[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]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 556, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
6) to extend for 5 years the authorizations of appropriations for the 
programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and 
for certain other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). Pursuant to the 
rule, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, September 28, 1994, part II, at page H10009.)
  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 ask unanimous consent to yield 
the majority's time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on elementary, Secondary, and Vocational 
Education, with authority for him to yield time to Members on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994, reauthorizes and improves most of the Federal programs 
providing assistance to elementary and secondary education. The 
majority of these programs are included in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 and provide approximately $11 billion of 
assistance to States and local school districts in the present fiscal 
year. The conference agreement contains numerous programmatic 
improvements and approves a new formula for the distribution of title I 
funds. While changes were made in the conference to the formula, it 
remains remarkably similar to the one originally passed by the House.
  The major features of the formula are for fiscal year 1995, Mr. 
Speaker, we will continue to use the current law formula which includes 
both basic and concentration grants. For fiscal year 1996, we move to a 
two-part formula which will continue to use the current law formula for 
amounts up to the fiscal year 1995 level and a new weighted student 
formula for new money.

                              {time}  1240

  County allocations are also hold harmless in their fiscal year 1995 
funding amounts. For fiscal year 1997 through 1999, we continue to use 
the two-part formula, with an 85-percent hold harmless.
  The most a school district could lose because of shifts and changes 
in appropriations would be 15 percent. Updates of census poverty data 
will be available for counties in 1997 and for school districts in 
1999.
  A major feature of H.R. 6 is that Federal educational programs are 
refashioned so that they become an integral part of State and local 
reform efforts. H.R. 6 does this by providing more local flexibility, 
and that flexibility is due to a great extent to the good work of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], who has become ``Mr. 
Flexibility'' on the committee.
  We also require greater accountability through the use of waivers 
allowing greater Federal program funds to be creatively combined to 
improve student achievement. In the past we never allowed that 
combination. The auditors would look over our shoulders. But we do 
allow creativity to combine some Federal program funds.
  This approach is one that has broad support across business, 
education, and civil rights groups. In fact, the types of reforms H.R. 
6 supports are those most strongly supported by the business community. 
For example, for the first time the achievement of title I students is 
tied to high State standards. School-wide programs combine other 
Federal program funds with their title I funds for more coordinated 
programs serving all children.
  We also have burdensome testing requirements replaced with a more 
sensible system based on State assessments, and it will be easier under 
this reauthorization for limited English-proficient students and 
disabled students to participate in title I programs.
  But the heart of the legislation is to demand greater educational 
achievement in exchange for more freedom in the use of Federal funds. 
The whole bill can be summed up in two words--flexibility and 
accountability.
  If educational gains are not achieved, the school districts are 
expected to help schools improve, and if there is still no success, 
then States are expected to intervene under State law to secure the 
results.
  H.R. 6 is the most important reauthorization since the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 was enacted. By passing this 
legislation, the Congress will give a substantial boost to improving 
education for all children, including those who have too often been 
forgotten.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members of the Committee on 
Education and Labor and their staffs for the many hours of work that 
has gone into developing the bill before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, on the committee we have had a wide range of support 
from both sides of the aisle in developing this bill. I want to thank, 
obviously, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], particularly the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] for his good work on the flexibility 
portions of this bill. He has been hounding us on that for several 
years, and I think we have achieved a great deal on this aspect in this 
bill.
  Reaching perhaps further into the committee for a newer member, let 
me mention the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham). Duke 
may be perceived by some as being right wing, but he has been one of 
the most really flexible and helping hands on the committee. I have 
found him to be a strong supporter of education. Obviously, from time 
to time Duke Cunningham and I have disagreed, but he has always 
listened and he is flexible. He wants to accomplish something for 
education, and he has certainly been a good addition to our committee.
  I also want to thank the administration both for the well-thoughtout 
reauthorization proposal and for the assistance they have provided 
throughout the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, as I did 
during the debate on the rule, that my argument is with the rule; my 
argument is not with the legislation.
  In my estimation, there was no reason under the Sun that we could not 
have 3 days to get the runs that we should as members of this committee 
to be able to show to all of our colleagues what happens in the third, 
fourth, and fifth years. I can tell them generally what happens. What 
happens is that we move the program from a program dedicated to the 
educationally disadvantaged to a program of poverty. That is 
embarrassing to those in poverty because what it is, I guess we are 
saying they do not have the smarts somebody else does, and that is 
nonsense.
  The bill would mean that in the third, fourth, and fifth years, 
particularly the fourth and fifth, you could have a thousand students 
disadvantaged in your school district and because you have less than 2 
percent and then 5 percent poverty, you get nothing. There is a hold 
harmless which goes down so rapidly that basically you get nothing. On 
the other hand, you could be a district over here with 500 students and 
you have 2 percent poverty and more, and you get the bucks. That is 
unfortunate.
  Let me tell the Members what the difference is between the formula 
when it left the House and the formula as it is now. We have heard that 
there is very little difference. Yes, it is closer to ours, but let me 
tell the Members what the differences were.
  We did not have a 2-percent cutoff of funds; we did not have a 5-
percent cutoff of new money; we did not have new money being so 
targeted that people who have disadvantaged youngsters in relation to 
their academic preparation get nothing. We kick in to the LEA in 1996 
rather than waiting until 1997. What does that do to a city like York, 
with 25 percent poverty? They get no concentration grants. Why? Because 
it is the county where we kick it in. We wanted to kick it in much 
earlier.
  It was unfortunate in the discussion on the rule that somebody was 
trying to somehow or other blackmail people and say that if we did not 
do this, the end of the Earth comes today. Let me tell the Members that 
chapter 1 money is out there. Chapter 1 money is out there until July 
1.
  Let me also tell the Members that impact aid, as we read the report 
of the Appropriations Committee, is out there. It is there. We make a 
big mistake in that we do not tell the people and all of our colleagues 
what is in the formula and what it is the formula does to them in the 
third, fourth, and fifth years. It is not the bill. We have wonderful 
staffers on both sides of the aisle. Members on both sides of the aisle 
spent a year-and-a-half perfecting this bill, and it is not the bill; 
it is the fact that we do not know whether any money is there or how 
much money we get in the out years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairmen Ford and 
Kildee for all their efforts to put forward this critical bill which 
authorizes $12 billion for elementary and secondary education. This 
bill is the primary Federal funding bill for almost every school 
district in the country, and it must be passed.
  I also want to thank the chairmen for working with me and 
Representatives Swett and Castle to guarantee an appropriate level of 
funds for small States. I am delighted that Congress approved our 
amendment earlier this year that restored millions that had been cut 
from six small State education budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, what that amendment is about is that it is not just big 
States that have educational funding needs. In my State of Vermont our 
people cannot afford higher and higher property taxes to fund 
education. Because this amendment is part of this bill and because the 
Federal Government is more adequately funding Vermont's educational 
needs, there will be less need for increased property taxes or State 
taxes in the State of Vermont.
  The conference agreement on Improving America's School Act, H.R. 6, 
provides Vermont with $14.5 million for its chapter 1 programs that 
assist low-income students. Vermont lost $2 million of its chapter 1 
funding this year and these funds will not only restore those losses 
next year, but will provide additional funding for low-income students 
in years to come.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], a member of the committee.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret in opposition to this 
conference report. I supported this legislation when it was reported by 
our Committee on Education and Labor and when it was considered by the 
House of Representatives. I will not support it today--This bill needs 
work, a lot of it.
  Let us be frank. The chapter 1 Program for disadvantaged students is 
where the money is. By this measure, my State of New Jersey comes out 
behind. Oh yes, next year we will be allocating chapter funds as we did 
this year. And, in the following year, New Jersey loses a full 15 
percent of its title 1 funds, followed by another 15-percent cut the 
following fiscal year.
  In essence, the conferees have rejected a bipartisan consensus House 
formula in favor of a scheme that attempts to lull many of our 
colleagues and state and local school officials into a false sense of 
security. When the axe finally does fall, we will be only halfway to 
another reauthorization during which we could possibly revamp or fine-
tune the formula to correct inequities.
  We have heard for 2 years now that there is no ``wiggle room'' in the 
formula because appropriations are so tight, because we don't have the 
money.
  Will someone explain to me why then does this legislation establish 
20 entirely new programs. Listen to the list: $10 million for family 
support; $1 million for Alaskan native education; $10 million for 
Dollars for Scholars, and $18 million for prisoner education grants.
  And we know how that works in this town. These programs are planted--
fertilized with some minor appropriations in the early years--and soon 
they sprout--sink deep, deep roots and grow its own strong 
constituency. Once that happens, no one will be able to cut them down.
  Allow me to offer another example.
  Tucked away in this legislation is a program to assist local school 
districts repair, renovate, or actually build schools. Anyone who has 
ever served on a local school board has wrestled with this issue. The 
House proposed a loan program for this purpose. Arguing against 
establishing a new burdensome loan bureaucracy, the Senate proposed a 
program of outright grants. So what's the compromise? Our conferees 
decided to do both--loans and grants.
  And if that weren't bad enough, local officials could actually turn 
to this new Federal program for school construction dollars after 
voters/taxpayers may have rejected a local funding proposal.
  Will we ever learn? We have a $4 trillion national debt and yet here 
we are assuming funding responsibilities that have been and should be 
left to local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have used this reauthorization process for a 
hard-clear-eyed review of every education program on the books. Fund 
the ones that work and eliminate all the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, let me briefly express my concern regarding the so-
called compromise on the ``sex-related issues'' in this legislation. 
When this bill left the House, it barred the use of funds in this bill 
for the promotion of homosexuality. Unfortunately, the conferees 
developed a compromise that causes me great concern.
  And finally we come to the issue of school prayer.
  Mr. Speaker, when this legislation left this House, it contained 
clear language regarding the responsibilities of local school district 
officials on school prayer. H.R. 6 contained the Helms language which 
prohibited funds under this bill from going to States or school 
districts that have adopted a policy that prohibits individuals from 
participating in ``constitutionally protected'' prayer on a voluntary 
basis.
  Let me repeat and clarify: To lose Federal funds under this act a 
school district must have adopted a policy that denies individuals the 
right to voluntary ``constitutionally protected.''
  I would remind my colleagues that this is voluntary school prayer and 
would not force anyone to violate their religious rights or even 
participate in school prayer.
  I would also remind my colleagues that this language was adopted 345 
to 64 and later reaffirmed in a vote to instruct us--the conferees--by 
a vote of 369 to 55.
  Mr. Speaker, I must take issue with my distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan, a colleague who has contributed mightily to 
the quality of this Nation's education for so long. I will say that I 
will miss Chairman Ford but not before I say how I disagree with him on 
this issue.
  The Helms language will not require the appointment of a ``Federal 
prayer czar'' to determine just what is ``constitutionally protected 
prayer.'' And I cannot for the life of me fathom why Chairman Ford, a 
fierce fighter for the rights and prerogatives of the legislative 
branch, would hold that ``the courts'' should determine whether a local 
school district loses its Federal funds.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation needs work--a lot of it. We should 
start right now by adopting the motion to recommit to be offered by Mr. 
Johnson. Take this bill back to conference and begin work right here, 
right now.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  (Mr. WILLIAMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the conference 
report extending and improving Federal elementary and secondary 
education programs.
  This is a vitally important conference report. It continues Federal 
programs that school districts rely on to help them teach our kids. 
Programs such as title I, impact aid, bilingual education, Indian 
education. Unless we pass this conference report today, 13,000 local 
school districts will lose $11 billion in Federal education assistance. 
My home State of Montana would lose $25 million in title I funds alone. 
I don't know about your State, but the loss of $25 million in education 
funding would be devastating to schools in Montana. I think most states 
would experience similar harmful consequences. We can't permit this to 
happen.
  There have been a lot of rumors circulating around the Hill the past 
couple of days regarding this bill. Let me try to put a few of them to 
rest. First, this bill does not and will not affect home schools. For 
some reason there are some lobbyists out there who are trying to stir 
up dissent on this bill by talking about home schools. They did it 
before. We took care of their concerns. Now they're trying to do it 
again. Let me read to you what H.R. 6 says on this issue:

       Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to affect 
     home schools.

  We added this language when the bill was first before the House. We 
kept this language in conference.
  H.R. 6 further says:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a private school or home school 
     under State Law. This section shall not be construed to 
     bar private, religious, or home schools from participation 
     in programs or services under this Act.

