[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7324-H7350]
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 (Mrs. Emerson). 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2264.

                              {time}  1758


                     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 further 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. Bereuter (Chairman pro tempore, in the chair).
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, September 11, 1997, the amendment by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] had been disposed of and section 515 was open 
for amendment.
  Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], my esteemed colleague and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, in a colloquy.
  On September 10, 1997, the Senate voted 91 to 8 to pass an amendment 
by Senator Coverdell of Georgia to the Senate Labor Health and Human 
Services appropriations bill. This amendment included several proposals 
designed to help respond to the E. coli problems we as a nation have 
experienced recently.
  This amendment addresses the E. coli issue head on by providing 
funding for research on the development of improved medical treatment 
for patients infected with this disease.
  This amendment also provides funding to help detect and prevent 
colonization of E. coli in live cattle, and amongst other important 
provisions provides the implementation of a study on the feasibility of 
irradiating raw red meet to eliminate the E. coli and to develop a 
consumer education program on the process' safety.
  I would strongly urge that Chairman Porter look favorably upon this 
amendment when deliberations begin in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing], my colleague, for yielding.
  I am aware of the amendment pertaining to E. coli that was accepted 
on the Senate bill. While I cannot agree with the amendment's approach 
of tapping funds already appropriated for other purposes instead of 
providing an offset to fund the E. coli initiative, I think we would 
all agree that the E. coli problem is a serious one. I would expect the 
House conferees to look favorably upon action to encourage the 
Department of Health and Human Services to undertake those activities 
highlighted in the amendment which appropriately fall within the HHS 
mission.
  In fact, the House bill already provides an increase for the Centers 
for Disease Control infectious diseases program to support the new food 
safety initiative.
  Mr. EWING. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his interest and 
concern, and I hope that the conference committee will take this matter 
up.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore Mr. Bereuter. The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.     . (a) Prohibition of Funds for National Testing in 
     Reading and Mathematics.--None of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to develop, plan, implement, or 
     administer any national testing program in reading or 
     mathematics.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       (1) The National Assessment of Educational Progress carried 
     out under sections 411 through 413 of the Improving America's 
     Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010-9012).
       (2) The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS).

  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I have been rather disappointed on 
several occasions in the last couple weeks when it was mentioned by 
some that perhaps this was a political argument. I want to assure 
everyone this has nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
  My concern and my interest comes from 22 years as an educator, 22 
years as a teacher, a guidance counselor, a principal, a superintendent 
of schools, a supervisor of student teachers, a school board president, 
a PTA president. My concern is based simply on the fact that I believe 
I have learned a lot in those 22 years as to how children learn, why 
children do not learn, and what one does in order to have children 
learn. As a matter of fact, in March 1991 I wrote an op ed, and that 
was during President Bush's administration, in opposition to this very 
same issue.
  We are told, first of all, that 17-year-olds in this country, some of 
the most recent statistics would indicate that 52 percent read fairly 
well, comprehend fairly well, and do math and science quite well. That 
means that the other 50 percent do poorly.
  I would ask all of my colleagues who are here and all who may be 
listening to put themselves in the shoes of that other 50 percent, that 
50 percent that has not done well and who are not doing well at the 
present time. This 50 percent has been tested with every standardized 
test there is, whether it is Iowa, whether it is California, Stanford. 
They have been tested with every

[[Page H7325]]

State test. They have been tested with every district test, and they 
have been tested with every classroom test.
  What have they been told after every one of those tests? The same 
thing: ``You are not doing very well.'' What they do not want, what 
that 50 percent do not want at this time is to spend another $100 
million to test them one more time on a standardized test to tell them 
``You are not doing very well.'' They want to know what it is we are 
going to do to help them do better.
  If someone is in the cattle business, they do not fatten cattle by 
constantly putting them on the scales and weighing them. We do not make 
a car run any faster by adding another speedometer. And we do not help 
those who are not doing well in education with one more standardized 
national test to tell them ``You are doing poorly.''
  It was an interesting discussion recently in the other body when I 
testified before a Senate committee. The Secretary indicated that it is 
a tragedy that students do not have algebra and do not understand 
algebra by the time they get to 8th grade, and then a little later 
said, ``and in our test we will test for algebra.''
  And one of the gentlemen from the other body said, ``Mr. Secretary, I 
must have missed something. I thought you said they did not have any 
algebra by the time they got to the eighth grade.''
  ``That is right.''
  ``But then I thought I heard you say you are going to include in your 
test, algebra.'' Well, that does not make very much sense, does it?
  First of all, as I have said so many times, if we want to move in 
that direction, then we sure better prepare those elementary teachers 
who have had very little math in college, have had very little math in 
high school, and all of a sudden we are going to ask them to teach 
algebra.
  Let us take the other 50 percent. Let us shift the debate. Suppose we 
believe in a national test. We certainly would not go about it in a 
manner in which it was gone about this particular time. If we believe 
that there is some value in a national standardized test, the first 
thing we have to do is determine what is our purpose, and that purpose 
has to be very narrowly stated. We cannot have a valid test, all test 
experts will tell us, if we do not narrowly focus.
  Well, what is the purpose of a test? I heard four, five, six 
different purposes, one of which, the Assistant Secretary said, ``I am 
not happy with the curricula in this country, and we have to do 
something about that.'' That is an interesting statement. That should 
scare everybody, I think, because who is going to develop that 
curricula that he was talking about, since he does not like what is 
there at the present time? So we narrowly focus.
  Another says, well, this is to judge one school against another 
school so that we know which schools are doing well, which are doing 
poorly. That is one of the worst statements I think anyone could make, 
because now I am going to compare someone who has had no advantages 
whatsoever as far as preschool reading readiness is concerned, in a 
school where there are many students who fit that category, with a 
school where they have had all the advantages in preschool.
  And so somehow or other with a national test, I am going to help that 
group that have not had those advantages, and then I can do a better 
job of comparing them with those who have had all the advantages. In my 
area, I would say we would not compare inner city Pittsburgh with upper 
St. Claire, which is an area outside of Pittsburgh.
  So we say, okay, the purpose is curricula. Now we have to determine 
what it is we want to test. Now we are getting into some real serious 
difficulties, what we want to test.
  Well, that means, and I am not up here arguing, and I do not want to 
get involved in this business of, ``Yes, it will be a national 
curricula; no, it will not,'' but we have to determine what it is we 
are going to test. In order to do that, someone, someone or somebody 
has to determine what that curricula is. Otherwise, how would we know 
what we are going to test?
  Now make sure we understand that this is really a controversial 
issue. That is why we never should have bypassed the Congress in the 
first place. That is why the debate should have been here. That is why 
the debate should go on next year, when we are reauthorizing TIMSS, 
when we are reauthorizing NAEPs, programs where we spend millions of 
dollars every year from the Federal level in the business of testing.
  But if we think there is a consensus out there, then we are missing 
some very important points. There is no consensus. Let me just read one 
portion from a letter signed by 500 or more mathematicians from across 
this country. This is what those mathematicians said:

       The committee which is drafting the exam specifications is 
     biased. First, nearly all of its members are strong advocates 
     of the NCTM standards and of programs that repute to be 
     aligned with the NCTM standards. There is not a balance of 
     different viewpoints regarding mathematics education.
       Second, members of the committee have significant conflict 
     of interest, as they are activity involved in the writing or 
     promotion of particular mathematics curricula. Even the 
     slightest suspicion that the authors would bias the test 
     toward material covered in their program, or that their 
     authorship of the tests would be used to sell their program 
     or to help them get grants, undermines the credibility of the 
     exam.

  So I want my colleagues to understand how controversial this is. Now 
we have decided that we are going to narrowly focus it, I hope. Then we 
have decided what it is we wanted to test. And then after we have made 
that decision, someone must write that curriculum in order so that we 
are testing toward what it is that was taught.

