders, would sit, in an oversight role, 
over the States and localities, further eroding their role in 
education. Furthermore, the opportunity to enact school choice, an idea 
whose time has come, was passed by. Too many of my colleagues ignored 
the chance to provide transferable vouchers for parents to pay for 
their child's education at the public, private, or parochial school of 
their choice.
  I am also very disappointed that the conference committee included 
only a watered-down version of the Senate-passed Helms amendment that 
would have denied funds to any school district with a policy of 
prohibiting voluntary student-initiated constitutionally protected 
prayer in schools. The conferees did this in spite of the fact that the 
House passed a motion to instructed conferees to accept the language as 
passed by the Senate.
  The conference report on Goals 2000 also includes the conference 
agreement to reauthorize the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Select 
Education and Civil Rights, I supported H.R. 856, the Education 
Research, Development, Dissemination and Improvement Act of 1994, when 
it was voted on by the House of Representatives. And I fully support 
the conference agreement reached between the House and Senate.
  I believe that the conference agreement makes important 
clarifications about the collaborative relationship between the 
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement and the 
National Board on Research Policy and Priorities. The agreement also 
maintains the authority of regional laboratories to set their own 
locally-generated research policies, and creates a clear framework for 
establishing up to two additional regional labs in the future.
  I want to make it very clear that while I plan to vote against the 
entire Goals 2000 conference report, I support the OERI portion of the 
conference agreement.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that the most important 
part of the Goals 2000 legislation for me was the heart of the 
legislation, the voluntary national education standards. As a law 
professor still at Georgetown, I feel deeply about what students need 
to know and the skills they need to have.
  But in my town and in many others today, among the skills students 
most need are violence survivor skills. There are no books yet, Mr. 
Speaker, on how to get out of school alive or how to dodge a bullet.
  Title 7, the safe schools provision, is an important step toward 
seeing that such books become unnecessary. If we do not enact this 
legislation this very day, however, safe schools will expire by April 
1, before we get back from the district work period.
  When I was a student at Dunbar High School here in Washington, fists 
were all that were available. Today guns have saturated society. Those 
guns are used to settle juvenile quarrels. There were gun shots through 
the window of my high school alma mater last month. Vice President Gore 
went with me and heard students describe how bullets can keep one from 
concentrating on books.
  The next time the Vice President and I go to Dunbar, I hope we will 
hear about the scholarships that Dunbar students get from M.I.T. and 
from Howard. This bill will help us meet that goal, but only if Members 
vote for the conference report so that we can save safe schools before 
it expires April 1.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to try one more time, hopefully there are Members at 
least on my side of the aisle back in their office listening, and I 
would hope that there are a lot of people out in the public who may be 
watching this so that I can allay the fears they may have and the 
misrepresentations of what is in this bill.
  I would like to point out seven or eight of those particular things 
so that we truly understand what the legislation does or does not do.
  First of all, it promotes Bottom-Up reform, not top down, not Federal 
Government down to local government, local to top. It requires each 
State improvement plan to include strategies for ensuring that 
comprehensive, systemic reform is promoted from the bottom up in 
communities, local education agencies and schools and includes a list 
of optional strategies for State consideration.
  Second, unfunded mandate prohibition. It includes a general 
prohibition on Federal mandates with respect to the direction or 
control of the State, local education agency or school's curriculum, 
program of instruction or allocation of State and local resources under 
this Act. It does not allow, does not allow the Federal Government to 
mandate a State or locality to incur costs not paid for under this Act.
  It includes a provision reaffirming State and local responsibility 
for control of education. It requires the local plan to promote the 
flexibility of local schools in developing plans which address the 
particular needs of their schools and communities.
  This may be one of the most important parts of this legislation. For 
years I have been trying to promote the idea that if we give local 
governments an opportunity to use their own creativity and ingenuity, 
they can combine some of these programs without worrying about whether 
they commingled some funds, because our auditors have always checked to 
see every penny where they thought the Congress wanted it to go. Rather 
than whether there was any quality taking place in the programs we had 
designed.
  Finally, after all these years, there is flexibility in there so that 
local and State governments can be creative when dealing with the 
Federal legislation.
  Furthermore, it permits LEA's to use no more than 25 percent of their 
subgrant in the first year for the development of their local 
improvement plan for LEA activities approved by the State Education 
Association which are related to carrying out the State or local plan. 
It permits the use of these funds to establish innovative new public 
schools.
  Beyond what was mentioned, choice, it also allows for new creative 
schools. As I indicated, waivers, it allows the secretary to waive any 
statutory or regulatory requirement of chapter 1, chapter 2, the 
Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act, the Emergency 
Immigration Education Act, the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, 
Even Start, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Act. They can apply for waivers so that they can be creative on the 
local level.

