[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6849-H6890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2264.

                              {time}  1719


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2264) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
31, 1997, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his work and to the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] who has, with great skill and effort, provided strong 
support in making this a bipartisan bill. As a result of their efforts, 
as well as that of many Members, we have resolved many contentious 
issues such as ergonomics regulations issued by OSHA, methylene 
chloride regulations and a new Hyde amendment. These initiatives and 
agreements are the work of many Members of the subcommittee who labored 
very hard to achieve the compromises reflected in this bill and 
preserve the broad support for it.
  I particularly want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for 
their tireless efforts in achieving a compromise on revisions to the 
Hyde language in the bill.
  The bill I bring to the floor, Mr. Chairman, is the result of a 
lengthy process of consideration by the subcommittee. We held 31 days 
of hearings spanning some 14 weeks. In addition to our normal practice 
of carefully reviewing estimates with the administration, we had 214 
public witnesses and 67 Members testify before the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot govern this country by simple agreement 
between the congressional leadership and the President. While their 
suggestions and recommendations are very helpful, these suggestions are 
no substitute for the legislative process that has served this country 
well for 200 years. As a result, this bill reflects congressional 
priorities while at the same time reflecting many of the President's 
concerns and initiatives.
  NIH is provided, Mr. Chairman, for example, with a 6 percent 
increase. The increased funds are being spent on areas of particular 
national concern including cancer, diabetes and heart disease. However, 
all Institutes receive an increase over the President's request. The 
President's request was for only 1.2 percent; we have provided a 6 
percent increase.
  The Centers for Disease Control is provided an $87 million increase 
as compared with the President's proposal in the budget agreement to 
cut CDC by $19 million. Increases in the bill include preventive 
health, chronic and environmental disease prevention and infectious 
disease surveillance.
  The Community Health Center program is increased by $25 million, and 
for health professions we rejected the President's proposed cuts and 
added $13 million over the last year. Ryan White AIDS treatment is 
increased by $172 million over last year and $132 million over the 
President's requested level.
  In education, the bill provides funding very close to the President's 
request, but again reflects congressional priorities. The Chapter VI 
program, the former education block grant which provides broad 
discretion to local officials to meet local needs, is increased by $40 
million to $350 million. The President proposed to terminate it.
  IDEA State grant funding, that is, funding for special education, is 
increased by $305 million over last year. In fiscal 1997, Members will 
recall, we increased funding by $790 million, making for a total 
increase of over $1.1 billion in the last 2 years and taking some of 
the pressure off local school taxes.
  College work-study is increased by $30 million. We have also funded a 
``whole school reform'' effort which I believe the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will discuss in his remarks.
  We have also tried to reflect the President's priorities in the bill. 
Head Start, education technology, job training and the Job Corps are 
all fully funded.
  The maximum Pell grant is set at $3000.
  Funds are set aside for the President's Opportunity Areas for Youth, 
Literacy and the expansion of Pell grant eligibility, all pending 
separate authorizations.
  I would note that with all the rhetoric coming from the 
administration on the Results act and performance-based management, not 
one of these new initiatives was based on improvements and outcomes and 
not one has included the measures by which we will measure these new 
programs.
  The bill also continues efforts at reform. Funding for block and 
State grant programs are increased by $500 million over the President's 
requested levels. These programs represent a Republican approach giving 
greater local control and fewer Washington strings. Conversely, while 
not all I would want, the bill terminates 25 programs with 1997 funding 
totaling $250 million.
  Programs that cannot justify funding levels on the basis of 
effectiveness are frozen or cut in the bill. Goals 2000 State grants 
are cut by $18 million below last year and $145 million below the 
President's request. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Eisenhower 
Professional Development are both frozen at last year's level.
  Mr. Chairman, as Members well know, the legislative riders present 
the committee with some of the most difficult issues that we face. They 
have made passing bills very difficult and have often served to 
complicate negotiations with the Senate and with the administration. 
They make broad, consensus-based bills like the one we bring to Members 
today virtually impossible. As chairman, I worked very hard in 
conjunction with the gentleman from

[[Page H6850]]

Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
as well as other Members, to resolve these many difficult issues.
  We have included most of the legislative provisions that were in last 
year's bill, including a prohibition on human embryo research, and the 
prohibition on the issuance by the NLRB of regulations relating to 
single-site bargaining.
  As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the bill also contains 
compromise language on ergonomic standards and finally we have reached 
an agreement on the Hyde language assuring that Federal payments to 
enroll recipients in managed care plans cannot be used to pay for 
abortions, except for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of 
the mother.
  In this regard, I particularly want to express my opposition to the 
Istook amendment on family planning. I am a strong supporter of 
voluntary family planning. I believe that this amendment, though 
different in its drafting from versions offered in the full committee 
and last year during consideration of the bill, would have the same 
impact. It would undermine voluntary family planning completely.
  In deterring teens from seeking family planning services, this 
amendment actually will cause unwanted pregnancies and, unfortunately, 
abortions. It will discourage these young women from seeking treatment 
for sexually transmitted diseases.
  There are many other problems with this amendment which I will 
discuss when it is offered. I would only note that this provision is, 
at its root, an issue for consideration by the authorizing committee 
and should be considered there. More importantly, it will disrupt the 
potential for the kind of broad support that will allow this bill to 
pass, go to conference and give us the ability for the first time to 
negotiate with the President from a position of strength.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill represents an example of 
bipartisanship working to find the common ground that we need to govern 
this country. I commend it to the Members. I think that it is in very 
good shape and we have worked very closely together and I believe that 
it is a bill that should be adopted by the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in politics and in governance, there is a time to 
define differences and there is a time to reconcile those differences. 
Over the last 2 years, on this bill perhaps more than any other, we 
have certainly defined our differences. They have been defined to a 
fare-thee-well, and these bills have been centrally involved in two 
government shutdowns, protracted debate between the two parties, 
between the White House and the Congress, and between the two Houses of 
the Congress.
  This year this bill is in quite different shape. It is here because 
Members in both parties have tried to listen to each other and tried to 
swallow some things that we differ on in the interest of reaching an 
ability to reconcile some of the deep differences that we have.
  I hope that we can stand here unified on both sides of the aisle and 
support the package as it is presented from the committee. It is far 
from perfect and it certainly is very different in some ways from what 
I would like to see. But in contrast to past years, this is, I think, a 
reasonable effort at compromise, and I look forward to supporting it, 
if this bill stays together.
  This bill provides a total of $80 billion for the Labor-HHS-Education 
agencies. The bill is one-tenth of 1 percent below the Clinton request 
for this bill. It provides 99 percent of the President's education and 
training budget request, which is $257 million more in funding than 
would have been possible if the committee had stuck with the 602(b) 
allocation for the subcommittee which was sent up by OMB in the first 
place.

                              {time}  1730

  This bill is just .2 percent below the total requested for priority 
programs. Within that overall total, we have, as is the Congress's 
prerogative, rearranged some of the spending priorities. Funding for 
the Department of Education is $29.3 billion, $2.8 billion more than in 
1997. With the advance funding for the reading initiative, the total 
amount provided is $31.56 billion, or .2 percent over the budget 
request. The bill fully funds the America Reads Initiative by providing 
$260 million in advance funding. It provides $800 million in additional 
funding for existing literacy programs consistent with the America 
Reads Initiative, including title I, which is increased $150 million 
over the request, Head Start, which is funded at the budget request and 
afterschool learning centers, which are funded at the budget request.
  The bill rejects some reductions suggested by the administration, 
including a $122 million suggested cut in community services programs. 
It provides an increase for CDC, Centers for Disease Control, of $83 
million compared to the President's request to essentially freeze that 
budget. It fully funds the Job Corps. It does a lot of good things. It 
also falls far short of a lot of the country's needs because of our 
lack of resources.
  But I would like to talk for a moment about a new initiative which 
this committee has included in this bill. Additional resources alone 
are not enough to improve the quality of education in this country. I 
think we also have reached a bipartisan conclusion that we simply have 
to have basic reforms in the way schools are administered, the way they 
are organized, the way they are motivated, the way teachers are taught, 
the way kids are taught, and the way parents and communities are 
involved in the support of education. That is why I am pleased that the 
committee is bringing to the floor a new $205 million initiative which 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I have recommended to the 
committee, which includes $150 million in additional funding for title 
I and $50 million under the fund for the improvement of education, in 
order to provide the ability for local schools to apply for start-up 
grants so that they can participate in the school reform movement 
sweeping the country.
  For the last 20 years, we have focused our efforts to improve 
education on attempts to improve the performance of individual 
children, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also a 
considerable body of opinion which tells us that it is not enough to 
focus simply on one classroom, or one child at a time unless you have a 
total atmosphere of reform present on a school-by-school basis. And so 
we are bringing this reform package to the Congress.
  In contrast to many other initiatives in many past Congresses, this 
is about the only initiative I can think of in the past 15 years which 
has united virtually every single group in the education community, 
that has united teachers unions with school boards. It has also brought 
into the coalition the chief State school officers of the 50 States, 
the title I administrators from around the country, the National 
Parent-Teachers Association and many other groups in support of this 
initiative.
  This initiative has in large part been driven by the New American 
Schools movement, which originally had its genesis in an effort put 
together by a group of nationally known American businessmen headed by 
David Kearns who used to run Xerox Corporation. They basically looked 
at the problems that we were facing in public education. They 
commissioned the Rand Corporation to study the research to determine 
what worked and what did not work in the area of school reform, and 
they have helped around the country to achieve a situation in which 
some 700 schools have been able to use one model or another to try to 
improve school performance.
  But 1 percent school involvement is not enough, in our view, and this 
should help some 4,000 schools get into the act of rethinking from the 
bottom up how those schools are organized, how they are administered 
and how children are taught within those schools. It is, I think, an 
exciting initiative not just because of the promise that it holds for 
progress in academic performance, it is also an exciting initiative 
because we have bipartisan support for something that can truly move 
the reform effort forward on the basis not of political ideology but on 
the basis of what works.
  I would like to say one other thing. I know that there are a number 
of individuals in the caucus of the majority

[[Page H6851]]

party who are concerned about this bill and would like to see it shaped 
far more in their image. Let me simply say to those folks, there are a 
good many people on this side of the aisle who feel the same way coming 
from the opposite direction. There are many provisions in this bill 
that I would prefer not be here. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla], for instance, pushed incredibly hard for a provision on 
ergonomics with which I strongly disagree and most of us on our side of 
the aisle did, but in the interest of accommodation and trying to build 
bipartisan consensus, we worked out our differences and the gentleman 
from Texas has been able to deliver what he considers progress in that 
area.
  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] was able to persuade the 
committee to adopt a proposal, about which I frankly have great 
misgivings, with respect to methyl chloride. The gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] was able to convince the committee to include a 
provision on the NLRB with which I basically disagree, as do most 
members of our subcommittee on this side of the aisle, and other 
members of the subcommittee. And the majority caucus were also able to 
include provisions that we frankly do not agree with, but as Will 
Rogers said a long time ago, ``When two people agree on everything, one 
of them is unnecessary.''
  The fact is, in a body of 435 people, if we are going to produce a 
product which can reach consensus in that body and also receive the 
support of the President of the United States, we have to have 
compromises. We have them.
  I would simply say to people on both sides of the aisle, we can, if 
you want, go down last year's road of having division after division 
after division demonstrated on this floor, or, having already 
demonstrated the great difference of opinion that we have on a number 
of these issues, we can try to reach for consensus and produce a bill 
which we know will be signed by the President and a bill which we know 
can pass by the fiscal year's end so that we do not have to run the 
risk of again shutting down government.
  I would urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that in 
the end this institution will be served best if people recognize that 
we have fought out these differences fiercely in the committee and 
support the effort that the committee has produced. People are free 
obviously to offer any amendments that they want, but I do not believe 
that the interest of either party or this institution will be served by 
offering amendments for consideration that we know will simply blow up 
the bill. We have had too much of that the past years and I hope that 
we have reached the time when we will choose to resolve differences, 
move forward to new issues and hopefully also in the process produce 
something that is useful and good for the workers, for the children and 
for the ill of our society who are served by this legislation.

    Additional Views Submitted by the Honorable David Obey and the 
                         Honorable John Porter


                  the road to better american schools

       No topic has more consistently been the focus of public 
     debate over the last two decades than the reform of our 
     educational system. Parents know that the competition for 
     jobs and pay which their children will face will be quite 
     different from what they themselves faced only a few years 
     ago. How they fare will be determined not just by how their 
     skills stack up against other workers in their own community 
     but how those skills compare with those of workers around the 
     globe. The relationship between living standards and work 
     skills will become increasingly direct.
       As a result, school improvement has been a central agenda 
     item at local school board meetings across the country. It 
     absorbs much of the deliberative time of each state 
     legislature. It is a frequent topic of debate here in 
     Congress and it is a matter of great concern to not only 
     parents and students but corporate leaders and tax payers as 
     well.
       Yet the road to school reform has proven elusive. Teachers 
     in many schools complain with apparent justification that 
     students are spending so much time taking newly mandated 
     standardized tests that it has significantly cut back the 
     time available for instruction. In some classrooms, computers 
     purchased with the promise of revolutionizing instruction sit 
     idle day after day serving only as icons of the difficulty of 
     changing the fundamental problems which face our schools. 
     Some thoughtful school board members have reluctantly 
     concluded that the only two things that will really bring 
     positive change to our schools is an infusion of more 
     talented teachers and an infusion of more disciplined and 
     motivated students--two things that they ultimately feel 
     powerless to change.
       But in the midst of this debate and the many failed efforts 
     to revolutionize public instruction a promising set of ideas 
     about school organization has taken hold and begun to produce 
     extremely promising results. There is no single father to 
     these new ideas. In fact, they include more than a half a 
     dozen detailed models developed separately by educators at 
     universities in different parts of the country. Each of these 
     models for reforming schools has it own special set of 
     characteristics, but all of the models would significantly 
     change the way that the overwhelming majority of American 
     schools now operate. Strikingly, all of these models have a 
     great deal in common with one another.
       Among those who have brought forth proposals for change are 
     James Comer at Yale, Henry Levin at Stanford, Ted Sizer at 
     Brown and Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins. Each has his own 
     special area of emphasis. The Comer School Development 
     Program for instance focuses on the organization of school 
     decision making. Levin's Accelerated Schools puts forth a 
     curriculum proposal for challenging students identified 
     for remediation. Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools 
     focuses on the ``triangle of learning,'' the relationship 
     between students, teachers and curriculum. Slavin's 
     Success for All and Roots and Wings call for reallocating 
     resources into the most essential elements for school 
     success, curriculum, instruction and family support.
       While the area of emphasis differs from one model to the 
     next, all of these models are based on the concept that 
     effective reform is a school wide proposition. In other 
     words, you can't make sufficient progress by working on one 
     classroom or one teacher or the curriculum for one subject 
     area at a time, the whole school has to be the target for 
     change. All share the concept that parents have to be 
     centrally engaged at every step of the decision making and 
     evaluation process. All concur that a great deal of autonomy 
     is needed for individual schools and that the current top 
     down authority structure existing within most schools has got 
     to go. Each of these concepts requires principals to 
     significantly redefine their roles. They must become 
     consensus builders rather than autocratic directors. They 
     must learn to bring teachers and parents into the decision 
     making process and create a community wide commitment to the 
     behavioral and academic standards of the school.
       All argue that the school boards, superintendents and other 
     administrators in the school system have to be aware of the 
     need for these changes and actively support schools 
     attempting change. All are supported by an outside set of 
     experts who are available to advise and help the schools, 
     teachers and principals to successfully retool their school. 
     Finally, each of these concepts is far more than an academic 
     treatise on what people living in the real world should be 
     doing. Each of these models has been developed into real 
     functioning programs being used in a cross section of 
     communities with very specific and detailed guidelines for 
     approaching the real life--every day problems of teaching and 
     learning.
       Over the last three decades the principle tool for raising 
     educational performance nationwide has been the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and specifically Title I 
     of that Act. Through Title I, the federal government has 
     focused substantial additional resources on underachieving 
     children in lower income schools. What we have learned from 
     these new ``whole school'' models is that the improvements in 
     academic performance of Title I children can be more broadly 
     based and more long lasting if the focus on individual 
     children takes place in an environment in which parents and 
     teachers are working together for goals they both agree with 
     and played a role in developing.
       The most remarkable fact about these models is the extent 
     to which they have succeeded in improving school and student 
     performance without becoming better known to the public or 
     even to many in the education community. Among the 
     organizations that have recognized the potential such models 
     hold for improving the effectiveness of American schools are 
     the Annenberg Foundation, the Edison Project and New 
     American Schools. New American Schools was created by 
     business leaders from a number of the nation's largest 
     corporations and began working with local school districts 
     in 1992 to help certain selected schools adapt to one or 
     another of seven selected school reform models--each 
     representing a different version of ``whole school'' 
     reform. More than 500 schools in 25 states have 
     participated for much of that period and another 200 
     schools have been added recently. While that is a tiny 
     fraction of the more than 100,000 elementary and secondary 
     schools across the country, it is providing a solid 
     information base for examining the potential of these 
     reforms. The Rand Corporation has been hired to evaluate 
     this information. While understanding the long term impact 
     of alternate education approaches on student achievement 
     necessarily takes many years, the early results from these 
     experiments have in many instances been dramatic.
       A number of schools in Prince George's County, Maryland 
     using the ATLAS model (a variation on the Comer School 
     Development Program) raised their reading scores by 30% on 
     the Maryland Performance Assessment Program. The proportion 
     of students scoring satisfactory or excellent on the exam 
     tripled

[[Page H6852]]

     within a three year period beginning in 1992. Most schools 
     experienced a dramatic decline in discipline problems and a 
     dramatic increase in levels of school attendance.
       The John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Louisville, 
     Kentucky increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide 
     assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math using the 
     National Alliance reform model. In three years, the school 
     rose from among the lowest-scoring schools in the state to 
     the top 10%.
       The Success for All model developed at Johns Hopkins 
     University appears to have been particularly successful in 
     boosting achievement among language minority students. In six 
     schools located in Baltimore and Philadelphia, first grade 
     students were three months ahead of their counterparts in 
     other elementary schools by the end of their first year. By 
     the end of second grade they were almost a year ahead of 
     their counterparts.
       The Hansberry Elementary School in the Bronx increased the 
     percentage of student who passed the New York State essential 
     skills test from 22% to 50% in reading and from 47% to 82% in 
     math in only two years beginning in 1993. Hansberry used a 
     model developed by the Hudson Institute known as the Modern 
     Red Schoolhouse.
       The Rand Corporation noted that ``By any number of 
     measures, New American Schools has accomplished a great deal 
     in its first four years of programmatic activity * * * What 
     began as an effort to create small number of outstanding 
     designs for schools has expanded to a comprehensive strategy 
     to reform education.''
       While these new approaches to improving schools may 
     represent fundamental change from the way most schools now 
     operate, it is important to recognize that these approaches 
     are very consistent with the kinds of organizational changes 
     being brought about in numerous other institutions in 
     society. Just as American business has learned that enhancing 
     the role and input of workers and suppliers creates a 
     common commitment that improves the product and boosts 
     productivity, the full engagement of teachers and parents 
     in the learning process can and is producing similar 
     results in schools. In fact, one might well argue that the 
     standard structure of American schools has changed so 
     little in the last half century that these types of 
     institutional reforms can have an even greater impact on 
     the classroom than businesses have managed to produce in 
     factories or offices.
       We do not know all that we would like to know or should 
     know in order to fully revolutionize the nation's schools. We 
     do not know for certain which of these models works best or 
     which is best suited for particular types of schools or to 
     meet particular types of problems. But we certainly do know 
     enough to know that we should begin. We have sufficient 
     experience to know that many more schools should be 
     participating--that we should not only be experimenting with 
     these approaches in all of the states instead of only half, 
     but that we should have a number of schools working with 
     these reforms in each region of every state.
       That is why we encouraged the Appropriations Subcommittee 
     on Labor-Health, Human Services and Education to provide $200 
     million to start such a whole school reform effort in the 
     education appropriation bill for the coming school year. 
     These funds would be apportioned by state education officials 
     and the Department of Education to school districts 
     interested in making a serious commitment to school 
     improvement. Schools with differing ethnic and socioeconomic 
     backgrounds would be selected as would schools facing 
     differing problems in improving academic performance. Each 
     participating school would receive a grant of at least 
     $50,000 a year to implement a research tested model for whole 
     school reform. The funds would be used to help the school get 
     the necessary outside expertise, hire the staff necessary to 
     facilitate change and train existing personnel to meet the 
     challenges of making fundamental changes in the manner in 
     which the schools operate. The effort would provide a large 
     number of school districts across the country with first hand 
     experience and information to determine whether they wish to 
     provide additional schools with the resources necessary to 
     make the proposed changes.
       We have had an extended debate in this country about school 
     reform and that debate will no doubt continue. But it is time 
     to do more than debate. We now have proposals to reform our 
     schools that are not just academic theories but are producing 
     real results in real classrooms across America. With a 
     relatively small amount of outside resources, communities can 
     restructure schools in ways that make them significantly more 
     effective. We should now move to insure that a broader 
     spectrum of our nation's schools have a chance to move 
     forward with these reforms and determine for themselves the 
     impact these changes have on student learning and school 
     effectiveness.


                 examples of whole school reform models

     Accelerated Schools
       Accelerated Schools, developed at Stanford University, is a 
     whole school reform model that focuses on an accelerated 
     curriculum that emphasizes challenging and exciting learning 
     activities for students who normally are identified for 
     remediation. One of the key ideas behind Accelerated Schools 
     is that rather than remediating students' deficits, students 
     who are placed at risk of school failure must be 
     accelerated--given the kind of high-expectations curriculum 
     typical of programs for gifted and talented students. The 
     program's social goals include reducing the dropout rate, 
     drug use, and teen pregnancies.
       The Accelerated Schools model is built around three central 
     principles. One is unity of purpose, a common vision of what 
     the school should become, agreed to and worked toward by all 
     school staff, parents, students and community. A second is 
     empowerment coupled with responsibility, which means that 
     staff, parents and students find their own way to transform 
     themselves. A third element, building on strength, means 
     identifying the strengths of students, of staff and of the 
     school, and then using these as a basis for reform. School 
     staff are encouraged to search for methods that help them to 
     realize their vision. There is an emphasis on reducing all 
     uses of remedial activities and on adopting engaging teaching 
     strategies, such as project-based learning. The schools 
     implement these principles by establishing a set of cadres 
     which include a steering committee and work on groups focused 
     on particular areas of concern. Accelerated schools are 
     located in 39 states, including Colorado, Texas and 
     California.
     ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning and Assessment of All 
         Students)
       The ATLAS Program, builds on concepts embodied in the 
     School Development Program and the Coalition of Essential 
     Schools, but adds other unique elements. One of these is a 
     focus on pathways--groups of schools made up of high schools 
     and the elementary and middle schools that feed into them--
     whose staff work with each other to create coordinated and 
     continuous experiences for students. Teams of teachers from 
     each pathway work together to design curriculum and 
     assessments based on locally defined standards. Teachers 
     collaborate with parents and administrators to form a 
     learning community that works together to set and maintain 
     sound management policies.
       The intent of the model is to change the culture of the 
     school to promote high institutional and individual 
     performance. The emphasis of the design is on helping school 
     staffs create classroom environments in which students are 
     active participants in their own learning. Project-based 
     learning is extensively used. Assessment in ATLAS schools 
     emphasize portfolios, performance examinations, and 
     exhibitions. Community members are active participants on the 
     school governing teams and the schools develop programs to 
     encourage parental involvement. ATLAS schools are operating 
     in Norfolk, Virginia; Prince George's County, Maryland; 
     Gorham, Maine; Seattle, Washington; and Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania.
     Audrey Cohen College of System of Education
       Audrey Cohen College of System of Education is based on the 
     teaching methods used at the Audrey Cohen College in New York 
     City. This whole school reform model focuses student learning 
     on the study and achievement of meaningful ``purposes'' for 
     each semester's academic goals. A holistic and purpose-driven 
     curriculum is the centerpiece of the model. Curriculum and 
     instruction are organized around a single, developmentally 
     appropriate purpose for each semester, cumulating to 26 
     purposes in a K-12 system. Embedded in each purpose are 
     content areas such as English and math, and essential skills 
     such as critical thinking and researching. Each purpose 
     culminates in a ``constructive action'' undertaken by the 
     class to serve the community. For example, in fourth grade, 
     one purpose is ``we work for good health.'' Students achieve 
     their purpose by using their knowledge and skills to plan, 
     carry out, and evaluate a ``constructive action'' to benefit 
     the community and larger world. Leadership is emphasized. 
     These fundamental changes in the curriculum and instruction 
     become the organizing principles for all other school 
     activities. The total effect is intended to make the school 
     and its programs more coherent and focused.
       The purposes help the school and its officials identify key 
     community resources to involve in the educational enterprise. 
     The constructive actions help to bring the community into the 
     school and the school into the community--making schools, 
     parents and children active partners in improving the 
     community. Schools are implementing the Audrey Cohen model in 
     San Diego, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; 
     Hollandale, Mississippi; Seattle, Washington; and Dade 
     County, Florida.
     Coalition of Essential Schools
       The Coalition of Essential Schools is based at Brown 
     University. The Coalition is not a reform model per se, but 
     an organization dedicated to ``Nine Common Principles of 
     Essential Schools''. The Nine Principles involve certain 
     ideas about school reform that include building support and 
     collaboration among teachers, students and the families of 
     those students in the community. The Coalition focuses on the 
     relationship between students, teachers and the curriculum--
     the ``triangle of learning''.
       In order to become a member of the Coalition of Essential 
     Schools, a school submits a statement of its long-term goals 
     and an action plan. The action plan must state how 
     structures, pedagogy, curriculum and assessment will change, 
     and it must include a statement of faculty commitment to 
     student learning and engagement. Community support must be 
     solicited throughout the process and a school-site 
     coordinator is identified

[[Page H6853]]

     to work as a liaison between the school, and regional or 
     state coordinator, and the Coalition. Membership in the 
     Coalition includes a responsibility to participate in a 
     network with other Coalition Schools, and to meet 
     expectations that include commitment, whole-school 
     involvement, documentation and assessment of progress, and 
     funds to support school reform activities over a multi-
     year period.
     Co-NECT Schools
       Co-NECT schools focus on complex interdisciplinary projects 
     that extensively incorporate technology and connect students 
     with ongoing scientific investigations, information 
     resources, and other students beyond their own school. Co-
     NECT uses technology to enhance every aspect of teaching, 
     learning, professional development, and school management. 
     Cross-disciplinary teaching teams work with clusters of 
     students. Most students stay in the same cluster with the 
     same teachers for at least two years. Teaching and learning 
     center of interdisciplinary projects that promote critical 
     skills and academic understanding. Teams of educators and 
     parents set goals. Performance-based assessments are 
     extensively used. In addition to understanding key subject 
     areas, graduates of the Co-NECT school demonstrate the 
     acquisition of specific critical skills, identified as sense-
     maker, designer, problem-solver, decisionmaker, communicator, 
     team worker, project-oriented worker, and responsible, 
     knowledgeable citizen.
       A school governance council, which includes teachers, 
     parents, business/community representatives, and 
     administrators, runs the school. In addition, the school 
     design team provides local input concerning the 
     implementation, performance assessment, and accountability of 
     the Co-NECT approach at that particular school. The Community 
     Support Board fosters access to the local community to 
     support the Council and design team. Mentoring and volunteers 
     are encouraged and community input sought for standard-
     setting. Co-NECT schools are operating in Cincinnati, Ohio; 
     Dade County, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee; Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania; San Antonio, Texas; and Worcester, 
     Massachusetts.
     Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
       Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) is built on ten 
     design principles and operates on the belief that learning is 
     an expedition into the unknown. Expeditionary Learning draws 
     on the power of purposeful, intellectual investigations--
     called learning expeditions--to improve student achievement 
     and build character. Learning expeditions are long-term, 
     academically rigorous, interdisciplinary studies that require 
     students to work inside and outside the classroom. In 
     Expeditionary Learning schools, student and teachers stay 
     together for more than one year, teachers work 
     collaboratively through team teaching and shared planning, 
     and there is no tracking.
       Schools using this whole school reform model are in 
     Baltimore County, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; 
     Cincinnati, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; Decatur, 
     Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Dubuque, Iowa; Memphis, 
     Tennessee; New York City, New York; San Antonio, Texas; 
     and Portland, Oregon.
     Modern Red Schoolhouse
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse whole school reform model helps 
     all students achieve high standards through the construction 
     of a standards-driven curriculum; employment of traditional 
     and performance-based assessments; effective organizational 
     patterns and professional-development programs; and 
     implementation of effective community-involvement strategies. 
     The model focuses on high standards in core academic 
     subjects--English, geography, history, mathematics and 
     science. Students master a rigorous curriculum designed to 
     transit common culture, develop character, and promote the 
     principles of democratic government. Modern Red Schoolhouses 
     are divided into three divisions, rather than 12 grades: 
     primary, intermediate and upper. To advance to the next 
     division, students must meet defined standards and pass 
     ``watershed assessment''. Students complete investigations, 
     give oral reports, answer essay questions and take multiple 
     choice exams. Student progress is monitored through an 
     Individual Education Compact, negotiated by the student, 
     parent and teacher. This compact establishes goals, details 
     parent and teacher responsibilities, and lists services the 
     school, parents or community should provide.
       Schools using this model are in Indianapolis, Columbus, and 
     Beech Grove, Indiana; Franklin and Lawrence, Massachusetts; 
     New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis, 
     Tennessee, and San Antonio, Texas.
     National Alliance for Restructuring Education (NA)
       The National Alliance for Restructuring Education is a 
     partnership of states, districts, schools and expert 
     organizations created to change the educational system 
     through a five-point set of priorities called ``design 
     tasks'': the design tasks are standards and assessments, 
     learning environments, high-performance management, community 
     services and supports, and public engagement. The model uses 
     results-based, high performance management at the school and 
     district levels with decentralized decisionmaking to 
     restructure the learning environment to support student 
     achievement and provide professional support to teachers and 
     schools.
       Alliance sites adapt for education the principles and 
     techniques developed by American business known as high-
     performance management. These include strategic management, 
     total quality management, decentralized decisonmaking and 
     empowerment, and accountability and incentive systems. At the 
     school level, principals are trained in these areas to better 
     support the integration and implementation of design tasks. 
     Alliance sites at the state, district and school levels are 
     tasked with developing methods for informing and involving 
     parents and the public in the school and restructuring 
     process. Schools in the National Alliance are in Arkansas; 
     Kentucky; Vermont; Rochester, New York; San Diego, 
     California; and Chicago, Illinois.
     Roots and Wings
       Roots and Wings is a comprehensive, whole school reform 
     model for elementary schools to ensure that all children 
     leave elementary school with the skills required for success. 
     It is based on the Success For All reading program developed 
     at Johns Hopkins University and incorporates science, 
     history, and math to achieve a comprehensive academic 
     program. The premise of the model is that schools must do 
     whatever it takes to make sure all students succeed. Roots 
     and Wings schools provide at-risk students with tutors, 
     family support, and a variety of other services aimed at 
     eliminating obstacles to success.
       The Roots component of the model is aimed at preventing 
     failure. It emphasizes working with children and their 
     families to ensure that children develop the basic skills and 
     habits they need to succeed. The Wings component emphasizes a 
     highly motivating curriculum with instructional strategies 
     that encourage children to grow to their full potential and 
     aspire to higher levels of learning. The design reallocates 
     resources into a system of curriculum, instruction and family 
     support designed to eliminate special education and low 
     achievement.
       Roots and Wings provides schools with innovative curricula 
     and instructional methods in reading, writing, language arts, 
     mathematics, social studies, and science. The curriculum 
     emphasizes the use of cooperative learning throughout the 
     grades. In each activity, students work in cooperative 
     groups, do extensive writing, and use reading, mathematics, 
     and fine arts skills learned in other parts of the program. 
     Schools using this model are in Anson County, North Carolina; 
     Memphis, Dade County, Cincinnati, Elyria and Dawson-Bryant, 
     Ohio; Columbus, Indiana; Everett, Washington, Flint, 
     Michigan; Modesto, Pasadena and Riverside, CA; Rockford, 
     Illinois, St. Mary's, Baltimore and Baltimore County, 
     Maryland.
     School Development Program
       The School Development program is a comprehensive, whole 
     school approach to reform based on principles of child 
     development and the importance of parental involvement. The 
     program was developed at Yale and implemented initially at 
     two elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut.
       Each school creates three teams that take particular 
     responsibility for moving the whole school reform agenda 
     forward. A School Planning and Management Team, made up of 
     teacher, parents and administration, develops and monitors 
     implementation of a comprehensive school improvement plan. A 
     Mental Health Team, composed on school staff concerned with 
     mental health such as school psychologists, social 
     workers, counselors and teachers, plans programs focusing 
     on prevention, building positive child development, 
     positive personal relations, etc. The third major 
     component of the model is a Parent Program designed to 
     build a sense of community among school staff, parents, 
     and students. The parent Program incorporates existing 
     parent participation activities (such as the PTA) and 
     implements additional activities to draw parents into the 
     school, to increase opportunities for parents to provide 
     volunteer services, and to design ways for having the 
     school respect the ethnic backgrounds of its students.
       The three teams in School Development Program schools work 
     together to create comprehensive plans for school reform. 
     Schools take a holistic approach in looking for ways to serve 
     children's academic and social needs. The School Development 
     Program is operating in schools in 25 states, including 
     Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North 
     Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
     Talent Development Model for High Schools
       The Talent Development Model for High Schools was developed 
     at Johns Hopkins University to fill a major current void in 
     American education--a dearth of proven models of high school 
     effectiveness. The Talent Development Model provides a 
     comprehensive package of specific high school changes for at-
     risk students based on the proposition that all students can 
     succeed in school given appropriate school organization, 
     curriculum, instruction, and assistance as needed to assure 
     their success. The model focuses on a common core curriculum 
     of high standards for all students and emphasizes the 
     creation of small learning communities through the 
     establishment of career-focused academies as schools-within-
     the-school.
       Essential components include (1) making schoolwork relevant 
     by providing a career focus, (2) providing increased 
     opportunities for academic success, (3) providing a caring 
     and supportive learning environment

[[Page H6854]]

     through enhanced teacher-student interactions, and (4) 
     providing help with student problems, including academic, 
     family problems, substance abuse, disciplinary problems, and 
     employment needs. The Talent Development High School provides 
     assistance to students from social workers and mental health 
     professionals on the school staff and by referrals to an 
     alternative after-hours school in the building designed to 
     meet the needs of students who present the most difficult 
     disciplinary problems. The first Talent Development High 
     School was established at Patterson High School in Baltimore, 
     Maryland. Additional Talent Development sites are being 
     evaluated in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los 
     Angeles.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                      State Title I Directors,