  After we have done all of that, the next step then is, of course, to 
educate the teacher, to prepare the teacher to teach to the new 
standards, to teach to what it is for which we are testing. And after 
we have done all of that, there is one big step left; and that is, as 
every testing expert will tell you, it takes 3 to 4 years to develop a 
valid test. Not 1 year, like the plan is, 3 to 4 years.
  We are going to hear some say, ``Oh, but this is voluntary.'' 
Nonsense. What Federal program do my colleagues know, once it was 
started, is voluntary? I tell my colleagues what will happen. The 50 
percent that I talked about who were fortunate enough to have preschool 
readiness programs, that 50 percent, as soon as school A decides to do 
the test, they are going to demand that school B does the test, and 
then school C is going to demand that they get what school B got, and 
it will not be long until, as a matter of fact, it will be a national 
individual test.
  Let me also point out to school districts and States: Be very 
careful. You worry about unfunded mandates. There is the one shot only 
from the Federal Government; and when that one shot is over, it is your 
responsibility. And if you are wrapped into it, you are going to have 
to find a way to pay for it, I will guarantee you.
  The program that was rammed through at midnight in the other body, no 
deliberation, no consideration, is positively totally inadequate, 
unacceptable.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodling was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of you are a contractor and 
you had one contractor who built the foundation, a totally inadequate 
foundation, a foundation that is going to collapse; and then you bring 
in another contractor, and then that new contractor is somehow or other 
going to try to build a new house on top of a flawed foundation. It 
cannot work.
  Let me tell my colleagues some other things they did. It is pretty 
interesting. I never heard before where one sitting group determines 
who serves in that group, and that is what they did over there. NAGB 
will make the recommendations to the Secretary as to who should serve 
on this independent board. Now that is pretty dangerous. There is one 
other thing that is dangerous. They then become pretty much a national 
school board. I do not think our local and State governments are going 
to be very happy about that.
  So please, if we have $100 million to spend, let us help children 
become reading ready, let us help parents become better teachers. We do 
not do that by testing. We do that by providing the necessary tools so 
that, as a matter of fact, they are reading and writing.
  And do not cause the first-grade child to fail. The first-grade child 
did not

[[Page H7326]]

fail. The adults failed. So we have a pre-first program. I could have 
2,500 of those for $100 million. And in those programs the kindergarten 
teacher knows very well who is reading ready. We have this crazy idea 
somehow or other that if they are 5\1/2\ or 6 years old, they are ready 
to read.

                              {time}  1815

  No one tells you who is ready to read except the children themselves. 
They may be at 20 different reading levels with 20 different students 
in the same classroom. Do not cause them to fail first grade. And do 
not socially promote them, above all. Give them the opportunity to be 
successful.
  We will again next year determine what it is we do with NAGB, 
determine what we do with NAEP's. That is the time for a discussion on 
testing. Do not do an end run on the Congress of the United States. We 
were not sent here to be an end run team. We were sent here to 
deliberate and do what is right.
  Again, when Members are ready to vote, think in terms of children. Do 
not let them tell you somehow or other that they will do much better if 
the parents only know. The parents know. The parents have been told 
over and over again. The parents are saying, help us, and help our 
children.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that the chairman of the 
authorizing committee said. I accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 60 minutes with the time 
to be divided between the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], 
25 minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 35 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goodling amendment. 
This amendment would prevent the adoption of a voluntary testing 
program. It would prevent parents, cities and States from pursuing a 
new strategy in our efforts to provide all of our students with the 
best education in the world.
  Let me make it very clear that many House Democrats strongly support 
the President's initiative. If this amendment passes, it might be a 
victory for the Republican leadership, but in my judgment it will be a 
clear defeat for the children of this country.
  Voluntary testing will promote reform, excellence. The Goodling 
amendment undermines educational progress and codifies mediocrity. 
Quite frankly, a vote for the Goodling amendment is a vote in favor of 
the status quo. That is simply not good enough.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and I have worked on a 
whole range of educational initiatives. I am sorry that we disagree so 
strongly on this one.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's initiative will not nationalize 
education. There are no mandates here. A State will not lose money or 
face penalties if it chooses not to participate. The program simply 
provides an opportunity for interested cities and States to test their 
fourth-graders in reading and eighth-graders in math and measure their 
performance against students across town and across the Nation. Should 
a parent or a school not have the ability to make these comparisons?
  Frankly, it is very ironic that many of the same Members who support 
educational competition through school choice are today opposing 
educational competition through performance measures. What are they 
afraid of? Do they fear American students cannot compete? I do not. I 
know that our students can compete and win.
  My colleagues should be aware that this amendment is opposed by a 
wide array of educators, including the American Federation of Teachers, 
the National Education Association, the chiefs of our State education 
departments, the National School Boards Association and the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals.
  I know that some opponents say we should be investing more directly 
in teachers, books, computers and school construction. I certainly 
agree. We need to invest more in education, and at the same time we ask 
more of our students in schools, we must provide them with the 
resources they so desperately need. That is why I am the lead sponsor 
of the President's school construction initiative. That is why I 
support increases in title I.
  This is not an either/or proposition. I am pleased that six of the 
Nation's seven largest cities have accepted the challenge of national 
reading and math tests, including New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, 
Los Angeles, Atlanta and Detroit. These cities want to participate in a 
voluntary testing program. Communities across the Nation have concluded 
that they want to find out what needs fixing. They want to offer their 
students the best education possible. They want to ensure that they are 
preparing their children for a very competitive future, and they want 
to embrace the challenge and possibilities of voluntary national 
performance measures.
  Two things about these tests are worth noting. First, the tests will 
be based on the well-respected National Assessment of Education 
Progress. Second, the highly respected National Academy of Sciences 
will approve the tests before the first student in the first school 
sits down with pencil in hand to take the exam. These tests will be 
developed the right way.
  I believe very strongly in raising academic standards. If my 
colleagues in Congress agree, and I think we all do, then we must 
finally say no more excuses. We know that students and schools can 
achieve. We expect them to achieve. We will help them achieve. 
Voluntary testing is an important component of this process.
  I believe that the combination of educational investments and 
performance standards is a recipe for student success. I would urge my 
colleagues not to prevent the creation of a voluntary national testing 
system as a State and local option. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Goodling amendment. And I would urge my colleagues to work 
with us to support investments in school construction, to support 
different comprehensive changes in our school system. Because we 
support this, that does not mean we cannot support school testing as 
well.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time to share my personal 
concerns with regard to the administration's proposed national test in 
reading. First, I want to say that I am wholeheartedly supportive of 
measures to achieve higher standards for America's schools and students 
and that I applaud the administration's laudable efforts to improve 
public education. I do not, however, feel that testing is the route to 
pursue. Quite simply, I have reservations about the inability of the 
proposed national tests to improve educational opportunities for all 
children. These tests may leave out several million limited English-
proficient students from taking the test and assessing their skills in 
reading.
  I grew up in an agricultural community in south Texas, and I attended 
a segregated elementary school where the Mexican American children were 
separated from children of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Spanish was my first 
language. I learned a little bit of English, only after my parents 
enrolled me in the public school system. It took years of practice and 
the interest and support of my caring parents and teachers along the 
way before I became fully conversant in the English language. Even so, 
in my early years in my reading comprehension skills were not what they 
could have been if I had started the first grade English-ready.
  In 1972, I was elected to the local school board in Mercedes, Texas, 
and in 1974, I was elected to the Texas State Board of Education where 
I served for four terms. Of that period, 8 years I served as chairman 
of the Special Populations Committee, which covered bilingual 
education, migrant education, special education and gifted and talented 
education programs.
  For 25 years I have been a very strong advocate of education. It is 
in that capacity that I became aware as a policymaker of the 
difficulties limited English-proficient students, LEP students as they 
are called, have. Also in

[[Page H7327]]

that capacity I learned about the art of learning in any language and 
the importance of learning in the native language.
  The whole testing issue raises a red flag for LEP students. It 
stigmatizes them by both peers and teachers. It sets up the LEP 
students to fail. When that kicks in, young people begin to drop out of 
school.
  America's elementary and secondary schools will become more diverse 
in the next 10 years. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, Hispanic 
Americans between the ages of 5 and 17 will increase by 2.4 million. 
African American students in this same age group will increase by 
another 1.1 million. Asian Americans and other minorities will number 
an additional 1.1 million. The word ``diverse'' will best describe the 
Nation's public schools where the formal education and socialization of 
the young occurs.

