[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 556 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 556

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 6) to extend for six years the authorizations of 
     appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for certain 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. (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas). The gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, we only have about 6 legislative days left. 
When 1-minutes are cut off to get into business, that means that the 
rule still pertains that we will open up to 10-inutes at the end of 
legislative business?
  The SPEAKER. There will be an opportunity at the end of the day, the 
gentleman is correct.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of 
debate time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

                              {time}  1110

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 556 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6, the Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1994.
  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, the conference report on H.R. 6, the bill for which the 
committee has recommended this rule, will reauthorize the major Federal 
elementary and secondary education programs.
  The conference committee that negotiated this bill deserves the 
utmost praise and thanks from all of us. We ought to especially 
recognize the work of the committee's chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford], who is completing his congressional service this 
year. Mr. Speaker, throughout the length and breadth of the United 
States there are students, and parents, and educators who owe an 
enormous, incalculable debt to the gentleman from Michigan. His wise 
counsel and his direction in making certain that we meet the 
educational needs of America's children, for migrant children to 
homeless children, is extraordinary, and despite numerous disagreements 
with the other body, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the gentleman from 
Michigan has produced a conference report which is substantially 
similar to the House-passed version of H.R. 6. The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford] was joined in his hard work by the committee's 
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], as well 
as his colleague, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. Ford's service as steward of this ambitious education bill began 
last year. He guided the legislation through a lengthy debate on the 
floor of this House, which continued for 4 weeks and involved 
consideration of over 40 amendments. Finally, he led House conferees 
during extremely complex negotiations to reconcile our bill with the 
Senate's proposal. The result of his labor is here before us, and it is 
a wonderful capstone to his legislative career.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must act very quickly to pass this legislation. 
H.R. 6 reauthorizes title 1 and over 40 other Federal education 
programs, including: the Eisenhower Teacher Training Program, the 
Impact Aid Program, the Chapter Two Block Grant, the Drug-Free Schools 
Act, the Magnet Schools Program, the Even Start Act, and migrant 
education.
  Under this reauthorization, approximately $11 billion of funding for 
these programs can be distributed to school districts for the fiscal 
year 1995. But the Department of Education has informed Congress that 
these funds cannot be released until H.R. 6 is signed into law. After 2 
years of discussion and evolution, we have finally arrived at an 
excellent piece of legislation. Failure to pass it now will threaten 
Federal funds for schools in every hometown in the country.
  H.R. 6 also reauthorizes Federal funds to help homeless children stay 
in school. I initiated many of these programs in legislation I wrote in 
1990, and I am proud to see them extended and strengthened in this 
conference report.
  An estimated 100,000 of America's children go to sleep homeless in 
this Nation every night. Families with children are the fastest growing 
segment of the homeless population. Given these startling realities, it 
is critical that every school district in the country works to remove 
special obstacles that homeless children face in getting their 
education.
  From simple matters, like completing paperwork without home 
addresses, to tougher issues, like affordable school supplies and 
transportation, the grants will help schools to keep homeless kids 
enrolled. This is more than simple compassion, it is an investment in 
our future. Without special intervention, these young people will never 
get the education they need to break the cycle of poverty, and the 
homeless students of today will become the welfare dependents of 
tomorrow.
  I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] and the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] for their 
assistance in this portion of the legislation.
  Hand in hand with Goals 2000, this conference report establishes a 
new framework for education in our country. We in Washington will give 
local communities, parents and teachers greater flexibility, and in 
exchange they will hold our Nation's children to higher educational 
standards.
  But that flexibility does no good to our local school districts if 
the programs are not reauthorized. Some 13,000 local educational 
agencies are relying on the Federal funds authorized by H.R. 6. At this 
late date, a vote to recommit this conference report, or to defeat this 
rule, could well prevent its consideration this year.
  This is carefully crafted and balanced legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support both the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Rochester, N.Y. 
[Ms. Slaughter] for graciously giving us half her time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Members who are not on the 
floor, you should turn up the volume on your TV's back at your offices, 
and you better listen up because you're about to see the school 
districts in your area receive short shrift.
  Mr. Speaker, we are being asked in this rule to waive every rule of 
the House against the conference report on this 6-year, $50 billion 
elementary and secondary education bill. That means quite simply, Mr. 
Speaker, we are waiving the 3-day layover requirement for conference 
reports, the scope and germaneness requirements, appropriations in an 
authorization bill, the budget act itself, and every other House rule.
  I say to my colleagues, I want you to just look at this. Twelve 
hundred pages. And we are going to do this whether those rules have 
been actually violated in the conference report or not.
  Perhaps the most telling provision of this rule is the last sentence 
which reads, and I quote, ``The conference report shall be considered 
as read.''
  Well, what does that mean?
  That language would not be necessary if we were complying with House 
rules in the first place, since under clause 2 of rule XXVIII, if a 
conference report has been available to Members for 3 days, it will be 
considered as having been read when it is called up for consideration. 
If it has not been available to Members for 3 days, the authors of this 
particular provision of rule XXVIII thought it should be in order for 
Members to hear the conference report read in its entirely. No one 
would have had the time to have read it for themselves, but this rule 
makes sure that no one will have time to either read the conference 
report or to hear it read. As my colleagues know, there is no way that 
we are going to have this read on the floor by the Clerk because it is 
1,200 pages of legalese. So, that is why we needed the 3-day layover, 
so that Members would have had the weekend to actually understand what 
is happening here.
  Mr. Speaker, at the time this conference report came to the Committee 
on Rules yesterday, we only had this foot-high stack of papers. I must 
confess I was afraid to read it for fear of causing an avalanche. How 
ironic is it that on an education bill, we are asking Members to vote 
on such a massive, 1,200-page document without being fully educated to 
its contents? We are being asked instead to cast an uneducated, 
uninformed vote on an unread bill, all for the sake of educating our 
Nation's elementary and secondary school students. Let us just hope 
that they do their homework a litter better than we are going to do our 
homework.
  Mr. Speaker, when I asked the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and Labor, who I have great respect for and who is leaving us after, I 
think, 30 years of service; I asked him why we needed to waive the 3-
day layover requirement. He pointed out to me that the authorizations 
for these programs expired at midnight tonight. But does anybody expect 
the other body to pass this bill, as well, by midnight tonight? We know 
they will not, and I say, let's get serious around here.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it is not true that the 
money will run out at midnight tonight. Under permanent statutory 
authority, the Education Department tells me the existing programs can 
continue to receive funds at current levels--so the money is not going 
to stop at midnight tonight. It is going to continue to flow as it 
always has.
  The chairman also testified on something more, and I say to my 
colleagues, if you're listening back in your offices, you ought to 
listen to this because this is terribly important.