  We added this language, which was offered by Mr. Armey on the House 
floor at the request of the national group representing home schools. 
We've kept this language in the conference report. H.R. 6 is clear: It 
does not affect home schools.
  There have been rumors circulating that H.R. 6 is bad for rural 
schools. That just is not so. H.R. 6 helps rural school districts more 
than the original House-passed bill did. It helps them more than the 
Senate-passed bill. H.R. 6 also contains my Rural Schools of America 
Act, a bill that most members of the Rural Caucus have co-sponsored. 
H.R. 6 helps rural kids. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
  For those of you who have military bases or Federal installations in 
your districts, H.R. 6 continues and improves the Impact Aid Program. 
And it does so by adopting the recommendations of the folks back home 
who run the Impact Aid Program.
  For my colleagues from the West and Midwest who have Native American 
populations, H.R. 6 continues and improves Indian education programs. 
And for the first time Indian Schools, under H.R. 6, are given a fair 
chance to compete for Federal education dollars. H.R. 6 helps Indian 
schools. And as my colleagues know, these schools are probably the 
schools in our Nation that are most in need of help. With H.R. 6, these 
schools will benefit.
  For all of my colleagues who want to help schools in their districts 
deal with the massive problems of deteriorating school facilities, H.R. 
6 provides an answer. It authorizes a facilities improvement program, 
and funding for that program has included in the fiscal year Education 
appropriations bill.
  H.R. 6 is a good bill that deserves all of our support. It has 
programs that will help our schools come to grips with the 
technological revolution that is occurring in our world. It provides 
some help to school districts that want to upgrade the skills of their 
classroom teachers. It gives some assistance to schools that want to 
try some ways of teaching our kids better. And it begins to take some 
important steps to make sure that American students are once again the 
best in the world.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and reject any 
attempt to kill this important legislation. What we're experiencing 
today, and what we saw yesterday, should alarm the American people. 
Yesterday we began to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
begin to flesh out their ``Contract with America.'' Yesterday we saw 
their leaders oppose lobbying form. To Say they are trying to kill 
Federal aid to education. What the American public is now seeking is 
what this so-called Republican contract is all about, and they are 
beginning to see that the downpayment on that contract is an effort to 
defeat this legislation to benefit America's children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I ran for Congress 
because I was mad about runaway Federal spending and runaway deficits. 
Now I am even madder. The American people are right when they sense 
that we are dealing with a broken process. And H.R. 6 is a perfect 
example of what is wrong here in Washington. First, the House passes a 
bill and loads it down with pork. And then when it comes back from 
conference there magically appears over 20 new programs.
  When the House considered H.R. 6 this spring, I focused on removing 
1.8 billion dollars of excess pork programs. Now, the conference report 
on this legislation includes the $1.8 billion of pork programs plus 
over 20 brand new programs adding another $1 billion.
  Next, I object to the endless stream of Federal mandates in this 
legislation. The Federal Government only provides 6 percent of 
education funding in this country. That is a limited investment and 
therefore we should provide limited input. Why can we not trust the 
local school boards and local principals to find solutions best suited 
to their children? Who in this body really believes that Washington 
politicians--5 weeks before an election--have better solutions for the 
challenges facing Bradenton, FL or Spokane, WA?
  Let me give you just one example. When this legislation left the 
House there was a compromise provision that required local school 
boards to develop a policy about disciplining children who bring guns 
to school. The sensible compromise gives local communities the 
flexibility to address the problem. Incidently, all the major education 
agencies across the Nation objected to the Senate's intrusive language: 
National School Boards Association, National PTA, National Association 
of Elementary School Principals.
  But now, for purely political purposes, the bill mandates that every 
school have the exact same policy automatically expelling any student 
foe 1 year who brings a gun to school. Every Member in this body wants 
to keep guns out of schools. But there are a lot of Members who believe 
the local principals and school boards are more capable to solve the 
problem than two Senators running for reelection. The Federal 
Government is not the local school board.
  Oppose this conference report.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], chairman of the subcommittee, for 
the 2 years of hard work that he has put in on bringing this 
reauthorization to the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford], chairman of the committee, for his masterful 
leadership of the negotiating team between the House and the Senate. I 
also want to thank all staff who worked on this bill, including my own.
  The primary objection that is being raised today concerns the 
possible future reductions in some districts, in that they will be held 
harmless and everybody will receive the same, no less than the amount 
of money they received previously or they presently have for the first 
and second year, but they are worried about future years.
  There is a simple remedy to this perceived problem: Increase the 
funding for education and extend the hold harmless provisions 
permanently. All districts in America can make good use of Federal 
funds for education. We have all too few funds available now. Let us 
make a contract with the children of America. Let us make a contract 
with the students of America. The power is in our hands. The power is 
in the hands of this body to increase funding for education with a 
proviso that ``hold harmless'' will be there forever for those 
districts that are in danger of losing money 3 or 4 years from now.

                              {time}  1300

  We need a great increase in our Federal commitment to funding for 
education. We can take the money simply out of the intelligence budget, 
the CIA, and intelligence budget, that Aldrich Ames agency that 
everybody admits is a corrupt racketeering body at this point that 
could use some reduction. They could be reduced in size and still they 
could do as much as they are doing now, I assure my colleagues. So from 
the intelligence community, which is obsolete, let us move the money 
into the intelligence community which is vigorous and ongoing and 
really the future of America, the intelligence community of public 
schools. Let us move forward. The power is in our hands. Let us make a 
contract with the schoolchildren of America. We can increase funding 
and everybody can be held harmless forever.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], a valued member of the committee.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I think it is most unfortunate that the 
atmosphere this afternoon has taken on the sense of confrontation it 
has because it has destroyed what has been probably the best education 
Congress in the history of this Nation in terms of what we have 
accomplished, from Head Start to Youth Apprenticeship to National 
Service, to Goals 2000. It has also, I think, caused some confrontation 
that is most unfortunate when we are dealing with the very justified 
and appropriate tributes that first and foremost the chairman of our 
full committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], ought to have 
for his long career and commitment to education. And also a special 
tribute, I think, goes to the lead democratic staffer on this bill, 
Jack Jennings, who was also a staffer during the first ESEA 
authorization.
  So I very much regret the atmosphere that has come forth today, but I 
have to tell Members that sometimes we have to stand up for the school 
back home. And unfortunately, in the last minutes of the conference, we 
took a very, very good bill in a number of areas and we made some 
mistakes. We decided that the Chapter 1 program, which is meant to be a 
program to fund education for educationally disadvantaged students, and 
we chose to, in essence, make it a poverty program.
  I just received, literally 5 minutes ago, the latest run I have seen 
which compares what many of my rural schools would get in 1999, under 
the current law formula and under the formula that we have adopted. 
Small schools being told, like Blair, WI, that they are going to be 
losing $14,000 in their Chapter 1 allocation. Another small school, 
Alma, that only gets $37,000, being told that literally they are going 
to have almost a 10-percent reduction in their Chapter 1 funds. 
Frankly, the school of my Democratic opponent in the November election, 
Amery, WI, is going to lose $27,000 under this new formula. And the 
list goes on.
  I just bring that up to Members because I really wish that we would 
have found a way for every Member to get the data to know what they 
were voting on. The House Chapter 1 formula was a compromise formula 
and we should have stuck to that.
  Having said that, I want to point out, as the chairman of our 
subcommittee and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], our 
ranking Member have done, there are an awful lot of good things in this 
bill that are being lost as a result of this.
  We have been able to reauthorize and make positive changes in Chapter 
2. I am proud to say we have included the authorization for the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers, a program that I authored because I 
think we must understand, it is this reauthorization that designs the 
educational delivery system for the 21st century. And very frankly, in 
a high technology interactive age of lifelong learning, we need to 
totally rechange the thinking and definition of how we educate not only 
children but adults in our community schools.
  So there are many, many good things in this bill. I regret that we 
have had this one formula fight, which has destroyed all of those good 
things.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], a good friend of education.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill has good, bad and ugly in it. 
And I think that when we look at any bill, we need to take a look not 
only at the needs of the country but an economic model. Will the bill 
pay for itself? Well, I think that, yes, this one will. We could make 
it more cost effective, but the bill, in my opinion, does pay for 
itself. Let me explain.
  The Chapter 1 funds that the gentleman from New York was talking 
about, in California we have large numbers of educationally 
disadvantaged students. Let us take a child that is disadvantaged and 
let us put him through the sixth or seventh grade. If he is not brought 
up to speed, then he is going to be far behind. And large numbers of 
these children are dropping out of school every single day.
  That same child, if we educate him and give him an incentive to where 
he can get a job at the end of school, also has an impact on crime 
prevention. Education is a very good crime fighter. It does not belong 
in the crime bill, but it is a good indicator.
  So the point is, if we can teach that child, at the end of that time 
period, he is going to have on advantage. He is less likely to get 
involved in crime. So it is ``pay me now a little bit or pay me a lot 
later.'' I think that is important.
  The last speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], 
talked about the child nutrition program that we sponsor. A child that 
is healthy is going to learn a lot better. The DARE Program keeps our 
kids out of the drug infested areas and at least gives them an 
opportunity--that saves money.
  I remember the teacher that wrote President Bush a letter that had 15 
misspelled words in it. We need an upgrade of our teachers and our 
programs. The Eisenhower Grant Program, has been reauthorized in this 
bill. It not only improves students chances for learning, but it 
improves the teachers as well.
  What about California? California has lost money for the last decade, 
why? Because the Chapter 1 funds are based on census, old 1980 census, 
before this bill. We had a 38 percent increase in poor children and the 
northeast States were stealing California's money. Under this formula, 
all the schools, all the California schools are under current law. The 
second year they are held harmless. The following year, there would be 
a 1997 update in our census on a county level, and in 1999, an update 
at the LEA level. So the California schools are going to benefit under 
this bill. I would tell my Californians, conservative, moderate, that 
this bill pays for itself.
  There is an economic model to it. If Members look at the programs, 
like Eisenhower math and science, we are the ones on this side of the 
aisle that keep talking about how we want greater math and science in 
the schools. We want increased high tech education into our schools.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to seriously think about 
an economic model of this bill.
  I also understand there were a lot of areas that do not gain under 
this bill, especially in title 1, with the formula. I understand those 
Members and their discontent.
  For the State of California, I would like to thank my subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ford], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], who has fought for the rights of schools. And for the 
disagreement, I am sorry.
  As a conferee on the Improving America's Schools Act, I have watched 
firsthand the contentious debate surrounding many of the programs in 
this reauthorization.
  I am not pleased with all aspects of this bill.
  When we started this reauthorization the goal was to consolidate 
programs--we ended up with 18 new programs.
  Language regarding sex education and prayer in schools can be 
improved and strengthened.
  And while I wholeheartedly support parental involvement and 
professional development I do not believe set-asides are necessary.
  As usual, there is simply too much Federal bureaucracy.
  But in all fairness, we have also made many achievements.
  We were able to give more schools the ability to go schoolwide by 
lowering the poverty rates to 60 percent in the first year and 50 
percent thereafter. This allows almost twice the number of schools the 
ability to combine funds from all ESEA programs and benefit the entire 
school and raise achievement for all students.
  There are waiver provisions that give schools more flexibility in 
operating ESEA programs.
  There are standards and assessment provisions in title I that are 
designed to raise academic standards for title I children.
  Additionally, there were several significant changes to the education 
impact aid program. This program is vital to school districts like 
those in San Diego that are heavily impacted by Federal property.
  Most importantly to California: In the past 13 years, California has 
had to operate title I programs based on funds from the 1980 census 
from 1980 to 1990 my State had a 38 percent increase in poor children. 
Educationally disadvantaged children who are supposed to be served 
under the title I program were being shortchanged.
  Throughout this reauthorization, one of my top priorities has been to 
update census data more frequently so these shortchanges would never 
happen again, in any State.
  In this bill we have finally achieved those updates.
  Under the title I formula--California finally gets it's fair share.
  These are not insignificant gains. Title I will provide over $720 
million to California schools next year.
  The new title I formula is responsive to the reality and needs of 
California school districts and to those in San Diego County. It will 
increase overall funding, target money to students and districts with 
the highest need while addressing the needs of poverty in our suburban 
districts as well.
  Because of the updating of decennial census poverty data and the 
gains for the State of California--I rise in support of the conference 
report.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since the Eisenhower Program is one I put in a long time 
ago and it got all messed up in this particular authorization, that is 
why I was not singing its praises.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the ranking member, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 6 
because it contains too many new programs and new bureaucrat demands on 
school districts. So much for change in education.
  This bill contains 20 new programs--including 1 to get the Federal 
Government into the business of building schools. So much for local 
control of education.
  It dictates to schools that they must use 1 percent of their chapter 
I funds for parental involvement. So much for local control of 
education--we cannot even trust the school boards to use 1 percent of 
chapter I money.
  It dictates that 10 percent of chapter I funds over 2 years be used 
for professional development. So much for local control of education.
  It creates an entirely different Eisenhower Science and Math Program, 
totally focused on professional development. So much for local control 
of education.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that instead of making changes for the 
better--to give schools more flexibility to address their own needs--
the conference report maintains business as usual. More mandates, more 
mandates, and more mandates.
  So much for local control of education.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Virgin Islands [Mr. de Lugo].
  (Mr. de LUGO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. de LUGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act.
  H.R. 6 is the culmination of months and months of hard work. 
Committee members and staff have invested many long hours in this bill. 
I commend our chairman, Bill Ford, and subcommittee chairman, Dale 
Kildee, for their outstanding leadership on H.R. 6.
  In many ways H.R. 6 is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation this House will consider this session. H.R. 6 will provide 
assistance to our schools; assistance our schools need to provide a 
solid education to this country's future--our children. If our children 
do not receive the tools they need now, not only will they suffer, but 
this country will suffer.
  H.R. 6 provides $11 billion in education aid annually for 13,000 
local school districts. Without this bill, this money will not be 
available for our schools. H.R. 6 provides funding for the 
disadvantaged in this country. Without this bill, they will not receive 
the extra help they need. H.R. 6 provides a professional development 
program, continues the chapter 2 block grant program, includes a safe 
and drug-free schools provision, and does much more. Unless we support 
H.R. 6 today and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, none of this 
assistance will reach our schools. And our schools cannot afford for 
this bill to fail.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for education, ``yes'' for H.R. 
6 and ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring two points to the attention of the 
House. No. 1, we have just approved a rule that says we are considering 
1,200 pages of legislation that most of us do not have a copy of, none 
of us have had the opportunity to read, and we know at the grassroots 
level nobody has had the opportunity to see what is in the bill.
  There is a different way to do it. In the next Congress, when we have 
a new set of rules, we will make this information available on the 
information superhighway, so that not only will the Members of Congress 
have the opportunity to review legislation, but citizens all around the 
country will actually finally be able to see what goes on in this House 
of Representatives, and what is actually contained in the legislation 
that we are debating. The light will shine.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about another piece of specific action in 
this program today, great intent. We ``recognize that worker 
participation and labor-management cooperation in the deployment, 
application, and implementation of advanced workplace technologies make 
an important contribution * * *.'' What a brilliant revelation by our 
Committee on Education and Labor.