                               Washington, DC, September, 4, 1997.
     Hon. David Obey,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Obey: The National Association of State Title I 
     Directors believes Title I (Compensatory Education) will be 
     more effective with the reform efforts outlined in the Whole 
     School Reform initiative approved by the House Subcommittee 
     on Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services and Education. School reform and improvement 
     will not occur without specific support. As it stands today, 
     on average each school teacher annually has over 200,000 
     interactions with students, parents, and other professionals. 
     To expect these professionals to be able to teach and reform 
     their instructional programs and techniques without specific 
     support is unreasonable. Therefore, we ask that you continue 
     to push for funding for the Whole School Reform effort and 
     reject any attempt to transfer funds out of this initiative. 
     We understand that Congressman Riggs is considering offering 
     an amendment to transfer funds for this reform effort, we 
     hope that this (and any other similar amendments) will be 
     defeated.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Richard Long, Ed.D.
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                              American Federation of Teachers,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 950,000 members of 
     the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge you to 
     oppose the amendment sponsored by Mr. Riggs to H.R. 2264, the 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations bill.
       The AFT supports the Whole School Reform Initiative 
     included in H.R. 2264, as reported from committee. The $150 
     million under Title I--Demonstrations of Innovative Practices 
     Program and $50 million under the Fund for the Improvement of 
     Education would provide schools assistance to fund promising 
     educational strategies, including effective approaches to 
     whole school reform. The AFT believes the real hope for 
     improving public education is by expanding known, effective 
     proven programs and strategies. Parents, the public, and 
     teachers want ``what works'' in the public schools. They want 
     schools in which students achieve at high levels in basic 
     subjects and in which all students are safe and secure.
       Providing selected schools across the country with 
     resources to cover the additional costs of implementing 
     academic programs that are known to work is an especially 
     good use of limited resources. The AFT has done considerable 
     investigation of promising means of school reform and has 
     determined that the spread of instructional programs that 
     meet the criteria of having high academic standard, being 
     strongly research-based, having demonstrated effectiveness in 
     raising student achievement, being replicable in diverse and 
     challenging circumstances, and with assistance available from 
     networks of researchers and practitioners offers the 
     strongest promise of educational improvement. The Whole 
     School Reform Initiative in H.R. 2264 would help school adopt 
     programs that meet these important criteria.
       I urge you to support the Whole School Reform Initiative 
     and vote against the Riggs Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gerald D. Morris,
     Director of Legislation.
                                                                    ____



                               National Education Association,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2.3-million members 
     of the National Education Association (NEA), we urge you to 
     oppose the Riggs amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations bill.
       NEA supports the Whole School Reform Initiative included in 
     H.R. 2264 as reported from committee. The $150 million 
     targeted to the Demonstrations of Innovative Practices 
     Program and the $50 million for the Improvement of Education 
     would provide schools with the assistance needed to fund and 
     promote innovative and effective approaches to whole school 
     reform. The Riggs amendment would shift $200 million away 
     from this excellent proposal.
       As you are aware, schools want effective options for 
     creating high-performance education systems, but they need 
     targeted resources and expert technical assistance to help 
     them adopt these reforms. The Whole School Reform Initiative, 
     as reported from committee, holds out the best promise for 
     helping schools effect these reforms.
       NEA urges you to vote against the Riggs Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                                                    ____



                           National School Boards Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, September 4, 1997.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of the National School 
     Boards Association (NSBA) and the 95,000 school board members 
     we represent through our federation of 53 states and 
     territories, we strongly endorse the whole school reform 
     proposal in the FY 1998 appropriations bill. The additional 
     $200 million in resources to support the adoption by schools 
     of research-based, whole school reform models is an important 
     innovation. Research has shown us that for long-lasting 
     reform to take place, the principal, teachers, parents, and 
     staff--the entire school--must reflect the reform principles. 
     The whole school reform proposal in the Labor, HHS, Education 
     FY 1998 appropriations bill will move this process forward.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and 
     allowing us to work with you. For further information please 
     call Laurie A. Westley, Assistant Executive Director, at 703-
     838-6703.
           Sincerely,
                                                William B. Ingram,
                                                        President.
                                                   Anne L. Bryant,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                     National PTA,


                                        National Headquarters,

                                   Chicago, IL, September 4, 1997.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
         and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Obey: I am writing to reiterate our support for 
     your bi-partisan proposal--adopted as part of H.R. 2264, the 
     House Appropriations Committee FY 1998 funding bill for the 
     Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education--that would direct $200 million to whole-school 
     reform initiatives.
       We understand that Representative Riggs plans to offer an 
     amendment to redirect this $200 million to Title I basic 
     grants. While we wholeheartedly would support an increased 
     funding allocation for Title I basic grants, we cannot afford 
     to take this money away from whole-school reform initiatives.
       We know that effective school reform demands a strong 
     commitment of financial resources and appropriate technical 
     assistance to ensure successful implementation. There are 
     numerous, proven, research-based models of effective schools 
     that communities can replicate if they have the tools. The 
     funding set aside for this purpose in H.R. 2264 would provide 
     the important financial support schools need to implement 
     these whole-school reforms.
       We believe the whole-school reform initiative would nicely 
     complement Title I in helping economically and educationally 
     disadvantaged students achieve educational success. We 
     strongly support the $200 million in supplemental assistance 
     for whole-school reform and we oppose Mr. Rigg's amendment to 
     eliminate funding for this purpose.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Shirley Igo,
     Vice President for Legislation.
                                                                    ____



                            Council of the Great City Schools,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1997.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representative: The Council of the Great City Schools, 
     the coalition of the nation's largest central city school 
     districts, writes to urge opposition to Congressman Riggs' 
     amendment to H.R. 2264, the Labor, HHS, Education 
     appropriations bill, which would transfer $200 million for 
     the F.I.E. and Title I Whole School Reform Demonstration 
     initiative into Title I Basic Grants.
       On July 28, 1997 the Council wrote to the Subcommittee 
     Chairman Porter and ranking member Obey supporting the Whole 
     School Reform initiative as an important stimulus to 
     facilitate the broader use of effective educational practices 
     and models. The Council is confident that these new School 
     Reform initiatives will be used in the schools which have the 
     greatest need for substantive reform.
       The Council is concerned that the amendment transfers funds 
     into a formula vehicle which is no longer authorized by the 
     House Committee of Education and the Workforce. Additionally, 
     the transfer amendment does not target the very limited 
     education funds to high need school districts in a manner 
     which either Subcommittee Chairman Porter or authorizing 
     committee Chairman Goodling have encouraged.
       The Council, therefore, requests your opposition to the 
     Riggs transfer amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jeffrey A. Simering,
                                 Director of Legislative Services.

[[Page H6855]]

     
                                                                    ____
                                         New American Schools,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 14, 1997.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Obey: It is our understanding the 
     Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations will be 
     meeting soon to consider the fiscal year 1998 budget request 
     for the Department of Education. We also understand that the 
     Subcommittee will be considering your proposal to provide 
     approximately $200 million in additional resources to the 
     Department to support a new school reform initiative.
       We are writing to express the strong support of the New 
     American Schools Development Corporation for this initiative 
     and for your efforts. As you know, the New American Schools 
     Development Corporation is a bipartisan, nonprofit 
     organization launched in 1991 by American corporate and 
     foundation leaders to help schools adopt systemic reforms to 
     achieve world class, high performing schools. Utilizing 
     corporate and foundation support, we financed the research 
     and development of seven comprehensive, schoolwide reform 
     designs and tested these designs in schools and districts 
     across the country. We are currently working with over 700 
     schools that are implementing these innovative whole school 
     reform designs with considerable success. Secretary Riley 
     recently commended our efforts in his 1997 Annual State of 
     American Education address.
       We believe that the results we are seeing in New American 
     Schools justify a significant public investment at this time 
     to spur the adoption of these and other proven whole school 
     reform designs that have the greatest potential to improve 
     the daily instructional experiences of children on a large 
     scale. We have found that schools want effective options for 
     creating high performance education systems, but that they 
     need targeted resources and expert technical assistance to 
     help them adopt these reforms. Your proposal to provide 
     approximately $200 million in start-up funding to support 
     whole school reform in a significant number of schools would 
     provide a powerful impetus to effective school reform in this 
     country.
           Sincerely,
     David T. Kearns,
       Chairman.
     John L. Anderson,
       President.
                                                                    ____



                    American Educational Research Association,

                                     Washington DC, July 24, 1997.
     Congressman David Obey, Ranking Member,
     Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education,
     2462 Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Obey: I am writing you on behalf of IGER, 
     an informal coalition of groups interested in sound policy 
     development for the federal education research program. The 
     groups identified below endorse the central ideas proposed by 
     the subcommittee as the whole-school reform initiative, and 
     the general comments offered below. I understanding that 
     others in our coalition, such as the NEA and AFT, already 
     have written letters supporting the proposed school reform 
     strategy.
       We note with satisfaction that the Subcommittee on Labor-
     HHS-Education Appropriations has recommended that substantial 
     funding be provided for start-up costs associated with whole-
     school reform. Many who have studied improvement have 
     concluded that whole-school reform represents one of the most 
     promising approaches to sustainable education achievements, 
     and we applaud the fact that bulk of the funds will be 
     provided to the most needy schools.
       We applaud, also, the emphasis given to development of 
     sound evaluation plans as a condition of receiving the 
     grants, as well as the requirements stipulated for on-going 
     professional development, high academic standards, and 
     community involvement.
       We agree with the committee that there are a number of 
     whole-school reform programs for which effectiveness is 
     evidenced by a sound research program, using control groups. 
     However, we caution the committee that there are many more 
     reform programs basing their success only on anecdotal 
     evaluations, than there are programs which have the 
     demonstrated results demanded in the legislation. This is not 
     to challenge the promise of the reform efforts sure to be 
     stimulated by the legislation. Rather, it is to urge that, as 
     opportunity arises, the committee consider the need for a 
     continuing program of research--perhaps best conducted 
     through the institute structure provided by OERI--to 
     complement this innovation with additional, hard data about 
     conditions for effective school reform. Similarly, in 
     addition to providing technical support for schools 
     undertaking to evaluate their efforts, we urge support for a 
     substantial third-party evaluation of this exciting national 
     commitment.
       We appreciate the committee's continuing support for 
     federal research, statistics, and the regional laboratories, 
     and look forward to working with you to make this exciting 
     new program a success.
           Sincerely,
     Gerald E. Sroufe,
       for the American Educational Research Association.
     Howard Silver,
       for the Consortium of Social Science Associations.
     David Johnson,
       for the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and 
     Cognitive Sciences.
     Karen Anderson,
       for the National School Boards Association.
     Richard Hershman,
       for the National Education Knowledge Industry Association.
                                                                    ____

                                            Council of Chief State


                                              School Officers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1997.
     Representative David Obey, Ranking Member, House 
       Appropriations Committee, 1016 Longworth House Office 
       Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of the state 
     commissioners and superintendents of education, I commend 
     your leadership in securing a $405 million increase for Title 
     I ESEA in the FY98 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. 
     We commend especially your initiative in appropriating $150 
     million in start up funds for the Whole School Reform 
     provisions, authorized under Part E, Title I, 
     ``Demonstrations of Innovative Practices,'' with an 
     additional $50 million for this purpose to the Fund for the 
     Improvement for Education and $5 million for technical 
     assistance and evaluation.
       Title I is an essential resource to assist the nation's 
     most economically and educationally disadvantaged students 
     achieve at the high standards they need to compete in the 
     global economy. We applaud the bipartisan agreement on FY98 
     funding for Title I which substantially exceeds the 
     Administration's request in additional money and provides 
     first-time funding of Whole School Reform.
       Funding of the Whole School Reform program is especially 
     important. Research establishes clearly the importance of 
     comprehensive strategies which combine all resources of a 
     school to raise student achievement. The strategy is 
     especially true for schools with large proportions of low 
     achieving students. The Whole School Reform funds will more 
     than double the resources available for states to assist 
     Title I schools in refocusing their resources toward better 
     performance. Combined with Title I provisions for schoolwide 
     projects in schools with high concentrations of poverty and 
     the state program improvement funds for technical assistance 
     to low-performing schools, these funds offer the additional 
     resource needed to change school practice while other 
     resources maintain continuing direct services to students.
       As the FY98 appropriation for education moves through the 
     House and to conference with the Senate bill, we support 
     strongly the Subcommittee's $405 million increase for Title I 
     and the Whole School Reform funding. Thank you again for your 
     leadership in achieving the bipartisan commitment to serve 
     the students most in need of help. An increase in their 
     performance is essential if our nation's capacity for a high 
     skills/high wage economy is to be realized. We look forward 
     to working with you through the process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gordon M. Ambach,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                   National School


                                           Boards Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 17, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: On behalf of the National School 
     Boards Association (NSBA) and the 95,000 school board members 
     we represent through our federation of 53 states and 
     territories, we strongly urge the FY 1998 funding for K-12 
     education programs be a high priority. We applaud the 
     bipartisan spirit of the subcommittee bill and the attempts 
     to best the Clinton Administration funding in many programs, 
     especially Title 6 and IDEA. We also applaud Congressman 
     David Obey's (D-WI) whole school reform proposal and the 
     fiscal increase for Title 1. Sadly, these collective 
     increases will not meet the needs in school districts to 
     address exploding enrollments of high-needs children.
       Our members' strong support for the $1 billion increase for 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has been 
     nearly matched by the Senate own expressions of the need for 
     the funds in S. 1, the Majority Leader's highest legislative 
     priority, and later in the Senate Budget Resolution, as well 
     as numerous statements throughout the pendency of the IDEA 
     legislation. Last month the reauthorization of IDEA became 
     law; it provides both the programmatic framework and the 
     urgency for the increase. The long-standing federal 
     commitment to fund IDEA at 40 percent of the excess cost of 
     special education adds to the importance of a $1 billion 
     increase.
       As you search for ways to increase the IDEA appropriation 
     to $1 billion, we fervently hope you will not look to other 
     K-12 education programs. The education of some children 
     should not be jeopardized to pay for the education of other 
     children; that would be a travesty.
       For further information, please call Laurie A. Westley, 
     Assistant Executive Director, at 703-838-6703. Thank you for 
     your support.
           Sincerely,
     William B. Ingram,
       President.

[[Page H6856]]

     Anne L. Bryant,
       Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                  American Federation of Teachers,


                                  555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
     Congressman David Obey,
     Ranking Member, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
         and Related Agencies,
     Appropriations Subcommittee.
       Dear Congressman Obey: On behalf of the American Federation 
     of Teachers, I would like to support adoption of your report 
     language on effective schools as a part of the FY 1998 
     education appropriations.
       The AFT believes there exist in schools throughout the US a 
     number of rigorous educational programs that are solidly 
     based on research, have records of demonstrated effectiveness 
     in improving student achievement of higher academic 
     standards, are supported by networks of researchers and 
     experienced practitioners, and are known to be replicable in 
     diverse and challenging circumstances. The programs meeting 
     these criteria mark a path that other schools can follow with 
     confidence. Some examples of these programs are Success for 
     All, Roots and Wings, Core Knowledge, Direct Instruction, 
     High Schools that Work, International Baccalaureate, and 
     Advanced Placement. No doubt other such programs can be 
     identified, as well.
       It is of great importance that schools--especially schools 
     with high concentrations of disadvantaged students--be 
     encouraged to adopt high standards, rigorous educational 
     programs that we know work. Rather than educational fads and 
     ideologically-driven schemes, it is the research-based, 
     widely replicated, demonstrably effective, and network 
     supported programs that will produce solid academic gains for 
     all children.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gerald Morris,
     Director of Legislation.
                                                                    ____



                                    National PTA Headquarters,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 22, 1997.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
         and Human Services,
     Education, and Related Agencies,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Obey: I am writing in support of your proposal--
     adopted as part of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill for 
     fiscal year 1998--to direct $200 million to the Department of 
     Education for whole-school reform initiatives.
       The nearly 6.5 million members of the National PTA 
     understand that effective school reform demands a strong 
     commitment of financial resources and appropriate technical 
     assistance to ensure successful implementation. We know that 
     good schools share common elements including strong parental 
     and community support, challenging academic standards, and 
     ongoing professional development opportunities. Your 
     proposal, which considers these factors, would provide 
     important financial support for schools that are trying to 
     implement these whole-school reforms.
       We believe your initiative would nicely complement proven 
     programs like Title I in helping economically and 
     educationally disadvantaged students achieve educational 
     success. We support an increased Federal funding commitment 
     for Title I and the supplemental assistance offered in your 
     whole-school reform initiative.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of America's children.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Shirley Igo,
     Vice President for Legislation.
                                                                    ____

                                       The National Association of


                                  Secondary School Principals,

                                        Reston, VA, July 30, 1997.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Obey: The 43,000 members of the 
     National Association of Secondary School Principals 
     congratulate you on your success in gaining the approval of 
     the House Appropriation Committee to provide $200 million for 
     a new national initiative to develop innovative, successful 
     schools throughout the country.
       Your proposal reflects the recommendations of our report, 
     Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution, that was 
     prepared by NASSP in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation 
     for the Advancement of Teaching. A copy of this report is 
     enclosed.
       The clear message in this report is that school reform is 
     not driven by a single person or issue but involves the whole 
     school and community.
       Upon releasing this report, NASSP formed the National 
     Alliance of High Schools and is conducting seminars and 
     workshops around the country to assist schools in 
     implementing the recommendations contained in this report.
       Your initiative could be used by high schools around the 
     country to assist them in restructuring their school to best 
     serve the needs of the students as recommended in this 
     report. We applaud your foresight and look forward to working 
     with you to ensure that our nation's students and schools are 
     ready for an ever changing world.
       If we can be of any assistance, please contact me at (703) 
     860-7333.
           Kind personal regards,
                                                  Timothy J. Dyer,
     Executive Director
                                                                    ____



                               National Education Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
     Hon. David Obey,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Obey: It is NEA's understanding that 
     the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations will 
     be meeting soon to consider the FY 1998 budget request for 
     the Department of Education. NEA also understands that the 
     Subcommittee will be considering a proposal by you to provide 
     approximately $200 million in additional resources to the 
     Department to support a new school reform initiative.
       The NEA's more than 2.3 million members labor daily in 
     schools and communities across America to support and sustain 
     school reform initiatives. Your proposal would provide 
     important assistance.
       As you are aware, schools want effective options for 
     creating high-performance education systems, but they need 
     targeted resources and expert technical assistance to help 
     them adopt these reforms. Your proposal to provide 
     approximately $200 million in start-up funding to support 
     whole school reform in a significant number of schools would 
     provide a powerful impetus to effective school reform in this 
     country.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                                                    ____

         National Association of State Title I Directors,
                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association of 
     State Title I Directors, I urge you to support the goals and 
     intent of the school reform plan recently approved by the 
     House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
     Appropriations Subcommittee.
       The National Association of State Title I Directors 
     (NASTID) released a study this week assessing the status of 
     the Title I program. The study entitled ``Title I: A Program 
     in Transition'' provides information on how the program is 
     changing based on survey results from 43 states. While the 
     program is clearly still in transition, the survey responses 
     are encouraging.
       With the passage of the Improving America's School Act in 
     1994, Congress redefined the Title I program. The program was 
     refocused to align content and performance standards, hold 
     all students responsible for meeting those standards, expand 
     opportunities for professional development, expand parental 
     participation, and implement schoolwide reform. It is this 
     last goal--schoolwide reform--that holds the promise for 
     dramatic school improvements which will enhance student 
     achievement. Schoolwide reform requires the active 
     participation of teachers and parents in setting goals and 
     achieving changes. It involves the dedication of the entire 
     community to the effort with an emphasis on intensive and 
     ongoing professional development for administrators, teachers 
     and staff, increased technical assistance, and other services 
     needed to achieve the desired changes.
       The National Association of State Title I Directors 
     supports efforts to encourage and facilitate schoolwide 
     reforms and improvements. Federal support for school reform 
     initiatives coupled with a continued commitment to proven 
     programs like Title I would ensure that our neediest students 
     receive the benefits of improved schools and strong programs 
     designed to enhance learning.
       We hope that you will be able to maintain at least last 
     year's commitment to serve the same number of children, while 
     supporting a needed new ``Whole School Reform'' initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Richard Long,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                            Council of the Great City Schools,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1997.
     Hon. David Obey,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Obey: The Council of the Great City 
     Schools, the coalition of the nation's largest central city 
     school districts, support the school improvement approach 
     using research-based models and effective practices reflected 
     in your Whole School Reform initiative in the Title I and FIE 
     accounts of the FY98 appropriations. Virtually every school 
     district, including the most disadvantaged, have a number of 
     schools and programs which are documenting success. Yet, the 
     adaptation and replication of such effective practices in 
     other schools or systemwide has not been mastered. Your Whole 
     School Reform demonstrations provide an important stimulus to 
     facilitating the broader use of effective programs.
       Additionally, the Council would like to commend you and the 
     Subcommittee for investing over $400 million in new funding 
     for Title I, and for using a targeted funding approach. The 
     1994 Census update has demonstrated that there are 28 percent 
     more low-income children in the nation than under the 1990 
     Census count. Without this additional investment, 
     particularly for the poorest schools, the per child 
     purchasing power of each Title I dollar would have dropped by 
     nearly one-third, based on this increased number of poor 
     school-age children.
       The Council supports your initiative and looks forward to 
     working with you to enact it.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Casserly,
                                               Executive Director.

[[Page H6857]]

     
                                                                    ____
                              Committee for Education Funding,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
     Member,
     Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Committee for Education Funding, a 
     nonpartisan coalition of 88 organizations representing the 
     broad spectrum of the education community, commends the 
     remarkable bipartisan effort of the House Appropriations 
     Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and 
     Education on FY98 spending for education. The bill reported 
     on July 15 takes a solid first step for education funding 
     within the constraints of the subcommittee's budget 
     allocation. Considering the degree to which this allocation 
     falls short of human investment needs and priorities, the 
     subcommittee made a substantial commitment to education.
       We commend particularly the increase in the maximum Pell 
     grant to $3,000 and the additional funds set aside to expand 
     access to more students. The bill also makes an important 
     investment in whole school reform beyond the President's 
     request for Title I and restores vital Title VI and Impact 
     Aid funding.
       There are areas where the bill falls short which must be 
     addressed as the process continues. This includes restoration 
     and increases needed in campus-based student aid; real growth 
     in programs for professional development, vocational 
     education and other critical programs; fulfillment of 
     Congressional commitments to students with disabilities; and 
     full funding of the budget agreement priorities for 
     elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.
       Again, we commend the bipartisan spirit that has produced 
     this bill and urge the committee to make additional critical 
     improvements as the appropriations process moves forward to a 
     final bill.
           Sincerely,
     Carnie C. Hayes,
                                                        President.
     Edward R. Kealy,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____


                     Whole School Reform Case Study


                       school development program

       The School Development Program uses child development and 
     relationship theories and principles to improve the academic 
     and psychosocial functioning of students. The collaboration 
     of teachers, administrators, staff, families and community 
     residents, all of whom have a stake in the education of the 
     community's children, is key to the process. The program 
     recognizes the importance of adult relationships and the role 
     of parents and community in schools, while placing children 
     and their needs at the center of all school decisions.

        West Mecklenburg High School, Charlotte, North Carolina

       West Mecklenburg High School is one of the oldest schools 
     in Charlotte, North Carolina. Once regarded as the country 
     school for the west side of the community, it now serves a 
     highly transient, commercial and industrial area near the 
     airport. In the last five years, the student body has grown 
     by 33% to 1600 students who are largely of middle to lower 
     economic status. In 1992, the school experienced a major 
     upheaval, with the addition of over 300 at-risk students from 
     a competing high school. Incidents with guns and knives rose 
     sharply. Out of 11 high schools in the district, West 
     Mecklenburg was in the bottom quartile. When a new principal 
     introduced the School Development Program in 1992, 
     transformation of the school became a team effort. Within two 
     years, SAT scores had risen by an average of 16 percentage 
     points, the number of students making the honor roll had 
     jumped 75%, the number of students enrolled in advanced-level 
     courses had increased 25%, and attendance rates had gone from 
     89% to almost 94%. In 1996, West Mecklenburg High School won 
     a Redbook America's Best Schools Project Award for 
     Significant Improvement and an Outstanding Program Award from 
     the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

                                Comments

       ``We recruited a very small nucleus of parents who were 
     bold enough to go into their neighborhoods, knock on doors, 
     make telephone calls, look parents eye to eye, and ask for 
     their involvement.'' West Mecklenburg High School principal.
       ``If you want to talk about moving from the bottom of the 
     heap and bring one of only two high schools in the district 
     that was able to reach its benchmark goals--through using the 
     SDP process--in two years, then based on the growth pattern, 
     you would consider West Mecklenburg to be the number one high 
     school in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.'' SDP Director for the 
     Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools


 atlas (authentic teaching, learning, and assessment for all students)

       The ATLAS (Authentic Teaching, Learning, and Assessment for 
     all Students) whole school reform model is a variation of the 
     School Development Program. The model focuses on the 
     organization of school decision making, creating a 
     personalized learning environment for all students, and 
     bridging the gap between home, school, neighborhoods and 
     work. ATLAS communities revolve around pathways--groups of 
     schools made up of a high school and the elementary and 
     middle schools that feed into it. Teams of teachers from each 
     pathway work together to design curriculum and assessments 
     based on locally defined standards. The teachers in each 
     pathway collaborate with parents and administrators to form a 
     learning community that works together to set and maintain 
     sound management policies.

                    Norview High School, Norfolk, VA

       Norview High School is located in Norfolk, Virginia--an 
     urban center in the southeastern part of the state--and forms 
     an ATLAS pathway with Tanners Creek Elementary and Rosemont 
     Middle School. Norview's 1700 member student body is 
     predominantly African-American students, where 40% of the 
     students qualify for free or reduced lunch. The faculty has 
     successfully revised the class schedule to provide 90 minute 
     classes, allowing more time for in-depth assignments and 
     independent projects. Students demonstrate what they have 
     learned through student portfolios, performance examination, 
     and exhibitions. Families and community members are 
     exhibition judges, who ask questions that help determine how 
     well students understand what they have learned.
       Since Norview began with ATLAS in 1992, the number of 
     students scoring above 1000 on combined SAT scores has 
     increased over 300%. Parental involvement has increased to 
     nearly 100 percent. Large numbers of parents are attending 
     student-led parent conferences and enrolling in literacy 
     training. In 1996, Norview High School was one of 19 schools 
     recognized nationally for innovation in the classroom by the 
     Redbook Magazine Blue Ribbon School Award.

                                Comments

       ``I won't go to a traditional program. I work more with 
     this, but I don't regret it because my kids are taking 
     responsibility for their own learning.'' ATLAS teacher.
       ``We have been most impressed with the positive outcomes of 
     Gorham's involvement in the ATLAS project * * * During 
     conferences held recently, we had the pleasure of hearing our 
     son explain what he had learned in school. Most rewarding of 
     all, we saw evidence of tremendous growth and involvement in 
     the quality of his work.'' ATLAS parent.


                            success for all

       Success for All is an elementary whole school reform 
     program designed to ensure that all children are successful 
     in reading, writing, and language arts from the beginning of 
     their time in school. It uses innovative curricula and 
     extensive professional development in grades pre-K to six; 
     one-to-one tutoring for primary-age children struggling in 
     reading; and extensive family support activities.

         Lincoln elementary School, Palm Beach County, Florida

       Lincoln Elementary School, located in the shadow of the 
     beachfront resort hotels, serves a very impoverished 
     population of 1,230 students, 94% of whom are African-
     American. Eighty-six percent of the students qualify for free 
     or reduced price lunches. Lincoln was one of the lowest-
     achieving schools in Palm Beach County, and was on the 
     Florida State list of critically low-achieving schools. 
     However, since implementing Success for All, reading scores 
     have improved so much that it is no longer on that list. In 
     1996-97, Lincoln's reading comprehension scores increased an 
     average of 12 percentage points. Students also made 
     substantial progress on Florida's writing test.

                                Comments

       ``We've bought in. And one of the things that's important 
     is that the staff does buy in to the program''. Success for 
     All principal.
       ``This is the first book I have found that makes a 
     profound, positive impact on the literacy of a whole school 
     population. Success for All works. My students are happy, 
     productive readers.'' Success for All elementary school 
     principal.


                            roots and wings

       This elementary school reform model builds on the Success 
     for All reading program and incorporates science, history, 
     and math to achieve a comprehensive academic program. The 
     premise of the model is that schools must do what it takes to 
     make sure all students succeed. To that end, Roots and Wings 
     schools provide at-risk students with tutors, family support, 
     and a variety of other strategies aimed at eliminating 
     obstacles to success. While the ``roots'' of the model refer 
     to mastery of basics, the ``wings'' represent advanced 
     accomplishments that students achieve through 
     interdisciplinary projects and a challenging curriculum.

          Lackland City Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas

       Lackland City Elementary School, located in the southwest 
     quadrant of San Antonio, Texas, originally served primarily 
     military families, but now the community is primarily working 
     class families employed in the private sector. The student 
     body is primarily Hispanic; many students live with one 
     parent and depend on public assistance. Student mobility is 
     40 percent. Lackland City Elementary successfully implemented 
     the Success for All reading component in all grades. Special 
     effort was put into making sure that all students had 
     opportunities to take books home to read. Additional support 
     was provided for reading by having older students listen to 
     younger students read during breakfast served to most 
     students in the school. The school began implementation of 
     the Roots and Wings math component in the third, fourth, and 
     fifth grades in the fall of 1996. The family support 
     component has been in place since 1994. The school's focus on 
     community involvement has led to a partnership with a local 
     hospital to provide immunization services at the school.

[[Page H6858]]

       Working with the Roots and Wings model, 84% of students 
     achieved grade level objectives on the Texas statewide 
     assessment in reading, and 85% achieved grade level 
     objectives in math--representing an increase of 35 percentage 
     points over the previous year. All students read books of 
     their choice at home for at least 20 minutes each night. The 
     school reports that 99% of parents listing to or discuss the 
     reading with their children and sign a reading response form 
     each week.

                                Comments

       ``When using the basal, many students acted like the 
     dreaded math. After we had begun Math Wings and had gone over 
     several lessons, there was a change. Now students get ready 
     very quickly, more students get their homework in, and there 
     is an enthusiasm for math and teamwork . . . More kids are 
     excited, working on-task and enjoying it. It's great to see 
     them enjoying it. I enjoy it more too.'' Roots and Wings 
     teacher


             national alliance for restructuring education

       The National Alliance is a partnership of schools, states 
     and national organizations created to change the educational 
     system through a five-point set of priorities called ``design 
     tasks''. The design tasks include: standards and assessments, 
     learning environments, high-performance management, community 
     services and supports, and public engagement. This whole 
     school reform model uses results-based, high performance 
     management at the school and district levels with 
     decentralized decision-making to restructure the learning 
     environment to support student achievement and provide 
     professional support to teachers and schools. The National 
     Alliance seeks to enable all graduating high school students 
     to attain the Certificate of Initial Mastery, a credential 
     representing a high standard of academic accomplishment.

        John F. Kennedy Elementary School, Louisville, Kentucky

       Once known for all the wrong reasons, John F. Kennedy 
     Elementary School--an inner city school in Louisville, 
     Kentucky--has improved student performance remarkably over 
     the past five years working with the National Alliance whole 
     school reform model. Teachers and parents credit the school's 
     remarkable improvement to its commitment to ensuring that all 
     children achieve at high levels and a relentless focus on 
     student achievement.
       The school increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide 
     assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math. Over a three-
     year period, the school rose from among the lowest-scoring 
     schools in the state to the top 10%. The school's principal, 
     who was once summoned to the superintendent's office to 
     explain a high kindergarten failure rate, in 1996 received a 
     visit from the state commissioner of education who came to 
     present her with a prestigious Milliken Family Foundation 
     award.

                                Comments

       ``No child is lost in the shuffle at Kennedy.'' National 
     Alliance Parent
       ``I could see us getting stronger and stronger. We began to 
     focus on quality work for our students. Our students have 
     many challenges on a personal level--families in distress, 
     families where children are displaced, in homeless shelters. 
     . . . We can give these children extra hugs and love and let 
     them know we care. But when it comes to academic performance, 
     there can be no excuses . . . We say, `If you want an A, then 
     this is what's required.' '' Principal, John F. Kennedy 
     Elementary School


                         Modern Red Schoolhouse

       The Modern Red Schoolhouse whole school reform model 
     strives to help all students achieve high standards in core 
     academic subjects--English, geography, history, mathematics 
     and science. Modern Red Schoolhouses are divided into three 
     divisions, rather than 12 grades: primary, intermediate and 
     upper. To advance to the next division, students must meet 
     defined standards and pass ``watershed assessments''. 
     Students complete investigations, give oral reports, answer 
     essay questions and take multiple choice exams. Student 
     progress is monitored through an Individual Education 
     Compact, negotiated by the student, parent and teacher. This 
     compact establishes goals, details parent and teacher 
     responsibilities, and lists services the school, parents or 
     community should provide.

            Beech Grove Middle School, Beech Grove, Indiana

       Beech Grove Middle School is located in a stable, suburban 
     community outside of Indianapolis, Indiana. Its 500-student 
     body is primarily Caucasian. Beech Grove began working with 
     the Modern Red Schoolhouse model in the fall 1994. Staff have 
     created a process to review, revise and develop new 
     interdisciplinary, thematic curriculum units. Teachers track 
     student work against the curriculum. The school leadership 
     team works with the principal to make curricular and 
     budgetary recommendations focused on increased student 
     achievement. Each classroom is equipped with a phone, 
     supported by voice mail, that has increased parent to teacher 
     communication. The school has established a student mentoring 
     program in partnership with a local high school with help 
     from the school's community involvement task force.
       In 1996, sixth-grade students experienced a 13% increase in 
     total battery scores over the year before. Administrators and 
     teachers attribute the increases in student achievement to 
     enhanced and enriched curriculum content associated with the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse.

                                Comments

       ``We've been extremely pleased with our daughter's progress 
     and willingness to learn. She loves the computer workshops. I 
     would choose the Modern Red Schoolhouse again and again. 
     Progressing at her pace is great and allows the child to feel 
     successful. Super is our rating for MRSh!'' Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse Parent
       This is gifted and talented program for all students.'' 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse Parent


                Audrey Cohen College System of Education

       The Audrey Cohen College System of Education focuses 
     student learning on the study and achievement of meaningful 
     ``purposes'' for each semester's academic goals. Each purpose 
     culminates in a ``constructive action'' undertaken by the 
     class to serve the community. For example, in fourth grade, 
     one purpose is ``we work for good health''; in grade ten, a 
     purpose is ``I use science and technology to help shape a 
     just and projective society''. In the early grades, each 
     class addresses its ``purpose'' as a group, planning and 
     implementing a ``constructive action'' in the community with 
     the guidance of a teacher. Older students plan and implement 
     their own ``constructive action'' with teacher involvement. 
     Embedded in each ``purpose'' are content areas such as 
     English and math, and essential skills such as critical 
     thinking and researching. Leadership is emphasized and 
     students are expected to meet high academic standards. These 
     fundamental changes in the curriculum and instruction become 
     the organizing principles for all other school activities.