                              {time}  1130

  If we wait until Monday to vote on this conference report, the 
chairman said, we would be flooded with phone calls on Monday morning 
when people found out what it really does.
  That testimony yesterday was the second day in a row that the 
Committee on Rules was asked by a chairman to waive a 3-day rule for a 
conference report on the grounds they did not want there to be time for 
people to learn what was in their bills, for fear that opposition would 
mount.
  Wednesday, the Committee on Rules voted 5 to 4 against waiving the 3-
day rule on the lobby disclosure conference report. Yesterday, they 
reversed themselves in the Committee on Rules and voted 4 to 3 to waive 
the 3-day layover on this bill. Why? What kind of democracy have we 
come to, when we are afraid to let the people know what we are doing 
here?
  I always thought that our system of Government was dependent on an 
informed citizenry. Now we are being told we cannot even afford to have 
informed representatives before we make decisions on massive bills 
costing billions of dollars like this.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not just talking theoretically here. In this case, 
there are real winners and there are real losers. I was fortunate 
enough, and I think, Members, you better listen back in your offices 
again, because you are going to get the short shrift in your districts. 
I was fortunate enough to get an early printout on this new title I 
formula that was concocted in the conference committee, and it shows 
that all nine of my rural counties will lose money under this bill.
  The chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor admitted that 
there are a lot of losers under this bill. He talked about a teeter-
totter tipping back and forth between the east coast and the west 
coast, depending on how you tinker with the formulas. Well, if that is 
the case, I feel like the victim of a school yard prank, where the 
person at the bottom of the teeter-totter suddenly jumped off and the 
person goes plunging to the ground with a major jolt that sends him 
tumbling down in pain.
  Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law, my district gets the short end 
of the teeter-totter and gets a major jolt to the wallets of my 
constituents. And I am talking about rural counties that are already 
severely strapped financially due to a lagging economy and thousands of 
job layoffs, 10,000 in the Hudson Valley alone just in the last 18 
months.
  I suspect that there are a great many Members in this House who are 
similarly affected by this bill, and they will not have time to find 
out because they are not going to have time to read the bill. Try to 
explain your support for this rushed rule to your local districts when 
they find out how much they will be losing under this new formula.
  Think about it back in your offices now. Do you know how much they 
are going to be losing? You had better come find out. You are not going 
to have time to find out, because after this rule, if it passes, we go 
to the bill. The bill is going to pass one hour after that, and it is 
too late for you and the people you represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to trash this bill in its entirety or the 
work of our conferees. There are plenty of wonderful things in the 
bill. The local school districts are given more flexibility in many 
cases than previously. There is much that is commendable in this 
legislation, at least I am told so by respected Members. The gentleman 
from Michigan, Chairman Ford, and the ranking Republican, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, and their fellow conferees were 
grappling with a variety of very difficult challenges in putting 
together this major rewrite.
  These programs mean a lot to our local school districts in providing 
a better quality of education for our young people. But any work of 
this magnitude deserves more attention and more understanding than this 
rule allows. In a way, the rule is an insult to the work of the 
conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, a political scientist once defined politics as the 
science of how, and who gets what, when, and why. This conference 
report, involving billions of dollars for programs affecting millions 
of students spread over some 90 percent of the school districts in 
America, is surely testimony to that definition of politics.
  But I suspect the method of allocating these scarce resources in a 
conference committee is less a science than it is an art. Politics is, 
after all, the art of compromise, and the conferees had to hammer out 
numerous compromises to bring the programs up to date.
  All I am asking in opposing this rule, Mr. Speaker, is to let the 400 
Members of the House who were not conferees have a chance to study the 
compromises, at least over the weekend, to determine what they are, 
what they do, and whether they are, in the final analysis, fair and in 
the best interests of the country and its educational systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to come over here and try to find 
out how your school districts are affected and see what is happening to 
you. If you do, you are going to find--the vast majority of this 
Congress--you are going to vote no on this rule. Please do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Pete Geren of Texas). The Chair will 
remind all Members to address their remarks to the Chair, and not 
Members sitting in their offices.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes for the purpose of 
debate only to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee],
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing for 
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6, Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most important reauthorization since ESEA 
was enacted in 1965, and the process for its development was very open 
and very inclusive.
  We began several years ago with an invitation from the Committee on 
Education and Labor, signed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], myself, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], to 
hundreds of organizations with an interest in education to send us 
their comments and recommendations. Then we considered this bill on the 
House floor for 29 hours under an open rule, 1 full month of debate, 
from February 24 to March 24. We all remember H.R. 6.
  We had a very lengthy conference, during which many issues were 
extensively discussed. The result of our deliberations is a good 
agreement, which reflects a strong defense of House-passed provisions, 
and includes all the major components of the House bill.
  As refashioned by H.R. 6, Federal elementary and secondary education 
programs now become an integral part of State and local reform efforts 
by providing more local flexibility, requiring greater accountability 
for results, and, through the use of waivers, allowing funds to be 
creatively combined in order to improve student achievement.
  In the process of reconciling the differences between the House and 
Senate versions of this massive reauthorization, it is not surprising 
that there are several minor scope and budget exceptions. For instance, 
the agreement includes a Senate provision authorizing the National 
Education Goals Panel to accept gifts from private donors, a provision 
requested by the administration and supported by the House Republicans.
  There is also a provision reauthorizing the Even Start Program, 
authorized by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], to 
include a limitation on school districts forming partnerships, a change 
proposed by a Republican Member that was contained in neither bill.
  For these reasons and for other reasons, this rule protects the 
conference report from all points of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I live in a district that is quite a cross-section of 
America, two large urban cities, wealthy suburbs, some not so wealthy 
suburbs, soybean farmers, wheat farmers, beef farmers. I have rural 
school districts, and I have urban school districts. I have worked out 
assiduously a formula that will guarantee equity for all the school 
districts in this country, because my district is a microcosm of this 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to bring this very 
important conference report before the House for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished 
ranking Republican member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] is recognized for 8 minutes.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am for this education bill. Among many other 
things, it contains an impact aid provision I urged the committee to 
write which will help keep the North Chicago Schools in my 
congressional district from closing this year.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about one argument that is 
being made about the need to pass the bill. The Department of Education 
and, I understand, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee are 
arguing that because the Education appropriations bill, for which I am 
the ranking subcommittee member, references the Improving America's 
School Act, if that act is not passed, then the education funding 
cannot be obligated in 1995.
  I believe that argument is absolutely absurd. I can tell you, that 
regardless of what position the Department or the committee may now 
take on the technical merit of the appropriations language, it was my 
understanding, and I believe that of every other participant in the 
conference, that the appropriations language provides a fall back to 
the expired authorization if the Improving America's Schools Act were 
to fail enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to illustrate the absurdity of this situation. We 
all know that appropriations bills are not supposed to fund 
unauthorized programs. And yet, over the years, it has been common 
practice to fund programs whose authorizations have expired because the 
authorizing committees were unable or unwilling to pass the necessary 
legislation. In the Labor, Health and Education bill, for example, we 
have funded the title X pregnancy counseling program without a current 
authorization for a decade. Are Members on the other side now 
suggesting the Department of HHS ought to have withheld funding for 
that program? Substance abuse treatment programs, which will receive 
over a billion dollars in 1995, are not authorized. Is HHS going to 
withhold funding for those programs pending a reauthorizing bill which 
may not come until late next year?
  Mr. Speaker, across the government, the list of unauthorized programs 
is a long one: $11.6 billion for housing programs; $500 million for the 
Secret Service; the entire Department of Energy, except for fossil fuel 
which hasn't been authorized since 1984;
  the Legal Services Corporation; the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service; the Bureau of Land Management--10 years unauthorized; NASA, 
unauthorized since 1992; and, FBI general appropriations $2.2 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on for some time. The point I am making is 
that if the administration is going to start withholding funding for 
programs which have not been timely reauthorized, it must apply this 
consistently and withhold funding of all unauthorized programs. No, 
clearly, the appropriations bills, where authorizations, for whatever 
reason, have not been made, in every instance intend not only to 
appropriate but to reauthorize existing law, and this one is no 
different. That, plainly was our intent.
  I want to reiterate: I am for the bill. But we ought not to argue for 
the bill on the basis of an absurd construction by the Department of 
Education.
  Now, in addition, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the letter from the 
general counsel of the Department of Education and I would say to the 
gentleman that I am amazed by this so-called legal opinion that says 
that the existing law would not be funded if we did not pass this bill.
  Now, I am very strongly for this bill. I believe the bill makes good 
changes in the law and we ought to adopt it, but for the legal counsel 
to say that funding will not continue under existing law in the absence 
of enactment of the new law is absolute nonsense. There is even the 
suggestion in this letter that people might have standing to sue in the 
court under a law that has never been enacted, which I find ludicrous.