  Mr. Speaker, reading this, we would get the sense that the mentioned 
workplace activities so praised and aspired to, we would actually 
believe that they were legal. Let me say, this is not the case in the 
vast majority of circumstances. The kinds of programs authorized by the 
Workplace Technology Skill Development Act are in many, and in perhaps 
most cases, illegal under current interpretations of our arcane labor 
laws.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, title V, section 541 of the bill assumes 
that these ideals can only be achieved if we spend money on them and we 
create a new government program, so it authorizes grants to nonprofit 
organizations to disseminate information, provide technical assistance, 
conduct research, develop training programs to achieve a high-skilled, 
highly involved workplace.
  Where has the Committee on Education and Labor been? Businesses all 
around the country have been doing this kind of work. They are moving 
in this direction. They do not have to be told to do this by the 
Federal Government.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, we in Washington are behind the curve. We 
are not even in the wake of what is going on in the American workplace. 
There is something that the Government can do. We can achieve high 
involvement workplace by getting out of the way. The source of the 
problem is a little-known provision in the National Labor Relations 
Act. It prohibits employers from dominating labor organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is, we need to go back and we need to 
address our labor laws. We need to stop putting these kinds of 
programs, these kinds of dollars, into another educational program. 
Congressional action here ignores the problem. We are the problem. Let 
us amend the NLRA.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee who brought this piece 
of legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically support the conference 
report, and to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Bill Ford.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, not to be confrontational, but for my own 
information, I would like to engage in some serious information-getting 
here on my part as it regards the prayer in school amendment that I 
voted for, and it passed this House on two or three occasions, the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is this. I am a little bit confused 
on the motion to recommit as it affects the local jurisdictions of our 
elected school officials, or appointed, whatever they might be. What I 
want to know is, whichever way we go, either whether it is recommittal 
or the Kassebaum language that is in this bill, I want to understand, 
so I can tell constituents in a halfway literate way when they call, 
whichever way we go; are we still going to have some language as it 
relates to constitutional prayer in the schools? I would yield to 
anybody who would like.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as it is my time, I would be 
pleased to respond to the gentleman's inquiry with regard to the 
question of whether the conference report protects the right to 
constitutionally protected prayer.
  The answer is, absolutely it does. The conference report includes the 
Kassebaum amendment from the Senate, which requires the cutoff of funds 
if a school district curtails constitutionally protected prayer.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do a 
colloquy with the gentleman. It was said on the conference committee 
that Mr. Helms supported the Kassebaum language, and he has told me, 
and I have a letter from him, that he does not, absolutely burden of 
proof under that language to ever reach the point where you would 
protect prayer in the school, because you have to go to court twice.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1320

  If the gentleman will look in the first row of Senators, he will see 
Hatch, Heflin, Helms, Hollings, Hutchison. The Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Helms] indeed did vote for the language that we accepted. 
And that was represented to us by the Senators in the conference.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
that was after the Helms amendment was defeated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio controls time and 
must yield time.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, all I 
want is for my own edification here, I do not mean to draw any 
individuals into this debate. I just want to make sure that whatever 
takes place, if this bill becomes law, that we are going to have the 
constitutional prayer amendment in the legislation.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is 
absolutely yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. HEFNER. Sure. I just wanted that information.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] 
yield back to me for a moment?
  Mr. SAWYER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the subcommittee, I reiterate 
what the gentleman from Ohio has told the gentleman from North 
Carolina. He is absolutely correct.
  I would also say this on a personal note. I have prayed every day of 
my life since I was 3 years old, every day. That included prayers when 
I was a public school teacher privately in the public school. I would 
say a prayer before I entered every classroom and that was 
constitutionally protected and will be protected under this. That was 
in my private prayer. That prayer is always constitutionally protected 
and this bill does that. I did that as a teacher and I do not want 
anyone to be deprived of their constitutional rights to pray on their 
own in a public school.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to take a moment to 
thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] who really did an 
extraordinary job on this piece of legislation. He was there when the 
historic measure that underlies all of this was passed in 1965 and he 
has this year presided over the most fundamental progressive reform 
since it was first enacted. The principal thrust of this really goes to 
the heart of what we believe most deeply about education, that it will 
rise the achievement levels of educationally disadvantaged students. 
This bill assumes that disadvantaged students can excel if they are 
exposed to a rigorous curriculum and well-trained teachers. We have 
heard any number of people talk about the provisions of the bill, the 
ability to target funds more precise over time, to respond to changes 
in population, and to be more exact about where those populations lie. 
That kind of change will benefit school districts all over the country. 
It provides for an enhanced professional development program. It is 
modeled on the highly successful math and science teacher training 
programs of recent years and expands them into all of the core subject 
areas. It provides for technology in the classroom, where the 
technology levels in the American classroom lag behind the fast-food 
industry in some uses of information technology.

  For the first time since 1965, this bill reflects the reality that 
the old chief modalities of teaching and learning, the teacher, the 
chalk board, the book, are being superseded by a world of information 
that can break the logjam of pupil-teacher ratios and overcome the 
isolation of classrooms. This measure is a major step forward.
  The gentleman from Michigan suggested earlier that somehow this was 
in conflict with the goals of American business. I have received just a 
moment ago a letter from the National Alliance of Business, the Chamber 
of Commerce of the United States, the Committee for Economic 
Development, and the American Business Conference, all in strong 
support of H.R. 6 and call for its immediate enactment. The work that 
has been done among the religious community is every bit as compelling. 
The letter that we just received from the Baptist Joint Committee 
representing a broad range of Baptist denominations in the United 
States, commenting that they have followed the debate on H.R. 6 and 
particularly the Duncan-Johnson amendment concerning prayer in the 
public schools. We opposed that amendment because it was unnecessary 
and would have forced school administrators and teachers to become 
constitutional scholars and would have potentially encouraged 
violations of the Constitution. It is our position that the Kassebaum 
amendment contained in the conference report solves many of these 
problems and is the better approach.
  In short, let me just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the work that has 
been done on this bill represents a coming of full circle, the passing 
to another generation of the kind of leadership that we have seen from 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and carried on by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] that will move now into another generation 
of students who will benefit enormously.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
on H.R. 6, the Improving American Schools Act of 1994 and to offer my 
tribute to the distinguished chairman of our committee, Bill Ford, who 
will leave this institution at the end of this year with many 
significant accomplishments. I can think of none with greater 
importance to our Nation than the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965. I should point out to my colleagues who are not privileged 
to serve on the committee that Bill Ford served on the Education and 
Labor Committee when this genuinely historic measure was signed by 
President Johnson and will leave after presiding over the most 
fundamental and optimistic redesign of its entire mission since it was 
enacted.
  The principal thrust of this measure is to help schools raise the 
achievement levels of educationally disadvantaged children. That has 
not changed. What has changed is the assumption that disadvantaged 
children cannot perform to the same high academic standards that other 
children do. They can. Children with well-trained teachers with access 
to rigorous and innovative curriculum can excel.
  I would like to take a minute to point out several important changes 
in the bill. First, we will be able to target assistance to 
educationally disadvantaged children under title I more precisely 
because the distribution of funds will be based on poverty data which 
are updated over time. Currently, the Census Bureau only measures 
poverty below the national level every 10 years. But throughout the 
decade between censuses, the incidence of poverty is changing and 
shifting among States and communities. By measuring poverty every 2 
years, first at the county and then at the school district level, we 
can ensure that title I dollars flow continuously to the children that 
need the most help, while avoiding the disruptive effects of huge 
shifts in funding allocations after each decennial census.
  H.R. 6 also contains important new tools for teachers and students. 
Title II of the bill establishes a new teacher training program modeled 
on the highly successful Eisenhower Math and Science Professional 
Development Program. This new program provides national leadership and 
resources but grants absolute freedom to classroom teachers to design 
their own plans for professional development activities based on local 
needs. A one size fits all approach to teacher training will not work. 
The new Eisenhower Professional Development Program recognizes that 
teachers are the single most important factor in opening the world of 
learning to students at the same time that it acknowledges that the 
most effective teacher training programs are locally designed by 
classroom teachers.
  But make no mistake about it, if students are going to meet the 
growing requirements of the information age, they need the appropriate 
tools. We cannot allow American education to lag behind the fast food 
industry in the use of information technology. For the first time, this 
enactment will reflect the reality that the days when the chief 
modalities of teaching and learning are a teacher, a chalkboard and a 
book are over. This conference report authorizes $200 million for 
grants to create partnerships with local schools, private industry, 
colleges, libraries and others to integrate educational technology into 
classroom. Again, the central recognition here is there is no one right 
way to pursue this goal.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my subcommittee chairman, 
Dale Kildee, and my full committee chairman, Bill Ford, for their 
forceful leadership. You both should feel a great deal of pride. 
Finally, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the 
prodigious effort that this measure represents.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter of September 30, 
1994, from the National Alliance of Business and the letter of 
September 30, 1994, from the Baptist Joint Committee, as follows:

      Business Support for Elementary and Secondary Education Act

                                               September 30, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and Labor, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ford and Congressman Goodling: The 
     undersigned business organizations urge all members of the 
     House to give the Improving America's Schools Act, H.R. 6, 
     their full support. We believe the enactment of this 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (ESEA) is essential before Congress adjourns. Additionally, 
     we believe the successful implementation of the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act and the building of a globally 
     competitive workforce is contingent on the passage of ESEA.
       Although we recognize that individual members may have 
     concerns with specific provisions, including the Title I 
     formula, we believe that on balance H.R. 6 makes a 
     significant contribution to supporting systemic education 
     reform efforts across the country. The alignment of ESEA with 
     Goals 2000 provides this country with a real opportunity to 
     implement comprehensive systemic education reform in every 
     state and local community by providing additional incentives 
     and resources for states and communities to adopt the 
     principles contained in Goals 2000--high standards for all 
     students, first rate professional development, and 
     unprecedented flexibility to design and operate educational 
     programs.
       Enacting ESEA in a timely manner will ensure that all 
     students, even the most disadvantaged, are held to the same 
     high standards encompassed in Goals 2000. Without the 
     enactment of ESEA there will be unnecessary delay in all 
     communities being able to fully participate in Goals 2000 
     efforts as poorer districts and states struggle to assemble 
     the resources necessary to implement reforms. In sum, passage 
     of ESEA will help ensure that the objectives of Goals 2000 
     become a reality.
       ESEA passage will guarantee that for the first time in this 
     nation's history there will be a comprehensive framework and 
     the appropriate federal incentives to support widespread 
     systemic reform efforts. As the recently released 1994 
     National Goals Panel Report indicates, this country can not 
     wait any longer to implement these efforts without risking 
     significant setbacks in educational progress. We urge you to 
     put partisan differences aside and pass ESEA to help support 
     the long term educational progress and economic security of 
     our nation's future workforce.
       We commend the House Committee on Education and Labor for 
     its leadership and persistence in the development and passage 
     of the ESEA, and we urge its swift passage.
           Sincerely,
       National Alliance of Business, Chamber of Commerce of the 
     United States, Committee for Economic Development, American 
     Business Conference.
                                  ____