  For the last decade, reports on the state of education for Hispanics 
and other minority populations have been poor. A recently released 
report by the U.S. Department of Education found that the Nation's 
dropout rate for persons between ages 16 and 24 in 1995 was 12 percent, 
while the dropout rate for Hispanic students was over 30 percent. The 
Hispanic high school dropout situation was described by the President 
in meetings that the Hispanic Caucus and I had with him as a national 
crisis of economic importance.
  We can ill afford to allow another generation of Hispanic Americans 
and other populations whose primary language is other than English to 
fall by the wayside. This has far-ranging economic consequences for the 
population at large.
  While it is with a heavy heart that I oppose the President on this 
issue, I must do so. My reasons are as follows: Standardized testing 
has a negative, disparate impact on poor and minority students. Equal 
opportunity in testing cannot be achieved given unequal educational 
opportunity. Even if testing procedures could be devised to eliminate 
bias, enormous inequalities in school financing systems and teacher 
quality and disparities in access to educational technology, combined 
with discriminatory practices such as tracking and uneven access to 
high-quality counseling severely restrict the educational opportunities 
available to poor and minority students. Until issues of resource 
disparity, discrimination and reliability have been resolved, the 
national test should not be used as a basis for making high-stakes 
educational decisions. It is inappropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, again I oppose the national testing as proposed.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goodling amendment and 
really thank him and express appreciation for his courageous leadership 
on this subject. He has focused a spotlight on a subject that the 
Department of Education really wanted to slip through rather unnoticed, 
and he deserves credit for that. Because we have raised our voices 
here, over a period of a few weeks, we now have a bipartisan supported 
agreement here in the form of the Goodling amendment to eliminate 
funding for this ill-advised encroachment on the direction of 
curriculum that is best defined in my opinion at the State and local 
level.
  I guess we can say that we are making progress! We are making 
progress all right. But this is a crucial policy question. These 
changes and the so-called compromises that preceded this final 
redefinition by the department that is the compromises that the 
Department of Education put out every time a legitimate question was 
raised. After each critical question raised they backed off and they 
made a so-called compromise or adjustment. As I observed over and over 
it began to look as though they were making it up as they went along. 
That is, I am sorry to say was what the Department was doing. I was 
rather perplexed. As a member of the committee, I must say that I 
always believed that the Department and Secretary Riley were better 
than that, and I think it was not up to their regular standards, and I 
am sorry to have to say that. But it is proof that we need a thorough 
and thoughtful didactic study on how we should do this, if at all, 
without opening the door to a national curriculum or the establishment 
of what I see as the possibility of a full-fledged Ministry of 
Education.

                              {time}  1830

  Please, do not get me wrong. I believe that a national debate on 
educational standards and achievement levels is overdue. We have 
critical problems in our schools and we should get back to basics. Our 
declining achievement levels are an absolute embarrassment. The United 
States at the Federal level, the State level, the community level, and 
at the family level, should dedicate itself to raising the standards 
for educational achievement. We certainly owe it to our children.
  But I also strongly believe that testing for the sake of testing 
serves no purpose, and it certainly does not serve that one. It costs a 
lot of money, as the chairman already outlined, money that could be 
better directed to classroom instructions where we could directly help 
the children of the Nation.
  Let us get our priorities straight. Let us fund the programs that 
work and avoid expensive new educational experiments on our children.
  Mr. Chairman, let me summarize in this way: The committee must not be 
bypassed. We must use the reauthorization process in the next year to 
study, analyze, and set realistic goals for whatever additional testing 
may, and I stress, may, be merited, but no more direction or 
indirection from the department without full debate and analysis.
  Number two, we can now have the time to set priorities with a clear 
goal of directing more monies to instruction, direct instruction in the 
classroom, whether for teacher training or equipment or individualized 
instruction, which are my favorites, and, yes, including more money for 
Early Start and Head Start, as the chairman pointed out, reading 
readiness programs.
  Finally, I think it is important that we a renewed commitment here 
and now with this vote to State and local control. It is State and 
local control that is a fundamental of good public education.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge full support of this amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of respect for the authorizing 
committee chair and work with Members on the opposite side of the aisle 
on a lot of educational issues. I am surprised to see this amendment 
before us and strongly rise to oppose it.
  This is a country that prides itself on testing. Every child that is 
going to go to a university has to go out and take an SAT exam. If he 
or she is going to go to medical school, it is a national exam to take; 
to go to law school one has to take an exam.
  We test water and we test air, we test milk, yet now we do not want 
to test the minds of the kids in this country. We do not want to test 
their ability in the fourth grade to read or their ability in the 
seventh grade to do math.
  I think what the real fear of this national testing is that the 
people we are going to find that are flunking the tests is Congress 
itself, in not appropriating enough money for education. You hear 
minority groups in this Congress rising against this testing because 
they do not want kids to be tracked, they do not want kids to be 
stigmatized, and I agree with that, because I think we are going to 
find we are not spending enough money on the remedial title I programs 
to remedy those problems.
  We are going to find we are not spending enough money, as 
Congresswoman Lowey said a moment ago, in her bill to allow the Federal 
Government for the first time in history to be a partner in school 
construction, we are not spending any money to build the classrooms so 
we can create the environment in which kids can learn better.
  Congress is going to flunk the test in showing we do not put enough 
money into construction, into remedial programs, into special education 
programs, into migrant education programs or any of the title I 
programs.
  Why, I would like to know, is the Republican leadership in Washington 
so strongly opposed to testing, when the Republican leadership in 
Sacramento held up the adjournment of the California State Legislature 
insisting that they do testing? The arguments pro

[[Page H7328]]

and con are the same arguments that were held here today.
  The point is that the biggest State in the country with the most 
children in school and the seventh largest economy in the world 
realizes that unless we have accountability in education we will not be 
able to compete in a global environment, in a competitive environment.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Allow those who 
want to test to do the testing. Allow this country to see that we need 
to invest more in education, not less, to improve reading and math, to 
let kids know how they are doing. The only way we are going to be able 
to do that--which is consistent with what we insist when they graduate 
from high school so that they can get into college--is to allow for a 
national test on a voluntary basis. The only way we are going to get 
there from here is to defeat this amendment.
  So I urge my colleagues to work with us in defeating the amendment 
and allowing the President's program to be in the bill.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], 
our chairman, for offering this amendment, and I rise to strongly 
support it, and I am particularly pleased to immediately follow behind 
my friend from California, Mr. Farr.
  I would point out that the California Republicans did a great job out 
there. It is their job, you know, to manage education in their State. 
It is a State function, and if they wanted testing in California, more 
power to them.
  I want to mention just a minute about what the Goodling amendment is 
all about, because I do not want anybody at the end of this vote to be 
unclear on it. This amendment simply prohibits spending of any money 
under the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS-Labor appropriations bill to 
develop, plan, implement or administer new national tests in the fourth 
grade reading and eighth grade math.
  I can rather understand why our chairman would be so concerned to 
have this amendment, since none of this has been authorized in his 
committee or appropriated. So I think it is appropriate that he do 
stand up about this.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] does make 
exceptions, and the exceptions are made for the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress, NAEP; also the Third International Math and 
Science Study, TIMSS, both of which would be allowed to continue. NAEP, 
also known as the Nation's report card, involves random sample testing 
of students throughout the country in reading, math, science, history 
and other subjects every 2 years at the 4th, 8th and 12th grade levels, 
to obtain a snapshot of the academic achievement of students in our 
country.
  TIMSS involves random sample testing of students in this country and 
other nations in math and science to obtain international comparisons 
of student achievement. I remind Members that this amendment allows 
this testing to continue.
  Earlier it was said that we do not test our children. The 
administration would have us believe that there is a real need for 
standardized tests to determine how our kids are doing in reading and 
in math, as if we are not testing them now.
  So let us look at one of my former constituents, who is also a former 
constituent of my colleague the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] and 
is currently a constituent of my colleague the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf]. Rebecca Stone of Warrenton, VA, just finished the eighth 
grade last June.
  Now, here is the list of standardized tests that she has taken in a 
country where earlier it was stated we do not test our children.
  In Mitchell County, GA, kindergarten through the first grade, Rebecca 
had the Georgia Test for Kindergartners, the Otis Lennon Mental 
Abilities Test and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Then in Richmond 
County, GA, in the second grade, she retook the Iowa Test of Basic 
Skills again. Then in Columbia County, GA, in the third through sixth 
grades, she had the Iowa Basic Skill Test twice more and the Duke 
University Talent Test. Finally, in Fauquier County, VA, in the seventh 
and eighth grades, this young lady was tested with the Virginia 
Literacy Passport Test and the Stanford Achievement Test.
  I think, as readily can be seen by most of our colleagues, a real 
live public school student we are standard testing across this country. 
What this debate is really about is not testing, but it is about 
curriculum. Testing is just the next step in a liberal agenda for 
Washington to seize control of our local schools. My folks at home do 
not want that. They do not think that the Department of Education 
should run their local schools.
  If the Federal Government establishes testing on which all of our 
school systems are judged, the next step will be for the Federal 
Government to establish a national curriculum to match the test. We say 
this is voluntary, but I find that humorous. It is not, and we all know 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, we already have standardized tests in use in our public 
schools today. They are tests freely chosen by State and local 
educators and recognized nationally. What the administration seems to 
want is to overrule the testing decisions of local educators and 
replace them with the decision of inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats. Let 
us put a stop to that. Support the Goodling amendment. It is very 
important.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment, and also to set the record straight about my own statements 
on the subject of national testing.
  The sponsor of this amendment sent a ``Dear Colleague'' around 
earlier this week that contains a quote from me from 1992:

       If testing becomes one of the engines of educational reform 
     in this decade we had better be prepared. Those of us who 
     come from States where testing has already become a tool for 
     making policy know that the issue is fraught with peril and 
     consequences for individual students and communities.

  However, what his ``Dear Colleague'' does not include is my next 
paragraph:

       What I wholeheartedly endorse is the development of 
     national standards. This will take time, not a lot, but time. 
     Then tests--as instruments--need to be very finely tuned. 
     Only then should we begin to think about using them on a 
     national scale.

  What I was saying in 1992, and what I continue to believe, is that 
tests should not be used simply as a right-of-passage. Their objective 
must not be solely to create measurements on a national scale with no 
real benefit to students, nor even to measure the success of local 
school districts or individual schools.
  Such tests--used as instruments of education--can be extremely 
effective as a method for identifying weaknesses in instruction and 
learning. They can be equally valuable in identifying specific needs of 
individual students. Tests that provide individual student evaluation--
measured against high standards--will help students, teachers, parents 
and schools to raise achievement if they are combined with 
comprehensive remediation. Only then can the results become effective 
in raising performance more broadly across larger student populations.
  The approach proposed by the President and the Secretary of Education 
clearly demonstrates that understanding. For that reason, I 
wholeheartedly support allowing the Department of Education to continue 
its work to develop these tests.
  We have standards that have been developed locally and can be shared 
nationally: to be adopted by local schools, or adapted to their 
specific needs. It is now time to couple them with tests that will not 
only measure our progress toward those high goals, but will also help 
teachers and students reach them. That's what real education ought to 
be about.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment to my colleague who just 
spoke, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood], that in fact 81 
percent of the students in Georgia meet the minimum acceptable 
standards that are in Georgia. However, only 16 percent meet the 
minimum acceptable standards in any national testing of the same 
students.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would unnecessarily 
delay the development and the implementation of national reading and 
math tests, and I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating it.

[[Page H7329]]

  Our children will compete for jobs in the national and even in a 
global marketplace. We know our workers, our products, and our economy 
can be the very, very best in the world, and we need to do everything 
in our power to ensure our schools are giving our kids the tools they 
need to compete in the economy of the 21st century.
  We must not reject this important tool to ensure that every child can 
read, write, and do basic mathematics. Parents across the country share 
my belief that these are the very minimum standards to which our 
students and, more importantly, our schools should be held accountable.
  My colleagues who support this amendment argue that there are plenty 
of other tests and measures of school achievement. I would point out 
that in Wisconsin and in Louisiana, according to State tests, more than 
80 percent of students are meeting acceptable competency levels. 
However, when Wisconsin and Louisiana students take national tests, 
fewer than 40 percent meet minimum standards. The same thing about what 
I just talked about with regard to Georgia students.
  Our parents deserve an objective, reliable measure of how their 
children are doing in school, how well the schools are preparing their 
children. All of us as taxpayers deserve objective, reliable 
information to hold schools accountable. We need to be sure that our 
local school systems are meeting our national expectations.
  I understand some of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about how 
the tests will be implemented, what it may mean for students who are 
low income or disadvantaged, whose achievement levels are traditionally 
lower than their more advantaged peers. I believe the concerns are 
valid and need to be addressed. Four million children should not be 
left out of this process.
  Those who would argue that we know what the problems are and yet we 
do not want to commit the funding, they are right. We have seen in this 
body in the last 2 or 3 years people who would like to cut the 
education budget more than any cuts in the history of the United 
States. We must identify the problems and provide the resources 
necessary.
  I do not believe we should hold up the development of this 
initiative, which cannot be implemented for at least another year, even 
if we start working on the tests now. I know with the support for the 
whole school reform initiative that was included in this bill, with the 
renewed commitment to helping every American student achieve, all of 
our students in all of our schools can make the grade.
  In the Third District of Connecticut, people sometimes wonder why 
Washington is so slow to address the real problems faced by families 
struggling to raise their kids to be responsible, productive adults and 
citizens. They wonder why the House would vote to delay this important 
tool another 1 year, 2 years, or until the Congress holds hearings and 
debates.

                              {time}  1845

  My colleagues, let us remember that we are talking about taking a 
test to be sure that fourth graders can read and eighth graders can do 
mathematics. It is no more, no less than that.
  This debate is not about nationalized control of education. States 
will not be penalized for choosing not to administer the tests. This 
debate is not about taking power away from parents or from school 
boards. In fact, it will empower parents and school boards to hold 
schools accountable.
  The author of this amendment shared this view just a few short years 
ago when it was his proposal to have standardized testing. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] was an original cosponsor of 
the Bush administration's central education initiative, America 2000 
Excellence in Education Act. Included in this bill were voluntary 
national testing for 4th, 8th and 12th graders. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania also introduced an amendment to establish a process in 
support of voluntary national education standards and a national system 
of examinations. It was a good idea then, and it is a good idea now.
  I urge my colleagues to demonstrate that we are serious about 
educating our children, serious about holding our schools to the 
highest possible standards. Let us give parents the tools that they 
need to hold our schools accountable. I urge my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment. It is not 
a complicated issue that we are talking about here tonight. The issue 
is simply one of control. The power to test is the power to control. 
The power to determine whether we have validated through a testing 
process is the power to determine how that process is arrived at.
  I would suggest that what we are engaged in here now is, first of 
all, an unauthorized effort by the Department of Education at the 
Federal level to foist on the American public and on this Congress a 
testing procedure that has not been authorized. First of all, we should 
not allow the bypass of this congressional body to determine where the 
money is to be spent in education.
  But, second, I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a very 
clever way, and a very disguised hook; it is the beginning of a curve 
that leads to a circle. The chairman has outlined it partially in his 
testimony. The power to test and thereby to evaluate the test, if it is 
not a satisfactory result, then would dictate that Washington would 
have the power to determine the curriculum, since obviously the States 
and local communities were not properly addressing the curriculum since 
their test results were not appropriate.
  Also, if then by addressing the curriculum the test results are still 
not adequate, then the next step would be for the Federal Government in 
Washington and the Department of Education to address the selection and 
the training of the teachers who are administering the curriculum. 
Then, if the test results are still not appropriate, the next step 
would be obviously that the administration that is supervising the 
teachers who are teaching the curriculum and who are giving the test, 
if not adequate, then obviously Washington should assume responsibility 
for that as well.
  One can take this circle in ever-ending cycles and go right down to 
the fact that the ultimate result is that this is an effort for 
Washington to control education. It has traditionally been the 
responsibility of States and local communities; it should remain that 
way.
  I would suggest to the preceding speaker that the results of the 
children in my State of Georgia are best left to the determination of 
their local elected school boards, that it is best left to their 
elected State school superintendent and the State school board that 
works in conjunction with her, and that these are issues that we in our 
State can adequately address; and unless Washington is willing to 
assume all of the responsibility, which none of us I think want to see 
happen, that we should leave it at the level where it is of local and 
State responsibility.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the 
gentlewoman who just spoke an editorial in the Connecticut News. Quote: 
``It would take valuable time away from instruction. We are tested out 
at this point. I don't find any support from my colleagues,'' said 
Bridgeport Superintendent of Schools James A. Connelly. ``Quite 
frankly, we have at least two full weeks involved in testing.''
  William Breck, superintendent of schools for Durham and Middlefield 
and chairman of the Connecticut Association of Public School 
Superintendents, agreed: ``We get the type of information that we need 
already. To add another layer at the Federal level is not going to 
help. It may help the politicians.''
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to pass; it is going to pass by 
a significant margin. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the 
subcommittee chairman, has already accepted the amendment. And for 
purposes of making clear to the administration that they have a lot of 
work to