                              {time}  1600

  It permits LEA's not receiving funds, not receiving funds under this 
act, but which are undertaking reform, to apply for these waivers, 
which will certainly help them.
  It amends the General Education Provisions Act [GEPA] regarding 
students' right to privacy. This is an amendment to the socalled Hatch 
Act, and it involves parental rights.
  These are eight areas that I have heard over and over again that are 
just opposite of what is in this legislation. I point that out to make 
sure that when we discuss the legislation, at least we are discussing 
what is actually in the legislation, not what someone may think is in 
the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] has 6 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I want to first salute the chairman and members of the committee on 
both sides who have worked hard to put this program together. I want to 
urge Members to vote against the motion to recommit, and I want to urge 
Members to vote for this report.
  This legislation has had a long and difficult path to this point. It 
is a piece of legislation that was developed by both parties, and by 
the Governors and Members of the executive branch and the legislature. 
I think it is a very important program. It sets goals for our States, 
and then allocates money to help the State boards of education reach 
for the goals. I believe it is very important that we finalize or 
realize this piece of legislation.
  There are many still in the country who believe that we should not 
set standards or goals. I think they are wrong. I think by passing this 
and putting it into place, we will finally make that point. We will 
resolve that conflict, which is what we are here to do, to resolve 
conflicts and to move the country forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand some would want the motion to recommit so 
that the language on school prayer could be put into this conference. I 
urge Members to understand that whatever their views on school prayer 
that we passed in yesterday's action on the floor in H.R. 6, an 
approach to the school prayer question, that bill, when it is realized 
and finished, will apply to the schools of the country and the Federal 
Government's relationship with those schools with regard to school 
prayer.
  There is not a need to reiterate that policy in this bill, whatever 
the Members' views on it were. This bill can go forward, that bill will 
go forward, and that bill will deal with the school prayer question. 
There is not a need today to put that language into this conference.
  All Members will do if they vote for the motion to recommit is to 
slow down and frustrate the realization of this very important 
legislation. It will mean that about $100 million of Federal money will 
not go forward between now and the next fiscal year to realize the 
goals of this legislation.
  I urge Members to vote against the motion to recommit, to vote for 
this conference report, and to realize a bipartisan effort that has 
gone on for years to set standards and to set goals for our young 
people in our schools. This is a major achievement of the Republican 
party and the Democratic party, of the Governors of this country, of 
the executive branch, and now of the legislature of the United States.
  I salute my friends who have worked on it on both sides. I urge 
Members to vote against the motion to recommit and to vote for the 
conference report, so we will finally have standards for the young 
people of the United States.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] has the right to close.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. GOODLING. I just want to take this time to thank the majority for 
the cooperative effort we have had over the years trying to put this 
legislation together. It is much easier when we have the White House to 
drive a bargain with the majority than it is when you do not have the 
White House, but I think we have done very well, and it is because of 
the cooperation from the majority side.
  I also want to thank the staff, the staffs on both sides. With H.R. 
6, with this legislation, and with every other piece that we have had, 
I am talking to these people in their offices Saturday nights, and 
Sunday nights. I do not even know if they know the people at their 
homes anymore, because I do not know if they ever go home.
  I want to thank them, because it has been months that they have been 
on H.R. 6, it has been months and years they have been on this piece of 
legislation. I want to thank them for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, to simply thank all of the members of the Committee on 
Education and Labor who worked to accomplish this bill.
  This is an interesting experience for me. We started out with this 
bill as a Republican President's initiative and we passed it for him, 
not once but twice. Then a Democratic President who was a Governor, and 
negotiated the bill in the first place with the Republican President, 