                                      Baptist Joint Committee,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
       Dear Representative: The Baptist Joint Committee serves the 
     below listed Baptist bodies on religious liberty and church-
     state issues.
       We have followed the debate on HR 6 and particularly the 
     Duncan-Johnson amendment concerning prayer in the public 
     schools. We opposed that amendment because it was 
     unnecessary, would have forced school administrators and 
     teachers to become constitutional scholars, and would have 
     potentially encouraged violations of the constitution. It is 
     our position that the Kassebaum amendment contained in the 
     conference report solves many of these problems, and is the 
     better approach.
       Accordingly, we support the conference report with regard 
     to the prayer issue and oppose a motion to recommit.
           Yours very truly,
                                                  J. Brent Walker,
                                                  General Counsel.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress tells you a bill is going to make Federal 
education programs better, less bureaucratic, more flexible, and 
increase the involvement of parents, as opposed to merely helping the 
teachers' unions--I would advise you to read the fine print.
  And when the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, at the 
last minute, produces an alarming letter from the Education Department 
claiming that all Federal education funding will simply end at midnight 
tonight if you don't vote ``yes'' on an authorization bill today, a 
bill which has been rushed to the floor with hair-curling haste--I 
would advise you to watch your wallet.
  Lack of authorization has never stopped us from funding anything 
before. Why would it stop us now? The truth of the matter is the world 
will not end if we do not pass this bad bill. Slowing down this high-
speed train would merely give members and their constituents more time 
to find out what is really in this bill. Which may explain its authors' 
sense of urgency.
  There are abundant reasons to oppose this bill, but for time's sake, 
let me point out just one. The bill says that if you want to protect 
your child's right to pray voluntarily in a public school, you have to 
go to court not once but twice to vindicate your child's first 
amendment right.
  First, you must get a court order against the school district. And 
then you must go back to court to prove the school district 
``willfully'' violated the order. The burden of proof is on you, the 
parent, to prove your rights are being violated.
  But with obscene art, it is just the opposite. A law we passed in 
1991 says that if an artist creates obscene art with your tax dollars, 
the burden is not on the artist, but on the Government to prove the 
artist has abused taxpayer money.
  Now I ask you, which deserves more protection--a schoolchild's right 
to pray, or an artist's right to offend us with our own money?
  Incidentally, we are being told it is OK to vote against this motion 
to recommit because Senator Helms voted for the prayer language in the 
bill. Well, I have here in my hand a copy of a letter from Senator 
Helms, dated today, which makes it absolutely clear that Senator Helms 
strongly opposes the language in this bill. The Senator voted for the 
so-called Kassebaum language only because his own much stronger 
language was already in the bill and superseded Kassebaum's. When the 
conference committee removed the Helms language, that changed 
everything. So to repeat, Senator Helms does not support this language. 
He vigorously opposes it. And so, I might add, should the 350 Members 
of this House who have voted for the Helms-Duncan-Johnson language on 
not one, not two, but three separate occasions this year.
  I will insert Senator Helms' letter in the Record following my 
remarks.
  If some Members' votes on school prayer today do not square with 
their previous three votes, I would love to be there when those Members 
have to explain to their constituents why school prayer mattered so 
much to them that they were willing to vote for it, and vote for it, 
and vote for it--right up until the moment their vote actually counted.
  This is a bad bill. The world will not end if we take a little more 
time to get it right. And I would suggest prayer deserves at least as 
much protection as obscene art. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I include Senator Helms' letter for the Record, as 
follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: Which deserves more protection, a student's 
     right to pray in school or an artist's right to create 
     obscenities at federal expense? Well, if you vote against the 
     motion to recommit the H.R. 6 conference report--in order to 
     change its language on school prayer--you will be voting to 
     provide more legal protection for obscene artists than for 
     students who want to pray at school.
       As a result of 1991 reauthorization language, which is 
     still law [20 U.S.C. 952 (j-l) & 954 (l)], the National 
     Endowment for the Arts (NEA) cannot stop an artist from 
     creating obscene art with a discretionary federal grant 
     unless the Government first takes the artist into federal 
     court and gets a final judgement that the art is legally 
     obscene. However, under the H.R. 6 conference report, any 
     teacher or local school official can stop any child from 
     voluntarily praying at school unless the STUDENT takes the 
     GOVERNMENT to court and gets an order saying his prayer is 
     constitutionally protected.
       Is that really the way we want the law to read: that a 
     student is not free to pray at school until he takes the 
     government to court, but an artist is free to be obscene--at 
     federal expense--unless and until the government takes him to 
     court?
       Furthermore, under the Kassebaum school prayer language as 
     adopted by the conferees, even after a student pays to go to 
     court and vindicates his or her constitutional right to pray, 
     the officials and the school that violated his rights are not 
     penalized at all unless they violate the trial court's order. 
     And before justice is given, it is up to the student to pay 
     for another trial to prove not only that they violated the 
     order, but that they willfully violated it--an almost 
     impossible burden of proof.
       It is clear that the school prayer language in the H.R. 6 
     conference report is--and was meant to be--an impossible 
     hurdle for students to overcome before school officials could 
     be compelled to let the students engage in voluntary, 
     student-initiated prayer.
       Student-initiated prayer should be treated the same as all 
     other student-initiated free speech, which the United States 
     Supreme Court has upheld as constitutionally-protected as 
     long as it is done in an appropriate time, place, and manner 
     such that it ``does not materially disrupt the school day.'' 
     [Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503.]
       We urge you to vote yes on the motion to recommit the 
     conference report on H.R. 6 to compel the conferees to add 
     the House passed school prayer language so school prayer will 
     be treated at least as well as Congress has treated legally 
     obscene art.
           Sincerely,
     Sam Johnson.
     Jesse Helms.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this and 
discussed this, and I cannot believe that we have voted 3 times on it 
and the last vote being 369 to 55, that we have conferees who cannot 
carry out the will of the House. Here is a list of all of them, 
including some of our leaders who have been talking against it.
  This is no protection for prayer in school. In fact, it provides 
hurdles.

                              {time}  1330

  The Christian Coalition says the language currently in the report 
replaces such hurdles on aggrieved individuals whose constitutional 
rights to school prayer have been violated. For all intents and 
purposes it is meaningless. It means that someone has to take a case to 
court twice in order to protect the privilege of the voluntary right to 
pray in school.
  I want to reiterate our First Amendment to the Constitution. 
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' We are prohibiting it 
really by the language in the bill today my making them go to court.
  I would also like to share a letter that I got yesterday from an 11-
year-old girl in my district, Erin Small. She said, ``A topic that I've 
always had on my mind was that topic of prayer in schools. It has 
always bothered me that on our dollar bills and coins it says `In God 
we trust' but in our schools we are not allowed to pray.''
  There are many organizations that support the House language as did 
the House, the Christian Coalition, American Family Association 
Foundation, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Family Research 
Council, Traditional Values Coalition, just to name a few.
  The real issues here, what are they? Fear, real or imagined, that a 
strong, moral influence may once again be legally acceptable during our 
school children's days requiring open and honest discourse between 
people of differing backgrounds.
  I believe that we in America need to protect prayer in school. I ask 
Members to support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, up until 10 minutes ago I certainly expected to support 
this legislation. A printout has just now come which would make that 
very, very difficult for me, and that is a tragedy. As I said, we spent 
a year and a half, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], myself, and all of the Members of the committee writing 
what I thought was good legislation, assisted by an outstanding staff. 
I am not going to refer to each one, because I will miss somebody. But 
I too want to pay tribute to the master staff man. I do not know who 
the encyclopedia is going to be when Mr. Jennings leaves, because he 
has 30 years of history to tell it the way it is. He never confuses us 
with 30 years of history. So we certainly are going to miss Jack.
  But, as I said, we worked awfully hard to put together a bill and the 
staff worked even harder. I think we probably should have quit at the 
staff level. Maybe we never should have gone to the Member's conference 
and we should have stopped at that point.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at least once today I rise to 
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman about the great and 
professional work that we have had the benefit of for so many years 
with John Jennings, Jack Jennings as we know him, who is clearly one of 
the most professional staffers that I have ever worked with. I agree 
with everything the gentleman has said about him.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem I now find myself in is a printout has now 
come to us showing what will happen in 1999. My poorest district, the 
poorest district I have has 25 percent poverty. They have never been 
able to get a concentration grant because it goes to the county, not to 
the local district. In our bill, when it left the floor here, we moved 
to the LEA's in 1996 which would have given them an opportunity to get 
into that new concentration money block.
  Looking at the printout now, in 1999 if we take current law, and then 
take this law that we are now passing, they will lose $59,000, a 25-
percent poverty district will lose $59,000.
  One might say well, what would they lose under the formula as it left 
in H.R. 6? The formula in H.R. 6 when it left the House, as I 
indicated, takes us down to the local education agency in 1996, which 
means that they pick up that concentration grant money.
  So as I indicated, my whole problem has been why did we have to rush 
and not be able to give all Members an indication of what it is they do 
get in those last 3 years?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Boehner], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we spent 18 months working on this piece of 
legislation in the subcommittee and full committee, and I want to 
congratulate those on both sides of the aisle who have spent a lot of 
effort, a lot of time trying to put this legislation together.
  But as I look at the bill, I think it is the wrong direction. It is 
just more of the same.
  The bill is entitled ``Improving America's Schools Act.'' I do not 
think that any Member of this House believes that the legislation 
before us is going to make hardly a dent in trying to improve America's 
schools.
  The one area that I have the greatest difficulty with, beyond the 
fact that we have a formula problem, is to look at the number of set-
aside programs that we have in the bill. When we started this process 
18 months ago we had about 48 individual programs in terms of getting 
money out to schools. The President, rightly, suggested that this 
number ought to be reduced to 26. I and others wanted to reduce the 
number of programs even more so that we could focus our attention in on 
those areas of America's schools that really do need help and that we 
really can improve. On the House side we reduced the number of programs 
slightly, not to the 26 as suggested by the President, but when we sent 
it to the Senate they began to add programs, not only all of those that 
we got rid of, but they added a lot more. Now instead of reducing the 
number of programs from the number we started with, 48, we did not 
reduce any. We are up to almost 70 programs.
  If anybody thinks that this is the way to improve America's schools, 
they are kidding themselves. The whole direction of this bill is more 
of the same. It has not worked for 20 years. Why do we think that 
adding more programs, more of the same kind of restrictions will work? 
We were going to give schools more flexibility and they ended up with 
less flexibility. Why do we think this is going to help our schools? It 
is not.
  It is time to reject this model. It is time to start over, and it is 
time to begin to understand how we can help American schools, not hurt 
them.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the issue of racial 
adoption which has been added to this bill by the Senate. I am 
concerned about that. It is an issue we had some difficulty with in the 
State of Michigan, and eventually ended up in court because we had the 
provision similar to what is in this bill before us, and it was 
interpreted by the State agencies, particularly the Department of 
Social Services and their social workers, to imply that same-race 
adoption took a top priority, and that if a couple of one race wanted 
to adopt a child of a different race that that was automatically denied 
unless they were really desperate in terms of a placement.