[[Page H7330]]

do in working out their differences, not only with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] but with segments of my own caucus, on 
behalf of the committee I want to indicate that we will accept the 
amendment as well.
  However, if it comes to a rollcall vote, I personally will vote 
``no,'' representing not the committee but myself as an individual 
member. I would like to explain why.
  I am a convert on this issue. I have never felt particularly strongly 
one way or another on the issue of testing. I think there are many more 
important things to do in the field of education besides simply test, 
and when the idea of national testing first became respectable a number 
of years ago, I was very skeptical about it. I thought that teachers 
would wind up teaching to the test; I thought all of the things that a 
lot of opponents of testing think now. I thought that it would 
disadvantage students from low-dollar districts, districts that are not 
supported with a great deal of financial resources. I thought all of 
those things.
  I guess even Members of Congress can learn something, and at least I 
think I have, because I talked to a good many school administrators, a 
good many parents in my own district, and listening to them I gradually 
changed my view of this issue. I did so for the following reasons.
  It is nice to talk about States being able to administer their own 
tests. It is nice to talk about how well students do on a State's 
individual test. But the fact is, I was born in Oklahoma. I wound up 
growing up in Wisconsin. Most people in this society are mobile, and 
the mistakes that are made in many localities in this country often 
wind up being exported to some other part of the country, and all 
communities experience, sooner or later, the consequences of a lack of 
quality in education, whether that occurs in their own area or whether 
that occurs in some other district, because people move into 
communities all the time.
  I think the national government has a responsibility to try to assist 
local districts in their own way to improve quality just as much as 
possible, and I think that parents do not care much whether the 
initiative for testing comes from Washington or from Madison or from 
their own hometown, just so long as there is constant pressure on the 
system to change and to increase the quality that is being delivered to 
every single student in this country. I think that testing can play a 
useful role in that process.
  Now, I think we need to point out a few things. First of all, the 
bill itself does not allow the administration to proceed with testing. 
The bill, in fact, specifically precludes the administration from 
proceeding with testing, and I personally thought that the language 
that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] had worked out on the 
bill was sufficient to satisfy those who had questions about it. I was 
obviously wrong.
  I would point out that under the bill the administration cannot 
proceed to test; all it can do is develop a test which then must be 
sent to the National Academy of Science so that they can review the 
validity and the accuracy of the test, so that they can in essence 
serve as a quality control element in the process. That does not 
satisfy persons who are opposed to the administration initiative, 
obviously.
  The Senate has gone further; not far enough in the eyes of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, but they have gone a far piece. They have, 
for instance, taken away policy oversight from the Department of 
Education and they have given it to the National Assessment Governing 
Board.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The time of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that means that authority over all policy 
guidelines for this testing is being moved to that board; it will not 
be under the Department of Education. In addition, that board is being 
expanded to include a higher number of local officials, and along the 
way they exempted home schoolers; they made quite clear that home 
schoolers were exempted from any testing.
  Now, in practical terms, the administration has indicated that it 
will not sign a bill that does not allow them to develop the process or 
continue the process of developing testing.
  Now as I said, as far as the committee is concerned, after 
consultation with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], I am 
accepting the amendment, simply to make clear that the administration 
does need to do a lot more work in talking not only with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], but frankly with additional members 
of my own party. It is no secret that significant members of the 
Hispanic caucus and significant members of the Black Caucus of my own 
party support the Goodling amendment.
  I understand their concerns, but frankly, I believe that even if 
students are originally learning in another language, I believe that 
they need to take that test in English by the time they get to around 
the fourth grade.
  I understand and respect the concerns of several members of the Black 
Caucus that it is futile to provide testing if we do not also have a 
commitment to provide additional resources so that schools with little 
financial support can, in fact, have an opportunity to perform decently 
on those tests.
  However, I have a different tactical view. It happens to be my view 
that if this testing consistently demonstrates that low-income 
districts are not doing well on the tests, I believe that that will 
generate additional public demands for added resources to those 
districts.
  So basically, I think we have a lot of suspicion about whether these 
tests are going to be legitimate, whether they are going to be biased 
or not. People are concerned about it philosophically. We have a lot of 
concerns about whether these tests are going to be unfair, and I 
recognize all of that, and I can only say that at some time I think it 
is important that these problems be resolved. The only way I know to 
resolve them is by people sitting down in the same room and working 
them out.
  I would simply note the words of Chester Finn, who used to be the 
number two man in the Department of Education under the Republican 
administration, and I have disagreed with Mr. Finn often, but he was 
quoted in the newspaper today saying something that I think is right 
on. He said, ``If this testing initiative runs into trouble, it will be 
because conservatives will not swallow the word ``national'' and 
liberals will not swallow the word ``testing.''
  It seems to me that both need to overcome their own concerns, because 
I really believe that in the end testing is going to be a crucial 
element in convincing the public that more resources need to be 
provided to poorly-financed districts in this country.

                              {time}  1900

  I do believe that parents have a right to know how their children do 
perform on tests which are viewed nationwide. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] may very well be right.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] may very well be right, that a lot more work needs to be 
done. It seems to me that the right course would be to go into 
conference and work out a mutually agreed position. I still think in 
the end, regardless of the outcome of this amendment, that is what we 
are going to need to do.
  So when this amendment passes today, I hope people on all sides 
recognize that in the end, evaluation of student performance is a good 
thing. I believe testing is a good thing if it is done in the right 
manner, and I think we need to figure out a way to make sure that it 
can proceed.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, which prohibits the 
administration from using funds within the education appropriations 
bill for the development of a national test.
  I believe this amendment is necessary and very important. The 
gentleman from the other side of the aisle has indicated that the 
Department is

[[Page H7331]]