                              {time}  1130

  I would say to the gentleman, I believe very strongly that if we do 
not pass the law, nevertheless we would continue to operate under 
existing law. And the appropriation bill would appropriate properly 
under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we took care of the concerns of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] about impact aid. But I want 
to tell the gentleman that impact aid is not authorized beyond midnight 
tonight. It is not authorized beyond midnight tonight. All of the 
education programs that are in this bill were authorized for a finite 
period of time. The authorization runs out at midnight tonight.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would say to the gentleman, I am very strongly for this bill. I will 
vote for the bill. But I believe that the opinion of the counsel of the 
Department of Education is simply wrong. The authorization would not 
expire tonight. In fact, the appropriation bill would operate to 
reauthorize existing law.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on the Committee 
on Appropriations. Does he remember that he put language in the 
appropriations bill saying that the expenditure of 1995 appropriations 
is contingent upon the passage of this law?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe there is any such 
language in the appropriation.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is. The gentleman even 
nailed it down tighter than the law would have been without it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is only on the 
new programs that are involved. Here are $60 billion of programs that 
were appropriated this particular year in 1994, $60 billion with no 
authorization whatsoever, no reauthorization whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday, primarily 
because I believe it is the responsibilities of Members of a committee 
authorizing legislation and bringing it to the floor of the House to be 
able to tell all the other Members exactly what the legislation does in 
relationship to their district.
  As I said earlier in my 1 minute, we have a magnificent staff on both 
sides of the aisle. They cannot tell Members what happens in the third, 
fourth, and fifth year. The chairman cannot tell Members what happens 
in the third, fourth, and fifth year. The subcommittee chairman cannot 
tell Members what happens in the third, fourth, and fifth year. I 
cannot tell my colleagues what happens in the third, fourth and fifth 
year. That is why it is so important that we not waive the 3 days so 
that we have an opportunity to be able to tell Members just that.
  This is very misleading. Somebody is sending out this kind of 
information. When we get over here to 1996, it says, ``96 conference 
agreement,'' tells me how much more money I am getting. In relationship 
to what? Not in relationship to the current formula, not at all.
  We need that column in there to be able to tell Members exactly what 
it means to them in 1996, 1997, 1998, the out years. We positively 
cannot tell anybody what it means to them.
  I think that is a fault on our part as an authorizing committee. We 
should be able to tell every Member exactly what happens in their 
districts.
  During the last hours of our conference, unfortunately, things 
started moving rapidly. I guess we got impatient. I guess Members 
started thinking that, well, we will not come up with something if we 
do not move and we do not give.
  That is why we cannot explain to Members this particular formula. I 
would like to have the time, and I do not, to show my colleagues the 
formula, and then they can tell me what they think that formula does 
for them in those last years. If Members can tell me that, they are the 
smartest persons on Earth, there is no question about it.
  Again, the issue has nothing to do with all the issues we heard in 
the 1 minutes. The issue has strictly to do with what happens to 
Members in their districts, because when they get down here to the 
third year, our 2 percent drops out, if they have less than 2 percent 
poverty.
  Some will say, that is good. We ought to concentrate it.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this bill, as the chairman said six or 
eight times during the conference, was written for educationally 
disadvantaged youngsters. It was not a poverty program, so we may have 
a thousand educationally disadvantaged youngsters, the next district 
may have only 500. But their percent of poverty is above the 2 percent 
and, therefore, you get nothing and they get the money.
  That is not what the legislation was all about. That is not who we 
were just trying to serve. We were trying to serve all of those who are 
educationally disadvantaged.