           Simmons Elementary School, Hollandale, Mississippi

       Simmons Elementary School, an Audrey Cohen College School 
     of six years, is located in Holandale, a small rural town in 
     the lower Delta region of western Mississippi. Simmons, which 
     serves a high percentage of low-income students in one of the 
     poorest communities in the country, has become a success 
     story after state test scores were released in 1995. Across 
     most grades, overall performance rose from the 30-40th 
     percentile to the 50-60th percentile in the 1995-95 school 
     year. Student scores continued to increase through 1996 when 
     fifth grade students ranked third of all districts in the 
     state in language, ninth in reading and 16th in mathematics.

                                Comments

       ``The 1994-95 school year has been very rewarding. I'm very 
     much pleased with the relationships that have advanced 
     between the school and the community. The Audrey Cohen 
     College System of Education is really an asset to our rural, 
     Delta town. The students in Hollandale have made some 
     permanent changes in this town due to their Constructive 
     Actions.'' Simmons Elementary School principal
       ``Sam is excited about each purpose and wants to 
     participate in each step. He uses his mind for ideas of his 
     own. He will be asked to do this to survive in his adult 
     life. This is usually begun in college of private schools. I 
     am extremely pleased that you allow this ability to grow at 
     this young age.'' Audrey Cohen College parent


                                co-nect

       The Co-NECT whole school reform model focuses on complex 
     interdisciplinary projects that extensively incorporate 
     technology and connect students with ongoing scientific 
     investigations, information resources, and other students 
     beyond their own school. Co-NECT schools use technology to 
     enhance every aspect of teaching, learning, professional 
     development, and school management. Cross-disciplinary 
     teaching teams work with clusters of students. Most students 
     stay in the same cluster with the same teachers for at least 
     two years. A school team of teachers, administrators and 
     parents sets goals for the school and monitors results. 
     Performance-based assessments are used extensively.

              Riviera Middle School, Dade County, Florida

       Riviera Middle School is located in suburban Dade County, 
     Florida--a community of mostly middle-income families outside 
     of Miami. The school has primarily Hispanic students, of 
     which 48% qualify for free or reduced price lunch. In 1995, 
     the school began working with Co-NECT with a week-long 
     training session for the staff. During the three years prior 
     to becoming a Co-NECT school, Riviera had begun the process 
     of training staff in how to use technology in the classroom, 
     wiring all classrooms, and setting up a school-wide network. 
     Working with Co-NECT, Riviera began using the technology to 
     enhance a rigorous and challenging project-based curriculum.
       After only one year of using the Co-NECT model, Riviera 
     students' reading scores rose by 17% on the Florida statewide 
     writing test. Riviera students also raised their math and 
     reading scores by 3 percentile points across all grades. 
     Faculty and student morale are at an all time high, and the 
     school continues to be featured in local media as an 
     outstanding example of the integration of technology into the 
     classroom.

                                Comments

       ``We already had a lot of equipment, and our teachers were 
     well trained in using complex software programs . . . But the 
     emphasis in Co-NECT is not the equipment, it's how you use 
     it''. Riviera Middle School principal
       ``My kids are straight-A students. There was no reason to 
     pull them out of a traditional school setting. But I wanted 
     them to

[[Page H6859]]

     do more than just read, memorize and be tested on things they 
     could forget in six weeks. Co-NECT had more to offer them to 
     help them become better-rounded students. This program helps 
     them develop not just academic skills, but also skills to 
     become self-starters, self-thinkers and self-motivators.'' 
     Co-NECT Parent


                  expeditionary learning outward bound

       The Expeditionary Learning whole school reform model is 
     based on the belief that learning is an expedition into the 
     unknown. Expeditionary Learning draws on the power of 
     purposeful, intellectual investigations, called learning 
     expeditions, to improve student achievement and build 
     character. Learning expeditions are long-term, academically 
     rigorous, interdisciplinary studies that require students to 
     work inside and outside the classroom. In Expeditionary 
     Learning schools, students and teachers stay together for 
     more than one year, teachers work collaboratively through 
     team teaching and shared planning, and tracking is 
     eliminated.

                Lincoln Elementary School, Dubuque, Iowa

       Lincoln Elementary School, a 400-student school located in 
     a lower, middle class neighborhood in Dubuque, Iowa, has been 
     working with Expeditionary Learning since 1993. Faculty teach 
     ``learning expeditions'' in every grade as a primary 
     curriculum vehicle. Students now look forward in each grade 
     to the ``famous'' expeditions. Teachers plan together by 
     grade-level or clusters. All students have portfolios. A 
     ropes course installed in the gym is used in all classes to 
     develop teamwork and risk-taking for teachers and students. 
     Test scores have improved significantly--4th graders improved 
     in the Iowa Test of Basic Skills from the 43rd national 
     percentile in 1992 to the 80th percentile in 1994. Parental 
     participation in school affairs has increased dramatically.

                                Comments

       ``I felt like a real scientist looking into a microscope, 
     and when I found the specimen I felt awesome. When you are 
     done with the expedition, you go home and tell your mom and 
     dad what you learned and they practically don't even know 
     what you are talking about. Six weeks ago, I would never have 
     known about pond life.'' Fifth grade Expeditionary Learning 
     student, Dubuque, Iowa.
                                                                    ____


             Evidence of the Results of Whole School Reform

       ``Do we need many more models of how we can fix troubled 
     schools? Yes, of course we do and fortunately, help is 
     readily available. Dedicated educators like James Comer, 
     Henry Levin, E.D. Hirsh, Deborah Maier, Ted Sizer, Marc 
     Tucker and Gene Bottoms are doing the hard work of creating 
     new models of excellence. The models are each unique in their 
     own way. But they all have one common denominator--they all 
     set high standards.'' Fourth Annual State of American 
     Education Address, Secretary Richard Riley, 1997.
       A 1997 study sponsored by the Department of Education found 
     that students in several schools using schoolwide reforms 
     began the study far below the national average, yet made 
     academic gains toward or exceeding national means. In some 
     schools the gains were dramatic. Progress made by students in 
     the schools using Success for All and Comer School 
     Development was particularly encouraging. The initially low-
     achieving students in the Success for All and Comer schools 
     began the study with reading comprehension levels below even 
     the average for low-achieving students in high-poverty 
     schools. Yet, over their first three years in school, 
     students in the Success for All and Comer schools produced 
     achievement scores that substantially exceeded both those of 
     other students in high-poverty schools, and equaled or 
     exceeded those of initially low-achieving students in typical 
     schools.'' Special Strategies Studies for Educating 
     Disadvantaged Children: Final Report, 1997.
       Since 1992, elementary students from a group of schools in 
     Prince Georges County, Maryland using the ATLAS model (a 
     variation of the Comer School Development Program) raised 
     their reading scores by 30 percent on the Maryland School 
     Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). The proportion of all 
     students in the ATLAS pathway scoring satisfactory or 
     excellent on the exam tripled between 1992 and 1995.
       At Norview High School--an ATLAS school in Norfolk, 
     Virginia, the number of students scoring above 1000 on 
     combined SAT scores has increased over 300% since the school 
     began implementing the ATLAS model. In 1996, Norview High 
     School was one of 19 schools recognized nationally for 
     innovation in the classroom by the Redbook Magazine Blue 
     Ribbon School Award.
       After the principal at West Mecklenburgh High School in 
     Charlotte, North Carolina, reorganized the school using the 
     Comer School Development Program, the number of students on 
     the honor roll jumped 75%, the number of students enrolled in 
     advanced classes increased 25%, and attendance rose from 89% 
     to 94%.
       Evaluation of seven years of continuous data on the six 
     original Success for All schools in Baltimore and 
     Philadelphia showed that students increase their reading 
     performance significantly compared to a matched control 
     school, as measured by reliable and valid instruments. 
     Researchers found that Success for All students tend to 
     perform about three months ahead of control students by the 
     first grade and more than a year ahead by the fifth grade, 
     indicating that the program has not only an immediate effect 
     on students' reading performance, but also that the effect 
     increases over successive years of use by schools. Research 
     and Development Report, Center for Research on the Education 
     of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University, October 
     1996.
       Success for All has had particularly promising results for 
     language minority students. Schools using Lee Conmigo--the 
     Spanish version of Success for All--in Philadelphia found 
     that Lee Conmigo students at the end of the 2nd grade were 
     nearly a grade ahead of students in control schools.
       In one review of promising schoolwide reforms, researchers 
     reported significant achievement gains for students in 
     schools using several New American School designs, including 
     Roots and Wings, ATLAS, Co-NECT, Modern Red Schoolhouse, 
     Expeditionary Learning, and the National Alliance for 
     Restructuring Education, Promising Programs for Elementary 
     and Middle Schools: Evidence of Effectiveness and 
     Replicability, Olatokunbo Fashola and Robert Slavin, January 
     1997.
       Using the Modern Red Schoolhouse model, the Hansberry 
     Elementary School in the Bronx, New York increased the 
     percentage of students who passed New York State's essential 
     skills test from 22% to 50% in reading and from 47% to 82% in 
     math from 1993 to 1995. In two years, Hansberry School also 
     doubled its score on the Degrees of Reading Power exam, which 
     measures how many students are reading at or above the 50th 
     percentile.
       The John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Louisville, 
     Kentucky increased its scores on the Kentucky statewide 
     assessment by 43% in reading and 48% in math, working with 
     the National Alliance reform model. Over a three-year period, 
     the school rose from among the lowest-scoring schools in the 
     state to the top 10%.
       The Riviera Middle School is located in suburban Dade 
     County, Florida and began working with the Co-NECT reform 
     model in August 1995. Since 1995, SAT scores are up 3 
     percentile points in both reading math across all grades, and 
     the school continues to be featured in local media as an 
     outstanding example of the integration of technology into the 
     curriculum.
       A group of Expeditionary Learning schools in Dubuque, Iowa 
     raised test scores in reading and math from 1992 to 1994 on 
     the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. At Lincoln Elementary, 4th 
     graders improved from the 43rd national percentile in 1992 to 
     the 80th percentile in 1994. At Table Mound Elementary, 4th 
     graders' percentiles increased from 39 in 1992 to 80 in 1994 
     when they were retested in the 6th grade.
       Lackland City Elementary School began working with the 
     Success For All model in the fall of 1994, and implemented 
     the math component of Roots and Wings in the fall of 1996. 
     Over 80% of students are achieving grade level objectives in 
     reading and math, and the school reports that 99% of parents 
     help their children with reading for 20 minutes each night.
       Significant improvement in student outcomes was achieved by 
     the Central Park East schools in New York City using the 
     principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Leaders 
     for Tomorrow's Schools, North Central Regional Educational 
     Laboratory, Winter 1995.
       By developing its own secondary school, Central Park East 
     in New York City--a member of the Coalition of Essential 
     Schools--increased the percentage of elementary school 
     graduates going on to college from two-thirds to 91 percent.
       A study of Roots and Wings carried out in four pilot 
     schools in St. Mary's County, Maryland--where an average of 
     48 percent of students qualified for free lunch and 21 
     percent were Title 1 eligible--in rural southern Maryland 
     found that Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth 
     on Maryland School Performance Assessment Program 3rd and 5th 
     grade assessments. The number of Roots and Wings students 
     achieving satisfactory or excellent increased by twice as 
     much as the state rate in all subjects tested (reading, 
     language, writing, math, science, and social studies). Bold 
     Plans for School Restricting: The New American Schools 
     Development Corporation Designs, 1996.
       From 1993 to 1995, the number of Roots and Wings 3rd 
     graders scoring satisfactory or better increased by almost 
     19%, while the percentage of other Maryland 3rd graders 
     scoring at least satisfactory increased only 8%. Statewide, 
     5th graders gained an average of 6 percentage points, 
     compared with a gain of 13 percentage points for Roots and 
     Wings 5th graders.
       Recent data analysis from studies of a New York school 
     district indicate significant effects on student achievement 
     in schools using the Comer School Development program. 
     Sixteen schools were arranged into groups based on the degree 
     to which they were effectively implementing the Comer model. 
     In schools implementing Comer to a high degree, 61% of 
     students were at or above the national average in math scores 
     and 56% were above in reading scores. In schools implementing 
     Comer to a low degree, 40% of students were at or above the 
     national average in math scores and only 36% were above in 
     reading scores. Researchers found a significant correlation 
     between the effectiveness of implementation of the Comer 
     model and student outcomes. Comer School Development Program 
     Effects: A Ten Year Review, 1986-1996, Norris Haynes and 
     Christine Emmons, 1997.

[[Page H6860]]

       An assessment of Comer effects (1987) in the Prince 
     George's County Schools revealed that average percentile 
     gains on the California Achievement Test were significantly 
     greater for Comer schools than for the district as a whole. 
     At the third grade level, program schools gained about 18 
     percentile points in mathematics, 9 percentile points in 
     reading, and 17 percentile point in language. The district as 
     a whole registered gains of 11, 4, and 9 percentile points 
     respectively in math, reading and language. At the fifth 
     grade level, Comer schools recorded gains of 21, 7, and 12 
     percentile points in math, reading and language compared to 
     gains in 11, 4, and 7 percentile points for the district as a 
     whole. Academic gains were linked to the degree and quality 
     of implementation of the Comer School Development Program. 
     Rallying the Whole Village: The Comer Process for Reforming 
     Education, 1996.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, together with my thanks for the absolutely 
wonderful job that he has done in working with the subcommittee to 
bring the bill to the floor in its present form.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time. I congratulate him and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for the outstanding job that they have done on bringing this 
most extraordinarily difficult bill thus far.
  The fact is, as has been just said by the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
we currently have a consensus which offers to the Members of the House 
a bill which fundamentally intact can be presented to the Senate, and 
if it comes back in roughly the same way, we have every expectation 
will be signed into law, without all the controversy and the rancor 
that has taken place in this bill in years past.
  I would urge all Members to consider that we went through an exercise 
in the spring on the disaster relief bill to guarantee that government 
would stay open and that the Government would be funded at last year's 
level if we could not reach an agreement. Because of a Presidential 
veto, that discussion became moot. But we do not have to have a 
cataclysm. We do not have to disrupt the people's business and erupt 
into a major political warfare this year if we would understand that we 
do not, any one of us, get everything we want. But, we must work the 
magic of this body, in the House of Representatives, and the others do 
in the other body, to come together, to reach a consensus and to arrive 
at the consensus, thereby sending it to the President of the United 
States for his signature in the hopes that he will adopt our consensus.
  So far, so good. I am happy that I can say for the most part I think 
Members will vote for this bill, in bipartisan fashion. But we do have 
a number of Members on both sides who have, as has been indicated by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, who are unhappy with the bill as it 
currently stands. About a month ago, some Members were advising that 
they might unload 100, 150 amendments on this bill. I am pleased to 
report to our friends here that that does not seem to be likely, that 
those Members that were interested in just totally transforming the 
face of this bill have used their discretion to narrow their 
differences. I do not expect a lot of amendments. I expect frankly, 
certainly fewer than 15 or 10 on our side, and I do not know how many 
on the Democrat side.
  That is a step in the right direction. But obviously there are going 
to be Members, maybe many Members, who have critical differences with 
some provisions that are in the bill and who might be vitally unhappy 
that other issues of interest to them are not included in the bill. To 
them, regardless of whether they are on the Republican or the Democrat 
side, let me simply say that, folks, it takes 218 to pass this bill and 
move it to the other body. Over there it takes 51 to pass it. From the 
conference, it takes 218 in this body to adopt the conference report, 
and again 51 over there to adopt the conference report, whereupon that 
final report will go to the President for his signature, and again 
currently I expect the President's signature.
  That can change. We can decide to dig in. We can opt for total and 
absolute conflagration or confrontation, whatever we want to call it. I 
do not think that is going to happen. I commend any Members who have 
wanted to start out on that road and who have withdrawn that approach 
in favor of an isolated, single amendment approach.
  But let me simply try to calm the tenor of their vehemence or the 
voracious arguments that they might make on behalf of their positions 
and say that sooner or later, sooner or later the appropriations bill 
governing labor, health, and education and related issues will pass. 
That will take place and it will be signed into law. Either within the 
next few weeks or the next few months or next year, we are going to get 
a 1998 labor, health appropriations bill, because it has got to.

                              {time}  1745

  I hope very strongly that it is not next year, that it is not 3 
months from now, and that it will be within the next couple of weeks. I 
urge my friends who are thinking that this bill is so defective that 
they cannot support it to rethink their position for this reason:
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has, indeed, come a long way 
when he approved the compromise, the bipartisan compromise between 
those who were fervently pro-life and those who are fervently not, to 
adopt the Hyde abortion language to extend HMO, something that has 
never been done before. They came together; we have language in this 
bill which reaches that compromise.
  The ergonomics language pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has been fought by the minority not just since 1994, but whenever it 
has come up in the past. It has been fought; it has been defeated. We 
have language which, small and large business alike emphatically 
embraces.
  Under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], we 
have got the Dickey-Wicker amendment preventing research funds, U.S. 
funds expended for embryo research. We have tons of money for medical 
research, cancer research. We eliminate 20 new programs. Twenty new 
programs are completely terminated because of their inefficiency and 
their waste.
  In this bill alone, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] did 
prevail for the first time, and he has been trying for several years to 
help small manufacturers of furniture in the South to overcome the EPA 
restrictions on methochloride, and the list goes on and on.
  This bill is a consensus. I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I commend 
all the staff for working together to bring people together to get a 
bill that can pass and can be signed into law. And I urge any Members 
who are dissatisfied that it is not a good enough deal to understand 
that we in the majority will only prove that we can govern if, in fact, 
we can produce a reasonable bill with as little rancor as possible.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to follow up the chairman's 
comments by expressing my appreciation for the fact that the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] and the staff have worked intensely hard. They have worked in a 
very fair manner, in a very open manner, and the staff has worked 
incredibly hard to produce many of the answers that the Members like to 
claim credit for, and I simply want to express my appreciation for all 
of that work and hope that that spirit can continue.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for yielding to me, 
and I rise in support of H.R. 2264.
  First, I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], for their joint efforts in producing what I think is an 
excellent bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this year's bill includes enhanced funding for a number 
of critical quality of life programs that we can be especially proud 
of. For example, the bill funds for the first time the Youth 
Opportunity Areas Initiative. The program would be funded at $125 
million.

[[Page H6861]]

  This employment training program is long overdue and is absolutely 
essential to effectively addressing the continuing double-digit 
unemployment and the underemployment among our Nation's out-of-school 
youth. These are young people that in many instances have given up on 
the system and on themselves and they have been allowed to waste away.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation cannot afford to give up on any of its 
citizens. It is for this reason that I am pleased that our colleagues 
from the authorizing committee are working to fully authorize this 
program.
  Members will be interested to note our colleagues in the Senate share 
our commitment to out-of-school youth and have provided $250 million 
for the youth opportunity areas in their fiscal year 1998 
appropriations measure. It is my hope that in conference we can work to 
come somewhat closer to the Senate figure.
  Mr. Chairman, while more needs to be done to enhance support for this 
important program and others in H.R. 2264, communities across the 
country will benefit from the $324.4 million increase provided for Head 
Start. Our Nation's neediest children will continue to benefit from the 
Head Start Program's comprehensive development and early learning 
activities.
  The $32 million increase provided for the TRIO programs would help to 
expand the success of TRIO's activities to additional students. The 
Nation's continued investment in the TRIO program is absolutely 
essential. This program is specifically designed to improve the 
recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of minority and other 
disadvantaged students.
  For health professions' training programs, the bill restores and 
enhances funding by providing an appropriation of $306.5 million, a 
$13.7 million increase. Within the appropriations provided, the bill 
provides significant increases for minority and disadvantaged health 
professions students. For example, the measure includes a $2.6 million 
increase for the Centers of Excellence, a $3.2 million increase for the 
Health Careers Opportunity Program, and a $2.4 million increase for the 
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program.
  The bill also includes a $16.4 million increase for Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities. These funds will go a long way toward 
helping to improve and strengthen academic and related areas of 
infrastructure needs in our Nation's historically black colleges and 
universities. The $10 million increase for magnet schools would help 
communities to better carry out school desegregation plans.
  The bill also includes a $172 million increase for the Ryan White 
AIDS program; a $24 million increase for consolidated health centers; 
$30.4 million increase for substance abuse and mental health services; 
and the $764.4 million increase for biomedical research.
  Now while we can be encouraged by these enhancements, there are many 
important areas of the bill that need to be strengthened, including 
youth violence prevention, safe and drug-free schools, magnet schools, 
health care and substance abuse services, and employment training. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in conference to strengthen 
these very important programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that in working together we can further 
strengthen H.R. 2264. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join together in 
voting yes on H.R. 2264.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a valued member of our subcommittee, and I might 
add an active member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I appreciate the 
hard effort that so many people have put into this particular piece of 
legislation, but I really rise not as a member of the subcommittee but 
as a father because there are so many things in this piece of 
legislation that affect so many aspects of our lives, our kids and 
their education, our health, our nutrition, the Labor Department, and 
all of the impact upon where we work, and, indeed, it also affects 
very, very directly the relationship between us and our children.
  I have five children, two boys and three girls, and all three of my 
girls are teenagers, and I pay attention when a situation happens such 
as happened in Illinois recently, when it is disclosed that a 37-year-
old teacher begins an affair with a 13-year-old girl, carries it on for 
a year and a half, and, to continue the affair, takes her to a title X 
clinic funded by our taxpayers' money to obtain contraception.
  Now, if this were to any other type of clinic, they would be required 
to report a situation that involves something such as statutory rape or 
child abuse or sexual abuse of a minor. Well, see, title X has a 
Federal requirement that whatever happens with anyone who comes into a 
title X clinic, whether they be 30 or 40 or 20 or 15 or 12 or 11, 
nothing will be told to anyone. A total confidentiality requirement is 
written into the Federal regulations which supersede State law, and 
anyone else that would be required to report this incident to the 
parents or the authorities has to stay quiet under title X.
  That is why we have an amendment in this particular bill that is 
being offered for this particular bill that says providers that are 
given Federal funding in these are not exempt and must comply with any 
laws regarding the reporting of child abuse, child molestation, sexual 
abuse, rape, or incest.
  This is a key provision that will be debated, but I think it is one 
of the most important things because this bill hits us where we live 
and our families, and the Federal Government should not be inducing 
people to be able to conduct such activity without even parents being 
told.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I fully supported this bill as it was 
reported by committee. It was a bipartisan effort of which I am quite 
proud.
  Since the beginning of the last Congress, the Labor-HHS education 
bill has been the focus of contentious debate, which even led to a 
Government shutdown. At long last, the committee under the strong 
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], has 
succeeded in producing a bill which reflects our shared priorities.
  In keeping with the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the committee 
voted to oppose all new controversial legislative riders. I strongly 
urge my colleague to oppose the Goodling and Istook amendments. They 
are opposed by the administration, highly controversial, and do not 
belong in this bill. And let me say at the outset, if these amendments 
pass, support for the bill by Members of this body will be jeopardized 
and it would be very unfortunate if that occurs.
  The bill, as reported by committee, recognizes the clear need for an 
increased investment in our children's education, and I am pleased that 
we were able to provide $2.8 billion more than last year in 
discretionary funds for education. In particular, I am pleased that new 
funds have been provided to keep our schools open after hours in order 
to improve reading and other academic skills and that we have increased 
funding for magnet schools.
  I salute the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
for developing a school reform proposal that would build upon the most 
successful models across the country, including several located in New 
York.
  I also want to note that we have increased the maximum Pell grant by 
$300 per student. We made a number of significant increases in health 
programs. We were able to provide NIH with a 6-percent increase over 
last year. This will allow NIH to increase funding for breast cancer 
research so that advances in prevention and treatment will continue to 
move forward. We were also able to provide a modest increase for the 
Centers for Disease Control, the agency which safeguards our Nation's 
public health.
  In the labor area, I am particularly pleased that we provided $170 
million more than last year for adult job training. These funds will 
help to assist those on welfare so that they can better obtain decent 
paying jobs.
  Of course there are some programs that I believe should be better 
funded than they are in this bill. Specifically, I am disappointed that 
there is no money for the State Students Incentive Grant Program and no 
increase for teacher training under the Eisenhower

[[Page H6862]]

program. I am also deeply concerned about the inadequacy of funds for 
aging services, particularly for senior centers and meal programs, and 
I hope that we can move toward the Senate levels on these programs.
  I am also concerned that the committee has not provided adequate 
funds to cities to care for people with AIDS nor to prevent HIV 
infection and the spread of AIDS. Worker protection programs are also 
now funded at adequate levels.
  But this is a very good bill that meets so many of the important 
needs of our constituents. Please let us keep it free of new 
controversial riders.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a very, very able member of our subcommittee.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill, not that I am overly excited about all the details in the bill, 
but as a fiscal conservative, I have some problems with it. But the 
bottom line is, with the election last November stating we are going to 
have a Democratic President and Republican Congress, we must work 
together.
  I am concerned that the total amount of money is too much. I wish we 
could have frozen the amount of money and forced ourselves here to 
reprioritize how money should be spent in the committee.
  I wish we were not funding all the new programs. I do not think we 
need to fund new programs. We need to get a better handle on the 
spending we have to date.
  I wish we could zero out some more programs that we do not need any 
more. We have over 200 education programs in this bill. Maybe the total 
amount of dollars is okay for education, but do we need 200 programs?
  A lot of them are small programs. We made a big effort last year to 
start reducing those programs. We are moving in the right direction. I 
wish we could continue more in that direction to consolidate programs 
and not have as many programs.
  There are big programs like LIHEAP, and I know that is a major issue 
with the ranking member of this committee that I think has outlived its 
need in this country. It was started back in the Jimmy Carter days when 
he was President. We have changed. That is $1 billion a year. I would 
rather put it in the National Institutes for Health.
  There are some programs that I think are overfunded in this program, 
and I wish we could change them. I think NLRB is almost $200 million 
for government lawyers. I do not think we need that much money for the 
NLRB.
  I think Howard University is getting $18,000 a year subsidy for every 
student at the school. I support Howard University, but I wonder, do we 
need to provide $18,000 for every student there? I think we could make 
a better use of our dollars and spread it out for all the other 
minority universities and colleges around the country.
  And then there are some programs that I think we should even increase 
more. I was delighted that the NIH got an increase of 6 percent. That 
is a $764-million increase. The President requested only a 2.6-percent 
increase. I think we could do even better. If we are going to have a 
goal to go to $25 billion of funding for something that, to me, is a 
Federal priority, that is good for this country, that is one of the 
crown jewels of the Federal Government, I think we need to continue 
pushing that.
  But the bottom line is, we need to govern. The President was elected 
last November and we need to work out a compromise. This is the best we 
can do. I commend the chairman for the work he has done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], also a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for giving me 
this time, and I rise in support of the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1998, as presented. In particular, I 
commend our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter]; and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of 
the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee, for 
negotiating an excellent bipartisan bill, a bill in which the 
subcommittee can take considerable pride. I congratulate the gentlemen.
  This bill is a refreshing change from the last 2 years when the bill 
has been the focus of deep ideological disputes in spite of the good 
intentions of our chairmen, and a vehicle for sending objectionable 
legislative riders to the President.
  Thankfully, we have returned to the bipartisan tradition which has 
historically characterized this bill. As our former chairman, Mr. 
Natcher, would say, this is a good bill.
  As Members know, the bill deals with Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education. With regard to labor programs, the bill makes 
significant changes in job training, including the Job Corps, and 
increases for job, youth, and adult job training by $237 million over 
this year's funding.
  At the same time, the bill adequately funds worker protection 
programs, and unlike the last 2 years, does not include riders designed 
to weaken the protection of American workers.
  I am particularly pleased that under an agreement negotiated by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], OSHA will be able to continue its important work in 
developing an ergonomic standard and will be able to assist business in 
the next year to adopt important changes in the work environment 
designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries.
  As a recent GAO study concludes, ergonomic programs work, reducing 
injuries and reducing workers' compensation costs by 31 to 91 percent.
  Of particular note, the bipartisan agreement also provides the 
committee will refrain from any further restrictions on issuing 
ergonomics standards beyond 1998.
  With regard to health, the bill is a significant improvement over the 
past agreement, which proposed to phase in a 16-percent reduction in 
public health programs.
  Remarkably, this bill provides for a 6-percent increase in important 
biomedical research programs, including important research on breast 
cancer. It expands on our Federal response to new and emerging 
infectious diseases, and restores proposed cuts to training programs in 
the health professions.
  In addition, the bill provides almost $300 million for the AIDS Drug 
Assistance program, an increase of $132 million, or 79 percent over 
comparable 1997 funding. This funding will make the difference between 
life and death for thousands of Americans living with HIV disease. 
While I wish we had done more to fund important HIV prevention outreach 
activities, my hope is by the time this bill emerges from conference 
with the Senate, the problem will be resolved.
  With regard to education, I am pleased that so many of the 
President's important education priorities have been accommodated in 
this bill. In particular, I am very pleased at the increase of $93 
million in the bilingual program and with the investment in support 
services and professional development to improve the quality of these 
programs.
  I am also pleased with the high priority placed on direct financial 
assistance for students in higher education.
  Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, this bill is a great improvement 
over the spending levels assumed in the budget agreement. My hope is 
that the careful bipartisan work that has brought us to this point is 
not disrupted by hostile amendments during floor consideration. I urge 
my colleagues reject amendments that would derail this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend once again the chairman of the full committee 
and our ranking member for their leadership.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Nethercutt] a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2264, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. I know I speak on behalf of the entire 
Congressional Diabetes Caucus when I thank Chairman Porter for his 
efforts to combat diabetes. Along with Speaker Gingrich, who has drawn 
the Nation's attention to this terrible disease, Chairman Porter has 
persuaded NIH to examine its funding priorities.

[[Page H6863]]

  This bill will do much to help the 16 million diabetics in our 
country. It increases funding for NIH by 6 percent and for the National 
Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, [NIDDK] by 7.5 
percent.
  Along with funding provided through the Balanced Budget Act, the 
increase in this bill will begin to make up for past funding 
discrepancies between NIDDK and the other Institutes of the National 
Institutes of Health.
  Over the last 10 years, funding for diabetes research has not even 
kept place with inflation, despite the increases provided to NIH by 
Congress. So it is my hope and my expectation that a significant 
portion of the 7.5-percent increase will go toward combating diabetes, 
a deadly disease in our country.
  The bill also includes legislation I have introduced, the Diabetes 
Research Amendments Act, to establish a diabetes working group to 
outline future diabetes research priorities. A report under these 
amendments will be submitted to Congress within 1 year, which, in 
essence, will be a blueprint, a national blueprint, for future diabetes 
research. This plan is necessary to best direct the funding dollars and 
to begin a redoubling of our effort to advance a cure for diabetes.
  So I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and I thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and others who had a hand in 
crafting this bill, and including the very significant efforts to 
assist in combating the disease of diabetes that affects so many people 
around our country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer] a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and 
want to rise in support of H.R. 2264.
  For the past 3 years, the bill that came to this floor had very 
controversial riders and did not provide, in my opinion, adequate 
funding for education. My colleagues and I have repeatedly argued to 
increase the Nation's commitment to education.
  This year's bill, by and large, provides funding at levels that are 
good for our children, good for our families, and good for our Nation. 
The bill does a better job in meeting the needs of children, families, 
and schools for quality education.
  For example, the bill invests $4.3 billion in Head Start, a $324 
million increase over the past fiscal year, a program that Ronald 
Reagan said works, with a goal of serving 1 million children by the 
year 2002. Not enough, but better.
  The bill acknowledges the commitment we must make to our children's 
education by funding initiatives such as Even Start and After School 
Centers. The bill provides for an 11-percent increase for education 
over last year, timely, when we have more students in our public 
schools than at any time in our history.
  Specifically, the bill gives a much needed increase in funding to 
title I, bilingual education and special education. The bill recognizes 
important programs that enhance educational resources and improve 
professional development, such as the National Board of Professional 
Teaching Standards and the National Education Goals Panel.
  Unfortunately, however, the bill spends $145 million less than the 
President requested on Goals 2000 and provides the $260 million for the 
President's America Reads program for fiscal year 1999, rather than 
1998.
  Additionally, the bill does not fully fund the Eisenhower 
Professional Development program, which assists communities in 
improving the quality of their teachers, a critical objective.
  I would like to have seen the full funding for these important 
initiatives in this bill, but I will remain faithful to our bipartisan 
agreement and support this bill.
  Like my predecessors on my side of the aisle, I will support this 
bill with a caveat, and that caveat, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not go 
down the road that we went down in 1995 and 1996 and add to this bill 
amendments that are clearly unacceptable, not only to the President of 
the United States, but to the American people. I would hope we do not 
do that.
  There are amendments pending which, very frankly, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], courageously, in my opinion, and with wisdom and 
in the best traditions of bipartisan leadership, rejected in our 
subcommittee. But if they are added on the floor, I am worried that 
this bill, with the good provisions in it for labor, for education, and 
for the health of the American public will not go forward.
  I would hope that we would not see that, and, if we do not see that, 
I intend to support this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], my friend and colleague.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Chairman Porter 
and the subcommittee have accomplished a true feat, a bipartisan bill 
that manages to fund the most critical programs within its 
jurisdiction, despite the tight allocation for fiscal year 1998.
  I am just going to highlight some of the points in the bill, because 
I do not have time to go through the thoroughness of the issues that 
are covered so well.
  The bill provides a 6-percent increase for the National Institutes of 
Health. Chairman Porter has truly been a champion of biomedical 
research and has once again demonstrated his commitment to this 
critical priority.
  The legislation appropriates $1.2 billion for the Ryan White AIDS 
Program, 17 percent more than 1997. HIV-AIDS prevention received a $5 
million increase, less than 1 percent over last year's level, and we 
hope that funding will be increased.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for once again including report 
language I submitted on HIV-AIDS in women, STDs, autoimmune diseases, 
and violence prevention among youth.
  It also appropriates $2.4 billion for the Centers for Disease 
Control, an increase of $87 million over last year, including increases 
for breast and cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted disease 
prevention, preventive health services block grant, chronic and 
environmental disease prevention, lead poison prevention and injury 
control, among others.
  The title X family planning program receives a $5 million increase. 
The bill includes full funding for the Violence against Women Act and 
provides a $72 million increase for battered women's shelters.
  The legislation also provides critical increases in education funding 
from Healthy Start to Head Start; Even Start, student financial aid, it 
provides an increase in funding over present levels. Students with 
disabilities will have programs increased to the tune of $4.3 billion.
  As a strong advocate for providing telecommunications service, I am 
also pleased the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is also funded and 
the Women in Apprenticeship in Nontraditional Occupations.
  Mr. Chairman, I could really go on for about 5 more minutes, but 
frankly, I will use these last seconds to simply say again, my 
commendation, my congratulations, to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
member, and to members of the subcommittee for their fine work.
  While difficult decisions had to be made, I believe that this 
subcommittee has crafted a bill worthy of our support. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], also a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which I 
hope to be able to vote in favor at the end of this debate. I 
particularly want to commend Chairman Porter and our ranking member, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for the fine work and the 
extraordinary amount of time and effort they have put into putting this 
bill together and trying to deal with the numerous interests of 
Members, and more than that, with the issues that face this 
subcommittee, which face the people of this country.
  I am particularly pleased that it contains a substantial increase for 
health research at the NIH, for disease prevention work at the Centers 
for Disease Control, and for important educational programs, such as 
Head Start and IDEA.