                              {time}  1340

  The net result of all of this is that a number of children spent as 
much as 2 or 3 years in foster care waiting for adoption when, in fact, 
there was a family waiting and able to adopt and would have made 
wonderful parents.
  I have a serious concern about the language as it is contained in the 
conference report, the language prepared by the Senate, and as modified 
by the conference; I just want to raise a caution flag on this. It is 
something I believe we will have to go back and visit later and 
clarify, because clearly under the language that is involved here we 
are very likely going to have children placed in foster care and 
remaining in foster care much longer than they should.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 6, to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
and against the motion to recommit.
  I want to compliment Bill Ford and Dale Kildee for their successful 
effort. H.R. 6 is a fair bill. It will help schools, students, parents, 
and educators in every school district in America. [Under the Chapter 1 
funding formula in this conference report, no school which has a 
Chapter 1 program now will lose funds.]
  The Chapter 1 formula is sensibly balanced to meet a variety of 
education needs in a variety of public schools. It will preserve 
current programs, and also give extra help to those schools and 
students who need it the most.
  H.R. 6 also funds programs such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
Act, impact aid, the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, and 
technology education.
  ESEA authorizes Federal funds for schools, without Federal mandates. 
Local school decisions will be made by the parents, educators, and 
school boards in our communities, just as they are now and just as they 
should remain.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report 
on H.R. 6. We will be voting for Chapter 1 programs, technology in 
classrooms, training programs for teachers and safer schools, We will 
be voting for the special interest of all Americans--our children.
  Vote ``yes'' on the conference report and ``no'' on the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to 
recommit offered by Mr. Johnson from the great State of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, last year in Corpus Christi, students at various high 
schools and junior highs were ordered by school officials to disperse 
and advised that they would receive disciplinary action for gathering 
before school to pray around a flagpole. The lawsuit is still pending.
  In addition, in Dallas, students at Skyline High School were 
threatened by their principal if they continued to read audibly from 
their Bible and pray on the school lawn before school.
  This is not only outrageous, it is unconstitutional. Voluntary prayer 
in school is a first amendment right. The House has voted three times 
by overwhelming margins to protect voluntary school prayer. 
Nonetheless, the conferees have replaced it with the weaker Senate 
language.
  Some would have you believe that the Johnson language gives control 
to the Federal Government of the courts. This is simply not true. The 
Johnson language provides for Federal or court involvement only if the 
local school boards and State education agencies fail to act and 
correct the problem.
  In addition, the Johnson language is far less burdensome than the 
Senate language. The Senate language requires a person to go before the 
courts twice, and prove that the school willfully violated their 
constitutional right to voluntary school prayer.
  Vote yes on the motion to recommit to protect our children's 
constitutional right to voluntary prayer.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6 and 
against the motion to recommit.
  As I mentioned when I spoke on the rule, I was a conferee on this 
bill. In my 6 years in Congress, I hardly know of another bill where 
more diligent work was put into it, long hours in the subcommittee 
level, the committee level. I was a conferee.
  Education policy ought to be bipartisan. Every attempt was made to 
put together a bipartisan bill, a good bill for America, a good bill 
for America's children. That is what this is all about, educating 
America's children.
  This final version is very, very close to the House version that we 
initially passed, much more so than the Senate version or the 
President's bill. Members on both sides of the aisle voted for the 
House version of this bill.
  People who want an excuse to vote against a bill will wiggle around 
and find any kind of excuses. The bottom line is these formulas were 
crafted carefully. Everything was done carefully.
  This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say I know the gentlewoman did not 
mean no school will lose funds under the formula, because, of course, 
schools will lose funds under the formula, some schools less than 2 
percent of funds. People will eventually lose all of their funds. So 
there is that possibility.
  But again, I just will take this as my last opportunity to say my 
congratulations to the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked 
hundreds of hours on this legislation and to the Members who also 
worked diligently. My hat is off to the chairman who is being honored 
in this legislation by having a portion of it named after him.
  I must again say that by not knowing until 2 seconds ago what will 
happen, and no one else knows in those last 3 years, I now have the 
problem of my biggest district, 25 percent poverty, losing $50-some-
thousand in 1999 when we get to that point. So it makes it very 
difficult. That is the school district that needs the support in my 
district.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on H.R. 6. This legislation contains a provision entitled ``The 
Multiethnic Placement Act.'' The original purpose of this act was to 
end the discrimination which prevents many minority children from being 
adopted, especially out of the foster care system. Currently, minority 
children are entering the foster care system in unprecedented numbers, 
and they are waiting years longer than white children for families.
  However, when the bill came to be considered in conference, the 
administration insisted on amendments that would undermine the 
fundamental purpose of the bill.
  Now the bill requires something called diligent recruitment of face-
matching families and there are serious questions about whether this 
language could be used to deny placements across racial lines.
  The administration amendments gut the original bill, defeat its 
purpose, and would make it even more difficult for minority children to 
find families.
  The Multiethnic Placement Act is clearly not in the best interest of 
the children in foster care who are waiting for loving homes. As an 
adoptive mother, I urge you to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  As we are on the floor at this moment, a longtime staffer of the 
Committee on Education and Labor is being interred in Arlington 
Cemetery, and many of us had expected to be at the memorial service at 
1 o'clock. Because we could not go, I wanted to put the remarks that I 
have here in the Record to recognize the many years under the direction 
of Carl Perkins that he gave to this country and to the original 
construction of this law and its improvement over the years.
  Hartwell D. ``Jack'' Reed of Kentucky was the predecessor to John 
Jennings, whom we have been talking about here, clearly one of the 
great people who have served with the greatest chairman the Committee 
on Education and Labor ever had, Carl Perkins.
  Consequently, I urge all members to support H.R. 6. It is a bill 
which will truly help America's children.
  This legislation is one of the most carefully crafted bills which 
have come out of the Committee on Education and Labor. The members 
deserve credit for all their work, but I also want to thank the staff 
members for their extraordinary contributions.
  Diane Stark worked night and day on this bill and applied her keen 
intelligence to make it such a fine piece of legislation which will 
improve education for many children. Her wonderful personality combined 
with her intelligence and experience guarantee her a fine future.
  Omer Waddles is cut from the same cloth as Diane. His dedication 
combined with his intelligence and willingness to work long hours makes 
him one of the best professionals we have ever had on the committee.
  Toni Painter has been the person behind the scenes who keeps us all 
on course. Her good humor and sharp skills make us all proud. We will 
miss her when she retires from the Committee this year.
  Kris Gilbert, Alan Lovesee, and June Harris have all contributed to 
improving the programs contained in this bill. Their abilities are 
recognized by all the various education groups they deal with.
  Other people I want to commend are the staff members of the 
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. Susan 
Wilhelm, the staff director has mastered in a surprisingly short period 
of time the intricacies of the laws under her responsibility. Jeff 
McFarland and Mary Cassell have also earned the respect of all of us. 
And Bessie Taylor helps to hold this whole operation together by her 
diligence and nice personality. Dale Kildee, as subcommittee chairman, 
has assembled a fine staff, and our committee will benefit for years 
from their expertise.
  The last person I want to thank is Rosemary Gallagher, the 
legislative counsel for the bill. She, too, worked long hours and 
deserves great credit for the quality of the final bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against any motions to 
recommit the bill and to vote for final passage of H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act.
  Every member of the House receives Federal aid for his or her school 
district under this bill. We are dealing with $11 billion of vital aid 
every year to 13,000 school districts in the country.
  The Secretary of Education has said that his lawyers tell him that he 
cannot disburse this $11 billion for these programs unless this bill 
passes. Chairman Obey of the Appropriations Committee confirms this 
opinion and says that the money in the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriation bill cannot be sent out to school districts unless we 
pass this authorization.
  Any motion to recommit this bill will kill it because we do not have 
enough time in the remaining few days of this Congress to reconvene the 
conference, report a new bill, face another motion to recommit, and 
then face a filibuster in the Senate.
  If you want your school districts to receive money under more than 40 
education programs, you have to vote against any motion to recommit and 
vote for the bill. Some examples of the funds which will be lost 
include:

Title I grants to schools districts......................$6,698,356,000
Migrant education...........................................305,475,000
Eisenhower Prof. Development Program........................320,298,000
Chapter 2...................................................347,250,000
Safe and Drug-Free Schools..................................481,962,000

  Some opponents of this bill have been sowing confusion among the 
members by saying that the conference report is unfair to rural areas. 
Those assertions are simply not true.
  The conference report treats rural areas even better than the bill 
which passed the House last March. We looked at 40 rural areas spread 
throughout the country and in reviewing every county in those districts 
we found that nearly all of them did better under the conference report 
than under the bill we passed 6 months ago.
  I am especially concerned about the misinformation which is being 
given out about rural areas because the people who are distributing it 
are the ones who are the prime sponsors of the formula we wrote in 
committee last spring. Those members thought that the formula was fair 
to rural areas and supported it in committee and then on the floor. Now 
they are asserting the conference report is unfair when it treats rural 
areas better than the formula they themselves wrote.
  The last point I want to make is that there is going to be a lot of 
confusion spread about the social amendments we had to deal with in 
this conference. Let me make some facts crystal clear. First, both 
bills required school districts to permit constitutionally protected 
prayer. The House bill had the Secretary of Education determine what is 
permitted under the Constitution. Then, he could cut off a school 
district's funds if they disobeyed him. The Senate bill adopted the 
Kassebaum amendment, supported by Senator Helms, which placed the 
authority in the courts for determining what is ``constitutionally-
protected'' and then it penalizes a school district for violating a 
court order.

