[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.
____________________