[[Page H6864]]

  The bill is not ideal. It does not contain funds for breast and 
cervical cancer screening, for a program which would serve women 
between the ages of 40 to 50 who will become eligible for mammograms, 
and I truly do look forward to working with the chairman in conference 
to be able to raise this figure.
  I would have hoped to have had an opportunity and preferred 
additional funding for the Goals 2000 State efforts to raise the 
quality of education in our public schools, and am disappointed that it 
continues to deny poor women access to abortion services.
  I believe overall this is a good bill. My hope is that the bipartisan 
agreements will be maintained and there not be controversial changes 
made, those that are threatened; and my hope is that those 
controversial changes will not jeopardize the bill through unwise 
amendments.
  There have been several amendments which will be proposed which 
undermine national, State and local efforts to bring our schools up to 
meet the highest education standards. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in strenuous opposition to these amendments. The Whole School Reform 
initiative of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will ensure that 
our schools teach our children to read, write, and to do basic 
mathematics, giving them the tools they need to compete in a global 
economy. Our children will compete for jobs in a national and even a 
global marketplace. We must be sure that our local school systems are 
given the tools that they need to meet those national and global 
expectations.
  I will oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] of the title XV Family Planning Program. There is no doubt this 
parental notification amendment will increase teen pregnancy, teen 
abortion, and sexually transmitted disease. Similar amendments were 
defeated by bipartisan votes on the floor last year and in full 
committee this year. I urge my colleagues to vote against these 
amendments, which would undermine the fine work that was done by the 
chairman and the ranking member and other members of the subcommittee.
  What we need to have and what we need to support is a clean 
bipartisan bill of which we can all be proud, and which helps to meet 
the needs of the American people who so desperately depend on the work 
we do in this committee, which addresses almost every aspect of 
people's lives in this country.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to noting and thanking the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for the key role he has played, and my ranking member 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the ranking member on the 
full committee for the excellent work he has done to make this a 
bipartisan bill.
  I want to note that we have two new members this year on our 
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Kentucky, Ms. Anne Northup, on our 
side, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, on the 
Democratic side, in a reprise. We are glad to have both of them with 
us.
  In addition, I want to thank the staff of our full Committee on 
Appropriations. They have been extremely helpful to us every step of 
the way, led by Jim Dyer, as they have been to all of the other 
subcommittees during this very difficult appropriation season on the 
House floor. They really do a tremendous job for our country and for 
the House of Representatives.
  I also want to thank Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith of the minority 
staff of the committee for the excellent cooperation and courtesy they 
have extended to us, and I want to thank my own subcommittee staff, 
Tony McCann, the clerk, Bob Knisely, Sue Quantius, Mike Myers, Francine 
Mack, and Laura Stephens. Each of them do excellent work, and I do not 
know how we could possibly bring this bill forward without the kind of 
attention to detail that they have had. Laura is on detail to the 
committee from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and she has been a 
great help to us recently.
  I would also thank our previous detailee, Gloria Corral, from the 
Department of Education. Gloria was with us for several months earlier 
in the year and did a fine job, as well.
  Finally, I want to thank Julie DeBolt and David Sander of my own 
personal staff for the fine job and hard work they have done all year 
long in reference to this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of funding in the 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for 
historically black colleges and universities in the United States. I am 
also elated to note that this bill appropriates more funding to 
historically black colleges and universities than what was officially 
requested in the President's budget proposal. In all, this funding is 
indicative of Congress' commitment to the preservation of educational 
opportunity for students of color in our Nation.
  Among many universities, Howard University, my alma mater, here in 
Washington, DC, will stand to receive approximately $210 million. This 
money will be used for the continued procurement of academic and 
educational programming, and to fund much needed renovation efforts 
throughout various dormitories. I graduated phi beta kappa from Howard 
in 1973. The wonderful experience and enriching environment of Howard 
shaped the way in which I view and live in today's world. It is because 
of Howard University and funding for historically black colleges and 
universities that I am able to address this distinguished body as a 
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, historically black colleges and universities have 
graduated many leaders in the world of law, finance, ministry, and 
government. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall led a fight to end the 
vestiges of racial segregation. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a 
leader in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. People not just in 
the United States, but around the world, have benefited from the 
contributions and efforts of many graduates of historically black 
colleges and universities.
  Mr. Chairman, as we stand on the brink of the 21st century, it is 
readily apparent that education is the means by which success is 
achieved. In our increasingly technical and sophisticated world 
economy, it is exorbitantly important that we launch an indefatigable 
initiative toward educational success for all Americans. I believe that 
the mission of historically black colleges and universities throughout 
our Nation comport with the mission.
  So in conclusion, I exhort my colleagues to vote in support of 
increased funding for historically black colleges and universities in 
America. Let us say yes to our children's futures, say yes to our 
children's success, and say yes to the success of our nation for the 
years to come.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the chairman of 
our subcommittee, my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, for his 
leadership on this bill because this is a good bill that will have an 
impact on virtually every American family.
  Our subcommittee worked hard to prioritize the resources for the many 
important health and education programs included in this legislation.
  High priority was given to continued funding for the National 
Institutes of Health, which receives a $764.5 million or a 6 percent 
increase over the 1997 level and $427.1 million more than requested by 
the President. As I have said many times, NIH remains the preeminent 
biomedical research program of its kind anywhere in the world. Our 
investment in unlocking the mysteries of diseases and identifying new, 
life-saving therapies are repaid many times over in lower health care 
costs, a higher quality of life, and a cure for many diseases for which 
there was no successful treatment just a few years ago.
  We have continued to make great strides in the war on cancer 
including breast and prostate cancer, in addition to heart disease, 
stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsons disease, mental 
illness, sickle cell anemia, arthritis, osteoporosis, and other 
diseases that rob the young and old of years of life and lead to much 
pain and suffering. When we are so close to winning the battle on so 
many fronts, this is not the time to retreat from our commitment to 
remain the world leader in biomedical research.
  A health care area of special interest to our committee, where a 
small continuing investment over the past few years has paid off, is 
the National Marrow Donor Program. Established by Congress in 1986, we 
are celebrating the 10th anniversary of a working national marrow donor 
registry that matches potential donors with patients in need of a 
transplant who would otherwise die from leukemia or any one of 60 other 
fatal blood disorders.
  Since bringing to my colleagues attention the need for a national 
registry to provide access to a large pool of prospective unrelated 
individuals who might have matching bone marrow for patients in need of 
transplants, I have had nothing but unwavering support from the members 
of this committee and my colleagues in the House and Senate. The result

[[Page H6865]]

of this effort is a program that is a true medical miracle which is 
saving lives every day throughout our Nation and around the world.
  Later this year, The National Marrow Donor Program will register it 
three millionth prospective donor. My colleagues may recall that early 
in my search for a home for the national registry, some Federal 
officials told me we would never recruit more than 50,000 volunteers 
who were willing to donate their bone marrow to a complete stranger.
  We proved them wrong and in doing so have given a second chance at 
life to thousands of men, women, and children. As the registry 
continues to grow, so do the number of transplants. More importantly, 
we have given hope to thousands of families who otherwise would have 
faced the prospect of certain death for a loved one.
  This hope circles the globe as we exchange bone marrow on a regular 
basis with 14 other nation's who have patterened their national 
registeries after our own. Because genetics play such a crucial role in 
a successful match, this access to potential bone marrow donors from 
throughout the world has helped save the lives of patients here who 
were unable to find a matched donor in our national registry. Indeed, 
bone marrow is crossing international borders on a weekly basis, saving 
lives here and abroad. Nothing I can think of will help bring the 
nation's of the world closer together.

  Our committee has included in the bill $15,270,000 for the continued 
operations of the national registry under the oversight of the Health 
Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]. Responsibility for the 
registry was transferred in 1995 from NIH to HRSA. The Navy continues 
to play a leading role in providing operational support and direction 
to the program with additional funding made available by our 
Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.
  Other small, but significant health care programs established and 
supported by our subcommittee are also saving lives throughout our 
Nation. With the $13 million included in this legislation for the 
Emergency Medical Services Program for Children we are increasing 
public awareness and training health care professionals for the unique 
emergency medical needs of acutely ill and seriously injured children. 
More than 40 States have now established training programs to improve 
the quality of care available for children. The leading cause of death 
for them continues to be accident and injury.
  We have made a significant investment in this bill in other areas of 
preventative health care. Notably, we have included $145 million for 
the Centers for Disease Control's breast and cervical cancer screening 
program to provide early cancer detection for many low- and middle-
income women who otherwise would not receive life-saving early 
warnings.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, we have included $14 million for the National Youth Sports 
Program, which gives many disadvantaged youth their first exposure to a 
college campus. In addition to inspiring these children to stay in 
school so they can one day attend college, the program also provides 
health care screening, hot meals, math and science enrichment, and a 
strong anti-drug and anti-violence message.
  Our subcommittee has also provided for the educational needs of our 
Nation's children from their preschool years through college. Once 
again we have increased Head Start funding, this year by $324 million 
to more than $4.3 billion. This is good news for Pinellas County, FL, 
which I am proud to say is home to a nationally recognized Head Start 
program that does an outstanding job in preparing our youngest students 
for their entry into elementary school.
  Also included in this legislation is $7.7 billion in grants to State 
and local education agencies for disadvantaged youth. This is $395 
million more than is available for the current year. We have provided 
an additional $350 million for school improvement programs, $556 
million for safe and drug free school programs, and $4.3 billion for 
special education.
  In the area of higher education, our committee has maintained its 
emphasis on providing direct assistance to college students. The bill 
includes funding to allow the maximum Pell Grant to rise to $3,000. In 
addition, we have increased funding for Federal work-study programs, 
TRIO, and minority institutions.
  Among the myriad of Federal agencies funded in this bill, we continue 
our support for the Social Security Administration and the Medicare 
contractors, to allow them to process claims in a timely manner and to 
update their technological base to improve service to older Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, this is one appropriations bill 
which touches virtually every American family. It is also one that 
makes major investments in improving quality of life through health 
care services, important biomedical research, educating our children, 
and providing for the needs of our older Americans. It is a bill that 
deserves the support of every Member of this House because it will 
improve the way of life for every congressional district.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 31, 1997, the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  Amendments printed in House Report 105-214 may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, are considered as read, are not subject to 
amendment except as specified in the report or pro forma amendments for 
the purpose of debate, and are not subject to a demand for a division 
of the question.
  The amendment at the desk offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] shall be considered in lieu of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the 
report and shall be considered as though printed as amendment No. 1.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2264

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

       For necessary expenses of the Job Training Partnership Act, 
     as amended, including the purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real 
     property for training centers as authorized by the Job 
     Training Partnership Act; the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and 
     Nontraditional Occupations Act; the National Skill Standards 
     Act of 1994; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; 
     $5,162,601,000 plus reimbursements, of which $3,872,463,000 
     is available for obligation for the period July 1, 1998 
     through June 30, 1999; of which $118,491,000 is available for 
     the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 for necessary 
     expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of 
     Job Corps centers; of which $200,000,000 shall be available 
     from July 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, for carrying 
     out activities of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; and 
     of which $100,000,000 shall be available for obligation for 
     the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 for 
     Opportunity Areas for Out-of-School Youth only if 
     specifically authorized by subsequent legislation: 
     Provided, That $52,502,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act, 
     $69,285,000 shall be for carrying out section 402 of such 
     Act, $7,300,000 shall be for carrying out section 441 of 
     such Act, $5,000,000 shall be for all activities conducted 
     by and through the National Occupational Information 
     Coordinating Committee under such Act, $1,063,990,000 
     shall be for carrying out title II, part A of such Act, 
     and $129,965,000 shall be for carrying out title II, part 
     C of such Act: Provided further, That no funds from any 
     other appropriation shall be used to provide meal services 
     at or for Job Corps centers: Provided further, That funds 
     provided for title III of the Job Training Partnership Act 
     shall not be subject to the limitation contained in 
     subsection (b) of section 315 of such Act; that the waiver 
     described in section 315(a)(2) may be granted if a 
     substate grantee demonstrates to the Governor that such 
     waiver is appropriate due to the availability of low-cost 
     retraining services, is necessary to facilitate the 
     provision of needs-related payments to accompany long-term 
     training, or is necessary to facilitate the provision of 
     appropriate basic readjustment services; and that funds 
     provided for discretionary grants under part B of such 
     title III may be used to provide needs-related payments to 
     participants who, in lieu of meeting the enrollment 
     requirements under section 314(e) of such Act, are 
     enrolled in training by the end of the sixth week after 
     grant funds have been awarded: Provided further, That 
     service delivery areas may transfer funding provided

[[Page H6866]]

     herein under authority of titles II, parts B and C of the 
     Job Training Partnership Act between the programs 
     authorized by those titles of the Act, if the transfer is 
     approved by the Governor: Provided further That service 
     delivery areas and substate areas may transfer up to 20 
     percent of the funding provided herein under authority of 
     title II, part A and title III of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act between the programs authorized by those 
     titles of the Act, if such transfer is approved by the 
     Governor: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, any proceeds from the sale of Job 
     Corps center facilities shall be retained by the Secretary 
     of Labor to carry out the Job Corps program: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of Labor may waive any of the statutory or 
     regulatory requirements of titles I-III of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (except for requirements relating 
     to wage and labor standards, worker rights, participation 
     and protection, grievance procedures and judicial review, 
     nondiscrimination, allocation of funds to local areas, 
     eligibility, review and approval of plans, the 
     establishment and functions of service delivery areas and 
     private industry councils, and the basic purposes of the 
     Act), and any of the statutory or regulatory requirements 
     of sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (except for 
     requirements relating to the provision of services to 
     unemployment insurance claimants and veterans, and to 
     universal access to basic labor exchange services without 
     cost to job seekers), only for funds available for 
     expenditure in program year 1998, pursuant to a request 
     submitted by a State which identifies the statutory or 
     regulatory requirements that are requested to be waived 
     and the goals which the State or local service delivery 
     areas intend to achieve, describes the actions that the 
     State or local service delivery areas have undertaken to 
     remove State or local statutory or regulatory barriers, 
     describes the goals of the waiver and the expected 
     programmatic outcomes if the request is granted, describes 
     the individuals impacted by the waiver, and describes the 
     process used to monitor the progress in implementing a 
     waiver, and for which notice and an opportunity to comment 
     on such request has been provided to the organizations 
     identified in section 105(a)(1) of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act, if and only to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that such requirements impede the 
     ability of the State to implement a plan to improve the 
     workforce development system and the State has executed a 
     Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary requiring 
     such State to meet agreed upon outcomes and implement 
     other appropriate measures to ensure accountability: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish a workforce flexibility (work-flex) partnership 
     demonstration program under which the Secretary shall 
     authorize not more than six States, of which at least 
     three States shall each have populations not in excess of 
     3,500,000, with a preference given to those States that 
     have been designated Ed-Flex Partnership States under 
     section 311(e) of Public Law 103-227, to waive any 
     statutory or regulatory requirement applicable to service 
     delivery areas or substate areas within the State under 
     titles I-III of the Job Training Partnership Act (except 
     for requirements relating to wage and labor standards, 
     grievance procedures and judicial review, 
     nondiscrimination, allotment of funds, and eligibility), 
     and any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of 
     sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (except for 
     requirements relating to the provision of services to 
     unemployment insurance claimants and veterans, and to 
     universal access to basic labor exchange services without 
     cost to job seekers), for a duration not to exceed the 
     waiver period authorized under section 311(e) of Public 
     Law 103-227, pursuant to a plan submitted by such States 
     and approved by the Secretary for the provision of 
     workforce employment and training activities in the 
     States, which includes a description of the process by 
     which service delivery areas and substate areas may apply 
     for and have waivers approved by the State, the 
     requirements of the Wagner-Peyser Act to be waived, the 
     outcomes to be achieved and other measures to be taken to 
     ensure appropriate accountability for federal funds.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Evans

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Evans:
       Page 2, line 15, after ``reimbursements,'' insert ``of 
     which $2,500,000 shall be available for purposes of carrying 
     out section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (relating to homeless veterans' reintegration 
     projects);''

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, my 
colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking 
Democratic member of the subcommittee, for their efforts in producing 
this bill.
  Likewise, I appreciate the hard work of all members on the 
subcommittee on this legislation, and I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full 
committee, for his most important contributions, and likewise members 
of the full committee as well.
  In particular, I am very pleased that the full committee has provided 
$2 million in funding for the National Veterans Training Institute. 
This is a sound investment and money well spent, which will enable the 
continued provision of essential training. Again, I am most thankful to 
this committee for its actions.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offered for myself and my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], provides an 
additional $2.5 million for the homeless, the Homeless Veterans 
Reintegration Project, a program administered by the Assistant 
Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.
  I understand $2.5 million has already been designated in H.R. 2264 
for homeless veterans under the Department of Labor pilots and 
demonstrations, and I appreciate the committee's concern for veterans. 
Nonetheless, the problem of homeless veterans is so severe that 
additional funding is necessary.
  There is virtually no disagreement that one-third of the homeless men 
in this country are veterans, and that approximately 60 percent of 
those individuals are veterans of the Vietnam war. This means, Mr. 
Chairman, that every night in this great country of ours more than 
280,000 veterans are sleeping in homeless shelters or on our streets.
  Since 1987, this program, a modest, cost-effective program designed 
to help homeless veterans reenter and succeed in the job market, has 
proven its worth. More than 41,000 homeless veterans have received help 
and support from the community-based organizations funded under this 
program, and many were placed in jobs at a cost of less than $15,000 
per veteran.
  Few government programs can claim to have achieved so much with so 
little. Our amendment provides $2.5 million for this needed program, 
the funding level authorized under section 11448 of title 42, United 
States Code. Rather than increasing spending in order to fund this 
important program, our amendment would simply earmark this $2.5 million 
of the more than $5 billion provided for the Department of Labor's 
Employment and Training Administration.
  Earlier this year the Committee on Veterans' Affairs voted without 
dissent to fund this program. Republicans and Democrats came together, 
as they are doing tonight, to show their support for the men and women 
who served honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment to America's 
veterans and support the Evans-Filner amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Filner], and to wish him a happy birthday, as well.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank him for his service to our Nation's veterans as ranking 
member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, a source of particular satisfaction to me as a Member 
of Congress has been my service on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 
Veterans are special and unique members of our American family, and it 
has been an honor to work on their behalf.
  I am also privileged to represent the extraordinary residents of San 
Diego, CA, who have earned a nationwide reputation as a community 
committed to service to homeless veterans. It was the city of San Diego 
that created the Stand Down, a program which provides health care, 
legal assistance, dental treatment, clothing, and employment assistance 
for homeless veterans. This program has been replicated all over the 
country, and thousands of veterans have benefited because of the 
creativity and commitment of the veteran community in San Diego.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Evans] and myself extends this kind of benefits to homeless 
veterans all over this Nation. So on behalf of the good and caring 
citizens of San Diego, on behalf of America's homeless veterans, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Evans-Filner amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

[[Page H6867]]

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman has indicated that the committee would 
like to accept this amendment. Let me say that in addition to this 
amendment, I have very serious reservations about this bill. I think 
this is a question of philosophy about which direction the Republican 
Party should lead this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill increases spending dramatically over the 
balanced budget bill that we brought forth in 1995. It increase funding 
in many categories beyond what President Clinton had asked for in his 
own budget submission to this Congress. It has policy implications in 
the area of education, where we will be directing schools, that they 
have the opportunity now at the Federal level to enter into some new 
program called a Whole Learning Reform program.
  The Federal Government should not be involved in making those 
decisions. We should not have the Federal Government funding a national 
test for education. That is the beginning of the problems with this 
bill.
  It also goes into social policy, which many of us would find 
unacceptable in this Congress, not what we asked for in the Contract 
With America, or when Republicans went to the American people and asked 
them for a mandate to be the majority party in this Congress.
  One example of that would be a provision in the bill that would allow 
funds to be used for the distribution of needles to drug users. That is 
not a Republican platform. It does not help us to reduce drug use in 
this country. It is not something that we as a Republican Congress 
should be passing and sending to the President.
  I think the philosophy of this bill is to some extent dictated by the 
budget agreement that our leaders and the President entered into 
earlier this year, but it goes beyond the general agreement that we 
would expand Government rather than shrink the Departments of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor, the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department 
of Labor. It goes beyond the notion that their budgets would increase, 
and starts to make very liberal decisions in terms of social policy of 
the funding within those budgets.

                              {time}  1830

  I think it would be time for this Republican Congress to have a 
debate on what is the direction we want to take. Do we want to continue 
on this budget agreement that expands the role of government? Or do we 
want to take time and correct the work of this committee and reduce the 
size of government in some areas, and at least say those areas where we 
are spending more money, we are going to turn over control to the 
States and take it away from the bureaucracy here in Washington?
  Now, this is not to say that there are not some very good provisions 
in this bill. And I do say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
that I commend his efforts in the areas of ergonomics, for example, 
where the committee has stated there is a lot of bad science that is 
being foisted upon us in an effort to create more regulations at the 
Department of Labor. The chairman's bill does put a moratorium for a 
year on that misguided regulation going into effect.
  But, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do in the course of the debate on 
this bill is have a debate about fundamental principles in the 
Republican Party, address some very serious questions in this bill, and 
attempt to lead rather than capitulating to leadership from 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] that, yes, this bill does increase spending over last year, 
and I am not happy with that. But the leadership of the Republican 
Party and the Democratic Party, and the President, agreed earlier this 
year that there would be tax cuts and that there would be restraints on 
entitlement spending. In return for those changes in policy, they also 
agreed that there would be increases in programs that the President 
considered his priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have gotten the tax cuts and we have gotten the 
restraints on entitlement spending. Those bills have been passed and 
signed into law by the President. Like it or not, an agreement has to 
be at least substantially carried out, and this bill contains many of 
the President's priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, when Republicans took control of the Congress, this 
bill carried major cuts in programs when it passed the House of 
Representatives; a total of $9 billion. While many of the cuts were not 
in the enacted bill that year, nor did it survive in last year's bill, 
we certainly have restrained the rate of increase in spending in these 
accounts over what it might have otherwise been.
  With respect to the whole school reform that the gentleman mentions, 
I would urge the gentleman very, very strongly to look at exactly how 
this works. It does not put the Government in the reform business. It 
allows local schools operating under State law, if they wish, to apply 
for funds on a competitive basis so that they may engage in whole 
school reform. I believe this is a far better expenditure of money than 
our present title I program from which the funds derive.
  Other issues are going to be shaped on the floor of the House of 
Representatives as they should be. I would like to be able to please 
every single Member of the House of Representatives and offer a bill 
that everyone instantly said, ``I agree with.'' That obviously is not 
possible. But what we have to do is try to find the center, try to work 
with one another and find the common ground on which to govern, and to 
pass a bill that can meet the expectations of the American people. That 
is what this process is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have done some good things, things that the 
gentleman from Indiana and others would support very strongly. But 
obviously there is a certain price to pay for the things that we get. 
We have to also give something. We have attempted to do both and to 
find that common ground.
  I believe that we have done that in this bill. And while it will not 
please everyone, and never can, I believe it is a bill that can please 
the majority of Members in the House and I would very definitely 
commend it to them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not in the slightest going to get into a debate 
about the philosophy of the Republican Party. I simply want to take 
this time to indicate that on this side of the aisle, we would also 
accept the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], if 
that is indeed what is before us at this point.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me address the point of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], because I do think there is a philosophical 
difference between whether we should seek the center or stand for 
principles that are outside the center. Principles of a smaller 
government, less Federal intrusion into our school systems and into our 
State levels, and perhaps that is the core question that we should be 
debating as we talk about the problems that we have with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the problems, for example, that I encountered in 
the last week as I toured schools throughout central Indiana and 
visited with the students and teachers and parents, is I asked them 
what are the concerns that they have that I, as a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, would like to address. They 
time and time again said that they were chasing Federal dollars. They 
spent a lot of their time filling out forms in order to get the few 
dollars that they desperately needed, and then found they could not use 
them for the needs in their classroom.
  Mr. Chairman, one school needed additional computers and they found 
they did not qualify for the computer grant, and so they had to chase 
other dollars. Another school said, we want to teach the basics but we 
found that we have to apply for these fancy programs coming out of 
Washington. And

[[Page H6868]]

then once we apply to them, we have to spend all of our time filling 
out forms rather than teaching our children what they need to know in 
math, reading, writing, the basic knowledge and skills that Congress 
says they want us to teach.
  The message they sent to me to bring back here was: Get out of the 
way in Washington. Stop having most of the money have strings attached 
to it and send it to us in a block grant to the schools where we can 
decide how it would best be used.
  One of the things that I think we have to correct in this bill are 
provisions like the Whole School Reform Act that comes with strings. 
They have to apply under that program to take certain actions in order 
to receive the money; 200 million dollars' worth of funding is now tied 
to new strings. They wanted old strings from the previous Congress, or 
the Congress before that, that had authorized them but they had never 
been funded. So we will be creating a brandnew spending program as a 
result of that.
  There are other questions that I hope we can engage in this debate 
with the chairman. In some cases we seem to have decided that not only 
would we agree and compromise and take the President's budget number, 
we would outdo the President and spend more in certain categories. I do 
not think that should be our position as we move forward with this 
bill.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say I have a great deal of respect for 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. He is a leader in our party 
and on this committee. But I do have to fundamentally disagree on that 
philosophical question of whether we should approach the center or 
whether we should govern from a conservative, principled approach in 
this Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I was in the Cloakroom and I heard the 
discussions of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and I wanted 
to tell him that I know I have been discussing, and many members of the 
committee have been discussing for many years, trying to enhance the 
ability of local providers of education who have the primary 
responsibility with greater opportunities to access Federal dollars 
without having to go through so many hoops.
  Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a bill which is called the Family 
Services Improvement Act. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is 
a cosponsor. Senator Hatfield had a bill in the last Congress which 
tried to simplify the way in which communities access dollars.
  If I can make a very crude analogy, a funnel at the top where there 
are a lot of individual programs, but the child at the bottom of the 
funnel that we all want to serve, either for health reasons or social 
service or educational reasons, they have to figure out how to access 
all of these dollars.
  What the bill essentially tries to do is to get the Feds to 
facilitate that service being performed in a funnel type where it comes 
in here, but it comes out in a spout at the end not exactly the way the 
gentleman from Indiana would want it, but in a form that does not put 
local education or social service agencies or other agencies to the 
unbelievable difficulty of trying to figure out how we help Mary Jane 
or Charlie Brown.
  So, Mr. Chairman, although it is not directly on point, I wanted to 
call the gentleman's attention to that, because I think it would be 
something that perhaps in a bipartisan way we could work on to 
facilitate what I think both of us want done, although we may have 
different perspectives on exactly what the ways and means of doing it 
would be.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
comments of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and would hope to 
be able to address them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Porter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McIntosh was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], but I think we have to be careful we do not keep the old 
encumbered form of bureaucracy and say that we are going to give a 
roadmap at the local level on how to go through the paperwork, because 
they still have to go through the paperwork and spend the time and the 
money and the resources to do that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what the gentleman will like about the bill is that it eliminates most 
of the paperwork and says that there is one form for all of these 
programs, and it will be the Federal problem of figuring out. But we 
would only have one form.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, see, what I 
would hope we could do is move to something like title VI where we 
don't have to justify on a form; we would say that we are going to 
provide the resources and those at the local level decide how they want 
to spent them.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I heard the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] correctly. But if I can say so, I think the role 
of the Federal Government in education is to supplement or complement 
the primary role of local schools in educating our children. It is not 
to supplant them in any way or to require a certain curricula or 
anything else. And it is not, very definitely, to provide a separate 
tax source removed from local control simply to funnel money to local 
schools. That is not the purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, if it is the basics that the gentleman wants to 
emphasize, that should be done, and is done, in every school in America 
by State and local school districts using State and local funds. That 
is where it ought to be. We should not be putting the Federal 
Government into the business of raising the money to provide for basics 
to be taught. That is done by the State and local school districts.
  Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the money spent in this country is spent 
by State and local school districts on education. That is the way it 
ought to be. The Federal Government's role should be to provide 
national encouragement on things of national interest. And that is 
exactly what we are doing in this program.
  I think the gentleman from Indiana would agree that we are not 
attempting in any way to supplant local schools or to provide a taxing 
source removed from the people at the local level to support basics. 
That is not the role of the Federal Government at all.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, in response to 
the gentleman from Illinois, I agree that is not the role of the 
Federal Government. The concern I have with this bill is that there is 
a new program that creates a carrot and says if schools want to get 
some of these Federal dollars, they have to start teaching the way we 
think they should teach. And we are going to have a situation where we 
have got, as my wife says, folks jumping over dimes to go for a nickel 
because they are going to end up spending a great deal of money trying 
to apply for those programs.
  We would be much better off if we let them spend their money on the 
basics and we said, ``We have got this $200 million. We are going to 
give it to you to spend as you see fit on improving the teaching of the 
basics.'' I think if we are going to spend money at the Federal level, 
we should always say we are going to send it with the least amount of 
restrictions and strings attached to it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say first off that I think the amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] is well-conceived in the sense 
of if there is any group in America that has been neglected in the 
homeless population, it has been the veterans and people who have 
sacrificed for our country and put their lives at risk deserve that 
special attention, and I support that.
  We have a homeless shelter particularly targeted for veterans that a 
few Vietnam veterans have put together in Ft. Wayne, and I have been 
proud to help them and I know that it has been very difficult for them 
to get attention, because often they get ignored in the process.

[[Page H6869]]

                              {time}  1845

  I want to address a broader question off of that. That is, in areas 
where the Federal Government has not been, there is this temptation to 
say that every time we see a needy group or every time we see a problem 
that we are going to plunge into that. As we debate tonight and 
tomorrow and probably into next week this bill, this bill is at the 
heart of the differences between the two parties and how we are going 
to govern, and differences in our own party as to what the role of the 
Federal Government should be in education, what the role of the Federal 
Government should be in abortion, what the role of the Federal 
Government should be in labor policy, what the role of the Federal 
Government should be in health policy.
  Many of us are concerned, and I say this as someone who supported the 
budget agreement. Understanding that at times you have to have 
compromises and at times you have to move forward because the President 
is of a different party, the Senate may not agree with the House, and 
in the House we have a very narrow majority, there are pragmatic things 
that enter into getting what you can, but many of us feel we went too 
far in this bill. We were willing to live with many of the funding 
dollars in that, begrudgingly, and many of us were very divided over 
that subject.
  But there is also the matter, if we are going to spend the money, how 
are we going to spend the money and in what areas?
  We made many pledges. Many of them probably were, needless to say, 
overdramatic or probably unrealistic; nevertheless, many millions of 
American people believed that when we said we were going to eliminate 
the Department of Education and we were going to eliminate the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we were going to eliminate this 
organization or that organization, that we were at least going to fight 
for that.
  Now we are faced with a bill that in many of these cases is not 
eliminating, it is increasing its funding, something that surely we did 
not run on and say we were going to do. It has caused a lot of grief. 
And this bill consolidates many of these things; and now not only are 
we looking at increasing the money in some of the things that many of 
us came here very concerned about. I myself can hardly believe that we 
have a real dollar increase in Title X which, while we have many 
abortion issues that we face in this Congress, is the most 
controversial because it has the most money going to the organizations 
that do most of the abortions. Yet, it increases.
  We see increases in other categories. We see whole new programs. We 
can have a debate and we certainly will have a debate on the Whole 
School program. You have got some of the discussion here and we will 
have that in the education section.
  As I have talked with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] today, 
and as I have visited schools around the country, first when I was a 
staff director on the Republican side with the children-families 
committee, then working with Senator Coats in the Senate, and now being 
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have seen the merits 
of some of the ideas in this, school-based management, more flexibility 
in the schools to make determinations. But what I do not think is 
appropriate is to have something come in without having gone through 
the authorizing committee.
  The point is that it is authorized, but it was authorized dormant; in 
other words, it has no funds in it. This Republican-controlled Congress 
never passed this bill, never moved this bill. Furthermore, it was put 
in at the tail end in the appropriations subcommittee process and did 
not get fully aired because even if some of us and, for example, we 
will hear in this debate that the Heritage Foundation thinks that this 
is a good idea. The Heritage Foundation has no position on this. The 
Heritage Foundation has done reports that suggest that it is a good 
idea at the local level. They do not have a position on Federal 
initiative.
  And while we say we are not controlling local schools, the fact is 
that when we put the money out, particularly if you have a State law 
that says you cannot override local union contracts, if you have a 
State law that says you cannot do some of the things in the Little Red 
Schoolhouse reform and other types of things like that, and you have 50 
to 100 districts that want to get into this pool of money, there will 
be tremendous pressure on the State legislatures to change their State 
law.
  It is a tad cute to say we are not doing these things from the 
Federal level when, in fact, we are dumping $200 million into a program 
that was not funded, that was dormant, has never passed a Republican 
Congress. And all of a sudden when we say we are reducing Goals 2000, 
this is much more sweeping than Goals 2000.
  In Indiana, it may indeed be a good program. Why not debate it and go 
through a regular process similar to the National Literacy Initiative?
  We will be debating a number of these. We feel there should be a 
whole debate on this process. We are not trying to be obstructionist.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise to speak on behalf of the Evans amendment to H.R. 2264. This 
is a positive proposal which is bipartisan, which helps to assist the 
homeless veterans and increases from $2.5 million to $5 million this 
very important program which is section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney 
Homes Assistance Act, named for a former member of Congress who 
actually initiated this program and deserves a great deal of credit as 
a former Member from Connecticut.
  I believe that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] has shown 
again his great leadership for veterans; and working with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Filner] and others on both sides of the aisle, I 
had the pleasure of working with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], I know how important this 
issue is to people in my home State of Pennsylvania where many veterans 
have resided. And some are not only looking for proper health care from 
this Congress, proper vocational assistance, but now, where we can help 
those who are homeless, making a big difference.
  This will certainly go a long way, I think, in making those steps in 
a positive way to help our veterans, many of whom gave their lives for 
others, who are now trying to still make a go of it and are trying to 
make sure that they have the quality of life that they deserve for the 
sacrifice they made for this country.
  I rise in strong support of the Evans amendment. I believe it really 
makes this bill even more positive. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and look forward to working with him again on other pro-
veteran bills.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people in my district are deeply concerned 
about a number of issues, and I am deeply concerned about some issues 
that we address in this legislation, issues which have not come to the 
fore until just the last few hours of this debate.
  Parents in America want their children educated. One of the things we 
do in this country is we pay taxes in the hopes that we will give our 
children the best possible education. Yet what is happening in 
education in America today is that there is a great debate going on 
about how we improve education.
  I have listened to that debate and I have listened to the citizens of 
my district talk about it. They want their children to get the best 
possible education because they care deeply about their children's 
success as they go forward. But they discovered one thing that is 
vitally important. It is something that I thought we heard in 
Washington, D.C., but it appears maybe we have not.
  They have discovered out in America that education policy cannot be 
set in Washington, D.C., that it is simply too far away from the living 
rooms and the family rooms and the bedrooms of the children studying at 
home to set education policy thousands of miles away here in 
Washington, D.C.