  The conference committee adopted the Kassebaum amendment. This means 
that no school district can forbid constitutionally-protected prayer as 
determined by a court or that school district will lose its Federal 
funds for education.
  On the sex issues, we passed amendments in both the House and the 
Senate and have put them together into a provision which will bar for 
the first time the use of Federal education money--No. 1, to promote 
any sexual activity--heterosexual or homosexual; No. 2, to disseminate 
obscene material to minors on school grounds; No. 3, to purchase 
condoms; or No. 4, to fund sex education programs unless they stress 
the benefits of abstinence.
  The conference report, in adopting all these prohibitions for the 
first time at the Federal level, also respects local control of 
curriculum by forbidding the U.S. Secretary of Education from directing 
or controlling local control of education.
  My personal view is that we should not have any provisions in Federal 
law dealing with school prayer or sexual activities but that was not 
the will of the House or the Senate. Therefore, in conference we 
fashioned agreements that contain restrictions on prayer and sexual 
activities, but respect local decisions.
  One last note is that at the very time we are debating H.R. 6, 
amending and extending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, a man who made a vital and important contribution to that 
legislation is being interned at Arlington Cemetery. Hartwell D. 
``Jack'' Reed retired in 1984. He had served the Committee on Education 
and Labor for 23 years.
  He made a vital and impressive contribution to all the important 
social legislation of that era. The Economic Opportunity Act, the 
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, and vocational education; 
all of these he worked on. He had a detailed knowledge of the 
substantive aspects of all of this legislation. He was an imaginative 
and extraordinarily good draftsman. His quite ``good sense'' caused 
most members of the Committee to seek his advice and counsel.
  Jack drafted many of the amendments to our committee rules that 
marked the liberalization and the democratization of the Committee 
process in the 60's and 70's.
  As his ashes are interned in Arlington, there are many of us who miss 
him. He was a professional; he contributed much to the legislative 
process.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], my leader on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding, and I 
rise in very strong support of the conference report and commend the 
chairman and ranking Republican members of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report contains a provision which I 
helped to write to compensate heavily federally-impacted school 
districts with very high tax efforts. I want to thank Representatives 
Goodling, Kildee, and Ford and their staffs for working with me on and 
adopting this provision which is so critical to the North Chicago 
Community Unit School District in my congressional district. In 
addition, I want particularly to thank Lynn Selmser and Jeff Mcfarland, 
the committee staff who worked so hard on many of the arcane provisions 
of the Impact Aid reauthorization.
  The Impact Aid Program compensates school districts for the cost of 
educating federally-connected children, many of them children of 
military personnel, whose parents live and work on Federal property and 
therefore pay no property taxes to support the local schools. I have 
three school districts in my congressional district which are impacted 
by military presence in their communities. While these communities have 
welcomed the military families which contribute greatly to the local 
culture and particularly the schools, they have rightfully asked the 
Federal Government to provide adequate support to the local schools to 
compensate for the most property tax revenues resulting from Federal 
ownership of local housing.
  As the first Federal education program enacted in the 1950's Impact 
Aid was fully funded by the Congress during the first two decades of 
its existence. However, as Congress dramatically expanded the number 
and breadth of Federal education programs in the 1960's and 1970's, 
Impact Aid begin to compete for increasingly scarce Federal dollars. 
Over the last decade, Impact Aid has increasingly been funded below the 
so-called entitlement level--the amount of revenue all schools forego 
due to Federal ownership of local housing. As result, school districts, 
like North Chicago, have increasingly been called upon to subsidize the 
education of federally-connected children. While many schools must 
provide either a relatively small subsidy or are able to compensate 
because of the large tax bases, many schools have been driven literally 
to the brink of bankruptcy.
  In particular, school districts in Highland Park and North Chicago in 
my congressional district are now providing annual multimillion dollar 
subsidies to the Federal Government through uncompensated education for 
federally-connected children. In the case of North Chicago, the school 
district, which serves over 4,000 students, recently was forced to 
petition for dissolution and nearly ceased operation in midschool year. 
At the last minute, the State legislature passed emergency legislation 
to keep the school district afloat for another year. The school's 
financial demise was due in large measure to the failure of the Federal 
Government to fully and fairly fund the Impact Aid Program over the 
last decade.
  The establishment of the new Impact Aid provision which I helped to 
write will guarantee that communities with heavily-impacted school 
districts who are making the effort to keep the schools afloat by 
taxing themselves at extraordinarily high rates will get some Federal 
relief--enough we hope to keep them in operation over the long term. I 
want to emphasize that this funding will be provided within the budget 
caps. In addition, it does not comprise a Federal hand-out to the 
school district; it is simply reducing the subsidy the school district 
provides to the Federal Government. In other words, enactment and 
appropriation of this new provision will ensure that the Federal 
Government does a better--though not complete--job of meeting its 
obligation to heavily-impacted school districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my Appropriation Chairman Neal 
Smith and Senators Harkin and Specter for agreeing to accept my 
proposal to provide $40 million in 1995 to fund the new so-called 
section (f) provision for heavily impacted schools. This funding will 
ensure that the former 3(d)2(B) schools and heavily impacted schools 
like North Chicago will be more adequately compensated for the cost of 
educating military dependents.
  In the future, I hope the Appropriations Committee will be able to 
more fully fund the Impact Aid Program thereby eliminating the need for 
section (f) funding. But in the interim, I am pleased that the Congress 
has recognized the plight of very heavily impacted schools and has 
taken corrective action.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 6.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
on H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act. Education of our 
children must be our highest priority, and this is what H.R. 6 is all 
about--providing our local schools with desperately needed Federal 
assistance to improve educational opportunities for all children.
  Twenty-nine years ago I was privileged to serve as a member of the 
Education and Labor Committee and had a part in the passage of the 
first Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, along with my 
good friend and colleague, Chair Bill Ford. The final bill before us 
today is evidence of how our commitment to education has grown over the 
years, and I am proud to have had a hand in reporting this bill once 
again.
  H.R. 6 will provide $11 billion of Federal aid to over 13,000 school 
districts around the country for programs that have stood the test of 
time, like the Chapter 1 Program for disadvantaged children, Impact 
Aid, and Bilingual Education, and new programs to meet the changing 
needs of America's schools, like educational technology, coordinated 
health and social services, and school repair and renovation funds.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting aspects of H.R. 6 is that it 
includes a comprehensive package geared towards assuring that girls and 
young women have equitable educational opportunities, known as the 
Gender Equity in Education Act.
  The Gender Equity in Education Act is a package of nine bills 
developed by the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues to address the 
educational inequities girls and women face in our education system.
  The Caucus developed this legislation in response to the increasing 
evidence that despite the fact that title 9 prohibits sex 
discrimination in our schools, many inequities in our schools continue 
to prevent girls from reaching their full academic, social, and 
economic potential.
  Studies have shown that the inequities are often not obvious or 
purposeful, but are deeply imbedded in school practices, even where 
discriminatory policies have been abolished. The results are that girls 
get less attention from their teachers; girls are not encouraged to 
take math and science courses; girls lack female role models in those 
academic areas which will lead to the high-skilled, high paying jobs; 
sexual harassment is not taken seriously and on the rise; tests 
continue to be gender-biased; and the needs of pregnant and parenting 
teens are not met.
  The Gender Equity in Education Act was developed through the Caucus 
Task Force on Economic and Educational Equity, of which I chair. We 
worked closely with the co-chairs of the Caucus, Pat Schroeder and 
Olympia Snowe and the other Caucus members. Congresswomen Jolene 
Unsoeld, Lynn Woolsey, Susan Molinari, Nita Lowey, Olympia Snowe, 
Connie Morella, Louise Slaughter, and Cardiss Collins all contributed 
to our efforts by sponsoring the bills included in the package. The 
Senate sponsors who helped guide these provisions through the Senate 
and conference committee are Senators Tom Harkin, Paul Simon, Carol 
Moseley-Braun, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein.
  Through the hard work of the Caucus and the Members of the Education 
and Labor Committee, I am proud to say that we were able to include a 
piece of every single bill within the Gender Equity in Education Act.
  The cornerstone of the gender equity provisions included in H.R. 6 is 
the reauthorization of the Women's Educational Equity Act. I authored 
the Women's Educational Equity Act [WEEA] in 1974 to assist schools in 
complying with title 9, which had been enacted in 1972. This program 
which funds research, development, and dissemination of 
curricular materials, teacher training programs, guidance and 
counseling activities, and other projects to promote educational equity 
for women and girls.

  For over a decade WEEA has been severely neglected, enduring severe 
budget cuts and proposed elimination by previous administrations. In 
1980 the program received $10 million, but by 1992 the program had been 
whittled down to just $500,000. The conference report brings the 
funding back up to $5 million, which has already been provided by the 
appropriations committee.
  In addition, the bill seeks to recapture the original intent of 
women's Educational Equity Act by retaining the current WEEA grant 
program to develop and disseminate model programs, curricula, and 
materials to advance educational equity. But more importantly, the bill 
also establishes an implementation grant program to provide funds to 
school districts, community organizations and other entities to 
implement gender equity programs within local schools systems.
  Many model equity programs have been developed over the last 15 years 
and now is the time to assist schools and school districts in actually 
integrating these programs into their educational systems.
  Reform within the educational system begins at the local level. And 
as we seek to eliminate discrimination, inequities and barriers that 
continue to prevent girls and women from achieving educational, 
economic and social parity in this society, we must assure that schools 
all across the country implement and integrate into their curriculum, 
policies, goals, programs and activities, initiatives to achieve 
educational equity for women and girls.
  Along these lines, the bill also establishes within the Department of 
Education a Special Assistant for Gender Equity to promote, coordinate 
and evaluate gender equity programs in all education programs, 
including the Women's Educational Equity Act. Currently gender equity 
programs of varying sizes exist through the Department of Education, 
however, there is no mechanism to ensure communication and evaluate 
progress among all gender equity programs.
  The Special Assistant to the Secretary for Gender Equity would help 
assure the promotion, coordination, implementation, and evaluation of 
gender equity act activities within the Department of Education and 
work with other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over Federal 
education programs.
  Other gender equity provisions have been incorporated throughout the 
programs of the bill to specially address the areas of teacher 
training, math and science, pregnant and parenting teens, sexual 
harassment and abuse, coordinated health and social services, and data 
collection.
  The bill includes provisions to promote professional development 
strategies, methods, and techniques which meet the needs of female and 
minority students in the Title I Program and the new Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program. The bill also encourages the 
recruitment of female and minority teachers in subject areas in which 
they are underrepresented, such as math and science.
  Pregnancy is the most common reason girls give for dropping out of 
school and almost half of teen mothers who drop out never complete high 
school. H.R. 6 includes dropout programs targeted to address the needs 
of pregnant and parenting teens so that they will stay in school.
  A fundamental prerequisite for an effective learning environment is 
that it be free from sexual harassment in our schools, the bill 
includes sexual harassment prevention programs in the definition of 
violence prevention programs in the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act.
  It also, allows funds under the Safe and Drug Free Schools act to be 
used for sexual harassment prevention programs and other strategies 
including conflict resolution and mentoring to prevent sexual 
harassment in schools.
  The final bill also establishes a new coordinated services program 
designed to assist schools in providing comprehensive education, health 
and social services in a school-based or school-linked setting.
  Many schoolchildren today are struggling with a host of social 
problems--including poverty, poor nutrition, drug abuse, family 
violence, and inadequate health care--that prevent them from achieving 
their full academic potential. A hungry, sick, worried child will not 
learn well; her basic needs must be met before she can turn full 
attention to schooling.
  Under this provision schools and school districts can use up to 6 
percent of their funds received under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Programs to finance the coordination of services.
  The bill also provides funds under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act 
and the Fund for the Improvement of Education [FIE] to be used for the 
development of curricula related to child abuse prevention and training 
of personnel to teach child abuse education and prevention to 
elementary and secondary school children.
  H.R. 6 also expands data collection requirements for Chapter 1 and 
all major Federal education programs in order to better assess the 
achievement and participation rates of males, females, minority and 
ethnic populations, and the disadvantaged.
  Research and data collection are vital components of any attempt to 
eliminate gender inequity in education. Unfortunately, current 
Department of Education data collection activities provide insufficient 
information on gender issues.
  And finally, the bill includes the Equity in Athletics Disclosure 
Act, which requires all institutions of Higher Education participating 
in Federal aid programs to disclose certain information on their men's 
and women's athletics teams.
  This provision was included in the Senate version by Senator Carol 
Moseley-Braun and authored in the House by Congresswoman Cardiss 
Collins. It is essential in providing information to young women about 
the strength of women's athletics at a particular institution to give 
the general public and the Department of Education a more comprehensive 
picture of whether schools are complying with title 9 in relation to 
their athletic programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Gender Equity in Education Act was the first 
comprehensive educational initiative put forth by the Congressional 
Caucus on Women's Issues. It is the culmination of over 2 years of 
work, and I am pleased that we were able to include virtually the 
entire package in this bill.
  Just as importantly, I want to mention a provision that did not make 
it into the final bill. The Educational Opportunity Demonstration 
Program, sponsored by Senator John Danforth and included in the Senate 
version was overwhelmingly rejected by the conference committee.
  This program would have allowed the Secretary of Education to waive 
title 9 of the Education Act Amendments of 1972 in 10 school districts 
in order to institute single sex classes or schools.
  This proposal would have set a dangerous precedent which would have 
allowed for the first time the waiver of a fundamental civil rights 
law. There is no doubt that it had serious legal ramifications that 
would have weakened civil rights protections and reduce educational 
equity for girls.
  Title IX was enacted in 1972 to address the long history of 
discrimination in sex segregated educational settings. History, as well 
as recent experiments in this area have proved that once you begin 
segregating students by sex, it is the girls that always lose. It was 
not too many years ago, when girls continued to be forced to take home-
making while boys took technical training classes which gave them 
skills they could easily translate into the marketplace.
  The Danforth proposal would have allowed schools to travel back down 
the path of separate but equal, which has never proved to benefit 
minorities, girls or any other group that has been historically 
discriminated against in our schools system.
  The conference committee rightfully rejected the Danforth proposal 
with Members on both sides of the aisle voting against the proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 6 is the fine product of 
many hours of hard work by Members and staff. I commend our Chair, Bill 
Ford for his hard work on this bill and many other initiatives in his 
30 years of service to this institution. It has been a real pleasure to 
serve with Bill Ford, and to call him a friend. This bill is truly an 
example of his fine leadership and his commitment to the education of 
our children.
  I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting the 
conference report on H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 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 thank the gentleman for yielding time, 
and I rise in support of the conference report and against any motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the a portion of a 
letter from the Committee on Appropriations:

       That means until H.R. 6 is signed, even though the fiscal 
     year 1995 Appropriations Act for the Department of Education 
     has been signed, the department will not be able to obligate 
     those funds for those programs until H.R. 6 becomes law.

  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. William Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to confirm your understanding 
     that funds in Titles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, and XV 
     included in the Fiscal Year 1995 appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Education are available to carry out activities 
     authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act as 
     enacted into law.
       That means until H.R. 6 is signed, even though the fiscal 
     year 1995 appropriations Act for the Department of Education 
     has been signed, the Department will not be able to obligate 
     those funds for those programs unless H.R. 6 becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                          David R. Obey, Chairman.
  Mr. KILDEE. I also submit that for the Record a letter from the 
Council for American Private Education, the Lutheran Church-Missouri 
Synod, National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, Seventh Day Adventist 
Board of Education, the U.S. Catholic Conference, opposing the motion 
to recommit and supporting passage of the bill.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Council for American 
     Private Education, I urge you to support the conference 
     report to H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and to reject any motion to 
     recommit or otherwise hold up passage of the bill. Any delay 
     toward enactment of H.R. 6 in these closing days of the 103rd 
     Congress will jeopardize continuance and funding of ESEA 
     programs affecting millions of students.
       CAPE is a Washington-based coalition of 14 national 
     elementary and secondary private school associations, which 
     are listed below. Our schools are non-profit and subscribe to 
     a policy of non-discrimination in their admissions. The CAPE 
     member organizations represent about 70 percent of the 5 
     million children enrolled and 384,000 teachers in private 
     schools. There are 30 state CAPE affiliates which extend the 
     coalition throughout the country.
       We strongly support the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act and feel its programs have been beneficial to all the 
     nation's students and teachers--in both private and public 
     schools. The fabric of American education has been 
     strengthened by this Act since its inception in 1965. A 
     driving principle for this success and effectiveness has been 
     that the law seeks to address the needs of all students, 
     regardless of what kind of school they attend.
       Therefore, we are concerned that efforts may be made to 
     recommit the bill to conference in the closing days of the 
     session. Consideration of the reauthorization has been 
     underway formally since December 1992, with extensive review, 
     deliberations, and public hearings. While CAPE could take 
     issue with certain provisions of this comprehensive bill 
     which affect our schools, we recognize the legislative 
     process requires good will, bi-partisanship, and compromise.
       CAPE urges the House to move expeditiously to consideration 
     and final passage of the conference report to H.R. 6 before 
     the end of the 103rd Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Joyce G. McCray,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. KILDEE. Also, a letter from the U.S. Catholic Conference, 
Department of Education

       When the House considers the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act conference report, we urge you to vote against 
     any attempt to recommit the bill to conference.