  Then when we get into the next year, now we really start targeting, 
targeting, targeting. So it means that the educationally disadvantaged 
again lose less, lose less. There is a hold harmless in there, but look 
at how the hold harmless is written.
  If you are in this certain percentage of poverty, your hold harmless 
is such. If you are in this, it is something else. If you are in this, 
there is three different categories. It is something else.
  The educationally disadvantaged have to suffer, particularly in those 
out years.
  I think before we vote on the bill, we really need to know what 
happens in the third and the fourth and the fifth year. Members are 
coming down here making speeches who have no idea what is in the bill 
and have very little knowledge, if any, about the formula.
  I have studied and studied the formula and still cannot tell Members 
in the third, fourth, and fifth year how they will fair under this new 
formula, very convoluted, very confusing. And it will take a lot of 
study on Members' parts. We needed 3 days so that we could get runs 
that mean something so that we could tell every Member in this body 
exactly how they fair under this particular piece of legislation in the 
out years.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to try to clear up a little 
of the smoke that has just begun to waft across the floor here. I tried 
to engage in an exchange with the gentleman from the Committee on 
Appropriations who denies that this language is there, so I got the 
report, dated September 20, from the conference on the appropriations 
that cover this legislation. I would like to read from that report.

       Both the House and the Senate bills provided funding for 
     education for the disadvantaged activities based on proposed 
     changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     currently being considered by Congress. The House bill 
     provided funding based on the authorization as passed in the 
     House on March 24, 1994. The Senate bill provided funding 
     based on the bill as passed in the Senate on August 2nd, 
     1994. The conference agreement provides funding based on the 
     authorization ``as enacted into law.'' This action protects 
     the rights of both the House and the Senate as the 
     reauthorization process is completed.

  That is the language that says, we are appropriating this money on 
condition that you complete action on the law.
  Now, as Members know, under normal circumstances, we cannot 
appropriate money for anything that is not authorized by the Congress. 
And it has been a continuing practice for the Committees on 
Appropriations on both sides, if we pass in the House, the 
reauthorization, to appropriate to that level contingent upon us 
finishing the process by going to conference and coming back, as we are 
here with this conference report.
  The long and the short of it is, at midnight tonight, on all the 
programs, including the program of the gentleman, money for impact aid, 
which we worked so hard to protect for him, it is drop dead time. It 
would be the height of irresponsibility to vote down this rule and not 
have the House of Representatives do its part to meet that deadline. It 
is up to the Senate, when we finish today, whether they meet the 
deadline or not.

                              {time}  1140

  I feel it is my obligation as the chairman of this committee to send 
the House Members back to see their constituents, not faced with a 
headline next week saying the XYZ school district in their district has 
just learned that the money, whatever number of hundred thousand 
dollars that has been coming year after year after year to that 
district, will not be coming because Congress did not complete its work 
on the reauthorization.
  Mr. Speaker, I am supporting things in this conference report that I 
in past years would have fought very bitterly, to the very end, to 
oppose, because of the urgency of getting this job done. I have 
sublimated some of my strongest feelings in order to accomplish this 
for the Members of this House. I hope they appreciate that we are 
giving them a chance to go home and say ``I did my job.''
  If we are going to stop at this point and start quibbling, to hear 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] say he does not know 
what is going to happen in the third, fourth, and fifth years of this 
authorization at this late date is a disappointment to me. The formula 
passed the committee 41 to 2, and the gentlemen voted for the formula. 
The formula passed this House after 7 days on the floor without a 
single amendment to that formula being offered, and a single word of 
criticism of the formula.
  The formula that we brought back to you from conference is far more 
like the House-passed formula than the Senate-passed formula. I spent 
days in that conference defending the House formula, in large part 
because the Republicans on my committee, the Democrats almost 
universally, the two votes I had against it, incidentally, were 
Democratic votes. Not one Republican voted against the formula in the 
committee.
  I kept faith with what they asked for on this floor, and in the 
conference. For them to be coming up at the last minute and saying ``We 
do not know how much it is going to be in the third, fourth, and fifth 
years'' is disingenuous, at best.
  Let me say, the first year we appropriate numbers in this 
legislation. Each year therefore it is such sums as may be necessary, 
and it is up to the Committee on Appropriations to decide what the 
numbers are.
  Therefore, if there is any doubt about what is going to happen in the 
third, fourth, and fifth years, it is no different than the doubt has 
always been. We do not know how much the Committee on Appropriations is 
going to appropriate in the third, fourth, and fifth years. The sheet 
we passed out that the gentleman showed does not purport to have us 
look at a crystal ball and predict for us what the Committee on 
Appropriations will do.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
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, if there is one thing I think is the 
reason people hate the Congress of the United States, it is because we 
play these games of fiscal brinksmanship. We hear this rhetoric that 
says ``Vote for this bill today, or you are not going to have any kind 
of money for schools.'' We all know that is crazy.
  No. 1, we can go back and change this formula. We are all going to be 
here for another week. No. 2, we have a bill in that extends every one 
of these programs for another year. Do not let anybody tell you it is 
this or nothing for your schools.
  Second, let us understand exactly what we are dealing with here. 
There is probably nobody in this Congress that wants to vote for an 
education bill more than I do. I have voted for every education bill in 
this entire Congress, and I am proud of that. I thought until Monday of 
this week that I would be voting for this one.
  However, the reason we ought to be defeating this rule today is 
because absolutely nobody knows what we are voting on. I know there is 
not a Member of Congress that has read the bill, but I am not going 
to make that case. I am going to say that I know there is not a member 
of Congress who can tell a school district in their State or in their 
congressional district what they are going to get under this bill for 
funding when the new formula goes into effect.

  Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week I got this formula right here. 
It told me my district was going to lose $288,000. No one has ever 
accused Steve Gunderson of having a rich congressional district, but I 
was going to lose $288,000 in my small, rural schools.
  Thursday of this week I got a formula that said I am going to lose 
not $288,000, I am going to lose $344,000 in Chapter 1 money under this 
particular new compromise formula.
  Then Friday morning, earlier this morning, the Chairman sent me, and 
I suspect many others, a letter. The letter says ``Don't worry, all 
this rhetoric is untrue. In 1996 you are going to be better off than 
you are under the 1994 allocation.''
  Mr. Speaker, everybody is better in 1996 than they are in 1994, 
because, No. 1, we have added $300 million new money and, No. 2, we 
hold everybody harmless.
  In all due respect, Mr. Speaker, if Members got this letter in their 
offices, tear it up. It is not worth the paper it is printed on, 
because it does not tell you the truth, which is, the new formula goes 
into effect in 1997.
  The chairman of the committee stands up and says nobody is going to 
lose money under this act. That is simply untrue. In 1994 funding, 
every school is told under this new formula, unlike the formula passed 
by the House of Representatives, that ``That is all you are going to 
get. You are going to take cuts for the allocation of census 
redistribution'', et cetera.
  We received this morning from our Wisconsin Department of Public 
Instruction information, we were informed by our Wisconsin Department 
of Public Instruction this morning, Mr. Speaker, that 89 school 
districts covering 5,569 students, Chapter 1-eligible students, would 
be, under this new formula, told that they will have a declining 
revenue from that 1994 base on out, and they will get no new money ever 
in the future, as they would have under the formula that passed the 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members worried about previous votes, they ought to 
worry about this for two reasons. No. 1, they do not know what they are 
voting on, nobody knows. No. 2, we are going to vote on a proposal and 
a formula that is going to cut Chapter 1 dollars big time to our 
schools in 1997, 1998, 1999 under this program. That is not a 
commitment to education, that is fiscal irresponsibility by the 
Congress of the United States.
  Defeat this rule, send us back to the conference to restore the 
Chapter 1 formula. It was approved on a bipartisan basis by the House 
early on.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], for yielding time to me.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
conference report on H.R. 6, the Improving America Schools Act. I was a 
conferee, and we met many, many times with the Senate to hash this out.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard delaying tactics here and partisanship here 
and attempts to defeat this rule in order to stymie this bill. It is 
not a matter of giving people a few more days to study it and know what 
is in it. It is a matter of giving people a few more days so they can 
attempt to strangle and kill the bill next week.
  When we met in the conference, every attempt was made by the Chairman 
and the conferees to bend over backward to satisfy people on both sides 
of the aisle. We have heard rhetoric ``This is a bad bill, and 
amendments make the bill worse,'' but then when you ask the other side 
``If we do not have the amendment, will you vote for the bill,'' we do 
not get any affirmative responses.
  Let us see this for what it is worth. It is an attempt to defeat this 
rule and defeat this bill next week, and to throw everything into 
turmoil. Unfortunately, that seems to be what is happening on the other 
side of the aisle. They want gridlock, they want it to continue. They 
want nothing to pass. They want to go to the November elections with 
nothing passed, so they can say ``See, the Democrats in Congress cannot 
even do anything right.''
  I do not think we should be playing games with America's education. 
Education should be bipartisan. We tried to craft a bipartisan bill. 
You can only get a bipartisan bill if two sides are willing to craft 
it. We sat down. We attempted to work this out. This is a very, very 
good bill. We worked very, very hard on H.R. 6. It came to the floor 
time and time again.
  As the Chairman pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the final formula for 
chapter 1 funding is very similar to the formula that the House 
originally voted on, which was passed by virtually all Members of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, defeating this rule would be a tragedy. It would be a 
tragedy for America, it would be a tragedy for America's children, it 
would be a tragedy for education in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to commend both the chairman of 
the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentlemen from 
Michigan, Mr. Ford and Mr. Kildee, and all my colleagues on the 
Committee on Education and Labor, for their work on this legislation.
  This is an excellent bill. It will provide important funding for many 
education programs. It includes a fair funding formula for chapter 1, 
which provides 300 million new dollars in fiscal year 1995 for this 
important program.
  Additionally, it holds all school districts harmless for any formula 
change in fiscal year 1995, and starting in fiscal year 1996, so no one 
will be hurt, Mr. Speaker. No districts will be hurt.