  So when I ran for the United States Congress, I ran on the promise 
that I would work to return to the local parents, teachers, students 
and administrators in the schools in my district

[[Page H6870]]

the control of their education and their education dollars, so that 
those parents working beside the administrators in their schools could 
decide education policy for their children.
  For that reason, I got elected and I am pleased about that. But I 
have discovered in this bill something that gives me great concern. In 
this bill, we have decided that that is the wrong policy. In this bill, 
we have decided once again that the Federal Government should do the 
carrot-and-stick routine, that the Federal Government should decide 
what form of education reform works.
  Here is what we say in the bill: We say that we are going to reward 
those schools who pursue what is called Whole School Reform. And we 
even specify in report language that we will make this $150 million 
available, but only available to those schools who will follow the 
Whole School Reform model.
  And in report language, we set forth that they should either follow 
the school development program developed by Yale University 
psychiatrist James Comer, or the Success for All and Roots and Wings 
programs developed by Johns Hopkins University, or the Modern Red 
Schoolhouse program developed by Hudson Institute.
  So here we are saying, you local parents, you local administrators, 
those of you that are charged with educating your children and care 
most about their education, we will give you $150 million. You just 
have to jump through one Federal hoop. You have to agree to abide by 
one of these three programs. You have to spend the $150 million as we 
in Washington say it should be spent.
  Let me tell you, that is not what I was sent to Washington to do. 
That is not the kind of legislation that I believe America wants. I do 
not care if you are Republican or Democrat. I do not care if you are a 
liberal or conservative. I think this is an issue which transcends 
politics.
  I think American parents, whether they are liberal or conservative, 
Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, believe they know better how to 
educate their kids than some bureaucrat thousands of miles away in 
Washington, D.C., or some professor at the Hudson Institute or Yale 
University or Johns Hopkins.
  Yet we are saying, as a United States Congress, there is $150 million 
in this bill which you parents may have, but only if you let us decide 
on the education policy. I think that is wrong. I think we are making a 
grave mistake by including that kind of policy in this bill.
  It is not what the American parents want. They trust their teacher. 
You sit back and think about it: The one person you have to trust in 
your life is the teacher that your child spends a good portion of every 
day with.
  This last Tuesday was the first day of school for my kids. I took 
them both to school. I have a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. I had met 
their teachers before. I care about them, and I trust their teachers, 
but I have never met a single professor from Yale University or Hudson 
Institute that I want deciding how my children get educated.
  I trust the PTA at my school and the administrators at my school, but 
I thought we, as a Nation, had moved beyond this idea of dictating 
Federal education policy in Washington, D.C. Yet in this bill, I hope 
that my colleagues are listening and I hope their constituents are 
listening to them, we break that promise and we set education policy in 
Washington, D.C. That is dead wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

                       School Development Program


          Mission and Vision of the School Development Program

       The School Development Program is committed to the total 
     development of all children by creating learning environments 
     that support children's physical, cognitive, psychological, 
     language, social and ethical development.
       Our vision is to help create a just and fair society in 
     which all children have the educational and personal 
     opportunities that will allow them to become successful and 
     satisfied participants in family and civic life.


             Core Beliefs of the School Development Program

       We believe that ``it takes a whole village to raise a 
     child,'' noting especially that: children's most meaningful 
     learning occurs through positive and supportive relationships 
     with caring and nurturing adults; parents are children's 
     first teachers; all parents, and staff members, and community 
     member, regardless of position, has an important contribution 
     to make towards improving students' education; and in order 
     to bring out the best in children, adults must interact more 
     collaboratively and sensitively with each other on behalf of 
     children.
       We believe children: should be at the center of the 
     educational enterprise; are capable of higher learning; learn 
     through various pathways: physical, cognitive, psychological, 
     language, social, and ethical; and who develop well learn 
     well.
       We believe that teachers: work in supportive environments 
     which maximize their ability to teach and prepare students 
     for life beyond school; and develop positive relationships 
     with parents to make the necessary bonds for effective 
     teaching and learning.
       We believe school communities: must be structured to 
     promote collaborative decision making in order to create a 
     culture of inclusion; should promote learning as a lifelong 
     process; should embrace cultural, linguistic and ethnic 
     differences to enhance the educational process for all 
     people; use data from all levels of the system--student, 
     school, and district to inform educational policies and 
     practices; should view change as an ongoing process guide by 
     continuous constructive feedback; design curriculum, 
     instruction and assessment to align with and promote child 
     and community development and high content area standards; 
     provide administrators with the support they need to lead and 
     manage schools; and promote organizational synergy among 
     school boards, educators, and parents.


     A Brief History and Summary of the School Development Program

       The School Development Program (SDP) was established in 
     1968 in two elementary schools as a collaborative effort 
     between the Yale University Child Study Center and the New 
     Haven Public Schools. The two schools involved were the 
     lowest achieving in the city, had poor attendance, and had 
     serious relationship problems among students, staff, and 
     parents. Staff morale was low. Parents were angry and 
     distrustful of the schools. Hopelessness and despair were 
     pervasive.
       The Child Study Center staff--social worker, psychologist, 
     special education teacher, and child psychiatrist--provided 
     the traditional support services from these disciplines but 
     focused more on understanding the underlying problems and how 
     to correct them. Problems were identified on both sides--
     family stress and student underdevelopment in areas necessary 
     for school success, as well as organizational, management and 
     child development knowledge and skill needs on the part of 
     the school staff.
       Because of pre-school experiences in families under stress, 
     a disproportionate number of low-income children presented 
     themselves to the schools in ways that were understood as 
     ``bad,'' under-motivated, and demonstrating low academic 
     potential. The behavior, in fact, reflected underdevelopment, 
     or else development that was appropriate on the playground, 
     at home or other places outside of school, but inappropriate 
     at school.
       The school staffs lacked training in child development and 
     behavior, and understood school achievement solely as a 
     function of genetically determined intellectual ability and 
     individual motivation. Because of this, the schools were ill-
     prepared to modify behavior or close the developmental gaps 
     of their students. The staffs usually responded with 
     punishment and low expectations. Such responses were 
     understandable given the circumstances, but they usually led 
     to more difficult staff-student interactions and, in turn, 
     to difficult staff-parent and community interactions, 
     staff frustration, and a lower level of performance by 
     students, staff and parents.
       Even when there was a desire to work differently, there was 
     no mechanism at the building level to allow parents, 
     teachers, and administrators first to understand the needs, 
     then to collaborate with and help each other address them in 
     an integrated, coordinated way. This led to blame-finding, 
     fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and frustration. There 
     was no sense of ownership and pride in the school. The kind 
     of synergism that develops when people work together to 
     address problems and opportunities could not exist.
       The model took shape in response to the conditions in the 
     schools. Dr. Comer and his colleagues, working 
     collaboratively with parents and staff, gradually developed 
     the current nine-component process model (3 mechanisms, 3 
     operations, and 3 guiding principles). In the first category 
     is (1) a School Planning and Management Team representative 
     of the parents, teachers, administrators and support staff; 
     (2) a Student and Staff Support Team (formerly called the 
     Mental Health Team; and (3) Parent Team.
       The School Planning and Management Team carries out three 
     critical operations: the development of a (4) Comprehensive 
     School Plan with specific goals in improving school climate 
     and academic areas; (5) staff development activities based on 
     building-level goals in these areas; and (6) periodic 
     assessment which allows the staff to modify the program to 
     meet identified needs and opportunities.
       Successful implementation of the School Development Program 
     requires several important guiding principles and agreements. 
     All the adult stakeholders agree to use (7) a ``no fault'' 
     approach to solving problems. This allows school teams to use 
     all their time and energy on problem solving. Many

[[Page H6871]]

     groups get bogged down and are unable to move forward because 
     blame creates defensive behavior and conflict. When people 
     use ``no fault,'' they can speak up without fear of attack or 
     blame.
       The School Development Program uses (8) consensus decision 
     making rather than voting as the way to make decisions. 
     Discussions keep the developmental needs of children in mind. 
     One of the principal benefits of consensus decision making is 
     that it minimizes ``winner-loser'' behavior and a variety of 
     negative feelings that are common when decisions are made by 
     voting.
       Participants on the School Planning and Management Team (9) 
     collaborate with the principal who is often the team's 
     leader. Team members cannot paralyze the principal and on the 
     other hand the principal cannot use the group as a ``rubber 
     stamp.'' In some cases, a staff member rather than the 
     principal serves as a leader of the governance and management 
     team. When this happens, it is often after all involved have 
     become comfortable with the process, but sometimes it occurs 
     at the outset. This works when it is a genuine arrangement to 
     promote leadership from within the staff, and not as an act 
     of disengagement. With this arrangement, it is important for 
     the principal to be present and fully involved both in 
     meetings and in facilitating the process. These nine 
     components, developed in the 1968-69 school year, continue to 
     make up the essential elements of the School Development 
     Program.


         a brief summary of school development program effects

       Past efforts to document the effects of the School 
     Development Program have been consistent with our philosophy 
     that educational improvement embodies academic as well as 
     personal and social growth. To document the effects, a 
     combination of three research strategies are used: (1) 
     quantitative (e.g., Surveys), (2) qualitative (e.g., our 
     ethnographic protocols), and (3) theory development. These 
     strategies have been employed to document academic effects, 
     behavior and school adjustment effects, self-concept, and our 
     school climate.
       Studies conducted by the School Development Program and 
     other researchers provide evidence of significant SDP effects 
     on school climate, student attendance, and student 
     achievement. SDP effects are usually first manifested in the 
     improvement of the school climate, indicated by improved 
     relationships among the adults in the school, better 
     collaboration among staff members, and greater focus on the 
     child as the center of the education process. Research showed 
     that schools in which the SDP guiding principles (``no 
     fault'' problem solving, consensus decision making and 
     collaboration) were followed consistently, there was a 
     significantly greater decline in absenteeism and suspension 
     rates compared to the district as a whole. Comparative 
     studies of SDP and non-SDP schools reported significantly 
     higher self competence, self-concept, and achievement for SDP 
     students than for non-SDP students.
       Qualitative analyses of more than 130 interviews of 
     parents, students, teachers, principals, and other school 
     personnel from ten schools indicated (a) improved parental 
     and community involvement, (b) strong, positive climate, (c) 
     increased team work and greater coordination, (d) greater 
     focus on child-centered issues for comprehensive school 
     planning, and (e) greater top-down and bottom-up management. 
     These analyses also showed that the Student and Staff Support 
     Teams (formerly called Mental Health Teams) focused primarily 
     on prevention rather than crisis management. These teams 
     established stronger linkages between schools and communities 
     in order to better facilitate services to students. The three 
     SDP structures (School Planning and Management Team, Student 
     and Staff Support Team and the Parent Team) and the three 
     guiding principles served as vehicles for bringing the school 
     and community together to resolve conflicts and reach 
     solutions.
                                                                    ____


     Hudson Institute's Modern Red Schoolhouse To Move to Nashville

       Indianapolis, IN.--Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees 
     announced today that its highly-touted education project, The 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse, will become an independent entity and 
     relocate to Nashville, TN. Named ``Modern Red Schoolhouse 
     Institute,'' the new organization will receive funding from 
     Alternative Public Schools, Inc., a Nashville-based 
     educational services firm.
       Designed and tested over the past five years, Hudson's 
     critically-acclaimed program strives to make all students 
     high achievers in core academic subjects by building upon the 
     virtues of traditional American education while incorporating 
     modern technology in the classroom. It also relies on proven 
     student learning techniques, the wisdom of teachers and 
     parental involvement.
       Hudson's Modern Red Schoolhouse was one of eleven plans 
     funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation in 
     1992 to design ``break-the-mold'' schools that would 
     revitalize American education. Hudson worked in partnership 
     with school districts in Indiana, Arizona and New York to 
     reinvent the qualities and virtues of ``little red 
     schoolhouses'' within a contemporary context.
       In making the announcement, Hudson Institute's president 
     Leslie Lenkowsky; Ph.D. emphasized, ``Since Hudson began the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse, the program has grown from a glimmer 
     in the minds of Hudson's researchers to a well-tested and 
     favorably-evaluated blueprint for comprehensive school 
     restructuring. The Nashville-based managers of the program 
     will bring new resources and marketing `know-how' necessary 
     for the program to become a model that schools throughout the 
     United States will adopt as well.''
       He further remarked, ``The evolution of Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse into its own Institute is an outstanding example 
     of how Hudson can best utilize its talent, expertise and 
     resources for research and development--then turn over 
     finely-tuned and successful products to other organizations 
     for implementation.''
       Specifically in Indiana, the following school districts 
     collaborated in the Modern Red Schoolhouse program design: 
     select Indianapolis Public Schools, the Metropolitan School 
     District of Lawrence Township in Marion County, Beech Grove 
     City Schools, Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation in 
     Columbus, and Eastern Howard School Corporation in Greentown. 
     Schools in Evansville and Michigan City were also included.
       Headquartered in Indianapolis, Hudson Institute's 
     experience in education policy research dates to the 1977 
     publication of Our Children's Crippled Future: How American 
     Education Has Failed. Hudson scholars continue to contribute 
     a number of major books and reports to the debate over the 
     state of American education, including current research on 
     America's charter schools.
       In addition, Hudson Institute operates the Educational 
     Excellence Network, a nationally-known clearinghouse on 
     educational issues for scholars and policymakers. Hudson 
     Senior Fellows Carol D'Amico, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Bruno 
     Manno, who each played a critical role in developing Modern 
     Red Schoolhouse, will remain at Hudson where they have a full 
     agenda of new education-related projects currently underway 
     or planned for the future. In addition, former Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse co-director Denis P. Doyle will rejoin Hudson to 
     develop a new set of school reform efforts centered on the 
     use of technology.
       Additional information covering Hudson Institute's 
     education programs and on-going research is available on 
     Hudson's website, WWW.HUDSON.ORG/HUDSON.MEDIA ADVISORY: To 
     arrange an interview with Dr. Lenkowsky, contact Gail 
     McDaniel at (317) 549-4115.
       This Modern Red Schoolhouse Homepage has been moved to: 
     http://www.mrsh.org

              Modern Red Schoolhouse on the World-Wide Web


                                preface

       The little red schoolhouse of yesteryear, at least as 
     idealized in American memory, was an institution that drew 
     people together for common purposes, to share in one of the 
     most important responsibilities of any community: readying 
     the next generation to take its place in that community by 
     socializing the young, transmitting the culture, and 
     equipping future workers, citizens, and parents with 
     essential knowledge, skills, and habits. The Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse intends to reinvent some of the key virtues of 
     the little red schoolhouse in a modern context and with a 
     modern mission to be a place where all children will learn 
     and achieve academic standards that are truly world class.
       This is not to say that all children will learn in the same 
     way, or at the same time, or at the same pace. To this 
     challenge, Modern Red Schoolhouse offers a set of teaching 
     methods tailored to identify and nurture the potential that 
     exists in every child. The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards 
     are high. But they come with the expectation that all 
     children will be afforded many routes towards their 
     attainment. Like its nineteenth-century namesake, the Modern 
     Red Schoolhouse does not lose sight of the fact that mastery 
     of subject matter is the only acceptable goal for all 
     children, wherever they may come from and however they may 
     learn.
       The standards documented here will be met by Modern Red 
     Schoolhouse students in eight core subjects defined as 
     English language arts, geography, history, mathematics, 
     science, the arts, foreign languages, and health and physical 
     education. The Modern Red Schoolhouse curriculum consists of 
     Hudson Units both Foundation Units and Capstone Units. 
     Foundation Units are developed or selected at each school for 
     the primary purpose of instruction, although Foundation Units 
     also include some built-in assessment. Capstone Units are 
     developed by Advanced Systems, Inc., assessment contractor 
     for the Modern Red Schoolhouse, in collaboration with 
     teachers at cooperating schools. Their primary purpose is to 
     assess students' academic progress, but because they are 
     integral to curriculum, they also include some built-in 
     instruction. Schools will arrange a series of Hudson Units to 
     meet the individual learning needs of each student. All the 
     performance objectives of all the Hudson Units successfully 
     completed by each student will lead that student to 
     achievement of the standards. All the Capstone Units, 
     supplemented by examinations in each subject, form a 
     Watershed Assessment of the standards which signal students' 
     readiness to move to the next level of schooling.
       All Modern Red Schoolhouse students are expected to meet 
     the standards that follow with a few modest qualifications. 
     The foreign language standards assume that students will 
     become proficient speakers of two languages: English and one 
     other. This does

[[Page H6872]]

     not preclude students from pursuing study of a third 
     language; in fact, they are encouraged to do so. The arts 
     encompass three arts disciplines: visuals areas, music, and 
     drama. Students are expected to meet standards for all three 
     through the intermediate level. Advanced level students will 
     achieve the advanced standards for one arts discipline of the 
     student's own choosing.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are the result of two 
     years of the combined thinking of teachers, administrators, 
     community members, and national subject specialists. During 
     the design phase, representatives of participating school 
     districts began to identify high standards in eight core 
     subjects. The College Board's Advanced Placement standards 
     were used as an initial benchmark to help participants 
     articulate what students should know and be able to do at the 
     time of graduation from high school. Although students in the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse will reach these standards at 
     different rates and therefore at different ages, the three 
     levels are roughly equivalent to what students should know 
     and be able to do at the end of grades 4, 8, and 12.
       Successive drafts of the standards were reviewed by the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse Standards and Assessment Task Force. 
     This document is the result of considerable revision by a 
     team of subject specialists, all with broad experience in 
     setting high standards and helping students to achieve them. 
     Their joint experience includes work for the Advanced 
     Placement program, the Council for Basic Education, the 
     National Council of Teachers of English, the National 
     Endowment for the Humanities, the Mathematical Association of 
     America, the National Science Teachers Association, and a 
     combined hundred years in classrooms at all levels. Drafts of 
     the standards have been reviewed by subject specialists at 
     Advanced Systems, Inc. and teachers in member schools, 
     whose suggestions have prompted additional revisions. The 
     greatest challenge offered by these standards raising 
     student achievement to meet them will be addressed through 
     innovative curriculum and not by lowered expectations.
       While the Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are unique, they 
     are not inconsistent with the recommendations of professional 
     associations striving for excellence in education. We have 
     borrowed heavily from other sets of standards developed in 
     recent years in the great national effort to reform America's 
     schools. We are indebted to the work of the National 
     Assessment Governing Board whose National Assessments of 
     Educational Progress in language arts, geography, 
     mathematics, science, and the arts helped inform the 
     standards. We drew from the College Board's various teacher's 
     guides to their Advanced Placement courses. Publications from 
     the following professional associations informed the 
     development of the standards in their respective disciplines: 
     the Association of American Geographers, the Bradley 
     Commission on History in Schools; the National Center for 
     History in the Schools (UCLA-NEH); the National Council for 
     Teachers of Mathematics; the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science; National Standards in Foreign 
     Language Education project; and the National Association for 
     Sports and Physical Education.
       In addition to these, the standards have been informed by 
     the U.S. Department of Education's ``James Madison'' series 
     and the U.S. Department of Labor's SCANS reports. Standards 
     for the primary and intermediate levels were also informed by 
     E.D. Hirsch's ``Cultural Literacy'' inventory and Smart Start 
     by Patte Barth and Ruth Mitchell.
       We are indebted especially to the work of the following 
     authors and associations:
       In English language arts:
       Barth, P. and R. Mitchell. Smart Start. North American 
     Press, 1992.
       Gadda, G., E. Jensen, F. McQuade, and H. Wilson. Teacher's 
     Guide to Advanced Placement Courses in English Language and 
     Composition. The College Board, 1985.
       McQuade, F. Teacher's Guide to Advanced Placement Courses 
     in English Literature and Composition. The College Board, 
     1993.
       Reading Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National Assessment 
     of Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       Reading and Thinking: A New Framework for Comprehension. 
     Massachusetts Department of Education, 1987.
       Writing Framework for the 1992 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       In Geography:
       Geography Framework for the 1992 and 1994 National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Dept. of Education, 
     1992.
       Geography (K-6 and 7-12): Themes, Key Ideas, and Learning 
     Opportunities. Geography Education National Implementation 
     Project, 1989.
       Guidelines for Geographic Education. Association of 
     American Geographers, 1984.
       In History:
       Historical Literacy. Bradley Commission on History in the 
     Schools, 1989.
       History-Social Science Framework. California Department of 
     Education, 1988.
       Holt, T. Thinking Historically. The College Board, 1990.
       National History Standards Project. National Center for 
     History in the Schools, UCLA-NEH Research Program, ongoing.
       In Mathematics:
       Edwards, E.L. Algebra for Everyone. National Council of 
     Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.
       Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. 
     National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989.
       Mathematics Assessment: 1994 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress.  Submitted to the National Assessment 
     Governing Board by The College Board, 1992.
       Meiring, S.P., R.N. Rubenstein, J.E. Schultz, J. de Lange, 
     and D.L. Chambers. A Core Curriculum: Making Mathematics 
     Count for Everyone: Addenda Series, Grades 9-12. National 
     Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
       Silver, E., J. Kilpatrick, and B. Schlesinger. Thinking 
     through Mathematics: Fostering Inquiry and Communication in 
     Mathematics Classrooms. The College Board, 1990.
       In Science:
       Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's 
     Schools. National Research Council, 1991.
       National Committee on Science Education Standards and 
     Assessment. National Research Council, 1993 (draft).
       Project 2061: Science for all Americans. American 
     Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.
       Science Framework for the 1994 National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board, 
     U.S. Dept. of Education.
       Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years. 
     National Center for Improving Science Education, 1989.
       Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School 
     Science. The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers. 
     National Science Teachers Association, 1986.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse has also integrated character 
     education into the academic curriculum of its students. In 
     his essay ``Character Education in Our Schools'' (published 
     separately by Modern Red Schoolhouse), Kevin Ryan of Boston 
     University discusses the need for character education and the 
     attempt by the Modern Red Schoolhouse to effectively address 
     this issue. However, discussions about dealing with this 
     subject are best made with the community. Therefore, 
     individual schools are advised to develop their character 
     education programs with the help and guidance of the school's 
     parents and communities. In preparing the curriculum, 
     especially in health and physical education, we encourage 
     educators to review not only the standards enumerated here, 
     but also Kevin Ryan's essay. It discusses in more detail the 
     reasons for character education and the specific goals of the 
     Modern Red Schoolhouse program. This essay can be obtained 
     separately from the Hudson Institute.
       The Modern Red Schoolhouse standards are anchored in 
     beliefs and principles that most Americans today as they did 
     a century ago know to be true and valid. We believe that 
     standards can serve as an anchor for those principles while 
     at the same time preparing graduates to take their place in 
     the communities of the twenty-first century.
                                          Sally B. Kilgore, Ph.D.,
     Director.
                                                                    ____


    Welcome to the Home of Success For AllTM and Roots & 
                           WingsTM

       Success For AllTM (SFA) and Roots & 
     WingsTM are comprehensive school restructuring 
     programs for students in grades Pre-K to Six.
       The idea behind the SFATM program is to organize 
     resources to focus on prevention and early intervention, to 
     ensure that virtually every student will succeed in reading 
     throughout the elementary grades--and no student will be 
     allowed to ``fall between the cracks.'' This highly 
     successful model is currently in use in 750 schools in 37 
     states.
       The goal of Roots & WingsTM is to ensure every 
     child a firm foundation in the knowledge and skills needed to 
     succeed in today's world, and to go far beyond this to 
     higher-order learning and integration of knowledge.
       Roots refers to strategies designed to ensure that every 
     child meets world class standards--effective instructional 
     programs in reading, writing, and language arts; tutoring for 
     children struggling with reading; integrated health, mental 
     health, and social services; and family support. These 
     elements are based on Success for AllTM.
       Wings refers to improvements in curriculum and instruction 
     designed to let children soar. A key component of Wings is a 
     science and social studies program called 
     WorldLabTM, which includes a set of simulations in 
     which students will be able to apply knowledge and skills in 
     flexible, creative, and integrated ways to solve problems. 
     Children in WorldLabTM design and test efficient 
     vehicles, explore African culture and agriculture, write a 
     new U.S. Constitution, or investigate sources of pollution in 
     local waterways.
       MathWingsTM, based on NCTM standards, provides 
     practical constructivist approaches to math emphasizing 
     cooperative learning, complex problem solving, games, and 
     discovery.


                      success for allTM

     Tutors
       In grades 1-3, specially trained, certified teachers work 
     one-on-one with any students who are failing to keep up with 
     their classmates in reading. Firs grade students have 
     priority for tutoring.
     Eight-week assessments
       Students in grades 1-5 are assessed every eight weeks to 
     determine whether they are making adequate progress in 
     reading. This information is used to assign students to 
     tutoring, to suggest alternative teaching strategies in the 
     regular classroom, and to make

[[Page H6873]]

     changes in reading group placement, family support 
     interventions, or other means of meeting students' needs. The 
     school facilitator coordinates this process with the active 
     involvement of teachers in grade-level teams.
     Early learning (preschool and kindergarten)
       Whenever possible, a half-day preschool program is provided 
     for all four-year-olds. The program emphasizes language 
     development, readiness, and positive self-concept. A full-day 
     kindergarten program continues the emphasis on language, 
     using children's literature and big books, as well as oral 
     and written composition, activities promoting the development 
     of concepts about print, alphabet games, and math concept 
     development. Peabody Language
     Reading and writing programs
       During reading periods, students are regrouped across age 
     lines for 90 minutes so that each reading class contains 
     students reading at one level. This eliminates the need to 
     have reading groups within the class and increases the amount 
     of time for direct instruction. Also, use of tutors as 
     reading teachers during reading time reduces the size of most 
     reading classes. The reaching program in grades K-1 
     emphasizes the development of language skills and launches 
     students into reading using phonetically regular storybooks 
     supported by careful instruction that focuses on phonemic 
     awareness, auditory discrimination, and sound blending as 
     well as meaning, context, and self-monitoring strategies. 
     Students become fluent as they read and reread to one another 
     in pairs.
       At the second through fifth grade levels, students use 
     school or district selected reading materials, basals, and/or 
     trade books in a carefully structured set of interactive 
     opportunities to read, discuss, and write. This program 
     emphasizes cooperative learning activities built around 
     partner reading, identification of characters, settings, and 
     problem solutions in narratives, story summarization, 
     writing, and direct instruction in reading comprehension 
     skills. At all levels, students read books of their choice 
     for twenty minutes each evening as homework. Classroom 
     libraries of books are developed for this purpose. For 
     schools with Spanish bilingual programs, Success For All 
     TM provides a Spanish reading curriculum, Exito 
     ParaTodos, in grades 1-5.
       Writing is emphasized throughout the grades. Writing 
     instruction uses a writer's workshop format in which students 
     plan, draft, revise, edit, and publish compositions with 
     feedback at each stage from teachers and peers.
     Cooperative learning
       Cooperative learning is the vehicle that drives the Success 
     For All TM curriculum. Students work together in 
     partnerships and teams, helping one another to become 
     strategic readers and writers. Emphasis is placed on 
     individual accountability, common goals, and recognition of 
     group success.
     Family support team
       The family support team works with parents in ensuring the 
     success of their children. The team focuses on promoting 
     parent involvement, developing plans to meet the needs of 
     individual students having difficulty, implementing 
     attendance plans, and integrating community and school 
     resources. The team is composed of the principal or assistant 
     principal, facilitator, social worker, and other personnel.
     Facilitator
       A full-time facilitator works with teachers in each Success 
     For All TM school to help them implement the 
     reading program. In addition, the facilitator coordinates 
     eight-week assessments, assists the Family Support Team, 
     facilitates staff support teams, plans and implements staff 
     development, and helps all teachers make certain that every 
     child is making adequate progress.
     Staff support teams
       Teachers in the Success For All TM program 
     support one another through the training and implementation 
     process in coaching partnerships, grade level teams, and 
     other staff team configurations. These teams become a 
     catalyst for the dissemination of new material, goal setting, 
     and problem solving, and they provide a supportive forum for 
     discussion around new instructional strategies.
     Professional development
       Professional development for Success For All TM 
     requires three days for all teachers before the program 
     begins. Success For All TM consultants return to 
     the school for three two-day visits during the school year to 
     work with principal, facilitators, and teachers to build a 
     strong implementation. Success For All TM 
     facilitators are available for telephone consultation during 
     the year. Building facilitators follow up on initial training 
     with classroom visits, coaching, and team meetings.


     for all/roots & wingsTM frequently asked questions

       Where is the program used?
       What are the results?
       What are the costs?
       How do schools adopt Success for AllTM?
       Where can I get more information?
     Where is the program used?
       As of the 1996-97 school year, Success For AllTM 
     is being implemented in more than 473 schools in over 126 
     districts in more than 37 states in all parts of the United 
     States.
     What are the results?
       Success For AllTM has been evaluated in several 
     school districts. In each, matched Success For 
     AllTM and control schools have been compared on 
     individually administered reading scales and other measures. 
     The results have consistently favored Success For 
     AllTM. In average grade equivalents, Success For 
     AllTM students perform approximately three months 
     ahead of comparison students by the first grade, and more 
     than a year ahead by fifth grade. Effects are particularly 
     strong for students who are most at risk, those in the lowest 
     25% of their grades. Effects of the Spanish version of 
     Success For AllTM, Lee Conmigo, have also been 
     strong. Positive effects have also been found on district-
     administered standardized tests. Success For AllTM 
     has produced substantial reductions in retentions and special 
     education referrals and placements.
     What are the costs?
       Cost is based on the size and location of the individual 
     school, and number of schools collaborating in training. 
     Sample costs for a school of about 500 students in Pre-
     kindergarten through fifth grade range from $45,000 to 
     $58,000 for Year 1; $45,000 to $52,000 for Year 2; and 
     $45,000 to $52,000 for Year 3. (Add approximately $55 for 
     each student over 500.) These estimates include training, 
     materials, follow-up visits, and other services. Actual costs 
     will vary for different situations, depending in part on 
     distances from training centers and local capacity to provide 
     some training and follow-up and will be calculated for the 
     individual school. (For more information see Considerations 
     for Adoption)
     How do schools adopt Success For AllTM?
       We encourage district and school staff to review program 
     materials, view video tapes, and visit nearby Success For 
     AllTM sites. Schools must apply to become a 
     Success For AllTM or Roots & Wings school. The 
     application process insures that the school staff are aware 
     of the elements of the program, have the resources to 
     implement the program successfully, and agree as a staff to 
     make the commitment to implement the program. A positive vote 
     of 80% or more of all teachers is required.
     Where can I get more information?
       For awareness materials or information on training, school 
     visits, or other assistance, contact us at: Success For 
     AllTM Program, Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. 
     Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, Phone: 410-516-8896 (in 
     Maryland), or 1-800-548-4998, fax us at: 410-516-8890, or you 
     can browse our Web site.
                                                                    ____


                    Success for All/Roots and Wings


              Summary of Research on Achievement Outcomes

      (By Robert E. Slavin, Nancy A. Madden, and Barbara A. Wasik)

       Ms. Martin's kindergarten class has some of the brightest, 
     happiest, friendliest, and most optimistic kids you'll ever 
     meet. Students in her class are glad to be in school, proud 
     of their accomplishments, certain that they will succeed at 
     whatever the school has to offer. Every one of them is a 
     natural scientist, a storyteller, a creative thinker, a 
     curious seeker of knowledge. Ms. Martin's class could be 
     anywhere--in suburb or ghetto, small town or barrio--it 
     doesn't matter. Kindergartners everywhere are just as bright, 
     enthusiastic and confident as her kids are.
       Only a few years from now, many of these same children will 
     have lost the spark they all started with. Some will have 
     failed a grade. Some will be in special education. Some will 
     be in long-term remediation, such as Title I or other 
     remedial programs. Some will be bored or anxious or 
     unmotivated. Many will see school as a chore rather than a 
     pleasure and will no longer expect to excel. In a very brief 
     span of time, Ms. Martin's children will have defined 
     themselves as successes or failures in school. All too often, 
     only a few will still have a sense of excitement and positive 
     self-expectations about learning. We cannot predict very well 
     which of Ms. Martin's students will succeed and which will 
     fail, but we can predict--based on the past--that if nothing 
     changes, far too many will fail. This is especially true if 
     Ms. Martin's kindergarten happens to be located in a high-
     poverty neighborhood, in which there are typically fewer 
     resources in the school to provide top-quality instruction to 
     every child, fewer forms of rescue if children run into 
     academic difficulties, and fewer supports for learning at 
     home. Preventable failures occur in all schools, but in high 
     poverty schools failure can be endemic, so widespread that it 
     makes it difficult to treat each child at risk of failure as 
     a person of value in need of emergency assistance to get back 
     on track. Instead, many such schools do their best to provide 
     the greatest benefit to the greatest number of children 
     possible, but have an unfortunately well-founded expectation 
     that a certain percentage of students will fall by the 
     wayside during the elementary years.
       Any discussion of school reform should begin with Ms. 
     Martin's kindergartners. The first goal of reform should be 
     to ensure that every child--regardless of home background, 
     home language, or learning style--achieves the success that 
     he or she so confidently expected in kindergarten, that all 
     children maintain their motivation, enthusiasm, and optimism 
     because they are objectively succeeding at the school's 
     tasks. Any reform that does less than this is hollow and 
     self-defeating. What does it mean to succeed in the early 
     grades? The elementary schools' definition of success, and 
     therefore the parents'

[[Page H6874]]

     and children's definition as well, is overwhelmingly success 
     in reading. Very few children who are reading adequately are 
     retained. assigned to special education, or given long-term 
     remedial services. Other subjects are important, of 
     course, but reading and language arts form the core of 
     what school success means in the early grades.
       When a child fails to read well in the early grades, he or 
     she begins a downward progression. In first grade, some 
     children begin to notice that they are not reading 
     adequately. They may fail first grade or be assigned to long 
     term remediation. As they proceed through the elementary 
     grades, many students begin to see that they are failing at 
     their full-time jobs. When this happens, things begin to 
     unravel. Failing students begin to have poor motivation and 
     poor self-expectations, which lead to continued poor 
     achievement, in a declining spiral that ultimately leads to 
     despair, delinquency, and dropout.
       Remediating learning deficits after they are already well 
     established is extremely difficult. Children who have already 
     failed to learn to read, for example, are now anxious about 
     reading, and doubt their ability to learn it. Their 
     motivation to read may be low. They may ultimately learn to 
     read but it will always be a chore, not a pleasure. Clearly, 
     the time to provide additional help to children who are at 
     risk is early, when children are still motivated and 
     confident and when any learning deficits are relatively small 
     and remediable. The most important goal in educational 
     programming for students at risk of school failure is to try 
     to make certain that we do not squander the greatest resource 
     we have--the enthusiasm and positive self-expectations of 
     young children themselves.
       In practical terms, what this perspective implies is that 
     schools, and especially Title I, special education, and other 
     services for at-risk children, must be shifted from an 
     emphasis on remediation to an emphasis on prevention and 
     early intervention. Prevention means providing 
     developmentally appropriate preschool and kindergarten 
     programs so that students will enter first grade ready to 
     succeed, and it means providing regular classroom teachers 
     with effective instructional programs, curricula, and 
     professional development to enable them to see that most 
     students are successful the first time they are taught. Early 
     intervention means that supplementary instructional services 
     are provided early in students' schooling and that they are 
     intensive enough to bring at-risk students quickly to a level 
     at which they can profit from good quality classroom 
     instruction.
       The purpose of this report is to describe the current state 
     of research on the achievement outcomes of Success for All, a 
     program built around the idea that every child can and must 
     succeed in the early grades, no matter what this takes. The 
     idea behind Success for All is to use everything we know 
     about effective instruction for students at risk to direct 
     all aspects of school and classroom organization toward the 
     goal of preventing academic deficits from appearing in the 
     first place; recognizing and intensively intervening with any 
     deficits that do appear; and providing students with a rich 
     and full curriculum to enable them to build on their firm 
     foundation in basic skills. The commitment of Success for All 
     is to do whatever it takes to see that all children become 
     skilled, strategic, and enthusiastic readers as they progress 
     through the elementary grades. In addition, this report 
     describes research on Roots and Wings, a program that adds to 
     Success for All programs in mathematics, science, and social 
     studies (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996).