  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                         U.S. Catholic Conference,


                                      Department of Education,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1994.
       Dear Representative: In 1965, the Congress passed and the 
     President signed into law the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), thus making an historic 
     commitment to serve the needs of all educationally 
     disadvantaged children in our nation's schools. Since passage 
     in 1965 ESEA has provided federally financed services to all 
     students who have a right to them irrespective of the schools 
     they attend. For 29 years, Congress has not only 
     reauthorized, but has strengthened the provisions of ESEA in 
     order to ensure that the Federal government keeps faith with 
     this historic commitment to both public and nonpublic school 
     students and teachers.
       In anticipation of the current ESEA reauthorization, the 
     United States Catholic Conference (USCC) has, since 1992, 
     provided public testimony and additional written 
     documentation to both House and Senate Committees and the 
     Administration in order to present our concerns and 
     recommendations which were intended to improve those 
     provisions of ESEA which address the needs of nonpublic 
     school students and teachers.
       As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on final 
     passage of the Conference Report on H.R. 6, Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994, the USCC believes that the 
     bill addresses many of our concerns and recommendations. The 
     USCC believes that H.R. 6 provides important benefits to 
     eligible nonpublic school students and teachers, which should 
     be supported by members of the House.
       When the House considers the ESEA Conference Report, we 
     urge you to vote against any attempt to recommit the bill to 
     conference. Any delay in the enactment of ESEA will 
     jeopardize the implementation of the essential improvements 
     to American public and nonpublic education that are contained 
     in this critical legislation. The Congress has been engaged 
     in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act for two years. All issues have been fully 
     debated and considered in committee and on the floor. Any 
     effort to delay action on the measure now is an attempt to 
     prevent or delay enactment of legislation that has been 
     adopted with strong bipartisan support for three decades.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                         Sr. Lourdes Sheehan, RSM,
                                          Secretary for Education.

  Mr. CLAY. I rise in support of the H.R. 6 conference report 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  While there are many legitimate reasons for supporting this 
conference report, the most important is that further delay in 
implementing ESEA will adversely impact the children who benefit most 
from the programs funded in this bill.
  Given the problems encountered in bringing this bill to fruition, 
once again the perception given the public is that the Congress unable 
to deal with the critical and basic issues facing this Nation. We seem 
eager to respond to minutia and frivolous matters of little consequence 
to most Americans but when it comes to the welfare of our children, we 
seem to be unable to do what is necessary to ensure their future.
  The people's agenda includes economic development, crime abatement, 
education, and health reform.
  The conference committee has tried to be responsive. Those who would 
thwart such efforts appear to have a different agenda which speaks to 
special interests like baseball, Hockey, term limits, and bogus 
election year contracts.
  H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 extends through 
1999 almost all of the major Federal elementary and secondary education 
programs.
  Since it's inception in 1965, this act has provided a vital and 
crucial link in helping to provide high-quality education to 
economically disadvantaged children, particularly in the areas of 
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 when, then President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act into law, must be permitted to move 
forward.
  The Dwight D. Eisenhower professional development component of this 
bill will facilitate improvement in the professional skills of 
teachers, staff, and administrators.
  The Magnet Schools Assistance Program helps school districts fulfill 
the Federal commitment to school desegregation.
  A recent report on school desegregation, issued in December 1993 by 
Gary Orfield states: ``For the first time since the Supreme Court 
declared school segregation in the south unconstitutional in 1954, the 
public schools in that region have turned back toward greater 
segregation.'' Clearly, in reauthorizing the Magnet Schools Assistance 
Program we can demonstrate our continuing commitment to school 
desegregation in compliance with the 1954 Supreme Court decision in 
Brown versus Board of Education.