                              {time}  1150

  The new formula attempts to concentrate some of the new money in 
areas which serve a high number of disadvantaged students. This formula 
was carefully crafted to ensure that virtually no State will lose money 
under this bill.
  I ought to mention, also, Mr. Speaker, an important program in this 
bill which I fought hard for, the Community Cultural Partnership Act. 
This legislation is designed to link local community cultural resources 
with the children and youth who are most at risk of dropping out of 
school. I am a former teacher, guidance counselor, and the father of 
three young children and I have always seen education as a bipartisan 
issue. When you have a bill of this magnitude, you are never going to 
get something that is 100 percent to everybody's liking but I can tell 
my colleagues with all sincerity, we worked darned hard to make this 
bill a bill that ought to be passed with votes on both sides of the 
aisle.
  I beg Members, please do not defeat this rule. Defeating this rule 
will mean that the bill will most likely be defeated and that again 
would be a tragedy.
  When the other side of the aisle raised chapter 2 funding, I was the 
only Democrat to support them because I felt that the point they were 
making was very, very true and a block grant program for States was 
very, very important.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--this is a good 
bill for America, a bipartisan bill--please support the rule and please 
support the bill today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the gentleman's support. 
It takes money out of my district in upstate New York and gives it to 
New York City. Naturally he would be for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
San Diego. CA [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some statements 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] made. First of all I am 
not going to support this rule but I am supporting the bill, and I will 
tell why, so there is an affirmative on this side. I, like the 
gentleman from New York, feel if we can invest where we can invest 
money, we ought to invest in our children. But I also know there are 
people in this bill under the formula that do lose money. My State, 
California, benefits greatly. We have increased by 38 percent our 
population. It was based on 1980 census. Then it goes up. Then in 1997 
we are going to have a country census. In 1999 we are going to have 
another. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey's] district, 
for example, loses greatly, upstate New York loses greatly and is 
targeted. The first year it is held in current law, the second year 
held harmless. Then we will also gain because we are increasing in 
population which will take away from other States. But in this, I think 
there are many people that under the current formula, and the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Kildee], I think they worked in the conference. They did a job 
where we could not budge the Senate or the House position. I preferred 
the House position. But it was not going to go anywhere. I think there 
was disagreement on what our position was going to stay at the House 
position. But in the meantime under this formula, many States do lose.
  I would ask people to look, and all we are asking is that we have 
time to make a run to see what those States and what they do win and 
what they do not lose. For that reason, I am going to vote against the 
rule, but I will vote for the bill because of what it does for 
California. It also is a fairly good bill.
  I look at a bill for the good, the bad, and the ugly of it. This has 
got more good than it has bad in it. But for a lot of people it has 
more bad than it does good.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewomen from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] for allowing me to participate in this discussion on the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 6, the Improving 
America's Schools Act.
  It is imperative that we put partisan politics aside and pass the 
rule on this conference report for this is a fair and equitable rule 
and this conference report is in the best interest of children of our 
Nation.
  We will have failed as legislators if we do not work toward our 
Nation's future by providing adequate funding for the education of our 
children.
  Mr district, the First Congressional District of North Carolina, is 
severely economically disadvantaged. These funds enhance equal 
opportunity for improved education for all students, regardless of 
locality. The school districts of my constituency desperately need the 
Federal funds provided through this bill to provide the necessary 
educational services to the children of eastern North Carolina so that 
they have the skills to be productive members of society. If we 
willingly deprive them of these funds, we doom them to failure not only 
in the present but in the future.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to support 
the rule on H.R. 6 so that our children may achieve to the levels that 
we know they are capable of.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this body has distinguished new Members 
from both sides of the aisle. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Holland, MI [Mr. Hoekstra], one of those new Members and member of the 
committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago when I decided to come to this House, it was 
pretty easy to say that Washington did not look very good from west 
Michigan. The disappointing thing is that when you come to Washington, 
you find out that what goes on in the House here does not look a lot 
better when you come up close. That is what we are talking about here 
today. We are talking about the rule, the process by which we are going 
to consider 12 billion dollars' worth of spending.
  I would like to say that this is the bill and we could review this in 
24 hours. But in reality, this is the piece of legislation that we are 
going to have less than 48 hours to review before we are going to have 
to vote on it. What is contained in these 1,200 pages? There are $12 
billion of authorizations. The bill has 20 new programs. Eleven of 
these programs have never been considered in the House. They were not 
approved in the full committee. These 11 bills are going to cost $364 
million. We in this body do not know what is contained in these 
programs. It also includes $138 million of continued spending for five 
programs that we tried to eliminate. We are going to be voting on 1,200 
pages of legislation, $12 billion of spending, 11 new programs that we 
do not fully understand, and a funding formula that I really do not 
know whether it is going to add money to my district in the out years 
or it is going to take money away, but the bottom line is we do not 
know what is in the bill.
  Once again this body is flying feet first. Let us give everyone a 
chance to thoroughly review its consequences.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before 
the House to support the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.
  The legislation includes several provisions that are designed to 
ensure gender equity in education. These provisions, backed by the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, will go a long way toward 
making sure that our young women and girls as well as our young men and 
boys receive the best education possible.
  There are two provisions that I sponsored and that are especially 
important to me. They are the provisions concerning athletic 
disclosures and child abuse.
  Twenty-two years ago, Congress sought to eliminate sex discrimination 
in education, including athletics, when it passed title IX of the 
education amendments to 1972. Despite initial progress in women's 
sports, sex discrimination continues at our Nation's college and 
universities. Women's teams are often given less financial support, 
which includes operating expenses, scholarship expenses, and recruiting 
expenses. They are given poorer facilities for training, worse hours 
for practice and competition, inferior travel accommodations, and 
little, if any, promotional support. Things do not have to be this way 
and we should not let them stay this way.
  Earlier this Congress, I introduced H.R. 921, the Equity in Athletics 
Disclosure Act to require colleges and universities to publicly 
disclose data concerning their commitment to ensuring gender equity in 
athletics for men and women. Senator Moseley-Braun introduced companion 
legislation and was victorious in attaching the disclosure provisions 
included into the Senate version of the bill.
  A goal of the disclosure provisions is to ensure that young women are 
given equitable athletic opportunities; however, gender equity in 
athletics is not only about providing young women with physical 
exercise. A report sponsored by the Women's Sports Foundation found 
that,

       the greater the level of women's past involvement in 
     organized athletics, the more likely they are to positively 
     evaluate themselves in regard to setting objectives, leading 
     a group, motivating others, sharing credit and feeling 
     comfortable in a competitive environment.