came back with the same bill, and the lineup changed a little bit, but 
when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says it is easier 
to bargain on this when you have the White House behind you, he has 
always had the White House behind him on this. I have only had the 
White House very recently behind me on this.
  I compliment the White House in both instances for the hard work they 
have put in in trying to get this passed. The American people are 
beginning to wonder if we are ever going to get anything done about 
this Goals 2000, because they have been reading about it for years.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, some people took us and 
the President seriously when this first came on the scene and got 
started. Then we said, ``You get out there, and we will be along with a 
can of gasoline for you so you can drive the rest of the way.'' We 
never got there.
  If we do not get this bill passed today, this conference report, the 
gasoline we were going to give them for 1994 is not going to get to 
them. Then we can come back and argue about what we will do starting in 
1995. That is too late. This is way overdue now. We cannot try the 
patience of the local and State school people out there any more than 
we have.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
motion to recommit the conference report on Goals 2000 with 
instructions. We've been through this before folks. I think it is sad 
that opponents of voluntary school prayer have to use a backdoor 
maneuver in conference to strip our language that has overwhelmingly 
passed both the House and Senate in recent weeks and substitute the 
Williams language. The Williams language preserves the status quo--we 
would continue to allow schools to violate the Constitution. Nothing 
would change. This language failed when attempted during debate on H.R. 
6 just this week. Our motion to instruct conferees on Goals 2000 
legislation passed by voice vote a few weeks ago and the identical 
language passed the Senate by a convincing vote of 77-22 last month.
  Just a few days ago my colleague Sam Johnson of Texas offered an 
amendment on behalf of Mr. Duncan and myself to H.R. 6 containing this 
same language that passed overwhelmingly 355-64. Mr. Williams had the 
opportunity to offer his language and call for a vote. His amendment 
failed. What is the problem here? Is the message not crystal clear? 
There is strong support for voluntary prayer in our public schools in 
Congress and in America. I urge you to support our motion to recommit 
this bill with instructions to reincorporate the Duncan language in 
place of the watered-down, meaningless Williams language.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss the compromise agreement that constitutes title XII of H.R. 
1804, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
  Title XII of H.R. 1804 as approved by the other body contained 
provisions which would have prohibited smoking in each indoor facility 
in which ``children's services'' were provided, except that smoking 
would be allowed in those portions of the facility in which 
``children's services'' are not normally provided and which are 
``ventilated separately'' from those portions of the facility in which 
``children's services'' are normally provided.
  The version of H.R. 1804 approved by this body contained no 
comparable provisions.
  In title XII of the version of H.R. 1804 approved by the other body, 
``children's services'' were defined to include health, education and 
``other direct services'' that are routinely provided to children and 
which are funded, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by 
Federal funds; including in-kind assistance.
  The definition of ``children's services'' in the conference agreement 
is narrower. The conference agreement defines ``children's services'' 
as the provision on a routine or regular basis of health, day care, 
education, or library services that are funded, after the date of 
enactment, directly by the Federal Government, or through State and 
local governments, by Federal grant, loan, loan guarantee, or contract 
programs which are administered either by the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of the 
Department of Education--except for services for which the sole source 
of Federal funding is title XVIII or title XIX of the Social Security 
Act--or which are administered by the Secretary of the Department of 
Agriculture for clinics, as defined by Federal regulations, but no food 
establishments, established under the Women, Infants and Children 
Program administered under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
  The conference agreement also defines ``children's services'' to 
include the provision of routine or regular health, day care, 
education, or library services in indoor facilities which are 
constructed, operated, or maintained with Federal funds provided after 
the effective date of title XII under the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of 
Agriculture programs described in the preceding paragraph.