                          Program Description

     Success for All
       Success for All exists as a separate program and also 
     serves as the reading/writing/language arts component for 
     Roots and Wings. Success for All is built around the 
     assumption that every child can read. We mean this not as 
     wishful thinking or as a philosophical statement, but as a 
     practical, attainable reality. In particular, every child 
     without organic retardation can learn to read. Some children 
     need more help than others and may need different approaches 
     than those needed by others, but one way or another every 
     child can become a successful reader.
       Success for All began in one Baltimore elementary school in 
     1987-1988, and since then has expanded each year of 
     additional schools. As of Fall, 1996, it is in about 450 
     schools in 120 districts in 31 states throughout the United 
     States. The districts range from some of the largest in the 
     country, such as Baltimore, Houston, Memphis, Philadelphia, 
     Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, and Miami, to such 
     middle-sized districts as Richmond, Virginia; Rockford, 
     Illinois; and Modesto and Riverside, California, to tiny 
     rural districts, including two on the Navajo reservation in 
     Arizona. Success for All reading curricula in Spanish have 
     been developed and researched and are used in bilingual 
     programs in California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, 
     New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. Almost all Success 
     for All schools are high-poverty title I schools, and the 
     great majority are schoolwide projects. Otherwise, the 
     schools vary widely.
       Success for All and Roots and Wings have somewhat different 
     components at different sites, depending on the school's 
     needs and resources available to implement the program 
     (Slavin et al., 1996b). However, there is a common set of 
     elements characteristic of all Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings schools. These are described on the following pages.
     Reading Program
       Sucess for All and Roots and Wings use a reading curriculum 
     based on research, on effective practices in beginning 
     reading (e.g., Adams, 1990), and on effective use of 
     cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995; Stevens, Madden, Slavin, 
     & Farnish, 1987).
       Reading teachers at every grade level begin the reading 
     time by reading children's literature to students and 
     engaging them in a discussion of the story to enhance their 
     understanding of the story, listening and speaking 
     vocabulary, and knowledge of story structure. In kindergarten 
     and first grade, the program emphasizes the development of 
     oral language and pre-reading skills through the use of 
     thematically-based units which incorporate areas such as 
     language arts and writing under a science or social studies 
     topic. A component called Story Telling and Retelling (STaR) 
     involves the students in listening to, retelling, and 
     dramatizing children's literature. Big books as well as oral 
     and written composing activities allow students to develop 
     concepts of print as they develop knowledge of story 
     structure. There is also a strong  emphasis on phonemic 
     awareness activities which help develop auditory 
     discrimination and support the development of reading 
     readiness strategies.
       Reading Roots is typically introduced in the second 
     semester of kindergarten or in first grade. This K-1 
     beginning reading program uses as its base a series of 
     phonetically regular but meaningful and interesting minibooks 
     and emphasizes repeated oral reading to partners as well as 
     to the teacher. The minibooks begin with a set of ``shared 
     stories,'' in which part of a story is written in small type 
     (read by the teacher) and part is written in large type (read 
     by the students). The student portion uses a phonetically 
     controlled vocabulary. Taken together, the teacher and 
     student portions create interesting, worthwhile stories. Over 
     time, the teacher portion diminishes and the student portion 
     lengthens, until students are reading the entire book. This 
     scaffolding allows students to read interesting literature 
     when they only have a few letter sounds. Letters and letter 
     sounds are introduced in an active, engaging set of 
     activities that begins with oral language and moves into 
     written symbols. Individual sounds are integrated into a 
     context of words, sentences, and stories. Instruction is 
     provided in story structure, specific comprehension skills, 
     metacognitive strategies for self-assessment and self-
     correction, and integration of reading and writing.
       Spanish bilingual programs use an adaptation of Reading 
     Roots called Lee Conmigo (``Read With Me''). Lee Conmigo 
     employs the same instructional strategies as Reading Roots, 
     but uses Spanish reading materials.
       When students reach the primer reading level, they use a 
     program called Reading Wings, an adaptation of Cooperative 
     Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Stevens, Madden, 
     Slavin, & Farnish, 1987). Reading Wings uses cooperative 
     learning activities built around story structure, prediction, 
     summarization, vocabulary building, decoding practice, and 
     story-related writing. Students engage in partner reading and 
     structured discussion of stories or novels, and work toward 
     mastery of the vocabulary and content of the story in teams. 
     Story-related writing is also shared within teams. 
     Cooperative learning both increases students' motivation and 
     engages students in cognitive activities known to contribute 
     to reading comprehension, such as elaboration, summarization, 
     and rephrasing (see Slavin, 1995). Research on CIRC has found 
     it to significantly increase students' reading comprehension 
     and language skills (Stevens et al., 1987).
       In addition to these story-related activities, teachers 
     provide direct instruction in reading comprehension skills, 
     and students practice these skills in their teams. Classroom 
     libraries of trade books at students' reading levels are 
     provided for each teacher, and students read books of their 
     choice for homework for 20 minutes each night. Home readings 
     are shared via presentations, summaries, puppet shows, and 
     other formats twice a week during ``book club'' sessions.
       Materials to support Reading Wings through the sixth grade 
     (or beyond) exist in English and Spanish. The English 
     materials are built around children's literature and around 
     the most widely used basal series and anthologies. Supportive 
     materials have been developed for more than 100 children's 
     novels and for most current basal series. Spanish materials 
     are similarly built around Spanish-language novels and 
     basals.
       Beginning in the second semester of program implementation, 
     Success for All and Roots and Wings schools usually implement 
     a writing/language arts program based primarily on 
     cooperative learning principles (see Slavin, Madden, & 
     Stevens, 1989/90).
       Students in grades one to three (and sometimes 4 to 5 or 6) 
     are regrouped for reading. The students are assigned to 
     heterogeneous, age-grouped classes most of the day, but 
     during a regular 90-minute reading period they are regrouped 
     by reading performance levels into reading classes of 
     students all at the same level. For example, a 2-1 reading 
     class might contain first-, second-, and third-grade students 
     all reading at the same level. The reading classes are 
     smaller than home rooms because tutors and other certified 
     staff (such as librarians or art teachers) teach reading 
     during this common reading period. Regrouping allows 
     teachers to teach the whole

[[Page H6875]]

     reading class without having to break the class into 
     reading groups. This greatly reduces the time spent in 
     seatwork and increases direct instruction time, 
     eliminating workbooks, dittos, or other follow-up 
     activities which are needed in classes that have multiple 
     reading groups. The regrouping is a form of the Joplin 
     Plan, which has been found to increase reading achievement 
     in the elementary grades (Slavin, 1987).
     Eight-Week Reading Assessments
       At eight-week intervals, reading teachers assess student 
     progress through the reading program. The results of the 
     assessments are used to determine who is to receive tutoring, 
     to change students' reading groups, to suggest other 
     adaptations in students' programs, and to identify students 
     who need other types of assistance, such as family 
     interventions or screening for vision and hearing problems. 
     The assessments are curriculum-based measures that include 
     teacher observations and judgments as well as more formal 
     measures of reading comprehension.
     Reading Tutors
       One of the most important elements of Success for All and 
     Roots and Wings is the use of tutors to promote students' 
     success in reading. One-to-one tutoring is the most effective 
     form of instruction known (see Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The 
     tutors are certified teachers with experience teaching Title 
     I, special education, and/or primary reading. Often, well-
     qualified paraprofessionals also tutor children with less 
     severe reading problems. In this case, a certified tutor 
     monitors their work and assists with the diagnostic 
     assessment and intervention strategies. Tutors work one-on-
     one with students who are having difficulties keeping up with 
     their reading groups. The tutoring occurs in 20-minute 
     sessions during times other than reading or math periods.
       In general, tutors support students' success in the regular 
     reading curriculum, rather than teaching different 
     objectives. For example, the tutor will work with a student 
     on the same story and concepts being read and taught in the 
     regular reading class. However, tutors seek to identify 
     learning problems and use different strategies to teach the 
     same skills. They also teach metacognitive skills beyond 
     those taught in the classroom program. Schools may have as 
     many as six or more teachers serving as tutors depending on 
     school size, need for tutoring, and other factors.
       During daily 90-minute reading periods, certified tutors 
     serve as additional reading teachers to reduce class size for 
     reading. Reading teachers and tutors use brief forms to 
     communicate about students' specific problems and needs and 
     meet at regular times to coordinate their approaches with 
     individual children.
       Initial decisions about reading group placement and the 
     need for tutoring are based on informal reading inventories 
     that the tutors give to each child. Subsequent reading group 
     placements and tutoring assignments are made using the 
     curriculum-based assessments described above. First-graders 
     receive priority for tutoring, on the assumption that the 
     primary function of the tutors is to help all students be 
     successful in reading the first time, before they fail and 
     become remedial readers.
     Preschool and Kindergarten
       Most Success for All and Roots and Wings schools provide a 
     half-day preschool and/or a full-day kindergarten for 
     eligible students. The preschool and kindergarten programs 
     focus on providing a balanced and developmentally appropriate 
     learning experience for young children. The curriculum 
     emphasizes the development and use of language. It provides a 
     balance of academic readiness and non-academic music, art, 
     and movement activities in a series of thematic, 
     interdisciplinary units. Readiness activities include use of 
     the Peabody Language Development Kits and Story Telling and 
     Retelling (STaR) in which students retell stories read by the 
     teachers. Pre-reading activities begin during the second 
     semester of kindergarten.
     Family Support Team
       Parents are an essential part of the formula for success in 
     Success for All and Roots and Wings. A Family Support Team 
     works in each school, serving to make families feel respected 
     and welcome in the school and become active supporters of 
     their child's education as well as providing specific 
     services. The Family Support Team consists of the Title I 
     parent liaison, vice-principal (if any), counselor (if any), 
     facilitator, and any other appropriate staff already present 
     in the school or added to the school staff.
       The Family Support Team first works toward good relations 
     with parents and to increase involvement in the schools. 
     Family Support Team members may complete ``welcome'' visits 
     for new families. They organize many attractive programs in 
     the school, such as parenting skills workshops. Most schools 
     use a program called ``Raising Readers'' in which parents are 
     given strategies to use in reading with their own children.
       The Family Support Team also intervenes to solve problems. 
     For example, they may contact parents whose children are 
     frequently absent to see what resources can be provided to 
     assist the family in getting their child to school. Family 
     support staff, teachers, and parents work together to solve 
     school behavior problems. Also, family support staff are 
     called on to provide assistance when students seem to be 
     working at less than their full potential because of problems 
     at home. Families of students who are not receiving adequate 
     sleep or nutrition, need glasses, are not attending school 
     regularly, or are exhibiting serious behavior problems, may 
     receive family support assistance.
       The Family Support Team is strongly integrated into the 
     academic program of the school. It receives referrals from 
     teachers and tutors regarding children who are not making 
     adequate academic progress, and thereby constitutes an 
     additional stage of intervention for students in need above 
     and beyond that provided by the classroom teacher or tutor. 
     The Family Support Team also encourages and trains the 
     parents to fulfill numerous volunteer roles within the 
     school, ranging from providing a listening ear to emerging 
     readers to helping in the school cafeteria.
     Program Facilitator
       A program facilitator works at each school to oversee (with 
     the principal) the operation of the Success for All and Roots 
     and Wings models. The facilitator helps plan the program, 
     helps the principal with scheduling, and visits classes and 
     tutoring sessions frequently to help teachers and tutors with 
     individual problems. He or she works directly with the 
     teachers on implementation of the curriculum, classroom 
     management, and other issues, helps teachers and tutors deal 
     with any behavior problems or other special problems, and 
     coordinates the activities of the Family Support Team with 
     those of the instruction staff.
     Teachers and Teacher Training
       The teachers and tutors are regular certified teachers. 
     They receive detailed teacher's manuals supplemented by three 
     days of inservice at the beginning of the school year. In 
     Roots and Wings schools, this level of inservice continues 
     over a three-year period as the main program elements are 
     phased in.
       Throughout the year, follow-up visits are made to the 
     school by project staff, who visit classrooms, meet with 
     school staff, and conduct inservice presentations on such 
     topics as classroom management, instructional pace, and 
     cooperative learning. Facilitators also organize many 
     informal sessions to allow teachers to share problems and 
     problem solutions, suggest changes, and discuss individual 
     children. The staff development model used in Success for All 
     and Roots and Wings emphasizes relatively brief initial 
     training with extensive classroom follow-up, coaching, and 
     group discussion.
     Advisory Committee
       An advisory committee composed of the building principal, 
     program facilitator, teacher representatives, parent 
     representatives, and family support staff meets regularly to 
     review the progress of the program and to identify and solve 
     any problems that arise. In most schools existing site-based 
     management teams are adapted to fulfill this function. In 
     addition, grade-level teams and the Family Support Team meet 
     regularly to discuss common problems and solutions and to 
     make decisions in their areas of responsibility.
     Special Education
       Every effort is made to deal with student's learning 
     problems within the context of the regular classroom, as 
     supplemented by tutors. Tutors evaluate student's strengths 
     and weaknesses and develop strategies to teach in the most 
     effective way. In some schools, special education teachers 
     work as tutors and reading teachers with students identified 
     as learning disabled as well as other students experiencing 
     learning problems who are at risk for special education 
     placement. One major goal of Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings is to keep students with learning problems out of 
     special education if at all possible, and to serve any 
     students who qualify for special education in a way that does 
     not disrupt their regular classroom experience (see Slavin, 
     Madden, Karweit, Dolan, Wasik, Shaw, Mainzer, & Haxby, 1991).
     Roots and Wings
       Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1994; 
     Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996) is a comprehensive reform 
     design for elementary schools that adds to Success for All 
     innovative programs in mathematics, social studies, and 
     science.
       Roots and Wings schools begin by implementing all 
     components of Success for All, described above. In the second 
     year of implementation they typically begin to incorporate 
     the additional major components. MathWings is the name of the 
     mathematics program used in grades 1-5. It is a 
     constructivist approach to mathematics based on NCTM 
     standards, but designed to be practical and effective in 
     schools serving many students placed at risk. MathWings makes 
     extensive use of cooperative learning, games, discovery, 
     creative problem solving, manipulatives, and calculators.
       WorldLab is an integrated approach to social studies and 
     science that engages students in simulations and group 
     investigations. Students take on roles as various people in 
     history, in different parts of the world, or in various 
     occupations. For example, they work as engineers to design 
     and test efficient vehicles, they form a state legislature to 
     enact environmental legislation, they repeat Benjamin 
     Franklin's experiments, and they solve problems of 
     agriculture in Africa. In each activity students work in 
     cooperative groups, do extensive writing, and use reading, 
     mathematics, and fine arts skills learned in other parts of 
     the program.
       As of Fall 1996, approximately sixty schools in fifteen 
     states are adding either

[[Page H6876]]

     MathWings or WorldLab to their implementations of Success for 
     All, making themselves into Roots and Wings schools. 
     Demonstration sites for the program are being established in 
     many parts of the United States.
     Research on Success for All and Roots and Wings
       From the very beginning, there has been a strong focus in 
     Success for All on research and evaluation. We began 
     longitudinal evaluations of the program in its earliest 
     sites, six schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Later, 
     third-party evaluators at the University of Memphis--Steven 
     Ross, Lana Smith, and their colleagues--added evaluations in 
     Memphis, Houston, Tucson, Montgomery, Alabama, Ft. Wayne, 
     Indiana, and Caldwell, Idaho. Most recently, studies focusing 
     on English language learners in California have been 
     conducted in Modesto and Riverside by the Southwest Regional 
     Laboratory. Each of these evaluations has compared Success 
     for All schools to matched comparison schools on measures of 
     reading performance, starting with cohorts in kindergarten or 
     in first grade and continuing to follow these students as 
     long as possible (details of the evaluations design appear 
     below). Vaguaries of funding and other local problems have 
     ended some evaluations prematurely, but most have been able 
     to follow Success for All schools for many years. As of this 
     writing, there are seven years of continuous data from the 
     six original schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and 
     varying numbers of years of data from seven other districts, 
     a total of twenty-three schools (and their matched control 
     schools). Information on these schools and districts is shown 
     in Table 1.

                                      TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESS FOR ALL SCHOOLS IN THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Percent      Ethnicity by    Date began      Data                                                       
        District/school           Enrollment   free lunch      percent          SFA       collected     Pre-school?      Full-day K?        Comments    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore:                                                                                                                                              
    B1.........................          500           83  B-96 W-4                1987        88-94  yes............  yes...........  First SFA school;
                                                                                                                                        had additional  
                                                                                                                                        funds first 2   
                                                                                                                                        years.          
    B2.........................          500           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  Had additional   
                                                                                                                                        funds first 4   
                                                                                                                                        years.          
    B3.........................          400           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
    B4.........................          500           85  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
    B5.........................          650           96  B-100                   1988        89-94  some...........  yes...........  .................
Philadelphia:                                                                                                                                           
    P1.........................          620           96  A-60 W-2 B-20           1988        89-94  no.............  yes...........  Large ESL program
                                                                                                                                        for Cambodian   
                                                                                                                                        children.       
    P2.........................          600           97  B-100                   1991        92-93  some...........  yes...........  .................
    P3.........................          570           96  B-100                   1991        92-93  no.............  yes...........  .................
    P4.........................          840           98  B-100                   1991           93  no.............  yes...........  .................
    P5.........................          700           98  L-100                   1992        93-94  no.............  yes...........  Study only       
                                                                                                                                        involves        
                                                                                                                                        students in     
                                                                                                                                        Spanish         
                                                                                                                                        bilingual       
                                                                                                                                        program.        
Charleston, SC:                                                                                                                                         
    CS1........................          500           40  B-60 W-40               1990        91-92  no.............  no............  .................
Memphis, TN:                                                                                                                                            
    MT1........................          350           90  B-95 W-5                1990        91-94  yes............  no............  Program          
                                                                                                                                        implemented only
                                                                                                                                        in grades K-2.  
    MT2........................          530           90  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
    MT3........................          290           86  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
    MT4........................          370           90  B-100                   1993           94  yes............  yes...........  .................
Ft. Wayne, IN:                                                                                                                                          
    F1.........................          330           65  B-56 W-44               1991        92-94  no.............  yes...........  SFA schools (&   
                                                                                                                                        controls) are   
                                                                                                                                        part of         
                                                                                                                                        desegregation   
                                                                                                                                        plan.           
    F2.........................          250           55  B-55 W-45               1991        92-94  no.............  yes...........  SFA schools (&   
                                                                                                                                        controls) are   
                                                                                                                                        part of         
                                                                                                                                        desegregation   
                                                                                                                                        plan.           
Montgomery, AL:                                                                                                                                         
    MA1........................          450           95  B-100                   1991        93-94  no.............  yes...........  .................
    MA2........................          460           97  B-100                   1991        93-94  no.............  yes...........  .................
Caldwell, ID:                                                                                                                                           
    CI1........................          400           20  W-80 L-20               1991        93-94  no.............  no............  Study compares 2 
                                                                                                                                        SFA schools to  
                                                                                                                                        Reading Recovery
                                                                                                                                        school.         
Modesto, CA:                                                                                                                                            
    MC1........................          640           70  W-54 L-25 A-17          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large ESL program
                                                            B-4                                                                         for students    
                                                                                                                                        speaking 17     
                                                                                                                                        languages.      
    MC2........................          560           98  L-66 W-24 A-10          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large Spanish    
                                                                                                                                        bilingual       
                                                                                                                                        program.        
Riverside, CA:                                                                                                                                          
    R1.........................          930           73  L-54 W-33 B-10          1992           94  yes............  no............  Large Spanish    
                                                                                                                                        bilingual & ESL 
                                                                                                                                        programs;       
                                                                                                                                        year=round      
                                                                                                                                        school.         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: B--African American; L--Latino; A-Asian American; W--White.                                                                                        

     Evaluation Design
       A common evaluation design, with variations due to local 
     circumstances, has been used in all Success for All 
     evaluations. Every Success for All school involved in a 
     formal evaluation is matched with a control school that is 
     similar in poverty level (percent of students qualifying for 
     free lunch), historical achievement level, ethnicity, and 
     other factors. Schools are also matched on district-
     administered standardized test scores given in kindergarten 
     or (starting in 1991 in six districts) on Peabody Picture 
     Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores given by the project in the 
     fall of kindergarten or first grade. The measures used in the 
     evaluations were as follows:
       Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.--Three Woodcock scales--Word 
     Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension--were 
     individually administered to students by trained testers. 
     Word Identification assesses recognition of common sight 
     words, Word Attack assesses phonetic synthesis skills, and 
     Passage Comprehension assesses comprehension in context. 
     Students in Spanish bilingual programs were given the Spanish 
     versions of these scales.
       Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty.--The Durrell Oral 
     Reading scale was also individually administered to students 
     in grades 1-3. It presents a series of graded reading 
     passages which students read aloud, followed by comprehension 
     questions.
       Gray Oral Reading Test.--Comprehension and passage scores 
     from the Gray Oral Reading Test were obtained from students 
     in grades 4-5.
       Analyses of covariance with pretests as covariates were 
     used to compare raw scores in all evaluations, and separate 
     analyses were conducted for students in general and for 
     students in the lowest 25% of their grades.
       The figures presented in this report summarize student 
     performance in grade equivalents (adjusted for covariates) 
     and effect size (proportion of a standard deviation 
     separating the experimental and control groups), averaging 
     across individual measures. Neither grade equivalents nor 
     averaged scores were used in the analyses, but they are 
     presented here as a useful summary.
       Each of the evaluations summarized in this report follows 
     children who began in Success for All in first grade or 
     earlier, in comparison to children who had attended the 
     control school over the same period. Students who start in it 
     after first grade are not considered to have received the 
     full treatment (although they are of course served within the 
     schools).
       Results for all experimental-control comparisons in all 
     evaluation years are averaged and summarized in the following 
     graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in 
     Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994'' 
     using a method called multi-site replicated experiment 
     (Slavin et al., 1996a,b; Slavin & Madden, 1993).
       For more details on methods and findings, see Slavin et al. 
     (1996a,b) and the full site reports.
     Reading Outcomes
       The results of the multi-site replicated experiment 
     evaluating Success for All are summarized in the following 
     graph entitled ``Comparison of Success for All and Control in 
     Mean Reading Grade Equivalents and Effect Sizes 1988-1994'' 
     for each grade level, 1-5. The analyses compare cohort means 
     for experimental and control schools; for example the Grade 1 
     graph compares 55 experimental to 55 control cohorts, with 
     cohort (50-150 students) as the unit of analysis. In other 
     words, each bar is a mean of scores from more than 5000 
     students. Grade equivalents are based on the means, and are 
     only presented for their informational value. No analyses 
     were done using grade equivalents.
       Statistically significantly (p=.05 or better) positive 
     effects of Success for All (compared to controls) were found 
     on every measure at every grade level, 1-5. For students in 
     general, effect sizes averaged around a half standard 
     deviation at all grade levels. Effects were somewhat higher 
     than this for the Woodcock Word Attack scale in grades 1 and 
     2, but in grades 3-5 effect sizes were more or less 
     equivalent on all aspects of reading. Consistently, effect 
     sizes for students in the lowest 25% of their grades were 
     particularly positive, ranging from ES=+1.03 in first grades 
     to ES=+1.68 in fourth grade. Again, cohort-level analyses 
     found statistically significant differences favoring low 
     achievers in Success for All on every measure at every grade 
     level.
     Roots and Wings
       A study of Roots and Wings (Slavin, Madden, & Wasik, 1996) 
     was carried out in four pilot schools in rural southern 
     Maryland. The Roots and Wings schools serve populations that 
     are significantly more disadvantaged than state averages. 
     They average 48% free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, 
     compared to 30% for the state; 21% of Roots and

[[Page H6877]]

     Wings students are Title I eligible, in comparison to 7% for 
     the state. The assessment tracked growth over time on the 
     Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), 
     compared to growth in the state as a whole. The MSPAP is a 
     performance measure on which students are asked to solve 
     complex problems, set up experiments, write in various 
     genres, and read extended text. It uses matrix sampling, 
     which means that different students take different forms of 
     the test.
       In both third- and fifth-grade assessments in all subjects 
     tested (reading, language, writing, math, science, and social 
     studies), Roots and Wings students showed substantial growth, 
     as shown in the following graphs.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     * Graphs were not reproduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The State of Maryland gained in average performance on the 
     MSPAP over the same time period, but the number of Roots and 
     Wings students achieving at satisfactory or excellent 
     increased by more than twice the state's rate on every 
     measure at both grade levels.
     Effects on District-Administered Standardized Tests
       The formal evaluations of Success for All have relied on 
     individually administered assessments of reading. The 
     Woodcock and Durrell scales used in these assessments are far 
     more accurate than district-administered tests, and are much 
     more sensitive to real reading gains. They allow testers to 
     hear children actually reading material of increasing 
     difficulty and responding to questions about what they have 
     read. The Woodcock and Durrell are themselves nationally 
     standardized tests, and produce norms (e.g., percentiles, 
     NCEs and grade equivalents) just like any other standardized 
     measure.
       However, educators often want to know the effects of 
     innovative programs on the kinds of group administered 
     standardized tests they are usually held accountable for. To 
     obtain this information, we have sometimes requested 
     standardized test data for students in experimental and 
     control schools, and some districts have done their own 
     evaluations on their own measures. The following sections 
     briefly summarize findings from these types of evaluations.
       Baltimore, Maryland--Through the 1992-93 school year we 
     collected CTBS scores for our five Success for All and 
     control schools. On average, Success for All schools exceeded 
     control schools at every grade level. The differences were 
     statistically and educationally significant. By fifth grade, 
     Success for All students were performing 75% of a grade 
     equivalent ahead of controls (ES=+0.45) on CTBS Total Reading 
     scores (see Slavin, Madden, Dolan, Wasik, Ross, & Smith, 
     1994).
       Memphis, Tennessee--A longitudinal evaluation of three 
     Memphis Success for All schools (now becoming Roots and Wings 
     schools) by Ross, Smith, & Casey (1995) included an 
     assessment of program effects on the Tennessee Comprehensive 
     Assessment Program's (TCAP) Vocabulary and Reading 
     Comprehension tests. On average, the three Success for All 
     schools exceeded the three controls by an effect size of 
     +0.38 in first grade and +0.45 in second grade. Again, these 
     effects are educationally and statistically significant.
       Flint, Michigan--Two schools in Flint, Michigan began 
     implementation of Success for All in 1992. The percentage of 
     students passing the Michigan Educational Assessment Program 
     (MEAP) in reading at fourth grade has increased dramatically. 
     Homedale Elementary had a pass rate of 2% in 1992, placing it 
     last among the district's 32 elementary schools. In 1995, 
     48.6% of students passed, placing it first in the district. 
     Merrill Elementary, 27th in the district in 1992 with only 
     9.5% of students passing, was 12th in 1995 with 22% passing. 
     Over the same period the average for all Flint elementary 
     schools only increased from 18.3% passing to 19.3%.
       Ft. Wayne, Indiana--An evaluation in two schools in Ft. 
     Wayne, Indiana (Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1995) found positive 
     effects of Success for All on the reading comprehension scale 
     of the ISTEP, Indiana's norm-referenced achievement test. In 
     first grade, the effect size was +0.49 for students in 
     general and +1.13 for the lowest-performing 25%. In second 
     grade, effect sizes were +0.64, and in third grade, ES=+.13.
       Miami, Florida--(Dade County) An evaluation of three 
     Success for All schools (currently becoming Roots and Wings 
     schools) was carried out by Yuwadee Wongbundhit (1995) of the 
     Dade County Public Schools. In comparison to three control 
     schools, the Success for All schools gained seven percentile 
     points from grades 1-2 while matched control schools lost 
     five points on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8). In 
     grades 2.3, Success for All students gained only one 
     percentile point, but controls lost eight.
       Wichita Falls, Texas--Fannin Elementary School, the 
     highest-poverty school in Wichita Falls, Texas, began 
     implementation of Success for All in 1991. Its scores on the 
     1992 Texas Assessments of Academic Skills (TAAS) showed a 
     dramatic improvement. The percentage of third-graders meeting 
     minimum expectations in reading increased from 48% to 70% 
     (during the same year, the district percentage declined by 
     3%). Fannin students also increased from 8% to 53% in the 
     percentage of students meeting minimum expectations in 
     writing.
       Modesto, California--Two schools in Modesto, California 
     have been implementing Success for all since 1991. Each year, 
     their average NCE's in reading comprehension have increased 
     significantly. In 1993, El Vista Elementary showed an NCE 
     gain of 10.8; in grades two and three, the gains were 14.7 
     and 13.5, respectfully. Orville Wright Elementary showed 
     gains averaging 4.6 in grades 2-3. On the Spanish Aprenda, 
     Orville Wright students using the Lee Conmigo program gained 
     9.5 NCEs. On the CLAS, California's experimental performance 
     measure, both schools significantly exceeded their matched 
     comparison group in 1993. Principals report that among 
     students who have remained in the program since first grade, 
     no third graders are reading below grade level.
       Charleston, West Virginia-- Chandler Elementary School 
     began implementing Success for All in 1990. In the two 
     years before the program was introduced, the school 
     averaged an NCE score of 34. This increased to 43 in the 
     first year after implementation and to 54 by the third 
     year.
     Changes in Effect Sizes over Years of Implementation
       One interesting trend in outcomes from comparisons of 
     Success for All and control schools relates to changes in 
     effect sizes according to the number of years a school has 
     been implementing the program. Figure 4, which summarizes 
     these data, was created by pooling effect sizes for all 
     cohorts in their first year of implementation, all in their 
     second year, and so on, regardless of calendar year.
       Figure 4 shows that mean reading effect sizes progressively 
     increase with each year of implementation. For example, 
     Success for All first-graders score substantially better than 
     control first-graders at the end of the first year of 
     implementation (ES=+0.49). The experimental-control 
     difference is even higher for first graders attending schools 
     in the second year of program implementation (ES=+0.53), 
     increasing to an effect size of +0.73 for schools in their 
     fourth implementation year. A similar pattern is apparent for 
     second- and third-grade cohorts.
       The data summarized in Figure 4 show that while Success for 
     All has an immediate impact on student reading achievement, 
     this impact grows over successive years of implementation. 
     Over time, schools may become increasingly able to provide 
     effective instruction to all of their students, to approach 
     the goal of success for all.
     Success for All and English Language Learners
       The education of English language learners is at a 
     crossroads. For many years, researchers, educators, and 
     policy makers have debated questions of the appropriate 
     language instruction for students who enter elementary school 
     speaking languages other than English. Research on this topic 
     has generally found that students taught to read their home 
     language and then transitioned to English ultimately become 
     better readers in English than do students taught to read 
     only in English (Garcia, 1991; Willig, 1985; Wong-Fillmore & 
     Valadez, 1986). More recently, however, attention has shifted 
     to another question. Given that students are taught to read 
     their home language, how can we ensure that they succeed in 
     that language? (See, for example, Garcia, 1994.) There is no 
     reason to expect that children failing to read well in 
     Spanish, for example, will later become good readers and 
     successful students in English. On the contrary, research 
     consistently supports the common-sense expectation that the 
     better students in Spanish bilingual programs read Spanish, 
     the better their English reading will be (Garcia, 1991; 
     Hakuta & Garcia, 1989). Clearly, the quality of instruction 
     in home-language reading is a key factor in the ultimate 
     school success of English language learners, and must be a 
     focus of research on the education of these children.
       Francis Scott Key (ESL)--
       An adaptation of Success for All to the needs of ESL 
     students was evaluated at Philadelphia's Francis Scott Key 
     Elementary School, a majority-Cambodian school in which 
     virtually all children are in poverty. Francis Scott Key was 
     evaluated in comparison to a similar Philadelphia elementary 
     school.
       Results: Asian Students--Success for All Asian students in 
     grades 3-5, most of whom had been in the program since 
     kindergarten, performed far better than control students. 
     Differences between Success for All and control students were 
     statistically significant on every measure at every grade 
     level (p<.001). Median grade equivalents and effect sizes 
     were computed across the three Woodcock scales. On average, 
     Success for All Asian students exceeded control students in 
     reading grade equivalents by almost three years in third 
     grade (median ES=+1.76), more than 2 years in fourth grade 
     (median ES=+1.46), and about three years in fifth grade 
     (median ES=+1.44). Success for All Asian students were 
     reading more than a full year above grade level in grade 3 
     and more than a half-year above in fourth and fifth grade, 
     while similar control students were reading more than a year 
     below grade level at all three grade levels.
       Results: Non-Asian Students. Outcomes of Success for All 
     non-Asian students were also very positive in grades 3-5. 
     Experimental-control differences were statistically 
     significant (p<.05 or better) on every measure at every 
     level. Effect sizes were somewhat smaller than for Asian 
     students, but were still quite substantial, average +1.00 in 
     grade, +0.96 in grade 4, and +0.78 in grade 5. Success for 
     All students averaged almost two years above grade level in 
     third grade, more