  This legislation will require colleges and universities to publicly 
disclose data concerning their commitment to ensuring gender equity in 
athletics for men and women. By encouraging gender equity in athletics, 
we are laying the groundwork for creating a new generation of women 
leaders with increasing abilities to compete and excel in corporate 
America. In addition, this legislation will shine a light on the 
schools that take their women athletes seriously and those that do not. 
Students will know the record of the college or university before they 
decide to attend and schools will be encouraged to comply with Title 
IX.
  The other provision that I want to address relates to child abuse. In 
response to the growing problem of child abuse in our Nation, I 
introduced H.R. 125, the Child Abuse Prevention Act. The provisions of 
H.R. 125 are included in the conference report and will enable 
elementary and secondary schools to use Federal grants to train 
teachers and develop curricula regarding child abuse prevention and 
education in elementary and secondary schools. Clearly, the provisions 
of the legislation will help child abuse victims that would otherwise 
remain unnoticed or unrecognized.
  Mr. Speaker, many individuals helped craft this legislation and time 
will not permit me to congratulate everyone. However, at the very 
least, I would like to commend the chairman of the Education and Labor 
Committee, Mr. Ford, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, Mr. Kildee, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights, Mr. 
Owens, and their staffs for all of their hard work in designing this 
legislation. Also, I would like to commend Congresswoman Mink, Senator 
Moseley-Braun, Congresswoman Woolsey and their staffs and the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues for help in perfecting the 
legislation.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would remiss, if I did not acknowledge the 
Feminist Majority, National Women's Law Center, American Association of 
University Women, Women's Sports Foundation, and the National 
Association for Girls and Women in Sport for their assistance in 
promoting the athletic disclosure provisions.
  I urge the support of my colleagues for the rule and for the 
conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in 
support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing some of the things that are being said on 
the floor today and that we should hold this over so that runs can be 
made to predict how this bill and these formulas are going to affect 
particular areas in 1997 and beyond. The problem with those statements 
is that we are creating a formula that is based on, ``Let us send the 
money to where the problem is, let us send the money to where the 
poverty is, and then give flexibility to those schools to use that 
money within their entire school program.'' We are not going to have 
the census done until 1997 and 1999. So how are we going to make any 
runs this week or next week that are going to predict how individual 
schools are going to be affected?

                              {time}  1200

  What is happening instead, Mr. Speaker, is that we are seeing the 
first attempt at paying for the Newt Gingrich $1 trillion deficit, that 
is the lack of balance in the budget that is in the Republican 
contract, because this effort now by the Republican leadership is to 
take away from those schoolchildren, from those programs that need this 
money and instead slide it over and give additional tax benefits to the 
wealthy.
  We need this bill, and we have to recognize that the money has to go 
where the need is and where the poverty is.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Hickory, NC [Mr. Ballenger], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee on H.R. 6 who was unable to 
sign the conference report due to the bill's many inadequacies, I rise 
in opposition to passage of this bill to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. My opposition to this legislation is based, in 
part, on my belief that pages of Federal education policy requirements 
and directives should not be attached to the relatively small amount of 
Federal aid for elementary and secondary education. By making so-called 
Federal education funds contingent upon State and local school agency 
adoption of bad education policy, we are wrongly accepting the idea 
that there are so-called Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, I have yet to see 
the Federal Government raise major revenue without the American 
taxpayer. Federal funds are taxpayer funds, and Federal education 
dollars should flow back to the people from whence they came without 
burdensome spending stipulations. I trust the elected school board 
members and school administrators throughout this country will make 
wise education policy decisions--decisions that mirror the concerns of 
parents and work in the best interest of our schoolchildren. Although I 
support many of the existing programs in this legislation, I simply 
cannot support any move toward a Washington takeover of our schools.
  So far, I have spoken in broad terms. Mr. Speaker, let me give you 
an example of flawed education policy coupled with taxpayer dollars. 
This bill requires States receiving funds to adopt a 1-year expulsion 
policy for students bringing guns to school but allows school 
administrators to waive the policy on a case-by-case basis. we are all 
against guns and violence in schools, but expulsion policy should not 
be dictated from Washington, and the case-by-case wording only leaves 
the schools open for litigation based on alleged inequities in policy 
enforcement.

  Mr. Speaker, Washington wants to dictate expulsion policy, but when 
it comes to formulating a policy to protect a constitutional right, the 
right to voluntary school prayer, Washington comes up short. The school 
prayer language in this bill places legal hurdles in front of children 
wishing to exercise their right to voluntary prayer. Parents throughout 
this country have asked Congress to protect this fundamental right, and 
I feel we can do better than the language contained in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report. Let us be 
clear, this is not a vote against education, but rather a vote against 
growing Federal control over education. Not only are opportunity to 
learn standards present in this bill through State demonstration 
requirements for academic standards for title I children, the bill also 
includes gender-based reporting requirements for college athletic 
programs, 20 new programs that may reduce funding for other more 
deserving programs, and a weak answer to the chapter I formula debate. 
I oppose the rule, the conference report, and support efforts to extend 
the program authorizations for 1 year under current law so a better 
bill may be approved next year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that too many of us are more interested 
in the formula than educating our children. Instead of targeting this 
money to the areas of greatest need, we seem to be talking about 
targeting it to areas of least need. Instead of discussing the 
educational needs of our students we are arguing about how much some 
rich districts will receive or will not receive.
  Mr. Speaker, three of the programs included in this legislation are 
very vital to the educational needs of our children, the title I 
program, a revised Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science 
Education Program, and the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.
  Since the inception of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, 
Title I has provided through the years a vital and crucial link in 
helping to deliver high quality education to economically disadvantaged 
children.
  Title I has served as a basis of hope in helping many young people 
sometimes perceived as losers to become winners. It has been extremely 
significant in providing services to our Nation's children and youths 
in reading and mathematics as well as in the development of critical 
thinking skills.
  The move toward excellence and inclusiveness which began so nobly in 
1965 with then President Lyndon Baines Johnson signing the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act into law, must be permitted to move 
forward.
  The Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Program in this bill 
will encourage professional development of teachers, staff, and 
administrators in increasing their knowledge and skills of the subject 
matter.
  The Magnet Schools Assistance Program helps school districts fulfill 
the Federal commitment to school desegregation. Clearly, how we modify 
and reauthorize the Magnet Schools Assistance Program will demonstrate 
our continuing commitment to school desegregation in compliance with 
Brown versus Board of Education, 1954.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the opportunity-to-learn standards provisions 
as included in this legislation. Opportunity-to-learn standards would 
identify the elements necessary in helping children to achieve the 
content and performance standards. Content standards indicate what 
children should know and be able to do; performance standards determine 
whether children are learning. I fully support both content and 
performance standards; however, I firmly believe that it is inequitable 
to hold students accountable for their performance without addressing 
the capacity of the school to educate children to the level required 
under the student performance standards. If we require content and 
performance standards, then opportunity-to-learn standards should be 
included in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is needed in order to enrich and expand 
educational opportunity for children and youths at all levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may 
be able to consider and pass the conference report accompanying H.R. 6.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan]. When the elections take place 38 days from now 
and Republicans take control of this House, we will pass a line-item 
veto, and no Member will deserve more credit for that than the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jimmy Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I Thank the gentleman for yielding the time, 
and certainly the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is one of our 
finest Members in this entire body.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that brings this 
conference report to the floor. This conference report flies in the 
face of the expressed will of this House.
  Just a few days ago this body voted by an overwhelming margin of 369 
to 55 to insist on the stronger House language on school prayer, yet 
this conference report contains the much weaker Senate language.
  This comes at a time when everyone, from President Clinton to Dan 
Quayle, is talking about our loss of values and the decline in 
morality.
  Morton Zuckerman, a liberal who is editor of U.S. News and World 
Report wrote recently a hard-hitting editorial entitle ``Where Have our 
Values Gone Wrong?''
  School prayer will certainly not cure everything that is wrong with 
this country, but it could help many, many young people across this 
land. We need to support the strongest possible language on this.
  Janet Reno, the Attorney General, recently said,

       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.