  The conference agreement prohibits smoking within any indoor facility 
which is owned or leased or contracted for and utilized by the service 
provider for the routine and regular provision of the following 
children's services: kindergarten, elementary or secondary education, 
or library services.
  The conference agreement prohibits smoking in any portion of an 
indoor facility which is owned or leased or contracted for and utilized 
by the service provider for the routine and regular provision of the 
following children's services: health care, day care, or early 
childhood development [Head Start] programs. Included in the portion of 
the facility subject to the smoking prohibition are those areas of the 
facility used for the provision of health care, day care or Head Start 
services that are routinely and regularly used by employees of the 
service provider. Such areas might include employees' lounges and 
offices directly related to the administration of the children's 
service being provided which are adjacent to the portion of the 
facility in which children's services are provided so that children 
might be exposed on a routine and regular basis to environmental 
tobacco smoke. The smoking prohibition would not apply to portions of 
the facility that are not used for the routine and regular provision of 
health care, day care or Head Start children's services or that are 
available to employees of the children's service provider, as described 
above.
  The conference agreement exempts the following two categories from 
the smoking prohibition that applies to portions of facilities in which 
health care, day care, and Head Start children's services are provided: 
One, any portion of such a facility that is used for inpatient hospital 
treatment of individuals dependent on, or addicted to, drugs or 
alcohol; and two, any private residence.
  The conference agreement also compels Federal agencies to prohibit 
smoking within any indoor facility, or portion of the facility, which 
is operated by the agency, either directly or by contract, to provide 
children's services. Specifically, Federal agencies located in the 
United States in which routine and regular kindergarten, elementary or 
secondary education, or library children's services are provided must 
prohibit smoking in the entire facility in which the children's service 
is provided. For Federal agencies located outside the United States, 
smoking must be prohibited only in the portion of the facility operated 
by the agency, directly or by contract, to provide routine or regular 
kindergarten, elementary or secondary education, or library services. 
The conference agreement distinguishes between indoor facilities 
operated by Federal agencies inside the United States and those outside 
the United States to address the concern that in facilities operated by 
Federal agencies outside the United States it is more likely to find 
kindergarten, elementary or secondary, or library children's services 
provided in a building that is used for other purposes.
  For health care or day care or Head Start children services that are 
provided in facilities operated, either directly or by contract, by any 
Federal agency, the conference agreement requires the Federal agency to 
prohibit smoking in the portion of the facility in which the children's 
services are provided. This prohibition would not apply to the 
following two categories: One, any portion of such a facility that is 
used for inpatient hospital treatment of individuals dependent on, or 
addicted to, drugs or alcohol; and two, any private residence.
  The prohibitions on smoking established by the conference report will 
be enforced by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services. The conference report does not require the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations for any 
part of this provision; indeed, it is the intention of the conferees 
that the provisions of this agreement be self-implementing. The 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is directed by 
the conference agreement to publish notice of these prohibitions in the 
Federal Register and to provide as much notice of these requirements as 
possible.
  While I have strong reservations with other portions of this 
conference agreement, I believe the agreement contained in title XII is 
a significant compromise agreement. It extends dramatically the 
prohibition on smoking to a wide range of children's services. However, 
it does not require smoking prohibitions in portions of buildings which 
are not used for the provision of health care, day care or Head Start 
children's services. This preserves for the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration the difficult but important determination 
concerning what standards are necessary and appropriate to ensure good 
indoor air quality in workplaces.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Goals 2000 
conference report [H.R. 1804]. I would like to call attention to a 
small but very important provision of the conference report that would 
protect children from secondhand smoke while they are participating in 
federally funded children's programs.
  Last year, I introduced legislation [H.R. 710] along with Mr. Hansen 
and Mr. Mazzoli in the House, and Senator Lautenberg in the other body, 
to ensure that children in federally funded children's programs will 
not be exposed to secondhand smoke. This legislation, which is known as 
the PRO-KIDS Act [Preventing Our Kids from Inhaling Deadly Smoke], has 
more than 70 cosponsors. It has been endorsed by more than 20 groups 
whose names I will provide at the end of my statement.
  The conference report on H.R. 1804 includes a provision that builds 
on our work in H.R. 710. The conference report provides effective 
protection from secondhand smoke to children who receive federally 
funded children's services.
  Specifically, the Goals 2000 conference report bans smoking in 
buildings used to provide kindergarten, elementary, or secondary 
education, or library services to children. In addition, it protects 
children receiving other federally funded children's services by 
banning smoking in those portions of buildings that are used to provide 
federally funded health care, day care, or early childhood development 
services to children. This prohibition also applies to areas of the 
building that are used by employees to provide these services. Among 
the programs in which children will enjoy this protection from 
secondhand smoke are the WIC Nutrition Program for women, infants and 
children; Head Start; day care programs; health care programs; and 
programs providing education or library services.
  This legislation is important to the health of our Nation's children. 
Secondhand smoke is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer 
deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. Of more immediate concern to 
children, exposure to secondhand smoke causes 150,000 to 300,000 lower 
respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia in young 
children each year, causes additional episodes of asthma and increased 
severity of asthma symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children who 
already have asthma, and may be a risk factor for 8,000 to 26,000 new 
cases of asthma annually in children who would not otherwise become 
asthmatic.
  My office recently heard from a woman who has been unable to secure a 
smokefree learning environment for her 11-year-old child, who has 
asthma. He has suffered asthma attacks at school due to exposure to 
secondhand smoke in school buildings. This legislation will give that 
child and others like him the protection they need, so they can 
concentrate on their learning and other activities rather than worrying 
about whether participation in federally funded programs may be 
hazardous to their health.
  I applaud the conferees on H.R. 1804 for decisively addressing this 
issue.
  A list of the organizations that have endorsed the PRO-KIDS Act 
follows:

       American Cancer Society;
       American Heart Association;
       Ameican Lung Association (united as the Coalition on 
     Smoking OR Health);
       American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, 
     Inc.;
       American Academy of Pediatrics;
       American Association for Respiratory Care;
       American College of Chest Physicians;
       American College of Occupational and Environmental 
     Medicine;
       American Medical Association;
       American Nurses Association;
       Americans for Nonsmokers Rights;
       ASH (Action on Smoking and Health);
       Association on Maternal and Child Health Programs;
       Association of State and Territorial Health Officials;
       Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America;
       Coalition for Consumer Health & Safety;
       Consumer Federation of America;
       Environmental Defense Fund;
       National Association of Medical Directors of Respiratory 
     Care;
       National Coalition for Cancer Research;
       National Education Association; and
       Sierra Club.

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 1804, the Educate America Act. We can no 
longer afford to stand around and talk about what is wrong with 
education in America. It is time to start providing States with the 
tools to tackle education reform.
  The Educate America Act establishes national goals, learning 
standards, teacher training programs, parent participation programs, 
and business and industry input which are pathways to success for 
America's schools.
  Most importantly this act gives schools a coordinated resource for 
reform. The Educate America Act creates a number of organizations like 
the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, the National 
Goals Panel, and the National Skills Standards Board which facilitate 
dialog among education leaders across the country about what works and 
why.
  Under this structure, we will have a forum to communicate about 
national standards so that a student who graduates from high school in 
Zuni, NM, learns the same basic skills as a graduate from California, 
New York, or Mississippi.
  This act will serve our Nation's long-term interests by creating 
better educated generations that are prepared to compete with their 
peers around the world. I am ready to support the conference agreement 
on H.R. 1804 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support to the Goals 2000 
legislation, and to commend all of my colleagues who worked so 
diligently on this bill--in particular Chairman Ford and Chairman 
Kildee and ranking member Goodling.
  I would like to thank them and others for working together with me in 
support of title IV, a provision to provide Federal funds to expand 
parental support and involvement in our country.
  This title will go a long way to further advance goal No. 1--ensuring 
that all children enter school ready to learn.
  In particular, title IV would authorize funds for an innovative and 
highly successful program that was developed in my State of Missouri 
about a decade ago and that I have been working to support on a Federal 
level for a number of years.
  Senator Christopher Bond has been a leading advocate for the Parents 
as Teachers Program in the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions in title IV build on an amendment that I 
offered when this Chamber took up the Goals 2000 legislation last 
October.
  That amendment, and this conference report, specifies that parental 
support programs should begin not when a child is enrolled in school, 
but at the time of a child's birth.
  And to further that aim, this legislation for the first time 
specifically authorizes the use of Federal funds to establish, expand, 
or operate Parents as Teachers Programs.
  Parents as Teachers Programs are voluntary early childhood 
development and parent education programs that are associated with the 
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc., in St. Louis MO. The program 
is strictly voluntary and serves parents of infants and toddlers 
between birth and the age of 3 and their child.
  The Parents as Teachers Program stated as a pilot project in my 
district, but has since mushroomed into a program with a truly national 