not proceeding, but yet we see there has been a $13 million contract 
already let in order to start developing the test. This amendment is 
very timely and important.
  There are those who believe and argue that a national test will help 
solve our educational problems. They believe it will set a national 
benchmark for our students so they may prepare for the future, and 
students would achieve higher academic standards as a result of these 
tests, and that the comparison of the results of tests between the 
States would somehow help the students to prepare effectively for the 
work force.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe what H.L. Mencken once said applies directly 
to the Department of Education's initiative. He says, ``There is always 
an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible and wrong.'' 
That applies in this case. Testing will not create greater performance, 
it only provides an assessment. The creation of national tests would 
become the vehicle for a national curriculum.
  How does this happen, we might ask? Because the content of school 
curriculum can be directed by the development of national tests. We 
need to keep control of our children's education in the hands of the 
local people who work daily with our children and our parents to 
properly educate them. They are the most qualified to assess their 
educational needs. We do not need to justify an even more bloated and 
unmanageable Department of Education.
  Let us invest the money in our children, not in more administrative 
paperwork. The people of Arkansas are not demanding national tests, 
they are demanding good education. That comes from the local school 
boards, the parents, teachers who are dedicated do that proposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have before 
us an opportunity this evening to help all American children reach 
their potential by objectively testing the basic education they are 
receiving. We need to keep in mind what we are talking about: A simple, 
effective way to measure American student performance in the basics of 
education: Reading and math.
  We are not talking about other noncore subjects, only reading and 
math. We are not talking about a new Federal program or a grand one-
size-fits-all Federal study, we are talking about a voluntary tool to 
be used by parents, teachers, and local schools to assess the results 
of their own education efforts and the money they are spending, and to 
then chart a course toward improvement.
  Most importantly, parents deserve to know whether their children are 
being educated early enough in life so corrective action may be taken, 
because their children deserve to be prepared to compete with children 
not from their school district and not from their State, but from 
around the globe. Mr. Chairman, our children are not here to argue this 
this evening, but we are not doing American children any favor by not 
giving their parents the tools to measure whether they are being 
educated.
  I urge Members not to stop an initiative that should have occurred 
years ago. Think of our children's future, and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to prohibit the 
expenditure of Federal funds for President Clinton's national testing 
scheme.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania would prevent the 
Department of Education from developing a national test unless 
authorized to do so by Congress. While I share the concerns of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] that the administration 
should not take such a drastic step as developing national testing 
without congressional authorization, and I thank the gentleman for all 
his leadership in fighting for this amendment, the fact is the Federal 
Government has no constitutional authority to develop national testing 
even with congressional approval.
  National testing is another significant step toward total 
nationalization of education. National testing will ultimately lead to 
fulfillment of the dream of the enemies of the constitutional system of 
local and parental control of education, the de facto creation of a 
national curriculum.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration claims that the testing program 
would be voluntary. However, I remind my colleagues that this is the 
same administration that considers the Goals 2000 a voluntary program, 
despite the numerous times Goals 2000 uses the terms ``shall'' and 
``must'' in describing State functions.
  Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to 
administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as colleagues 
and employers inevitably begin to use national tests as the standard by 
which students are measured for college entrance exams and entry-level 
jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find Federal and perhaps 
even State funding dependent on their voluntary participation in the 
national testing programs.
  When all or at least the majority of the schools are administering 
national tests, the tests will then be the standard against which all 
schools will be measured. Those schools whose students did poorly on 
the national test would be labeled as doing a poor job of educating 
children. Educators would react to this pressure to ensure that 
students scored highly on the national test by teaching the test; that 
is, structure the curriculum so students can learn those subjects and 
only those subjects covered by the national tests.
  As University of Kansas professor John Poggio remarked in February, 
``What gets tested is what will be taught.'' Government bureaucrats 
would control the curriculum of every school in the Nation, and they 
would be able to alter the curriculum at will by altering the national 
test.
  Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as 
performance on the national tests become the standard by which student 
performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face 
increasing pressure to participate in national testing and to shape 
what is taught to the criteria of the test itself.
  The Department of Education has already admitted its ultimate aim is 
for a national curriculum. According to a United Press International 
story on the national assessment of educational progress reprinted in 
the Santa Rosa Press Democrat in May, ``The Education Department * * * 
hopes the kinds of questions involved in the voluntary test will shape 
the way science is taught.''
  Mr. Chairman, under the United States Constitution, the enumerated 
powers of the Federal Government simply do not include education. Yet 
the Clinton administration's national test proposal will inevitably 
result in Federal bureaucrats dictating what every child in America 
will be taught. National testing represents another giant step in the 
centralizing of American education and a giant step away from America's 
constitutional republic.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing all moves to 
implement a national testing scheme, starting by supporting the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] to 
prohibit the expenditures of Federal funds to develop and administer a 
national testing program without explicit authorization from Congress.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
prohibit the expenditure of funds to develop a national test. We need 
opportunities to learn before we mandate national tests. In the 
overall, comprehensive effort to improve our schools, there is a place 
for a national testing program, but it is counterproductive and 
oppressive to launch a fast-track stampede for a national test without 
simultaneously implementing other desperately needed Federal 
initiatives.
  Our national campaign to promote opportunity-to-learn standards ought

[[Page H7332]]

to come before or in concert with the push for a national test. Testing 
without opportunity-to-learn standards or other reforms is merely a 
measurement of the status quo. We know what the tests are going to tell 
us before we give them.
  When there is no effort to improve school facilities or to provide 
adequate libraries, laboratories, computers, and other learning 
necessities, the burden of improving education is dumped solely on the 
backs of the pupils. Under this condition, with gross sins of omission, 
national testing with high stakes and scores that will remain with 
students for a lifetime become the instruments for the abuse of 
students.
  We need a moratorium on testing until other school improvement 
components are implemented with greater vigor than they are now being 
pursued. The Federal school construction initiative, the construction 
initiative which will provide safe facilities conducive to study, must 
be placed back on the political track. Adequate physical facilities do 
not automatically improve learning; however, they are at the heart of 
the opportunity-to-learn standards. Since local education agencies 
throughout the Nation are experiencing overcrowding and infrastructure 
decay, school construction is a universal priority.
  National testing is not a priority. National testing is a highly 
visible device, but at this critical point the campaign for educational 
reform deserves more than a dramatic, headline-grabbing gesture. 
Instead of this piecemeal, isolated gimmick, we need a more balanced 
and inclusive approach to school improvement.
  America's children will be best served by returning to the working 
compromise that was reached in the 1994 Elementary and Secondary 
Educational Assistance Act. At that time it was agreed that a three-
part Federal initiative would be launched to promote national 
curriculum standards, national testing standards, and national 
opportunity-to-learn standards.
  This agreement was violated when, through a back door rules-violating 
Committee on Appropriations deal, the section of the law related to 
opportunity-to-learn standards was repealed in 1996. States and local 
governments are no longer exhorted to voluntarily raise their 
opportunity-to-learn standards. Only the students now have the burden 
placed on their backs. They have been abandoned by the Federal advocacy 
process, and they are being loudly challenged to meet new 
accountability demands that their local education agencies are not 
being exhorted to develop, and also the States are not being held 
accountable.
  We now have a window of opportunity, since Americans do think 
education is a high priority and have made that clear, we have a window 
of opportunity, and we can offer American students a better deal than 
more tests with less opportunities to learn. We can do more than just 
test students.
  The American people clearly want better schools, and public officials 
who are able to deliver a machinery for it are desired also by the 
electorate. It is not an exaggeration to contend that at this 
particular moment a bipartisan educational achievement of great 
magnitude is possible. Both Democrats and Republicans agree on enough 
components of education reform to forge ahead in this session of 
Congress.
  Both parties agree that charter schools offer a way to experiment 
with governance and management which would provide competitive choices 
with a minimum loss of public control. Both parties agree that 
increased resources for teacher training and retraining is a need we 
jointly recognize. Encouraging the maximum use of technology to aid 
education is also an approach approved by both parties.
  It would not be difficult to produce a bipartisan school package with 
substance. At a time when there are no absorbing global crises and very 
few national emergencies, the deliberative powers of both the executive 
and legislative branch could fashion a program with minimal 
intervention and a well-focused targeting to stimulate a chain reaction 
of State efforts to forge continuing improvements in education.
  The most productive Federal role is to challenge the States and 
enhance the programs that work, and that can be implemented and managed 
at the State and local levels. A national school reform effort means 
that all levels of government must make their appropriate contribution. 
On the scale of priorities for reform, testing is way down on that list 
of priorities.
  Both the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Leadership Council on Civil 
Rights opposed this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Owens was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, also, the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights has opposed this fast-track national testing initiative. They 
have given very sound reasons for opposing it.
  To help the children of America, a bipartisan school reform package 
with substance is needed. We do not need gimmicks, we do not need block 
grants, we do not need national testing.