  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity-to-learn standards provisions included 
in this legislation clearly provides for content and performance 
standards as well as assessments that would be established or used for 
title I programs. 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.
  The legislation is needed in order to enrich and expand educational 
opportunity for children and youths at all levels.
  The reality is that title 1 and the other programs included in this 
legislation are crucial if we are to provide world class education for 
our children.
  Mr. Speaker, let's do the people's business and give our youth a 
fighting chance to be productive adults. I urge my colleagues to hear 
the people, to do what is right, and vote in favor of the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 6.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose the motion to recommit this 
education bill. I do so with a heavy heart because I fully support the 
right of voluntary prayer in school and supported the House position on 
this issue repeatedly. However, passage of the motion would effectively 
kill this bill and that is something I cannot support. The bill before 
us contains the most sweeping educational reforms to come before this 
Congress and it is critical that we pass it now.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, last March I voted for the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with 
confidence that the final version brought to the House would deserve my 
vote. Today the final version is before us, and while I believe that 
improvements should still be made, the bill as a whole is worthy of 
support.
  This bill will do much to help schools in my district. I will mention 
in particular the schools in Waterbury. The title I grants will improve 
the educational opportunities for the students who live in Waterbury, 
especially those from low-income neighborhoods. This bill also allows 
States to use Federal funds to develop and implement public school 
choice programs. I am hopeful that the State of Connecticut will be 
willing to take this first step toward a true program of school choice. 
I feel that competition is an important element in the struggle to 
improve the schools in our most troubled neighborhoods.
  At a time when the Clinton administration is neglecting the threat of 
drug abuse in our country, it is good to see that this bill 
reauthorizes the drug abuse resistance programs, or DARE. I have been a 
supporter of the DARE program since I entered Congress. Our Nation's 
children need encouragement to resist the temptations of street drugs. 
Considering the cost of drug use to society and taxpayers, the Federal 
Government should be doing even more to give children the confidence to 
stay off of drugs.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 6, the Improving America's Schools Act. The 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] is 
a critical component of quality education for millions of students. 
This reauthorization will renew and improve major education programs, 
such as chapter I, bilingual education, and safe and drug-free schools. 
In my district of San Francisco, ESEA provides much-needed educational 
funding for services essential to the success of the city's neediest 
and disadvantaged students.
  Any delay in passage of this legislation will threaten the funding of 
these ESEA programs, thereby jeopardizing students' access to enormous 
educational opportunities. We need to guarantee quality and 
comprehensive education programs that meet the needs of our growing and 
diverse population of students. We as a nation simply cannot afford to 
deny our children the resources that will help them face the challenges 
of the future.
  I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment to the quality 
and equality of education--vote for the passage of the conference 
report on H.R. 6. I also wish to commend the chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Ford, and the members for their excellent work in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 6, improving America's Schools Act of 1994. This vital 
legislation reauthorizes many of the Federal Government's programs 
providing assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
and includes other initiatives to improve our Nation's educational 
system, certainly an endeavor all of us should advocate.
  Our children will have the responsibility for the future of our 
Nation. It is our responsibility, however, to ensure that they are 
prepared for that obligation, that trust, and a sound education is an 
essential part of the growth process.
  Included in the conference report on H.R. 6 is the Multiethnic 
Placement Act of 1994. I was pleased to introduce this legislation in 
the House of Representatives and am also pleased to support the amended 
version embodied in this bill.
  Minority children wait longer for adoption, are less likely to be 
placed and are disproportionately represented among children waiting to 
be adopted. Both informal and, in some States, formal policies provide 
barriers to transracial adoptions, thereby keeping minority children 
apart from permanent, stable homes. This must not continue.
  I am deeply committed to reducing the length of time children remain 
in foster care, eliminating barriers to adoption and ending 
discrimination in adoption placements. All children need loving homes 
and a sense of permanence and the race or ethnic background of a child 
ought not determine whether the child remains in the limbo of foster 
care or joins a new family. I believe the multiethnic Placement Act 
will go a long way in achieving those goals. This important legislation 
should be approved today.
  Many organizations have written in support of the Multiethnic 
Placement Act, particularly the revised language included in H.R. 6. 
They include the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's 
Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, the North American 
Council on Adoptable Children, and Adoptive Families of America, Inc.
  In a letter of support, Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services, Donna Shalala, stated that the administration 
``strongly supports the goal of this bill, namely the elimination of 
racial and ethnic discrimination in the making of foster and adoptive 
home placement.'' Furthermore, the administration strongly supports the 
amended language included in this conference report.
  I am also greatly pleased that the conference report on H.R. 6 
includes provisions which give greater attention to parental 
involvement in the education of their children. Valuable programs, like 
Missouri-based Parents as Teachers, help prepare parents and make sure 
that children enter school ready to learn. In my own State of Missouri 
we have seen the Parents as Teachers program work. Parents become more 
actively involved in their children's education and more confident and 
effective in their role as parents and as teachers. Children are better 
prepared for school and have a much improved education experience.
  Our children deserve the best we can give them. That includes loving, 
stable homes, good health, and an excellent education. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for H.R. 6, for the education programs and for the 
Multiethnic Placement Act.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow members to 
support H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act. Few Federal priorities 
can be as important as education. As a former teacher, school 
administrator, and the mother of two school-age daughters, I am 
particularly proud to participate in today's debate to reauthorize for 
5 years most of the Federal assistance for elementary and secondary 
education programs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Ford for all of his diligent work on 
this important legislation, so crucial to America's children. I would 
also like to mention the efforts of two of my fellow New Yorkers, Eliot 
Engel and Major Owens, and to thank them for protecting the interests 
of our city and State.
  Of all of this legislation's many important programs, it is perhaps 
the title I Compensatory Education Program which provides the most 
direct and dramatic assistance to schoolchildren in New York and 
throughout the country. This important program provides economically 
and educationally disadvantaged children the concentrated extra help 
they need.
  H.R. 6 authorizes $8 billion in title I funding for fiscal year 1995 
and such sums as may be necessary for the remaining 4 years. In New 
York City over half of our schools receive title I funding--666 schools 
out of a total of 1,105, with an estimated 237,000 students receiving 
benefits. As impressive as that may seem, that number is unfortunately 
only a little over half of those eligible.
  This is the main reason why I supported President Clinton's original 
formula, which would have targeted more of the available resources 
toward the Nation's poorest schools. In New York City, a school must 
have 62 percent of its students in poverty to receive title I funds, in 
contrast to the national average of only 25 percent. Although the 
President's formula was not adopted, I do believe that the final 
formula represents a step in the right direction. The three New York 
boroughs that I represent--Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens--will 
receive an additional $22.6 million in fiscal year 1996 as a result of 
the new formula for a total of over $313 million.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other important features of this legislation. 
For instance title IV authorizes $655 million in fiscal year 1995 for 
drug and violence prevention programs in an effort to ensure the safe 
environment so crucial to the academic environment. Title V funds 
magnet schools, which have a magnificent track record in my district 
for promoting innovative educational programs and cultural diversity. 
Title II includes the Eisenhower Professional Development Program to 
sustain and intensify teacher training opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this huge investment in our 
children's future. It's a good bill for New York and for our Nation. 
Let's not play politics with our children--let's pass this bill now.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, today we are being asked to recommit the 
elementary and secondary education conference report due to its 
language regarding school prayer, which is not the language so many of 
us in the House supported.
  I have consistently advocated a moment of silence in schools. But 
while I support my colleagues who are fighting for the House language, 
I cannot dismiss a bill that many have worked so hard to pass and that 
will provide much needed funding to our States' education programs.
  The elementary and secondary education bill does not, in any way, 
jeopardize the use of prayer in schools. The Senate language, which was 
included in the conference report, will withhold Federal funds from any 
school district that violates a court order to allow constitutionally 
protected voluntary prayer in school. This measure will go a long way 
to protect school prayer, as ESEA will go a long way to improve 
America's schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that my colleagues join me in 
voting ``no'' on the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
6. It is my hope this body will join together in support of the 
elementary and secondary education bill.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
motion to be offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] to 
recommit the conference report to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act offered by my colleague from Texas. Frankly, I 
find it unbelievable that we are here today debating this motion to 
recommit because last week the House easily passed the motion to 
instruct conferees to accept the House-passed language to H.R. 6 
regarding school prayer offered by Mr. Gunderson. The House sent a 
strong message to members of the conference committee to accept the 
House-passed language. We have sent this same message to the other body 
on numerous occasions.
  While there are provisions in this bill I strongly support, I must 
object to the conference committee's blatant rejection of the strong 
message sent by the House on the issue of school prayer. As passed by 
the House on March 24 by a convincing vote of 289-128, H.R. 6 included 
language denying funds to any State or local educational agency which 
has a policy of denying or preventing participation in constitutionally 
protected school prayer. The bill also stipulated that the Federal 
Government cannot require any person to participate in school prayer.
  The Senate language would make schools judged by a Federal court to 
have willfully violated a Federal court order mandating that they 
correct violations of constutionally protected school prayer, 
ineligible for funds until they comply with the court order. The bill 
also states that funds are not reimbursable for the period during which 
schools were in willful noncompliance. This language is not acceptable.
  The House language does not mandate school prayer or require schools 
to write any particular prayer. Under this language, a school is not 
required to do anything in favor of voluntary prayer. It simply must 
refrain from instituting policies prohibiting voluntary student prayer.
  One of the many liberties our forefathers founded this great Nation 
upon was freedom of religion; a freedom to pray to the god we want, 
when we want, and where we want. Unfortunately, this freedom has been 
eroded by the Supreme Court over the last few decades. I firmly believe 
that no one should be forced to pray, especially if a certain prayer is 
contrary to an individual's beliefs. But, there can be no question that 
every American citizen has the right to pray voluntarily whenever and 
wherever he or she chooses, and that includes children in public 
schools. This is protected under the first amendment; ``Congress shall 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof.'' It is that second part that I ask you to pay 
special attention to today.
  As President Reagan so eloquently stated in 1982, ``the first 
amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of 
this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious 
values from Government tyranny.''
  This language has overwhelmingly passed the House on several 
occasions and based on that fact, the motion to recommit should also 
pass overwhelmingly. I urge an affirmative vote on the Johnson motion 
to recommit H.R. 6 to support the House-passed language.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains 
an unfortunate provision that could seriously inhibit the placement of 
minority race children in adoptive homes.
  According to the National Council for Adoption, there are currently 
about 200,000 children available for adoption. Black children make up 
about 40 percent of this pool and that percentage could increase if 
this legislation is enacted in its current form.
  The Multiethnic Placement Act was originally introduced to mitigate 
practices which often prevent minority children from being placed in 
adoptive homes for many years. Too often, social workers decline to 
place children for adoption along racial or ethnic lines in order to 
preserve the children's ``cultural identity.'' This causes children to 
linger in foster care for years and years, often going from one home to 
another. The sad result is that these children fail to form a family 
identity and a sense of security that comes from having loving parents 
and a stable home environment.
  At the insistence of the Clinton administration, language was added 
to this bill which requires ``diligent recruitment'' of race-matched 
families. Bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services 
[HHS] will have the authority to micromanage adoption placement 
practices in all 50 States. A legislative remedy that had the support 
of the National Council for Adoption, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition 
and the Children's Defense Fund has been turned virtually inside out in 
this legislation. The effect of codifying and expanding an ill-advised 
practice will likely be that fewer black children will be placed for 
adoption, and those that are will not be placed until they are older 
and more insecure after years of lingering in orphanages or foster 
homes.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Multiethnic Placement Act allow 
agencies to ``* * * consider the race, color or national origin of a 
child as a factor * * *'' However, that carefully considered 
legislation does not allow social workers to endlessly delay the 
placement of a child who desperately needs a stable home and loving 
parents. I urge Members to vote to recommit this conference report and 
address adoption policies in a manner that puts the well-being of our 
Nation's children first.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the 
Improving America's Schools Act. I supported the House-version of H.R. 
6, but am unable to vote for the conference report.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act currently consists of 46 
programs. When President Clinton submitted his recommendations for this 
reauthorization, he suggested that we eliminate unnecessary programs 
and consolidate others so that the bulk of Federal education dollars 
could be focused in the programs with broad support and proven records 
of effectiveness. While I did not agree with all of the President's 
recommendations, I did support the concept of consolidation and 
streamlining. Regrettably, this conference report takes a step in the 
opposite direction. Rather than eliminating and consolidating programs, 
this bill eliminates few programs and creates many new ones. The 
conference report includes 15 more programs than the House-passed 
version, 63 programs in all, and more than double the number of 
programs that the President recommended.
  I am also concerned about the possible effects of changes in the 
title I formula on schools in my congressional district. The House is 
considering this legislation without providing Members of Congress the 
requisite 3 days for reviewing the legislation which is over 1,200 
pages long. No Member of Congress has read the entire bill, and no one 
really knows what the effect of the formula will be.
  In addition, I am opposed to the version of the Multiethnic Placement 
Act which has been included in the conference report. Denying adoption 
of black children by white families effectively sentences these 
children to unnecessary years of going from one home to another without 
having a chance to emotionally bond with permanent adoptive parents. 
This is tragic and avoidable. Senator Howard Metzenbaum's original 
legislation would correct this situation by denying any Federal foster 
care and adoption assistance money to adoption agencies which deny or 
delay the placement of a child based solely on the race, color, or 
national origin of the adoptive parents.
  Under the original Metzenbaum proposal, social workers could select 
parents of the same race over equally qualified candidates of another 
race if they believed doing so was in the best interest of the child. 
The legislation made clear, however, that delaying or denying the 
adoption of a child by qualified adoptive parents of any color is not 
in the child's best interest and is prohibited.
  As a House conferee on this provision, I worked with the National 
Council For Adoption and other Members of Congress to eliminate the 
roadblocks to transracial adoption. Regrettably, the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services [HHS], which runs Federal adoption programs, 
has insisted on major changes which will have the effect of permitting 
agencies to discriminate on the basis of race. Among the changes sought 
by HHS are the exapnsion of a ``permissible consideration'' provision 
which would allow an agency to consider ``the cultural, ethnic, or 
racial background of the chi8ld and the capacity of the prospective 
foster or adoptive parents to meet those needs as one of a number of 
factors used to determine the best interests of a child.'' In addition, 
HHS recommended changing the enforcement mechanism from mandatory to 
discretionary enforcement. Unfortunately, the majority party of 
Congress agreed to acquiesce to the HHS recommendations, and the 
conference report would reaffirm that racially coordinated adoptions 
are strongly preferred, and that delays and denials for this purpose 
will be permissible.
  Mr. Speaker, supporters of H.R. 6 have argued that Federal education 
funding will not be given to the schools this year if we do not pass 
this legislation. This simply is not so. The House and Senate have 
already approved H.R. 4606, with my support, which provides funding of 
Federal education programs for the next year. If we do not pass H.R. 6, 
funds will be allocated according to existing law.
  In the 104th Congress, I believe that Congress can come up with a 
better product than H.R. 6, and urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
conference report.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 6 and against the motion to recommit. We have heard a 
lot about the formula for the chapter 1 program. We have heard a lot 
about the issue of school prayer. What we have not heard about is the 
kids that these Federal funds will help.
  The bill contains provisions to help keep pregnant and parenting 
teenagers in school and off the welfare rolls. The bill also contains 
provisions to make it easier for homeless children to attend school. 
And the bill contains a wonderful program to help Head Start and Even 
Start kids make the transitions from preschool to the elementary school 
setting so that they can successfully stay in school. Without these 
programs, these are children and youth who will fall through the cracks 
of our society.
  Finally, this bill emphasizes the importance of local control over 
education decisions by minimizing the Federal role in curriculum 
decisions. In the conference committee, we fought long and hard to keep 
decisions where they belong--at the local level.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere 
appreciation and gratitude to Chairman Ford and Kildee, and ranking 
member Bill Goodling for their tremendous efforts on behalf of the 
Winona R-III School District in Missouri.
  Since 1986, I have been working with school officials from Winona, 
Senators Danforth and Bond, the Department of Education and members of 
the House Committee on Education and Labor on this issue.
  Briefly, Winona R-III is a small school district in rural, low-income 
Winona, MI, which has been saddled with a problem since 1986. The 
district is heavily impacted by Federal land--approximately 47 percent, 
and 26 percent is further owned by the State of Missouri. Winona is not 
financially well-off. State income tax returns for 1989 showed the 
average income in the Winona School District was significantly lower 
that the statewide average. It is clear that in Winona, meeting even 
the most basic educational expenses is a formidable task.
  In 1985, the Winona High School was housed in a 68-year-old building 
which had been declared by the State to be a threat to public health 
and safety. Winona applied to the U.S. Department of Education for 
impact aid construction funding in 1985. In 1987, after Federal 
officials visited the district and realized the urgency of the 
situation, the school received a No. 1 priority for construction 
funding.
  Yet there was a problem. At the time of the school's application for 
Federal funding in 1985, the assessed valuation of the school district 
was $2,470,000. State land was reassessed later that year, and the 
assessed valuation more than doubled to $5,980,000. Prior to 
reassessment, the property levy was $4.00 per $100 in assessed 
valuation. However, the State realized that a substantial change in the 
paper value of the land will not substantially change the ability of 
the residents to pay for that levy. Thus, the State of Missouri enacted 
a law requiring a rollback of the property levy, so that the paper 
change in assessed valuation would not result in any additional taxes. 
After reassessment there was a levy ceiling of $2.09 per $100 in 
assessed valuation, and the tax burden remained the same.
  As far as Winona's school construction application was concerned, 
however, the statewide reassessment caused the effective tax burden to 
more than double. This is because the impact aid school construction 
law requires each applicant school district to demonstrate a 
substantial local effort toward the building of the school. The 
Department of Education considers a reasonable tax effort to be 10 
percent of the district's assessed valuation. When Winona applied for 
the school construction funds, it fully expected to contribute this 
reasonable tax effort--or roughly $247,000--of its own funding toward 
the construction project. After Missouri's reassessment, however, the 
Department of Education stated that it would require Winona to pay 
$598,000 up front before it would agree to fund Winona's new school.

  At this point, Winona was faced with a decision. If the school 
district could not come up with the $598,000, it would be forced to 
forfeit the Federal school construction funding. Winona opted to go 
forward and was able to borrow the $598,000 at interest rates much 
higher than prudence would allow, prudence, however, was understandably 
sacrificed to desperation. Winona contributed this $598,000, satisfied 
its local effort requirement and the school was built and is currently 
operational.
  Now, Winona is saddled with a $598,000 private debt. It has no more 
ability to pay the debt now than it did in 1987, when it was forced to 
come up with the money. The people are no wealthier, and the federally 
and State owned property still fails to produce tax revenue. To 
complicate matters further, Missouri State law forbids any local school 
district from finishing the school year in deficit. Thus, when Winona 
cannot afford to both buy textbooks and service its debt, State law 
requires that the district service its debt. As one can well imagine, 
this mandated decision contributes little to the education of the 
children in Winona.
  Today, I am pleased to report that the conference report for H.R. 6 
contains a legislative remedy for Winona, similar to the bill I have 
introduced for years. It is very simple, and it consists of a grand 
total of 10 lines. As a result of the passage of this bill, Winona will 
still be required to contribute a fair and reasonable local effort--
$200,000--toward the school construction. However, the school district 
will be relieved of the excess $398,000 that the Department of 
Education previously required of it.
  I am pleased that the Congress has recognized the hardship faced by 
Winona and has taken this corrective action. Again, I want to thank 
everyone involved in this effort. I also want to commend the persistent 
efforts of Winona's superintendent, Michael Greene. Michael has been 
dogged in his pursuit to resolve this matter. Now Mr. Greene will be 
able to turn his attention where it should have been all along--to the 
children of Winona.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). All time has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


         motion to recommit offered by mr. sam johnson of texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill H.R. 6 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     disagree to section 14510 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, relating to school prayer, as proposed 
     to be added by title I of the conference substitute 
     recommended by the committee of conference and insist on 
     section 9513 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, relating to protected prayer, as proposed to be added 
     by title I of the House bill.

  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. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground 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.
  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 passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 215, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               YEAS--184

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--215

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     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
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Fields (LA)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Hayes
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mineta
     Quillen
     Ravenel
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Spratt
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1413

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Berman against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Mineta against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Wheat against.

  Mr. HORN and Mr. SISISKY 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. (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The question is 
on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 132, not voting 41, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--262

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

                               NOES--132

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--41

     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Baker (LA)
     Berman
     Brooks
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Fields (LA)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Hayes
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Lantos
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mineta
     Quillen
     Ravenel
     Roukema
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1426

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
       Mr. Mineta for, with Mr. Solomon against.
       Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Grams against.
       Mr. Wheat for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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.

                          ____________________