scope. Today, Parents as Teachers is in 43 States and three nations.
  The PAT Program provides parents with prenatal information before a 
child is born and then continues until that child reaches the age of 3.
  It features individualized home visits by trained and certified child 
specialists, development and health screenings for children, and group 
visits, among parents where they share their experiences and offer 
solutions to any difficulties they may be encountering.
  The success of Parents as Teachers lies in its common sense approach 
which is rooted in the basics and which have been proven to work.
  The program teaches and encourages parents to read to their children; 
it helps with an infant's sleeping problems; it offers advice on games 
to play with a toddler to promote language development and build 
curiosity in young minds.
  Through free health screenings, the program helps identify a child's 
hearing and vision problems early--before they become stumbling blocks 
to learning.
  The program does not take a cookie cutter approach. Its strength lies 
in its simplicity and in the individualized attention it provides to 
each family.
  Study after study validates the success of the program. Children 
enrolled in Parents as Teachers have consistently been shown to read 
better, understand more, listen more attentively, and score higher on 
intellectual aptitude tests.
  The Goals 2000 legislation, and the Parents as Teachers Program, 
recognizes that we can help children enter school ready to learn if we 
begin at the beginning.
  Education Secretary Richard Riley knows this well. In a recent speech 
outlining the state of American Education, Secretary Riley spoke of a 
``new ideal in American education grounded in the practical and hard 
earned lessons of the past 10 years.''
  ``We have leaned,'' the Secretary said, ``that children who come to 
school healthy--who have gotten their shots, participated in early 
childhood programs, and have had their parents read with them--are 
children who are engaged and ready to learn. They are connected to 
learning.''
  ``Above all,'' Secretary Riley went on to say, ``we recognize again 
the very old virtue that parents are the first and most important 
teachers.''
  Attorney General Janet Reno has also made a plea for us to focus on 
the critical ages of zero to 3. She echoes the words of child 
development specialists in pointing out that this is the period when a 
child first learns the concept of reward and punishment.
  ``What good are all the school violence programs,'' the Attorney 
General has asked, ``if the child didn't learn the concept of 
punishment when he or she was zero to 3?''
  Mr. Speaker, title IV of the Goals 2000 bill puts families first and 
will help give our children one of the best possible starts in life.
  It is an important way for us to strengthen families and to help our 
children, all of our children, enter school not just ready--but eager--
to learn.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Duncan moves to recommit to the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 1804 and 
     instructs the managers on the part of the House to include in 
     their conference report the provision committed to the 
     conference as section numbered 405, of the Senate amendment, 
     concerning school prayer.

  Mr. DUNCAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 232, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--195

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gallo
     Mazzoli
     Natcher
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Ridge

                              {time}  1629

  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FAWELL, TORKILDSEN, HORN, BEVILL, and APPLEGATE changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 306, 
nays 121, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               YEAS--306

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--121

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gallo
     Kennedy
     Mazzoli
     Natcher
     Pickle
     Ridge

                              {time}  1638

  Mr. SUNDQUIST changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, SARPALIUS, HALL of Texas, and BEREUTER changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________