                              {time}  1915

  Vote ``yes'' on this amendment to prohibit the usurpation of the 
powers of the Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I would submit a couple of thoughts, Mr. Chairman. One is that we 
already have national tests. We have the Assessment of Education 
Progress test, the National Assessment of Education Progress test, the 
SAT, the ACT, the Ohio Test of Basic Skills, the California Achievement 
Test, the Metropolitan Achievement Test, to name some of those national 
tests. In addition, we have many State and District tests. The danger 
is the President's suggestion that the Department of Education design 
the test. It has been said before, those that design the test, design 
the curriculum.
  Allow me to cite one example. One area where some of us disagree for 
4th graders might be that they all should be computer literate. So 
imagine that a test measures computer literacy among 4th graders in 
their reading test. Naturally, if a school wants to perform well, they 
are going to be forced to develop that curriculum that is mandated by a 
national test. So imagine many other areas that Washington thinks is 
important for testing but local school communities disagree. Those that 
design the test, design the curriculum and that decision should be left 
up to parents and school boards and teachers in the local community.
  I would suggest that in this bill, section 306 on page 97, the 
language simplys say that the National Academy of Science is going to 
evaluate and submit a report. They are going to evaluate: One, 
technical quality; two, adequacy of administration; three, reliability; 
four, validity of contractor's design; and five, degree to which the 
test can be expected to provide valid and useful information. And then 
the language on page 76, line 21, implies that after that is submitted, 
the Department of Education shall proceed to administer final version 
of that test.
  Again, I submit that we do not need bureaucrats in Washington 
designing the curriculum that can be best judged and decided by local 
communities and local parents and local school boards.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Goodling amendment to 
deny funding to the President's national testing proposal. Mr. 
Chairman, widespread misuse of educational testing has 
disproportionately penalized poor and minority children. That is why 
the Congressional Black Caucus opposes the administration's proposed 
national testing standards for 4th and 8th graders and why we support 
the Goodling amendment to deny Federal funding for the initiative.
  The CBC cannot support any testing that may further stigmatize our 
children and force them into lower educational tracks and special 
education classes. The national testing proposal provides no 
enforceable safeguards against the misuse of test results that can harm 
our children. Tracking, retention in grade, and ability grouping have 
all been used to the detriment of millions of students.
  Testing is being misused right now in schools across the Nation, as 
demonstrated by the case in North Carolina where 14 students have filed 
an equal protection claim based on the

[[Page H7333]]

misuse of testing. This test appears designed to consciously disregard 
the estimated 3 million children nationwide with limited English 
proficiency by refusing to offer the 4th grade test, reading test, in 
any other language than English.
  American students are among the most tested children in the world, 
yet our educational infrastructure continues to struggle. Paying for a 
national standardized test while continuing to neglect the pressing 
needs of our public schools reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of 
the crisis in our educational system. We need serious solutions to the 
pressing needs of our Nation's students, not misguided sound bite 
legislation.
  I recently reviewed the test results of a test in California, it may 
have been the achievement test, and it told me what I already knew. The 
kids from Beverly Hills did very well; the kids from Compton and from 
Watts did not do as well. So we know a lot about tests and the results 
of tests. We need to ask now what do we do? How do we apply the 
resources to bring those children up? What do we do to invest in their 
opportunity?
  If we want to do some assessments, let us not just test the children, 
let us take whole schools and school districts. Let us look at the 
teachers. Let us look at the principals. Let us look at the facilities. 
Let us find out whether or not they are wired to accommodate computers. 
Let us find out whether or not they have science laboratories.
  I just talked to two of our staffers right here in Congress, and I 
asked them what did they think about this. They said their children go 
to schools where they do not have books; our children are attending 
schools where they have to send the paper towels for them to wash their 
hands; they have to send toilet tissue. They have to send everything to 
the school to try and make life in that school just decent for their 
children, yet at the same time we are in some debate about tests?
  Let us have a real debate on education. Let us find out why we could 
not get a measly $5 billion in the budget to rehabilitate our schools 
where the roofs are falling in, where we do not have air-conditioning, 
where heating is less than adequate. Let us have a real debate about 
education to talk about in-service training for our teachers.
  Let us have a real debate. We are being sidetracked into a nondebate 
about educational testing. We have all kind of tests in the State. And 
if it is truly voluntary, and some will be doing it and some will not 
be doing it, why are we trying to have a national test? It is only 
national if we force it on everybody. So what if only half the Nation 
participates in this so-called national voluntary testing?
  I join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and a lot 
of people are going to wonder why the Hispanic Caucus and the Black 
Caucus are joining with those on the other side of the aisle that we 
normally disagree with on so many issues. Well, I tell my colleagues, 
we are all taking a common sense approach to this issue. Be it 
Republican or Democrat, Latino Caucus or Black Caucus, we are taking 
this common sense approach because we have the lessons of our community 
about what is wrong with education.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The time of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, our children are not failing because they 
did not have a national test. Our children are failing because in many 
cases there are just plain lack of resources in districts that are 
poor, that do not have the resources.
  We have discovered from the testing who does best, as I identified 
with Beverly Hills and South Central Los Angeles. Our children are 
failing because many of our teachers are inadequate. Many of our 
teachers are not trained and prepared to do the kind of teaching that 
they should be doing to make our children successful. We are failing 
because we are not having the real debate about the needs of our 
schools and our children.
  I tell my colleagues far too many schools in America cannot even have 
computer labs because they are not wired to accept the computers to do 
what they should be doing. Let us forget about this so-called national 
test. Let us get into a real debate and design what our children need 
to make them successful.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Goodling amendment. 
The Goodling amendment, I think, puts into proper perspective the 
Federal role in education.
  The Federal Government really has no responsibility to go out and 
test every child in the 4th and 8th grade. We do test on a random 
basis. Through NAEP, we test children at the 4th, 8th and 12th grade 
levels, and we get a sampling so that we can get a comparison between 
how students from one State are doing compared to the other. But we 
have not put the Federal Government in the role of testing every 4th 
grader and every 8th grader and every 12th grader, because that is not 
the job of the Federal Government.
  What we do have is we have States who are working through this 
process, who are setting State standards, who are setting and putting 
in place State tests to fulfill the proper role that the States employ, 
which is to control and work with the local units of government in 
managing education in this country.
  We have been involved in a process over the last year where we have 
gone around the country and we have taken a look at what is going on in 
education; what is working, what is not working. And it has been very 
interesting as we have taken a look at the various States and they have 
shared with us what they are doing in the area of testing.

  This should be a word of caution to those of us in Washington before 
we embark down that road. We were in the State of Delaware. The State 
of Delaware is about the size of one congressional district. We are 
trying to design a test here for 435 congressional districts.
  As the governor described the process that they went through in 
designing a State test, he described a very intensive process, a 
collaborative process between parents, educational professionals, the 
schools, other interest groups, to design a test that could be given to 
the students in Delaware, and that when the results came back would be 
accepted by the parents, by the educators, the administrators and other 
people that had a vested interest in having a good educational system 
and that the test would actually mean something.
  It took the State of Delaware about 3 years to come up with a test. 
The State of Delaware is now going through a process of deciding 
exactly how to administer the test and, when they get the tests back, 
exactly how to use the results and what decisions can be made off of 
those tests. This has to be a slow, deliberative process. It needs buy-
in, and it needs to be done at the State level and not at the Federal 
level.
  The State of Michigan is going through much of the same struggle, of 
designing a test that will be widely accepted and will actually enable 
decision-makers, whether it is a parent, whether it is a teacher or a 
school district or a governor, a test that will enable those types of 
individuals to make the kinds of decisions that they need to make; that 
will actually be an asset in helping them outline educational strategy.
  In Michigan what we are finding is that parts of the tests have been 
widely accepted but we have some problems. Students are opting out; 
parents are opting their kids out. In some cases we have actually had 
some school districts advising some of their kids to stay home on the 
days that the tests are given so that they can manipulate the test 
scores.
  It does not mean the State of Michigan should not be involved in the 
testing process, but it means that even after having worked on this for 
a number of years, we still have a lot of work to complete before we 
will have a valid test in the State of Michigan that parents, students 
and educators will support.
  This work needs to happen at the State level. It needs to happen at 
the local level. We do not need the Federal Government to get involved. 
It is not the proper role for the Federal Government. This work is 
going on where it