[[Page H6878]]

     than a year above grade level in fourth grade, and about 
     eight months above grade level in fifth grade; at all grade 
     levels, Success for All averaged about 2.5 years higher than 
     control students.
       Fairhill (Bilingual)--The bilingual version of Success for 
     All, Lee Conmigo, was first implemented at Fairhill 
     Elementary School, a school in inner-city Philadelphia. 
     Fairhill serves a student body of 694 students of whom 78% 
     are Hispanic and 22% are African-American. A matched 
     comparison school was also selected. Nearly all students in 
     both schools qualified for free lunches. Both schools were 
     Title I schoolwide projects, which means that both had high 
     (and roughly equivalent) allocations of Title I funds that 
     they could use flexibly to meet student needs.
       Results: All students defined by district criteria as 
     limited English proficient at Fairhill and its control school 
     were pretested at the beginning of first grade on the Spanish 
     Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Each following May, 
     these students were tested by native language speakers on 
     three scales of the Spanish Woodcock.
       ANCOVAs controlling for pretests showed that at the end of 
     grade 2 Success for All students scored substantially higher 
     than control on every measure (p<.01 or better). Control 
     second-graders scored far below grade level on all three 
     scales. In contrast, Fairhill students averaged near grade 
     level on all measures. Effect sizes on all measures were 
     substantial. Fairhill students exceeded control by 1.8 
     standard deviations on Letter-Word Identification, 2.2 on 
     Word Attack, and 1.3 on Passage Comprehension. Fremont 
     (Bilingual), Wright (Bilingual) and El Vista (ESL).
       Data from first-graders in three California Success for All 
     schools were analyzed together by Dianda and Flaherty (1995), 
     pooling data across schools in four categories: English-
     dominant students, Spanish-dominant students taught in 
     Spanish (Lee Conmigo in Success for All schools), Spanish-
     dominant students taught in English (``sheltered students''), 
     and speakers of languages other than English or Spanish 
     taught in English. The pooled results are summarized in 
     Figure 5.
       As is clear in Figure 5, all categories of Success for All 
     students scored substantially better than control students. 
     The differences were greatest, however, for Spanish-dominated 
     students taught in bilingual classes (ES=+1.03) and those 
     taught in sheltered English programs (ES=+1.02). The 
     bilingual students scored at grade level, and more than six 
     months ahead of controls. The sheltered students scored about 
     two months below grade level, but were still four months 
     ahead of their controls. Both English-speaking students and 
     speakers of languages other than English or Spanish scored 
     above grade level and about two months ahead of their 
     controls. The effects of Success for All on the achievement 
     of English language learners are substantially positive. 
     Across three schools implementing Lee Conmigo, the Spanish 
     curriculum used in bilingual Success for All schools, the 
     average effect size for first-graders on Spanish assessments 
     was +0.88; for second-graders (at Philadelphia's Fairhill 
     Elementary) the average effect size was +1.77. For students 
     in sheltered English instruction, effect sizes for all 
     comparisons were also very positive, especially for Cambodian 
     students in Philadelphia and Mexican-American students in 
     California.
     Comparing Success for All and Reading Recovery
       Reading Recovery is one of the most extensively researched 
     and widely used innovations in elementary education. Like /
     Success for All, Reading Recovery provides one-to-one 
     tutoring to first graders who are struggling in reading. 
     Research on Reading Recovery has found substantial positive 
     effects of the program as of the end of first grade, and 
     longitudinal studies have found that some portion of these 
     effects maintain at least through fourth grade (DeFord, 
     Pinnell, Lyons & Young, 1988; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & 
     Seltzer, 1991).
       Schools and districts attracted to Success for All are also 
     often attracted to Reading Recovery, as the two programs 
     share an emphasis on early intervention and a strong research 
     base. Increasing numbers of districts have both programs in 
     operation in different schools. One of the districts in the 
     Success for All evaluation, Caldwell, Idaho, happened to be 
     one of these. Ross, Smith, Casey, & Slavin (1995) used this 
     opportunity to compare the two programs.
       In Caldwell, two schools are using Success for All and one 
     is using Reading Recovery. All three are very similar rural 
     schools with similar ethnic make-ups (10-25% Hispanic, with 
     the remainder Anglo), proportions of students qualifying for 
     free lunch (45-60%), and sizes (411-451). The Success for All 
     schools were somewhat higher than the Reading Recovery school 
     in poverty and percent Hispanic. In 1992-93, one of the 
     Success for All schools was in its second year of 
     implementation and the other was a new school that was in its 
     first year (but had moved a principal and some experienced 
     staff reassigned from the first school). Reading Recovery was 
     in its second year of implementation.
       The study compared first-graders in the three schools. 
     Figure 6 summarizes the results. As is clear from the figure, 
     students in the Success for All schools performed somewhat 
     better than students in the Reading Recovery school 
     overall (ES=+.17). Differences for special education 
     students were substantial, averaging an effect size of 
     +.77. Special education students were not tutored in the 
     Reading Recovery school and were primarily taught in a 
     separate resource room. These students scored near the 
     floor on all tests. In contrast, Success for All special 
     education students were fully mainstreamed and did receive 
     tutoring, and their reading scores, though still low, 
     showed them to be on the way toward success in reading.
       Excluding the special education students, there were no 
     differences in reading performance between tutored students 
     in the Success for All and Reading Recovery schools (ES=.00). 
     In light of earlier research, these outcomes suggest that 
     both tutoring programs are highly effective for at-risk first 
     graders.
       A second comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery 
     was carried out by Ross, Nunnery, & Smith (1996) in the 
     Amphitheater School District of Tucson, Arizona. Three high-
     poverty schools (about 25% Mexican American students) were 
     compared. One used Success for All, one used Reading Recovery 
     with a whole-language curriculum, and a control school used a 
     whole-language approach without tutoring.
       In this study, tutored as well as non-tutored first-graders 
     scored substantially higher in Success for All than in 
     Reading Recovery. For tutored students the difference 
     averaged an effect size of 1.08, with mean grade equivalents 
     of 1.85 for tutored students in Success for All, 1.20 for 
     Reading Recovery students. For all students, Success for All 
     students had an average grade equivalent of 2.18, the Reading 
     Recovery school 1.73, and the control school 1.80, with mean 
     effect sizes of +.68 comparing Success for All and the 
     Reading Recovery school and +.39 comparing Success for All 
     and control.
       The comparison of Success for All and Reading Recovery 
     supports a common-sense conclusion. Success for All, which 
     affects all students, has positive effects on all students. 
     Reading Recovery focuses on tutoring and therefore produces 
     its effects only on tutored students. These results suggest 
     that Success for All may be most appropriate in schools 
     serving many at-risk students, while Reading Recovery may be 
     more practical when the number of students at risk of reading 
     failure is small. Some schools have merged the two programs, 
     combining the breadth and comprehensiveness of Success for 
     All with the outstanding professional development for tutors 
     provided by Reading Recovery. Such mergers of Success for All 
     and Reading Recovery are being started in about a dozen 
     schools located around the United States.
     Success for All and Special Education
       Perhaps the most important goal of Success for All is to 
     place a floor under the reading achievement of all children, 
     to ensure that every child performs adequately in this 
     critical skill. This goal has major implications for special 
     education. If the program makes a substantial difference in 
     the reading achievement of the lowest achievers, then it 
     should reduce special education referrals and placements. 
     Further, students who have IEPs indicating learning 
     disabilities or related problems are typically treated the 
     same as other students in Success for All. That is, they 
     receive tutoring if they need it, participate in reading 
     classes appropriate to their reading levels, and spend the 
     rest of the day in age-appropriate, heterogeneous 
     homerooms. Their tutor and/or reading teacher is likely to 
     be a special education teacher, but otherwise they are not 
     treated differently.
       The philosophy behind that treatment of special education 
     issues in Success for All is called ``neverstreaming'' 
     (Slavin et al. 1991). That is, rather than waiting until 
     students fall far behind, are assigned to special education, 
     and then may be mainstreamed into regular classes, Success 
     for All schools intervene early and intensively with students 
     who are at risk to try to keep them out of the special 
     education system. Once students are far behind, special 
     education services are unlikely to catch them up to age-
     appropriate levels of performance. Students who have already 
     failed in reading are likely to have an overlay of anxiety, 
     poor motivation, poor behavior, low self-esteem, and 
     ineffective learning strategies that are likely to interfere 
     with learning no matter how good special education services 
     may be. Ensuring that all students succeed in the first place 
     is a far better strategy if it can be accomplished. In 
     Success for All, the provision of research-based preschool, 
     kindergarten, and first grade reading, one-to-one tutoring, 
     and family support services are likely to give the most at-
     risk students a good chance of developing enough reading 
     skills to remain out of special education, or to perform 
     better in special education than would have otherwise been 
     the case.
       That data relating to special education outcomes clearly 
     support these expectations. Several studies have focused on 
     questions related to special education. One of the most 
     important outcomes in this area is the consistent finding of 
     particularly large effects of Success for All for students in 
     the lowest 25% of their classes. While effect sizes for 
     students in general have averaged around +0.50 on 
     individually administered reading measures, effect sizes for 
     the lowest achievers have averaged in the range of +1.00 to 
     +1.50 across the grades. Across five Baltimore schools, only 
     2.2% of third-graders averaged two years behind grade level, 
     a usual criterion for special education placement. In 
     contrast, 8.8% of control third-graders scored this poorly. 
     Baltimore data have

[[Page H6879]]

     also shown a reduction in special education placements for 
     learning disabilities of about half (Slavin et al., 1992). A 
     study of two Success for All schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana 
     found that over a two year period 3.2% of Success for All 
     students in grades K-1 and 1-2 were referred to special 
     education for learning disabilities or mild mental handicaps. 
     In contrast, 14.3% of control students were referred in these 
     categories (Smith, Ross, & Casey, 1994).
       Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that 
     Success for All both reduces the need for special education 
     services (by raising the reading achievement of very low 
     achievers) and reduces special education referrals and 
     placements.
       Another important question concerns the effects of the 
     program on students who have already been assigned to special 
     education. Here again, there is evidence from different 
     sources. In the Ross et al. (1995) study comparing Reading 
     Recovery and Success for All described above, it so happened 
     that first-graders in special education in the Reading 
     Recovery group were not tutored, but instead received 
     traditional special education services in resource rooms. In 
     the Success for All schools, first-graders who had been 
     assigned to special education were tutored one-to-one (by 
     their special education teachers) and otherwise participated 
     in the program in the same way as all other students. As 
     noted earlier (recall Figure 6), special education students 
     in Success for All were reading substantially better 
     (ES=+.77) than special education students in the comparison 
     school. In addition, Smith et al. (1994) combined first grade 
     reading data from special education students in Success for 
     All and control schools in four districts: Memphis, Ft. 
     Wayne, Indiana, Montgomery, Alabama, and Caldwell, Idaho). 
     Success for All special education students scored 
     substantially better than controls (mean ES=+.59).


                               conclusion

       The results of evaluations of twenty-three Success for All 
     schools in nine districts in eight states clearly show that 
     the program increases student reading performance. In every 
     district, Success for All students learned significantly more 
     than matched control students. Significant effects were not 
     seen on every measure at every grade level, but the 
     consistent direction and magnitude of the effects show 
     unequivocal benefits for Success for All students. Effects on 
     district-administered standardized tests reinforce the 
     findings of the studies using individually administered 
     tests. This report also adds evidence showing particularly 
     large impacts on the achievement of limited English 
     proficient students in both bilingual and ESL programs, and 
     on both reducing special education referrals and improving 
     the achievement of students who have been assigned to special 
     education. It compares the outcomes of Success for All with 
     those of another early intervention program, Reading 
     Recovery. It also summarizes outcomes of Roots and Wings, the 
     next stage in the development of Success for All.
       The Success for All evaluations have used reliable and 
     valid measures, individually administered tests that are 
     sensitive to all aspects of reading--comprehension, fluency, 
     word attack, and word identification. Performance of Success 
     for All students has been compared to that of matched 
     students in matched control schools, who provide the best 
     indication of what students without the program would have 
     achieved. Replication of high-quality experiments in such a 
     wide variety of schools and districts is extremely unusual. 
     The equally consistent and dramatic impact of Success for All 
     and Roots and Wings on district standardized tests and state 
     performance assessments are further evidence of the broad 
     impact of these programs.
       An important indicator of the robustness of Success for All 
     is the fact of the more than 300 schools that have used the 
     program for periods of 1-8 years, only eight have dropped out 
     (in all cases because of changes of principals). Many other 
     Success for All schools have survived changes of 
     superintendents, principals, facilitators, and other key 
     staff, major cuts in funding, and other serious threats to 
     program maintenance.
       The research summarized here demonstrates that 
     comprehensive, systemic school-by-school change can take 
     place on a broad scale in a way that maintains the integrity 
     and effectiveness of the model. The 23 schools in nine 
     districts that we are studying in depth are typical of the 
     larger set of schools currently using Success for All and 
     Roots and Wings in terms of quality of implementation, 
     resources, demographic characteristics, and other factors. 
     Program outcomes are not limited to the original home of the 
     program; in fact, outcomes tend to be somewhat better outside 
     of Baltimore. The widely held idea based on the Rand study of 
     innovation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; McLaughlin, 1990) that 
     comprehensive school reform must be invented by school staffs 
     themselves is certainly not supported in research on Success 
     for All or Roots and Wings. While the program is adapted to 
     meet the needs of each school, and while school staffs must 
     agree to implement the program by a vote of 80 percent or 
     more, Success for All and Roots and Wings are externally 
     developed programs with specific materials, manuals, and 
     structures. The observation that these programs can be 
     implemented and maintained over considerable time periods and 
     can be effective in each of their replication sites certainly 
     supports the idea that every school staff need not reinvent 
     the wheel.
       There is nothing magic about Success for All or Roots and 
     Wings. None of their components are completely new or unique. 
     Obviously, schools serving disadvantaged students can have 
     great success without a special program if they have an 
     outstanding staff, and other prevention/early intervention 
     models, such as Reading Recovery (Pinnell, 1989) and the 
     School Development Program (Comer, 1988) also have evidence 
     of effectiveness with disadvantaged children. The main 
     importance of the research on Success for All and Roots and 
     Wings is not in validating a particular model or in 
     demonstrating that disadvantaged students can learn. 
     Rather, its greatest importance is in demonstrating that 
     success for disadvantaged students can be routinely 
     ensured in schools that are not exceptional or 
     extraordinary (and were not producing great success before 
     the program was introduced). We cannot ensure that every 
     school has a charismatic principal or every student has a 
     charismatic teacher. Nevertheless, we can ensure that 
     every child, regardless of family background, has an 
     opportunity to succeed in school.
       The demonstration that an effective program can be 
     replicated and can be effective in its replication sites 
     removes one more excuse for the continuing low achievement of 
     disadvantaged children. In order to ensure the success of 
     disadvantaged students we must have the political commitment 
     to do so, with the funds and policies to back up this 
     commitment. Success for All and Roots and Wings do require a 
     serious commitment to restructure elementary schools and to 
     reconfigure uses of Title I, special education, and other 
     funds to emphasize prevention and early intervention rather 
     than remediation. These and other systemic changes in 
     assessments, accountability, standards, and legislation can 
     facilitate the implementation of Success for All, Roots and 
     Wings, and other school reform programs. However, we must 
     also have methods known not only to be effective in their 
     original sites, but also to be replicable and effective in 
     other sites. The evaluations presented in this report provide 
     a practical demonstration of the effectiveness and 
     replicability of one such program.


                               References

     Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs 
     supporting educational change: A model of education change, 
     Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa 
     Monica, CA: Rand.
     Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. 
     Scientific American, 259, 42-48.
     DeFord, D.E., Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., & Young, P. (1987). 
     Ohio's Reading Recovery program: Vol. VII, Report of the 
     follow-up studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
     Dianda, M.R., & Flaherty, J.F. (April 1995). Effects of 
     Success for All on the reading achievement of first graders 
     in California bilingual programs. Paper presented at the 
     annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
     Association, San Francisco.
     Dianda, M.R., Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993, April). Lee 
     Conmigo: Success for All in schools serving limited English 
     proficient students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 
     the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
     Garcia, E.E. (1991). Bilingualism, second language 
     acquisition, and the education of Chicano language minority 
     students. In R.R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and 
     success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990's. New 
     York: Falmer.
     Garica, E.E. (1994, April). The impact of linguistic and 
     cultural diversity on America's schools: A need for new 
     policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
     GAO, 1994. Limited English proficiency: A growing and costly 
     educational challenge facing many school districts. 
     Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
     Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Ivory, G., & Calderon, M. (1993). The 
     Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition 
     (BCIRC) project in the Ysleta Independent School District: 
     Standardized test outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 
     University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for 
     Disadvantaged Students.
     Horwitz, R.I. (1987). Complexity and contradiction in 
     clinical trial research. American Journal of Medicine, 82, 
     498-510.
     Levin, H.M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged 
     students. Educational Leadership, 44 (6), 19-21.
     Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., & 
     Wasik, B.A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of 
     a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. 
     American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
     Matt, G.E., & Cook, T.D. (1994). Threats to the validity of 
     research and syntheses. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), 
     The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503-520). New York: 
     Russell Sage.
     McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand change agent study 
     revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. 
     Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
     Pinnell, G.S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk 
     children learn to read: Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-
     182.
     Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & 
     Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the 
     literacy education of high risk first graders. Reading 
     Research Quarterly, 29, 8-38.
     Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & 
     Seltzer, M. (1991). Studying the effectiveness of early 
     intervention approaches for first grade children having 
     difficulty in reading. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 
     Martha L. King Language and Literacy Center.
     Ross, S.M., Nunnery, J., & Smith, L. (1996). Evaluation of 
     Title I reading programs: Amphitheater Public Schools. Year 
     1: 1995-96. Memphis: University of Memphis, Center for 
     Research in Educational Policy.
     Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. 
     (1994, April). Using ``Success for All'' to restructure 
     elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at 
     the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
     Association, New Orleans.
     Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). 
     Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An 
     examination of alternative early intervention programs. 
     American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773-800.

[[Page H6880]]

     Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the 
     American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
     Slavin, R.E. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative 
     to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Education 
     Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
     Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement 
     in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of 
     Educational Research, 57, 347-350.
     Slavin, R.E. (1994). School and classroom organization in 
     beginning reading: Class size, aides, and instructional 
     grouping. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, B.A. Wasik, & N.A. 
     Madden (Eds.), Preventing early school failure: Research on 
     effective strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, 
     and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1992/93). 
     Preventing early school failure: What works? Educational 
     Leadership, 50(4), 10-18.
     Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1994). Preventing 
     early school failure: Research on effective strategies. 
     Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
     Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1993, April). Multi-site 
     replicated experiments: An application to Success for All. 
     Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
     Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1994). Implementing Success for 
     All in the Philadelphia Public Schools (Final report to the 
     Pew Charitable Trusts). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 
     University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for 
     Disadvantaged Students.
     Slavin, R.E. & Madden, N.A. (1995, April). Effects of Success 
     for All on the Achievement of English language learners. 
     Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A. Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, 
     B.A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to 
     prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. 
     Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L. Dolan, L., & Wasik, 
     B.A. (1996b). Every child, every school: Success for All. 
     Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994) ``Whenever and 
     wherever we choose . . . .:'' The replication of Success for 
     All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639-647.
     Slavin, R.E. Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994, April). Success for 
     All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform 
     in seven districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 
     the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L., Wasik, 
     B.A., Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. & Dianda, M. (1996a). Success 
     for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for 
     Students Placed at Risk, 1 (1), 41-76.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L. Wasik, 
     B.A., Shaw, A., Mainzer, K.L., & Haxby B. (1991). 
     Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as 
     alternatives to special education. Journal of Learning 
     Disabilities, 24, 373-378.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Stevens, R.J. (1989/90). 
     Cooperative learning models for the 3 Rs. Educational 
     Leadership, 47 (4), 22-28.
     Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Roots and 
     Wings. In S. Stringfield S. Ross, & L. Smith (Eds.), Bold 
     plans for school restructuring: The New American Schools 
     Designs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Slavin, R.E., & Yampolsky, R. (1991). Effects of Success for 
     All on students with limited English proficiency: A three-
     year evaluation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 
     Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged 
     Students.
     Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., & Casey, J.P. (1994). Special 
     education analyses for Success for All in four cities. 
     Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in 
     Educational Policy.
     Stevens, R.J., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., & Farnish, A.M. 
     (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two 
     field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
     Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading 
     failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. 
     Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.
     Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on 
     the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of 
     Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
     Wongbundhit, Y. (1995). Evaluation of Success for All in the 
     Dade County Public Schools. Miami: Dade County Public 
     Schools.
     Wong-Fillmore, L., & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual 
     learners. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on 
     teaching (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Let me simply say that this debate is supposed to be on the Evans 
amendment. We have already accepted the amendment on both sides. There 
is obviously a little filibuster going on here. As long as there is, 
let me correct some of the misstatements that have been made on the 
House floor.
  With respect to the school reform initiative contained in this bill, 
this is the exact opposite of control from Washington. What this bill 
attempts to do is to recognize that a whole group of American 
businessmen have tried to figure out what it is that makes schools work 
and what does not make them work. So instead of following their own 
individual political philosophy, they simply examined all of the 
research around the country to see what had been proven to improve 
student performance and what had not. And they simply came to the 
conclusion that there were roughly seven different models which helped 
to achieve much greater student performance.
  The fact is that there are, in addition to a New American Schools 
Movement, there are a broad number of other efforts around the country 
to try to determine what works to improve schools. A number of Members 
have said, Gee, if school districts want to apply for this money, they 
have to fit into one of these molds or they cannot get the money.'' 
That is absolutely not the case.
  What this legislation says is simply that we are making money 
available not to the Washington bureaucrats, but we are making money 
available primarily to the State chief school officers, and they will 
simply receive applications from school districts that want to get a 
little extra seed money to try to figure out how to improve the 
operation and organization of their local schools.
  If they are not interested in doing it, they do not have to apply. If 
they are interested in applying, they do not have to follow anybody's 
single model. They do not have to follow the model of the Little Red 
Schoolhouse. They do not have to follow Professor Comer's model or 
anybody else's. These are simply seven illustrative models which the 
New American Schools Movement feels merit a look-see. But there are 
many others around the country, and if schools want to add their own 
wrinkles, they are perfectly free to do so.
  In the end, State superintendents of public instruction will simply 
determine which grants seem to have the best chance to demonstrate 
success and they will provide these start-up grants. That will simply 
enable local schools to put together whatever program is agreed to at 
the local level to reform their schools.

                              {time}  1900

  We have people in this Congress who do not like Goals 2000. We have 
people in this Congress who do not like testing. What we are saying is, 
``All right, if you don't like that, let's find some other way to 
encourage school reforms without Washington itself dictating what those 
reforms are going to be.'' I doubt very much that we would have the 
Fortune 500 corporate leaders who have encouraged this approach, I 
doubt very much that we would find any of them in favor of any approach 
being imposed from Washington. What we are simply trying to do is to 
assist local school districts, who often do not have the money 
available, to step back and reexamine their operations from top to 
bottom. We are simply trying to offer them some assistance.
  We have had 20 years of research in this field. It is about time, it 
seems to me, that we start applying the results of that research. We 
spend billions of dollars on title I trying to deal with the problems 
of individual children, but we often approach that without having an 
atmosphere that is conducive to learning in the very schools where we 
are trying to improve individual child performance. And so this is 
simply an effort to allow local people to design whatever approach they 
want to take and get a little money to get some outside help, if they 
want it, to put together a program that works. That is all it is, and I 
would urge the Members if they are going to oppose this program to at 
least understand what it is they are opposing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not want to say anything more than that. 
There are evidently some Members of the House who would prefer to 
create an argument for whatever reason they have. But to suggest that 
this is a model that imposes a solution on local schools is exactly the 
reverse from what it in fact is, and I doubt very much that we would 
find either the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] or me supporting 
anything which required local districts to produce anything but what 
they wanted to produce in order to improve their own local schools.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in an argument on the

[[Page H6881]]

issue. I am interested in the policy behind it. Perhaps I am misreading 
either the bill's language or the bill report. But let me tell the 
gentleman what they say. Because lots of times we have these general 
debates where we talk in great banal generalities but we never get down 
to the specifics. His proposition is that this language does not 
mandate any specific type of school reform.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct.
  Mr. SHADEGG. That may be his intent, but that is in fact not what 
either the bill or the report says. If I might just quote from the bill 
and the report, we will talk about why I believe what he is doing is 
exactly that, mandating from Washington DC the specific kind of reform 
which will be acceptable. By the way, he says it is important that we 
go forward with school reform. I will tell the gentleman school reform 
is going forward in Arizona.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman does not have a question, I would like to 
take back the time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I have a question.
  Mr. OBEY. What is it?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I will tell the gentleman that school reform is going 
forward aggressively in Arizona. On page 65 of the bill, it says quite 
specifically at lines 21 through 23, ``$150 million shall be available 
under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective approaches to whole 
school reform.'' Whole school reform is a term of art. We look then to 
the report and the report repeats that same language twice. At two 
different points it says, this money is to be appropriated, actually it 
is a total of $200 million, for whole school reform initiatives.
  He says whole school reform initiatives let them do anything they 
want. Yet they do not.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, if 
I might, and let the gentleman respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, the gentleman can define whole school 
reform any way he wants. So can any local school district.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Then the gentleman has no objection to striking the 
words ``whole school reform''?
  Mr. OBEY. We have not yielded. I would like to point out to the 
gentleman that I doubt that the Parent-Teachers Association of America, 
I doubt that the School Boards Association of America, I doubt that the 
School Administrators Association of America, I doubt that the title I 
administrators in the various 50 States, I doubt that the chief school 
officers of the 50 States would endorse a proposition which mandates on 
them requirements from Washington. They are supporting this because 
they believe this is the best way to make title I work. They believe 
that schools need the opportunity to review the way they are 
administered, the way teachers are trained and the way children are 
taught, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. One percent of 
schools in the country have already worked through the New American 
Schools model. There are other schools pursuing other models, and that 
is fine with me.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I 
would like to join this debate and say I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin is quite correct. If we are going to spend $150 million of 
the public's money, we have some obligation to spend it in that area 
where we have some evidence that it will be an effective expenditure of 
the moneys. These kinds of reforms that are suggested in this 
legislation are those reforms that have years of research and 
demonstration behind them as to their effectiveness. There may be 
districts that want to reform in some other manner. Fine. Go ahead. But 
for those who believe, because this is not a matter of a demonstration. 
There are hundreds of school districts and hundreds of schools that are 
engaging in one or another of these programs, a total of thousands, 
where local communities, local school boards, local school 
administrators have initiated the effort and are reaping the benefits. 
If you want to do something else, you can do something else.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for 5 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MILLER of California. We yield time to you and then you object to 
cut off the debate on a subject that you say is terribly important.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I do not want to cut it off.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Is the gentleman objecting to my using the 
time? I was yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] so they could carry on, and I 
would just like to have the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California will suspend.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Illinois for unanimous consent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] may restate 
his request.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if 
I am correct, that the mechanism by which this works is that the funds 
are made available from the Secretary of Education to State education 
agencies. That would be the State Department of Education, let us say. 
No State has to apply for these funds. They can decide they do not want 
anything to do with this program and not apply. If they do apply, then 
they are granted funds and then the State parcels these funds out to 
the school districts that apply to them.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. On a competitive basis. Then the school district can then 
decide what type of reform they wish to engage in and who they wish to 
hire to give them advice and counsel in that reform; is that correct?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. From this Republican's perspective, this is exactly the 
kind of thing that we need to have in the public schools that I see 
problems in, where we have entrenched bureaucracies, often teachers 
unions, I have to say, sometimes entrenched administrators, people that 
are incompetent that we cannot get rid of, things that we need to 
address in a broad way to make the school work better. It seems to me 
that this is exactly the kind of program that will help the inner city 
schools that need the most help to push away all of that dead weight 
and get on with a program that works for their kids.
  I believe very frankly that this will work extremely well from my 
philosophical and I think the philosophical standpoint of the gentleman 
from Arizona as well. This does not impose anything on the States. It 
does not impose anything on the school districts. It allows the school 
districts to make their own decisions as to how they want to reform, 
and it seems to me it gives them every opportunity to do so. This money 
is money that would otherwise be spent, in my judgment, on a program 
that does not work well, title I. It simply throws money at inner city 
schools without any real guidance as to how they use it and it is often 
used in ways that do not give a better opportunity to the kids. So I 
think it is good reform.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me speak very frankly about this. I have had some 
considerable difference with my own administration on the issue of 
testing, as has

[[Page H6882]]

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], on the issue of Goals 
2000. There is great debate about the value of either of those 
programs. I do not know whether Goals 2000 is going to turn out to be 
worth much or not, and I do not know whether their testing program is 
going to turn out to be worth much or not. What we have been trying to 
do is to find some way to encourage school reform on a neutral basis so 
that we can help local schools develop their own ideas, to have the 
time to think through what it is they want to do to improve teacher 
performance with only one requirement: that they agree afterward to 
have that approach evaluated so that we can determine which approaches 
really produce results and which ones do not. Because otherwise the 
administration can make its claims till the cows come home, so can its 
philosophical opponents, and we never reach a conclusion in this 
country although we spend billions of dollars on title I and billions 
of dollars on research. I supported title I for many years, but I have 
come to the conclusion that unless it is buttressed with whole school 
reform, it is not going to produce the kind of improved performance we 
need from children. I would think every conservative in this body would 
agree with that conclusion.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I 
thank my friend the gentleman from California for at least yielding me 
some time. We did not get to continue in that dialogue, which I would 
like to. It seems to me quite clear that if the words ``whole school 
reform'' had no meaning and if the schools were then free to do what 
they wanted to do, then there would be no objection to striking those 
words. But those words are replete in the report and they are specified 
in the bill. What I think they say and what I think you cannot deny is 
that this money, this $150 million is going to be controlled from 
Washington. No, it is quite true that no one has to apply for the 
money, but that is the way Washington gets into public policy from the 
beginning and, that is, if you want the money, you must apply to the 
Federal Government and if you apply to the Federal Government, you must 
do whole school reform.
  Mr. PORTER. Absolutely.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The parents in my school districts do not want that. If 
the gentleman is genuine in saying that parents and teachers and 
students and local school administrators should control this money, 
then let me ask the gentleman, is he willing to strike from both the 
bill itself and from the report language all references to whole school 
reform?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, [Mr. Porter] was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I hear this 
gentleman saying and what the gentleman from Indiana seemed to say 
earlier was that what you want the Federal Government to do is through 
taxation to raise the funds and then simply pass it to the local school 
districts to spend as they wish.
  Mr. SHADEGG. It is called block grants.
  Mr. PORTER. We went through that debate earlier with revenue sharing, 
and pretty much I think the country decided that it was the most 
irresponsible thing you could possibly ever do, to raise tax moneys at 
one level of government and have another level of government spend it 
in any way they wish. It seems to me that if the Federal Government 
wishes to encourage whole school reform and the States want to engage 
in it, we are providing that opportunity. Just to pass the money 
through and say spend it any way you want, that is the money that they 
ought to be raising at the local level, in fact are raising at the 
local level. They can spend that money any way they want.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Let me just make this point clear. I do not want the 
money to be raised at the States, sent to Washington and given back 
with no controls. I want the money to stay in the States, because my 
parents want that. They believe they can spend it better than any 
Washington program. Short of getting to that, short of getting to 
leaving those moneys at home in Arizona, or Illinois, or Wisconsin or 
California, then I like the concept of block grants, because there is a 
simple point here. I do not know that whole school reform is the right 
idea, and I trust the parents in Arizona to shape education in Arizona. 
That was an issue when I campaigned. It was an issue before the 104th 
Congress and it is an issue before the 105th Congress. That issue is, 
are we going to control education reform and education policy from 
Washington or are we going to let parents in America, out there working 
with their teachers and their school administrators, decide? This bill 
has Washington deciding that. If it did not, then it would not say you 
get the money if you pursue a whole school reform initiative.
  Mr. PORTER. If I could reclaim my time, just to respond to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona 
that if every school district out there had the kind of money that my 
school districts had, that would be a fine concept.