  William Raspberry, the great columnist for the Washington Post, wrote 
a column recently and he said this:

       Almost every commentator on the current scene bemoans the 
     increased violence, lowered ethical standards, and loss of 
     civility that mark American society. Is the decline of 
     religious influence no part of what is happening to us? Is it 
     not just possible that antireligious bias masquerading as 
     religious neutrality is costing more than we have been 
     willing to acknowledge?

  We should acknowledge those words of William Raspberry which are 
certainly true.
  As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] pointed out, no one 
really knows what exactly is in this bill. But basically, to sum it all 
up, this bill is simply a last gasp at a failed big Government 
liberalism. It certainly could not pass in the next Congress and 
everyone knows that, so many are desperate to pass a bad bill at this 
time.
  This rule and this bill should be defeated.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], our final speaker, a distinguished 
member of the Committee on Rules, who toils in that committee year in 
and year out. He is about to get a hernia here from carrying this bill 
down to the well.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to try and hold this up. This is about $1 
billion a pound, just about $1 billion a pound. If I put it down there 
and stand on it, I would be 8 feet tall. Anybody who stands on this 
bill in this Congress is going to be at least 8 feet tall. It is about 
2 feet thick.
  We are going forward again, succumbing to supposed pressures here of 
the calendar. We are bypassing an opportunity for common sense and 
rational thought.
  Here we have a very highly complex bill that impacts directly on our 
children's schools, and yet we are rushing into passage of a 1,200-page 
conference report whose text only became available to Members yesterday 
afternoon.
  Even the bill's authors could not know for sure how the intricate 
formulas for allocating limited Federal education dollars would play 
out in the different school districts. The best estimate I could get 
suggested serious repercussions in just my area of southwest Florida 
with three counties expected to lose something on the order of 
$150,000, an unpleasant surprise.
  Here we are flying headlong into this debate without all the facts 
and a clear picture of where this bill is going to take us.
  Why? Chairman Ford gave two reasons, both equally troubling. The 
first was concern for the timetable of the other body, the threat that 
perhaps a few days' delay in the House would threaten the viability of 
these school programs. Well, I say nonsense, because I have read page 
32 of the conference report, and the dollars are there. The guarantee 
is there to continue the program, so that just does not carry it.
  The second point, the second reason, was that a few days' delay would 
give the public time to find out what was in the bill and start voicing 
their concerns by calling our offices. Imagine that the public were 
going to call their Representatives about this bill. Perhaps I have 
missed something, but I though that was what democracy was supposed to 
be about.
  I oppose the rule. I oppose the bill. I challenge every Member to 
respond to the question: What will this bill do to my district? Your 
constituents are going to ask that. Count on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Reading Clerk read the 
bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pete Geren of Texas). Objection is 
heard.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, who objected?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I did, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GOSS. The distinguished gentlewoman from New York objected to the 
reading of the bill?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. GOSS. Thank you very much.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one other question to ask yourselves is what happens in 
your district if this bill does not pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the earlier 
speaker, coming from Houston, I stood next to Akeem Olajuwon, and he 
could stand on it all he wanted, and he would not be 8 foot tall next 
to Akeem Olajuwon.
  I am proud to serve on the committee, and I would like to thank the 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], and the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], for all of their 
work.
  This bill has been read. The folks who are opposing this bill have 
had a year and a half to read this bill. We have had a year and a half 
of hearings here in Washington and all over the country on 
reauthorizing elementary and secondary education. We have spent time 
reading.
  We have heard from our constituents, and again, we can read the bill, 
and I have read it, but it does not mean that you may be able to 
understand it just by reading it, because it does a great many good 
things.
  Let me correct some of the fallacies we have heard this morning. This 
is more Federal control: by one of my colleagues on the committee. 
There is much less Federal control in this bill than any 
reauthorization bill that has come up.
  Let me read the mandate section alone, the first time the conference 
committee has put this in an education bill: ``Nothing in this act 
shall be construed to authorize any officer or employee of the Federal 
Government to mandate, direct, or control a State or local agency, 
education agency, or school's curriculum, program, instruction, or 
allocation, State or local resources, mandate a State or any 
subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for 
under this act.''
  People have been asking for years, do not send us mandates unless you 
send the money. We are not doing it in this bill, and everyone who 
votes against this rule, votes to recommit, or votes against the bill, 
will be voting against that language. For the first time, we actually 
are not sending mandates without money.
  This bill is one of the most far-reaching education bills we have 
ever passed in the 30 years of Federal funding.
  Let us talk about the prayer amendment. This prayer provision in here 
is not what the House had, and I voted for the instructions for the 
House. But we could not get that in conference committee. But I will 
tell you what; Senator Helms voted for this amendment that is in here 
on the floor. Senator Helms did, and if I, as a Democrat, follow what 
Senator Helms did in the Senate on prayer, I think I am probably in 
pretty good shape.
  The people supporting the bill are a broad spectrum: education 
leaders, obviously religious leaders. That is why I encourage all of 
the Members to vote for the rule and ultimately vote against the motion 
to recommit.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 168, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               YEAS--230

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

                               NAYS--168

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     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)
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Applegate
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Engel
     Fields (LA)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Gordon
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hayes
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Neal (NC)
     Quillen
     Richardson
     Saxton
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Spratt
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1235

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Calvert against.
       Mr. Wheat for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________