                              {time}  1915

  We are dealing with school districts that are being provided a great 
deal of their tax money through title I that is basically 
unaccountable, and we are saying that we want to encourage them because 
they are producing students that are not achieving at the level of the 
rest of the country, we want to encourage them to really reform their 
schools to give these kids a real chance.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I am not objecting to giving them the money, I support 
giving the money, but I do not support adding the strings which say, 
``You'll get the money only if you do whole school reform, i.e. 
Washington decides.''
  Mr. PORTER. OK, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is against all Federal 
involvement in education, and that is fine philosophically, and I can 
understand. I assume the gentleman is against special education for 
handicapped students.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely not.
  Mr. PORTER. Math and science which is a Federal program and category.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I am not even against all Federal involvement in 
education. What I am against is us telling schools how they have to 
reform.
  We have public schools in Arizona, and they are a tremendous success.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make one point about 
the term ``whole school reform.''
  We see some people in this country who say the only answer is to 
bring in computers. We see other people who look at a school and they 
say the only answer is to have the teacher retrained. We have someone 
else say the only answer is some other partial approach to the problem.
  What our leading American businessmen have discovered through 
research that they financed on their own is that schools usually 
produce better performance if they think through how the entire school 
works rather than just thinking single shot, such as whether we need 
more computers or whether we need retraining for reading teachers and 
things like that.
  That is all whole school reform means. It means to take a look at the 
way the entire school operates rather than having some single shot, 
slap-dash approach at which we have usually thrown money through the 
years,

[[Page H6883]]

and it seems to me that conservatives would be far more interested in 
promoting this than they would be in simply continuing to shovel out 
large amounts of money without reviewing the way, in fact, we produce 
the best results for the children we are supposed to be here working 
for.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this gentleman from Oregon is a bit confused by the 
debate between the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California to perhaps 
expand on this and elucidate to the many Members out there who are now 
listening with rapt attention what is at hand.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Let me just say I think the gentleman from 
Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin have put it quite properly. 
We have spent, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I 
who sit on the committee, billions and billions of dollars in title I 
funds, and we have not exactly gotten the return that we think we 
should on that dollar.
  A number of these programs, not all of them, but a number of these 
programs are about the reorganization of those dollars where we get a 
better bang for the buck. The John Hopkins program comes in because 
schools invite them in, and they go into low-income schools, and they 
take that title I money, and they reorganize it along some management 
techniques, along the wise use of resources, they get the school headed 
off in the right direction, and the fact of the matter is they get 
kids, a much, much higher percentage of kids, reading at grade level. 
They did not do that because we told them to do that; they did that 
because the local school board could no longer face the parents with 
the results that they were getting.
  That is what these programs are about, and the fact of the matter is 
that these programs have research and pragmatic experience in 
districts, and there are thousands of districts and schools that are 
inviting these programs in because they work. So, if we are going to 
spend $150 million, we ought to, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, 
put it where we think we can get the best return on their investment.
  This is not an exclusive list. This is a illustrative list of 
programs that have some substance to them. I guess the flip side of 
whole school reform would be partial school reform; take that home to 
parents: Oh, we are going to reform part of the school.
  The point is this: If they do not want to do it, do not come get the 
Federal money. We think we should put the money where there is a 
strong, strong demonstration that we are getting the results we want 
for these children, and that is what this amendment is about.
  It is an alternative, as the gentleman pointed out, to some of the 
things the administration wanted to do. We thought, the committee 
thought they would go with some of the empirical evidence, and the fact 
of the matter is that these are being demonstrated over and over again 
in all different types of schools in all geographical locations that 
they are leading to effective change and they are improving the ability 
of children to compute and to read and to critically think and they are 
getting parents involved. But the first step has to come from a school 
district, from a school administrator or from the parents who are 
seeking to improve their schools and then they go to their States and 
make application.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. One principal in Maryland explained that what he was doing 
under his, and it is a Comer school; he explained he was spending about 
30 percent of his time simply in the parking lot getting parents as 
they bring their kids to school every day, talking to the parents to 
tell them to get involved, to show them how they can get involved in 
volunteer programs in the schools, how they can get involved in 
programs that track what their own kids are doing so that we can 
involve the parents in buttressing what it is the children are 
learning.
  I would like to ask what in God's name is wrong with that?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say one of the Hopkins' 
programs, again one of the successes they have is they now have parents 
coming to the school, participating in their education. If they work, 
the parents are coming to the school, dropping their children off, 
spending time there, and a novel idea, they are serving them coffee so 
they can hang around and talk to the teachers.
  The point of the matter is that these programs, in fact, work, and 
that is where we ought to be putting the dollars, and for those school 
districts that are turned off by the notion that they might have to 
reform the whole school, then they should go elsewhere and look for 
dollars.
  In my area, in the San Francisco Bay area, the funding now to try to 
replicate this program is being picked up by industry who are 
announcing for the first time that they can improve the schools by an 
investment by the private sector in these very same programs. I mean, 
that is the kind of credibility we have in terms of the expansion and 
the workability of these programs.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. To the gentleman from Arizona, I just address one point 
that he made about the fact that these were specific programs that had 
to be identically followed. I mention the words, as my colleagues know, 
of a school in Salem, MA, which is in fact, a whole school concept. 
With the help of Salem State College, the community got together, 
teachers got together, parents came on board, they developed a 
curriculum, they developed a mission, they have a school that goes an 
hour longer every day, goes all year around, is successful and has 145 
volunteers a week.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 
expired.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words on the Evans amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the debate here 
tonight. I am from Kentucky, which I believe is the only State that 
enacted whole school reform statewide, and I have talked for many, many 
times about the benefits of whole school reform. But I do not believe 
that it is something that we can enact at the Federal level and have it 
be effective. The truth is it is very difficult to enact at a State 
level so that it is effectively implemented by the schools in that 
State.
  The fact is schools succeed school by school. They succeed as they 
develop their own plans, address what their teachers and what the needs 
are of their students, what the talents are of their teachers and how 
they best can meet the needs of their students.
  When we have whole school reform, it requires a whole system of 
support. It requires a school to be able to overcome the provisions of 
the teacher contract. We cannot do that, Mr. Chairman, here tonight. We 
cannot do this at the Federal level because we see in this country that 
the responsibility for the organization and the efficient management of 
our schools is done in 50 States.
  And so in every State we build up an expertise, an understanding of 
what the needs are and the way to address those needs. I personally do 
not believe that in every community in Wyoming the needs of schools are 
the same as in Louisville, Kentucky, and that is why we need each 
legislature to be able to freely address those needs.
  The support for block grants and what we hear from superintendents 
around this country, and certainly in local districts, is, please, do 
not keep trying to push the direction and the way we organize our 
schools by the money that is trickled down to us; what we need is to be 
able to fill in the blanks and meet the needs of each neighborhood 
school based on the talents in that school and the needs that they 
have.
  This bill and this whole school reform pushes schools to go in a very 
specific direction. The bill in the language

[[Page H6884]]

mentions the examples of whole school reform that would be accepted. 
Many of the things that exist in current State laws would not allow 
real whole school reform.
  And, finally, let me say that in Kentucky whole school reform where 
it is successful is successful because our universities are training 
teachers in a different way. We have rewards and sanctions for schools 
that are not successful, and just because they adopted whole school 
reform, their scores have not all gone up; in fact, some have gone 
down. And so what we need is a State Department that can intervene in 
those schools, we need to adopt it as a whole support system, and for 
us in the Federal level to apply that on every State and every school, 
if they want the money, would be a terrible mistake.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. It is my understanding, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the States can 
structure this in any way they want to restrict the schools in their 
States to apply only in certain ways or in any way they wish to 
structure. I do not see that it interferes whatsoever in State 
direction on whole school reform, or they can choose not to participate 
in it at all.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Reclaiming my time to respond, please, Mr. Chairman, 
the problem is that whole school reform only works if there are the 
liberties to truly reform it. As my colleagues know, if a school says 
we would like to apply for this $50,000 grant and they get it, but the 
State does not allow the provisions of this, say, to override teacher 
contracts, to change the size of classes, to do other things that are 
necessary for whole school reform, the effectiveness of it does not 
exist.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the State has 
complete authority over the method under which the application is made. 
If they want to put those restrictions in place, they can certainly do 
so. I do not see the problem.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if it is so clear that whole school 
reform is good, everyone of the 50 States could enact it today. They 
spend billions. In fact, they spend 95 percent of every dollar in the 
classroom they appropriate and spend at the State and local government. 
There is nothing that prohibits them from passing whole school reform 
in their school.
  So if the evidence is so overwhelming, why has only one State in this 
country passed it, and why would we seek at the Federal level to 
override the wisdom of those States?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that 5-minute debate by pro forma 
amendment may continue, but at this point the Chair will put the 
question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Evans].
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was looking for the appropriate juncture to join this 
debate and did not want to help us digress even further from the debate 
on the underlying amendment, but I have to say that this has been a 
remarkable discussion on something called Whole School Reform, a 
program that has never been reviewed or authorized by the majority 
party of the Congress, the Republican Party. I can say that from a 
position of authority, since I chair the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families.
  I am looking through the statute now, trying to understand what the 
previous Democratic-controlled Congress that authorized something 
called Whole School Reform might have meant by Whole School Reform, and 
I think I have figured out what is going on in this debate: pure 
politics, educational payola, in an effort to craft, quote-unquote, a 
bipartisan bill that can get enough Democrat votes to pass the House of 
Representatives.
  Now, my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who 
is a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, did get it right. He said, this is new money. This $150 
million for Whole School Reform is really new money, because again it 
was authorized by a previous Democratically controlled Congress, and it 
goes along with the other new money in this bill, an increase of $40 
million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education, an increase of 
almost $50 million for something called 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers.
  All I can conclude, Mr. Chairman, from all of this is that the advice 
that we gave the appropriators when we went and testified before them 
to try to further increase Federal taxpayer funding for special 
education, given the fact that the Federal special education and civil 
rights statute has already been reauthorized by this Congress and 
signed into law by the President to try to increase funding to expand 
vocational and technical educational opportunities for our young 
people, especially the two-thirds of our young people who are not 
college-bound, or will not complete college, to try to drive technology 
down into the local schools, that advice was largely ignored in the 
desire to accommodate the request of the distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee and the full committee and others who want money to 
promote Whole School Reform. Again, whatever that might be.
  This money could be a lot better spent if in no other area of this 
bill than on improving education for children with learning 
disabilities. And what happened to the idea? I say to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], who was a key participant in crafting 
that bipartisan legislation, what happened to the idea that we would 
make a good-faith effort of trying to come closer to that original 40 
percent obligation on the part of Federal taxpayers for special 
education?
  So I am strongly opposed, as an education subcommittee chairman, to 
all this new money, this payola being spread around this bill to try 
and get some sort of bipartisan agreement, when I know that we have 
greater priorities at the Federal level, and when I know that money is 
ultimately best spent driven down to the local level, because that is 
in keeping with the long-standing American tradition of public 
education, of local control and decentralized decision-making.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  I would just say that in a number of these programs, one of the 
interesting by-products we are having is that the number of children 
that are later eligible for special education is substantially reduced 
because, by concentrating on basic skills at the earliest level, the 
grade level, we find it was really a reading problem that these 
children had that later caused them to be classified as eligible for 
special education. Those children are being maintained in the regular 
classrooms.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not doubt that at 
all. I will point out to the gentleman that we put an emphasis on early 
intervention in the IDEA amendments and, again, the money could be 
better spent there.
  Mr. Chairman, I really question this money coming into this bill, 
being spent for, I think, very questionable or nebulous purposes, 
particularly when again those of us who serve on the authorizing 
committee were not consulted about this money, and this money again is 
apparently being made available in an effort to, if you will pardon the 
expression, buy Democrat votes for this bill.
  I might also point out, and I do not usually get personal in debate, 
but we are attempting to do this now to accommodate one individual 
Member of the House out of 435 Members of the House, the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee, who is opposed 
to us on the majority side of the aisle on every single major policy 
initiative in this Congress, whether we are talking about welfare 
reform in the last Congress, the bipartisan agreement to balance the 
budget in this Congress, or tax relief for American families and 
businesses.
  So I again have to really question what the thinking and philosophy 
is behind the crafting of this legislation,

[[Page H6885]]

and suggest to my colleagues that we can find better ways to spend this 
money on Republican education priorities.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LARGENT. Just a question to the Chair: We just had a voice vote 
on the previous amendment while there were still Members standing at a 
microphone under an open rule, under the 5-minute rule, and the 
Chairman closed debate.
  I am just wondering what the parliamentary procedure is on that, and 
could we expect that to occur on any of the other amendments that will 
be debated this evening and tomorrow?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was unaware of any other Members who were 
intending to debate that particular amendment. Members can be heard 
under the 5-minute rule to proceed, as the gentleman from California 
just did, to continue to debate other particular issues, but it was not 
pertinent or relevant to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that under normal 
circumstances the Chair will ask the question, ``Are there any other 
Members that want to be heard on this particular amendment?'' and that 
opportunity was not given to the House previously or to the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state again that the Chair was unaware 
of any Members who wished to debate the issue involving the Evans 
amendment. The Chair will continue to recognize those Members under the 
5-minute rule to debate issues, but the Chair has the prerogative to 
put the question on an amendment if no Member seeks recognition to 
further debate that amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, is it parliamentary procedure for the 
Chair to ask the question, ``Are there any other Members that desire to 
be heard on this amendment?'' Is that part of the parliamentary 
procedure, ``yes or no?''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair ascertains that by whatever proper means the 
Chair chooses to use.


                Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment 
No. 17, printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       On page 2, line 15, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
       On page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $23,000,000)''.
       On page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
       On page 23, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       On page 68, line 17, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000) and after the second dollar 
     amount insert ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 78, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       On page 78, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,500,000''.
       On page 85, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me preface my remarks in 
relationship to this amendment by indicating that there are no Federal 
mandates dealing with curriculum in any local school district. There is 
only one Federal mandate dealing with curriculum in relationship to the 
States, and that is the one that I want to talk about, and that is the 
one to which my amendment applies.
  IDEA is a Federal mandate, the only curriculum mandate from the 
Federal Government. It is a mandate on the State, who then mandates to 
the local level what they must carry out in relationship to IDEA.
  When it was passed many years ago, 30 years ago, the Federal 
Government said we are giving the mandate and we are going to give you 
40 percent of the money. Unfortunately, they gave 99 percent of the 
mandate, but about 8 percent of the money. Local school districts now 
are finding it very, very difficult to fund the special education 
mandate that comes from the Federal Government.
  As a minority member working on the Committee on the Budget for 6 
years in a bipartisan way, we tried to change that, and it did not 
work. Last year I said thank you to this committee, because as long as 
the mandate is there and we have the responsibility to put the money 
where our mouth is, this committee that is on the floor today saw fit 
to raise that amount rather dramatically. The idea was that we would 
keep doing that, hopefully until we got to the 40 percent.
  We reformed IDEA this year, and I think we will bring about savings 
at the local level. We say, first of all, that when you get to a 
certain figure, the local level can reduce their expenditures. The 
State cannot, but the local government can.
  We also have introduced in that legislation avenues to bring savings 
to the local government, because we try to get the attorneys out of the 
business in the beginning so that the school district is not spending 
the money on attorneys' fees, the parent is not spending money on 
attorneys' fees.
  It was my hope, as I said, that we could get more. That was not 
possible with the way the budget agreement was written, and the 
committee did the best they could.
  They have agreed to increase that amount, and I am very thankful for 
that. The increase that they would give us at the present time is $25 
million. That is taken from other programs in order to deal with this 
one unfunded mandate from the Federal Government in relationship to 
curriculum.
  They also have agreed that they would seek the higher figure that the 
Senate has in their legislation, and for that, I am also very thankful.
  So again we had one mandate from the Federal level. It is the largest 
unfunded mandate in the history of the Federal Government, I am sure. 
This will take us one step closer to, as a matter of fact, doing what 
was promised to local school districts many years ago, that we would 
put up 40 percent of the money from Federal funds in order to deal with 
that issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee, the chairman and the ranking 
member, for this effort, and again indicate that they have indicated to 
me that they would go for the higher figure in conference, the Senate 
figure.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] that I have the highest respect for the chairman of the 
authorizing committee, that we attempt to work together very closely, 
that this is a mandate upon local districts that takes local tax funds, 
that in the last fiscal year we raised spending for IDEA by $790 
million, and this year by $325 million in the bill as it comes to the 
floor. This is an additional amount of $25 million.
  We are attempting to do everything we can to make this a high 
priority and to relieve local school districts of the cost of the 
program. It has been made, with the leadership of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, a high priority in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say also that on this side of 
the aisle, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce [Mr. Goodling] for his tireless efforts on 
behalf of the children with special needs in our school system.
  We worked and moved through this body unanimously a bill on IDEA that 
we had worked through the Senate. We had many differences as we worked 
through this process, and the gentleman deserves tremendous credit for 
that.
  One of our concerns, as a party that ran on and was committed to not 
having unfunded mandates, was we set goals that unless we put adequate 
funding in cannot be met. I think this is an important step.
  But one of the things that we will be debating as we go through this 
bill the next few days is, we believe that rather than creating new 
Federal programs,

[[Page H6886]]

like there are several in this bill, one we have been debating tonight, 
that have not gone through the committee process, that have not gone 
through a hearing process, that the money, if we agree, as we did in 
the budget agreement to spend the money on education, it should be 
spent in programs that we have already passed by this Congress, that we 
already have agreement in this Congress on, that we agree on as an 
appropriate Federal role.
  There may be other pieces of legislation where we can work out a 
compromise, like we did on IDEA. How can we know, if we never have a 
hearing? How do we know, if we never move it through?
  We, as Republicans, were sent here by the American people to say, 
hey, we want some changes in Washington; and many of the people who 
voted for us want to see a change in education policy.
  As we go through this, I assume that they at least want to see when 
there are changes in education policies, that we go through a process 
of debate and we debate the proper role of the Federal Government and 
the State government and the local government; that we try to have 
parents involved in as many places as possible.
  Like on IDEA, many people throughout America felt people with 
disabilities were not being treated fairly at the local level. As this 
bill has a constituency nationwide and as we looked at the failure of 
the local school systems to meet those needs, there was a decision made 
by the U.S. Congress, after many hearings and a process, to have a bill 
passed.

                              {time}  1945

  Then we moved to funding of that bill. Then we increased that. This 
time we fine-tuned it again, made some changes in the overlying bill, 
but now we are putting more funds into that.
  If we are going to spend more money on education, many of us feel it 
should be spent in areas where we have this consensus, where we have 
this agreement, where people know what we are doing, not some kind of 
last-minute attempt to put something into a bill to circumvent what the 
party has stood for, and quite frankly, which we do not really know, as 
the chairman of the subcommittee said, of which I also serve on that 
subcommittee, it is not particularly comforting to all of a sudden hear 
there is this brand new program that went clear around the process.
  I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for 
his willingness on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling], and I commend Chairman Goodling for his tremendous 
efforts on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, in my testimony before the subcommittee this past June, 
I referenced some revolutionary findings on how children learn to read 
that have recently come out of the National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, which is part of the National Institutes of 
Health. I am embarrassed to say that I did not realize that since 1985 
they have been doing such research. Dr. Reid Lyons, of course, is the 
individual who has done this, and I think it would put to rest any 
debate between the phonics and whole language reading methods.
  At that time I asked the subcommittee to set aside the $500,000 to 
the Fund for Improvement of Education, to fund a special teacher 
training initiative in the district which would help train teachers 
consistent with Dr. Lyons' findings. There is no reason for him to put 
the money in from NIH, as a matter of fact, if the teachers are not 
trained.
  I understand that such a set-aside has been included in the report to 
accompany H.R. 2264. I would like to ask the chairman of the 
subcommittee whether it is his intention to include this as a statutory 
set-aside in the conference report to accompany this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his inquiry, and for bringing this important research to our attention. 
As the gentleman has noted, we have included language in our report 
referencing this research, and instructing the Secretary of Education 
to give high priority to training D.C. teachers in these methods.
  Conferences are always difficult, but I will do all I can to include 
the $500,000 in this activity as bill language in the conference.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. PITT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on 
the issue that has come before members of the Amish community who 
reside in 20 States in this country. The Amish are a very committed, 
hard-working community who do not contribute to the social ills of our 
society. The Amish are not dependent on government programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned that their lifestyle has been 
threatened by recent actions taken by the Federal Department of Labor. 
As Members may know, the Amish have received fines for having their 
youth under the age of 18 working on their family farms and businesses. 
This has received attention at both the local and national level.
  The Amish wish to have their youth work in vocational settings after 
completion of Amish school, which is equal to the eighth grade. I, 
along with several other colleagues in the Congress, have been working 
with the Department of Labor to find an administrative solution so the 
Amish can remain in their community and begin their professional 
training.
  Mr. Chairman, it would greatly benefit the Amish communities in 
Pennsylvania and across the Nation if we found a solution to this 
problem. I request that the chairman include conference report language 
in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill urging the Department of Labor to 
continue its negotiations with the Members who have Amish 
constituencies, and to come to a compromise by the end of this year 
which will allow young Amish workers to continue to work in supervised 
settings.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. The Amish who also live in my State have unique 
family values and have a unique situation, since they complete their 
formal schooling after the eighth grade. Accordingly, the Department of 
Labor has a responsibility to evaluate the Amish in that light. It is 
my hope that the Department of Labor will alleviate the problems that 
have been created for the Amish.
  Moreover, I will work to include language in the conference report 
urging the Department of Labor to resolve this issue by the end of the 
year.
  Mr. PITT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
regarding our efforts to move people from welfare to work. I and many 
others fear that last year's welfare reform effort will not do enough 
to ensure that the goal we all share, a smooth transition into the job 
market for people now on welfare, would be achieved.
  I am glad to see that the recently concluded bipartisan budget 
agreement includes a welfare-to-work jobs program to help make welfare 
reform a success, but it will take a great deal of work and resources 
for the Department of Labor to design and to implement welfare-to-work 
so it will be in place by October 1, 1997.
  On July 17, 1997, the President sent to Congress a budget amount for 
$6.2 million for the Labor Department to administer the $3 billion 
welfare-to-work program. As we prepare to go to conference with the 
other body, it is important that these funds be provided to the 
Department of Labor.
  I appreciate the chairman's recognition in the committee report of 
the likelihood that these funds would be

[[Page H6887]]

needed. Now that the budget agreement has been reached, I want to ask 
the gentleman if he would be willing to work with me as we go to the 
conference on this bill to ensure that the Labor Department has the 
resources it needs to administer this vital welfare-to-work effort.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is a very valued member of 
our subcommittee. I appreciate very much her interest in the welfare-
to-work efforts during the committee hearings this year, and I share 
her commitment to making welfare reform work. I want to let her know I 
will do everything in my power to make sure welfare-to-work is 
implemented successfully.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman's interest and 
efforts during the committee hearings this year. I share his commitment 
to making welfare reform work, and I will do everything in my power to 
make sure welfare-to-work is implemented successfully. I thank the 
chairman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on the colloquy of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, with Chairman Porter, chairman 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a unique background probably in this Congress in 
the sense that my great-grandfather was actually Amish; that he left 
the Amish faith in the 1860's, but up until that point, the Souder 
family, of which there are many in Pennsylvania and Ohio, many of them 
have an Amish background.
  It is a question of religious liberty in this country as to whether 
people are going to have some flexibility within our laws, as long as 
they do not affect other people, to be able to practice professions and 
do things to earn a living, as we see the land values up, particularly 
in the areas they live, or whether they have to keep going and trying 
to find wilderness, of which there is less and less of in America, 
places where they do not bump into each other or where they can find 
land of a good price, which is why we see many of them going to South 
America.
  As I see many of these people, many relatives of mine, squeezed as 
the urban area expands, many of them go into woodworking professions. 
As we combine this with the flexibility we have given them in the 
school system, we have run into real problems with the Department of 
Labor.
  I have supported the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and 
other Members from Pennsylvania where the problem has been highlighted 
in these meetings with the Labor Department, but it has also spread 
into Ohio and Indiana, and certainly very easily can spread further 
into other regions in Illinois and Iowa, where there are many Amish.
  I want to make one other point with this, in addition to commending 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. That is, as we debate this bill, there have been 
a lot of discussions as to whether we are going to be obstructionists 
and offer lots of amendments. I had an amendment on this bill 
addressing this question. At the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] and working with the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], we felt that this colloquy would be a good first step to 
move this issue forward.
  What we are doing tonight and tomorrow and whatever time is necessary 
is to have an honest debate on the issues. I wish we would work out 
most things like what has happened with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Pitts] in his effort with the chairman. I want to commend them for 
their efforts, thank them on behalf of many people who are relatively 
defenseless, who do not have a lot of monetary power, who do not even 
generally vote. I want to thank them for their efforts, and I hope the 
Labor Department will hear their voices as they are crying out for how 
they can live with their religious freedom in our society.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


            community service employment for older americans

                          (transfer of funds)

       To carry out the activities for national grants or 
     contracts with public agencies and public or private 
     nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section 
     506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, or to carry out older worker activities as 
     subsequently authorized, $343,356,000.
       To carry out the activities for grants to States under 
     paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older 
     worker activities as subsequently authorized, $96,844,000.
       The funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, ``Aging Services Programs'', for the same 
     purposes and the same period as the account to which 
     transferred, following the enactment of legislation 
     authorizing the administration of the program by that 
     Department.


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I, and 
     for training, for allowances for job search and relocation, 
     and for related State administrative expenses under part II, 
     subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as amended, $349,000,000, together with such amounts as 
     may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15 of the current year.


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For authorized administrative expenses, $173,452,000, 
     together with not to exceed $3,332,476,000 (including not to 
     exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments 
     to States which had independent retirement plans in their 
     State employment service agencies prior to 1980, and 
     including not to exceed $2,000,000 which may be obligated in 
     contracts with non-State entities for activities such as 
     occupational and test research activities which benefit the 
     Federal-State Employment Service System), which may be 
     expended from the Employment Security Administration account 
     in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of 
     administering section 1201 of the Small Business Job 
     Protection Act of 1996, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act, as amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the 
     Immigration Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, as amended, and of which the sums available in the 
     allocation for activities authorized by title III of the 
     Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the 
     sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative 
     expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through December 31, 
     1998, except that funds used for automation acquisitions 
     shall be available for obligation by States through September 
     30, 2000; and of which $173,452,000, together with not to 
     exceed $738,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from 
     said trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, to fund activities 
     under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost 
     of penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made 
     available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose, 
     and of which $200,000,000 shall be available solely for the 
     purpose of assisting States to convert their automated State 
     employment security agency systems to be year 2000 compliant, 
     and of which $206,333,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent necessary for additional State allocations to 
     administer unemployment compensation laws to finance 
     increases in the number of unemployment insurance claims 
     filed and claims paid or changes in a State law: Provided, 
     That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured 
     Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 1998 is projected by the 
     Department of Labor to exceed 2,789,000 an additional 
     $28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every 
     100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata 
     amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the 
     Employment Security Administration Account of the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center network may be obligated in 
     contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for 
     activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be 
     used by the State to fund integrated Employment Service and 
     Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding 
     cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-87.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 8, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       On page 9, line 22, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       On page 9 line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       On page 42, line 22, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $32,835,000 for community based resource 
     centers)''.
       On page 64, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $12,835,000)''.

[[Page H6888]]

       On page 64, line 7, after the second dollar amount insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $12,835,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] offered an amendment to correct a misjudgment in the 
bill, and I am doing the same thing in this instance. I understand the 
amendment will be accepted by the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and 
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. This would simply restore $32 
million for the child abuse prevention and treatment program, for the 
community-based family resource and support grant program within that 
program. It would pay for it with offsetting reductions in computers, 
in the contingency fund, and in Goals 2000 of $12,800,000.
  I do not think there is any controversy associated with the 
amendment. We are simply trying to provide the same level of funding 
that was provided last year to support community-based efforts at 
preventing child abuse.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the only, only Federal money that goes directly 
to support State, local, and private coordinated efforts to prevent the 
growing epidemic of child abuse in this country. We had 1.4 million 
reported cases of child abuse in 1986, up to 3 million in 1996.
  In my hometown of Springfield a precious little girl 3 years old, 
Tessa Lynn, needed some help, and that help never came. One day the 
police came in response to some calls by neighbors, and they checked 
her, and they were told she was asleep.

                              {time}  2000

  Well, now, she is asleep forever. She was horribly abused and 
murdered. We need more community-based programs to prevent child abuse, 
and this is the only one that receives any Federal funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support it. It is not a 
new program. It is an authorized program. It is not an unfunded 
mandate. And it is a program which involves States, communities, and 
private organizations in a coordinated effort to save the lives of 
precious youth in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:

                                                  State of Oregon,


                                  John A. Kitzhaber, Governor,

                                                    July 29, 1997.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     House of Representatives, 2134 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman DeFazio: Congressman Peter DeFazio is 
     proposing an amendment to restore funding for local child 
     abuse prevention grants to the states. The budget for the 
     Federal Community-Based Family Resource Support Grant (CBFRS) 
     was eliminated in the House version of the Health and Human 
     Services budget. The Senate version continues the grant at 
     last year's funding level. Congressman DeFazio's amendment 
     will restore the CBFRS budget and increase it by one million 
     dollars. The offset comes from the office of the director of 
     the National Institute of Health and by reducing funding for 
     new buildings to last year's levels.
       I strongly urge your support of the DeFazio amendment.
       The CBFRS resources will play a very important role in 
     preventing child abuse and neglect in Oregon. One of the most 
     profound gaps in our service system is that of families who 
     are at high-risk of and have an unfounded or undocumented 
     case of child abuse or neglect. This gap lies along the 
     continuum of services between the ``wellness'' (or primary 
     prevention) role of the Commission on Children and Families 
     and the role of the Department of Human Resources in 
     protecting children through its Services to Children and 
     Families division (SCF).
       Oregon will use the CBFRS resources to address this gap by 
     establishing ``community safety nets'' at the community and 
     the state levels. These safety nets will be strong community 
     and interagency partnerships designed to respond to the needs 
     of those children and families who fall through the cracks. 
     At my direction work has already begun to lay the foundation 
     for the safety net project.
       The restoration of the CBFRS grant will help get Oregon on 
     the road to addressing one of the most serious gaps in our 
     service system for children and families.
       I urge your support of the DeFazio amendment. If you need 
     further information, please contact Pam Curtis in my office 
     at 378-6895.
           Sincerely,
                                           John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-Fox amendment 
to the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations. This amendment would 
restore funding for the important community-based family resource and 
support grant program to prevent child abuse. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] for his leadership in this issue.
  According to the Department of Health and Human Services, instances 
of child abuse continue to increase sharply. In this environment I 
believe that it would be irresponsible for Congress to cut funding for 
child abuse prevention and treatment.
  This program establishes a system of safety nets in our communities. 
These safety nets provide intervention services to at-risk children and 
their families. These are provided through counseling, training, and 
treatment services to local communities, including domestic violence 
prevention.
  But unfortunately, funding for this program has been eliminated in 
the House version of the bill. I believe the program has had an 
outstanding positive effect. We cannot turn our back on our Nation's 
defenseless children.
  As a former assistant DA in Pennsylvania, I have seen too many 
victims of child abuse, whether it be shaken-baby syndrome or other 
victims of abuse in other ways we have seen, whether, as the gentleman 
from Oregon talked about, the death of child abuse victims or those who 
have been starved.
  Mr. Chairman, this will help reduce child abuse, help agencies 
identify child abuse, and increase prosecution of violent child 
abusers. The program provides such a large return for such a small 
investment we would be remiss in eliminating it, and we must, 
obviously, eliminate wasteful spending in any form and focus on funding 
programs that truly make a difference in the lives of our children and 
families, as this DeFazio-Fox amendment will.
  Mr. Chairman, the program was authorized in the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996 for 3 years. The U.S. Senate has 
seen the wisdom to continue this important bill, and I thank the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his agreement to this 
amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I neglected to say that I was offering the 
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]. I apologize and I appreciate the 
gentleman's activity on the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] for his support and his work on this amendment. This will 
save some children from the horrible fate that Tessa Lynn suffered in 
my own hometown.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
might answer a few questions about this amendment for me. I know it has 
been accepted, but I think it is important to clarify. The money and 
the goal I fully agree with. I think it is worthwhile. Mr. Chairman, 
could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me again where this money 
is coming from and why we chose to take it from those various programs?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the money is to continue as the 
existing funding level, the community-based family resource and support 
grant program.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what it is 
for.

[[Page H6889]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
is funded by taking $12.8 million out of the administration's Goals 
2000 program, and $10 million out of the UI contingency fund, and $10 
million out of the UI computers fund.
  Both of these accounts are very amply funded and neither account will 
be damaged by the reduction.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:


        advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, section 104(d) of Public Law 
     102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the 
     ``Federal unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1999, $392,000,000.
        In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 1998, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.


                         program administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs, $84,308,000, together with not to exceed 
     $41,285,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $82,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall remain 
     available through September 30, 1999 for expenses of 
     completing the revision of the processing of employee benefit 
     plan returns.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program through September 
     30, 1998, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $10,433,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such 
     Corporation in connection with the termination of pension 
     plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and 
     investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration 
     services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses 
     for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above 
     limitation.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $298,007,000, together with $993,000 which 
     may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance with 
     sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act: Provided, That $500,000 shall be for the 
     development and implementation of the electronic submission 
     of reports required to be filed under the Labor-Management 
     Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, and for a 
     computer database of the information for each submission that 
     is indexed and easily searchable by the public via the 
     Internet: Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is 
     authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until expended, in 
     the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of money 
     ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance 
     with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 
     91-0027 of the United States District Court for the District 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized to 
     establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and 
     deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications and 
     issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 
     214) and for processing applications and issuing 
     registrations under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


                            special benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal 
     Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees' 
     Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections 
     4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and 
     benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $201,000,000 
     together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to 
     August 15 of the current year: Provided, That amounts 
     appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 5, 
     United States Code, by the Secretary to reimburse an 
     employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, for 
     portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary: 
     Provided further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated 
     on September 30, 1997, shall remain available until expended 
     for the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses: 
     Provided further, That in addition there shall be transferred 
     to this appropriation from the Postal Service and from any 
     other corporation or instrumentality required under section 
     8147(c) of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for 
     its fair share of the cost of administration, such sums as 
     the Secretary of Labor determines to be the cost of 
     administration for employees of such fair share entities 
     through September 30, 1998: Provided further, That of those 
     funds transferred to this account from the fair share 
     entities to pay the cost of administration, $7,269,000 shall 
     be made available to the Secretary of Labor for expenditures 
     relating to capital improvements in support of Federal 
     Employees' Compensation Act administration, and the balance 
     of such funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a 
     claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States 
     Code, or 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such 
     notice and claim, such identifying information (including 
     Social Security account number) as such regulations may 
     prescribe.

                    black lung disability trust fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $1,007,000,000, of which $960,650,000 shall be available 
     until September 30, 1999, for payment of all benefits as 
     authorized by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on 
     advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and 
     of which $26,147,000 shall be available for transfer to 
     Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, 
     $19,551,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, $296,000 for transfer to 
     Departmental Management, Office of Inspector General, and 
     $356,000 for payment into miscellaneous receipts for the 
     expenses of the Department of Treasury, for expenses of 
     operation and administration of the Black Lung Benefits 
     program as authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: 
     Provided, That, in addition, such amounts as may be 
     necessary may be charged to the subsequent year 
     appropriation for the payment of compensation, interest, 
     or other benefits for any period subsequent to August 15 
     of the current year.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $336,205,000, including not to exceed 
     $77,941,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 
     fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and 
     health programs required to be incurred under plans approved 
     by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of 
     training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized 
     by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for 
     occupational safety and health training and education grants: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary 
     of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1998, to collect and retain fees for services 
     provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and 
     may utilize such sums, in accordance with the provisions of 
     29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and international 
     laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of 
     equipment and products used by workers in the workplace: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, 
     issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, 
     or order

[[Page H6890]]

     under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is 
     applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming 
     operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and 
     employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule, 
     regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer 
     employees who is included within a category having an 
     occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most 
     precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act: Provided further, That the 
     foregoing proviso shall not apply to any person who is 
     engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a 
     temporary labor camp and employs ten or fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $199,159,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration is authorized to promote health and 
     safety education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the Department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of 
     section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement 
     of any training requirements, with respect to shell 
     dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel, surface 
     stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface 
     limestone mine.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $327,609,000, of which $15,430,000 shall be for expenses of 
     revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1999, together with not to exceed 
     $52,848,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including up to 
     $4,402,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of 
     People With Disabilities, $152,199,000; together with not to 
     exceed $282,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review 
     in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by 
     the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore 
     and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where 
     such participation is precluded by the decision of the United 
     States Supreme Court in Director, Office of Workers' 
     Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1278 (1995): Provided further, That no funds made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Labor 
     to review a decision under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) that has been 
     appealed and that has been pending before the Benefits Review 
     Board for more than 12 months: Provided further, That any 
     such decision pending a review by the Benefits Review Board 
     for more than one year shall be considered affirmed by the 
     Benefits Review Board on that date, and shall be considered 
     the final order of the Board for purposes of obtaining a 
     review in the United States courts of appeals: Provided 
     further, That these provisions shall not be applicable to the 
     review of any decision issued under the Black Lung Benefits 
     Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).


                          working capital fund

       The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 85-67 (29 
     U.S.C. 563) is amended by striking the last period and 
     inserting after ``appropriation action'' the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor may transfer 
     annually an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 from unobligated 
     balances in the Department's salaries and expenses accounts, 
     to the unobligated balance of the Working Capital Fund, to be 
     merged with such Fund and used for the acquisition of capital 
     equipment and the improvement of financial management, 
     information technology and other support systems, and to 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     unobligated balance of the Fund shall not exceed 
     $20,000,000.''


        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $181,955,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A and 4321-4327, and Public Law 103-353, and 
     which shall be available for obligation by the States through 
     December 31, 1998.


                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $43,105,000, together with 
     not to exceed $3,645,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of $125,000.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this Act 
     may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
       Sec. 103. Funds shall be available for carrying out title 
     IV-B of the Job Training Partnership Act, notwithstanding 
     section 427(c) of that Act, if a Job Corps center fails to 
     meet national performance standards established by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     to promulgate or issue any proposed or final standard 
     regarding ergonomic protection before September 30, 1998: 
     Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     limit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from 
     issuing voluntary guidelines on ergonomic protection or from 
     developing a proposed standard regarding ergonomic 
     protection: Provided further, That no funds made available in 
     this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration to enforce voluntary ergonomics guidelines 
     through section 5 (the general duty clause) of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654).
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the remainder of title I?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, are we still on title I of the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The remainder of title I, from page 11 through page 25.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that response. Are we 
now at the end of title I of the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. This is the last call for title I.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2264) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.




                          ____________________