[[Page H7334]]

needs to take place and where constitutionally it should take place, 
which is at the State and local level.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment and agree 
with my colleague from California that we need to have a national 
debate about how to improve education, and it is not by making the 
Federal Government get more involved, it is by diminishing the role of 
the Federal Government and unleashing innovation at the State and local 
level.
  We have seen innovation and we have seen schools, parents and kids 
that are excelling, but it is when the Federal Government has stepped 
back and where we have enabled young people and where we have enabled 
the local governments to take control.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 90 minutes, to be 
divided 45 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
and 45 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief and maybe set out a few quick 
points, if I may. We have been talking about tests. And the last time I 
checked, math is pretty much math anywhere in this country. I state 
that having been State superintendent, elected by the people in the 
State of North Carolina for two consecutive 4-year terms.
  Reading is something that every child needs to know. It is the 
foundation of all learning. And we are really talking about testing 
that in fourth and eighth grade, and we are talking about a voluntary 
test. This is voluntary. It is not mandatory.
  The other point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that when we are 
talking about these issues, we are talking about the fundamental issues 
of education.
  Let me very quickly talk about my State for just a moment. In North 
Carolina we became a part of the National Assessment of Education 
Progress, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] talked about 
that a few moments ago. That does not require a national curriculum. 
States can elect to be a part of it, and 45 States in this Nation have 
participated.
  I would say to my colleagues that North Carolina has volunteered to 
be one of the six States, and we will be a part of any national test 
that is put in place. But I want to talk about the National Assessment 
of Education Progress for just a moment and why it is important to have 
some standard, because I happen to believe in high standards for our 
children so that all children can gain and do well.
  North Carolina has been a leader of that over the last several years, 
and here is why: No other State in this country has experienced the 
sustained gains demonstrated by North Carolina schools since 1990. 
Today, North Carolina's public schools are performing well above other 
schools anywhere in this country, and let me tell my colleagues why.
  When tests were taken this year on NAEP, in 1996, North Carolina 
gained 17 points in eighth grade mathematics for the 6 years reported 
by NAEP. That is twice the national average, which happened to have 
been eight points for all the other States in the Nation, and 
approximately 50 percent higher than the gain of any other State in the 
Nation.
  The State's average performance was just short of the national 
average. Why? Because we started right at the bottom. Why did we grow 
so fast? Because we had standards, we measured them, and every single 
school knew it. We gave our teachers the resources, and they performed 
admirably. And so did our students.
  North Carolina students have improved the equivalent of one full 
grade level during the decade of the nineties. In other words, an 
eighth grade student in 1996 was one full year ahead of eighth grade 
students in 1990. So in little over 6 years, right at 6 years, they 
gained a full grade level in elementary grade.
  North Carolina's fourth and eighth grade African-American students 
were five points ahead of African-American students nationally. Why? 
Because we measured, we put the resources there, and it makes a 
difference. If it does not make a difference to assess and measure, 
then why do we do it in other things? Why do we keep the score of a 
basketball player or football player? It is important to let people 
know where they are and put the resources and make a difference.
  I close by reminding my colleagues that we are talking about 
voluntary tests, we are talking about reading and mathematics, and it 
is time that we get away from the rhetoric of who is in charge and let 
the American people know that we mean to have high standards and we are 
going to make sure that our children can compete with any children 
anywhere in the world.
  Secretary Riley said, when the tests were released this spring, if we 
look at the States that are on the way up, States like North Carolina, 
Michigan, Maryland, and Kentucky, I say it does make a difference to 
measure. It makes a difference to let children know what we want. And 
that is why I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], chairman of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families from the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, for yielding me the time.
  I say to my colleagues, this has been an interesting debate, although 
one that seems to have a foregone conclusion, interesting in the sense 
that it clearly crosses party lines. I want to say at the outset that I 
hope this debate does not become another political football. I would 
hope that this kind of debate would occur at the local level, at a 
local school board meeting in every community around the country, 
because I think it is real important for those local communities to 
have a debate regarding the standards and expectations for children 
that attend schools within that community. But that is really what we 
are talking about tonight.
  I do also want to preface my remarks by saying I believe the 
President and his administration are well-intentioned in this regard. I 
think their proposal may be somewhat flawed, but I think the President 
was right to stand up here behind us and give his State of the Union 
Address to the Congress and the country in February of this year and 
talk about the problem of social promotion, this idea that too often 
our children are advanced from grade to grade or even graduated as much 
on the basis of good behavior and time served as on the basis of what 
they know and what they can demonstrate they have learned during their 
public school years.
  I think the President is right to talk about replacing this problem 
of social promotion with a competency-based advancement system in our 
schools. But the question really, though, goes to the fundamental issue 
in American education, and that is: Who is going to design that system 
of competency-based advancement?
  And I submit to my colleagues that it is the responsibility, it is 
the obligation of the State and local education agencies to design that 
system. That is very much in keeping, as I have said over and over on 
this floor, with the long-standing American tradition of decentralized 
decisionmaking and local control in public education.
  Clearly, though, we ought to have high expectations and high 
standards for all of our children. One out of four high school 
graduates are functionally illiterate. American students lagging 
internationally. Unacceptably high dropout rates. In fact, if one child 
falls through the cracks, much less an entire generation of urban 
schoolchildren, we have a problem. Too many high school graduates going 
into our colleges and universities in need of remedial education, 
defined as not being able to learn at the eighth grade level. Something 
has gone awry in schools if that is the case.

[[Page H7335]]

  So I do encourage States, such as my home State of California, such 
as the State of Virginia, to establish uniform standards for pupil 
performance so parents have a basis for knowing how all schools within 
that State are really performing. That makes, to me, very good sense.
  As the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I want to tell my 
colleagues I support the Goodling amendment, in part because every time 
we have a debate about testing, we raise more questions than answers.
  In fact, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], one of our very 
distinguished colleagues, chairman of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, sent around a ``Dear Colleague'' citing four reasons to 
support the Goodling testing amendment, including no authorization. And 
clearly now, I say to my colleagues, let us be real clear on one point, 
and that is, if we are going to expand the NAEP, this random sampling 
of pupil performance, in 43 of the 50 States to include producing 
individual test scores, that goes beyond, that exceeds the current 
statutory authorization for the NAEP. So, no authorization.

  Second, the department's testing proposal bypass Congress. And as the 
chairman said, it just makes good sense to consult the elected 
representatives of the people when talking about something the 
magnitude of national testing.
  Third, there is real grassroots opposition. There are local concerns 
regarding the idea of voluntary national testing in many communities 
around the country, not least of which is that it may cause the States 
and local communities inadvertently to have to lower the bar in this 
whole area of standards and expectations.
  Lastly, there are again these fundamental questions regarding the 
President's testing proposal, such as what is the purpose of the test; 
what is the need, as the chairman said, for yet another set of tests; 
will the test undermine State and local curriculum assessments; and 
will these tests, bottom line now, ultimately improve pupil 
performance?
  So that is the message I wanted to convey tonight. I do want to urge, 
as the subcommittee chairman, State and local school districts to 
improve public education by raising academic standards, by increasing 
and, yes, enforcing graduation requirements for all students. Maryland 
is looking at doing that same thing now and holding schools accountable 
for poor student performance.
  Again, this is very consistent with the long-standing American 
tradition of decentralized decisionmaking in public education. And in 
keeping with that tradition, it is those local elected decisionmakers, 
those school board members who are accountable to their constituents, 
to their neighbors, to their family and friends in that community, the 
people who put them in office as school board members, it is those 
local school board members who should consider adopting and 
implementing rigorous standards in the core academic subjects and 
allowing the students to study in school with their testing. That would 
be a way that parents can see how all students are really performing.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], a longtime member of the 
committee.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. I do so 
and I find it rather interesting that we have so many Members coming 
out onto the floor and saying that what we have got to do is abide by 
local control and local decisions, and yet this amendment would not 
allow some 15 major cities in this country and a number of States that 
have made the decision that they want to use the NAEP for the purposes 
described in the President's program, this amendment would prohibit 
them from doing that.
  States of Alaska; Kentucky; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; North 
Carolina; West Virginia; not exactly the hotbeds of a Federal takeover 
of education; Atlanta, Georgia; Broward County, FL; El Paso, TX; 
Fresno, CA; Long Beach, CA; Omaha; New York City; Philadelphia; San 
Antonio would like to use NAEP. They believe in this product. They 
would like to use it for this purpose, but this amendment will not 
allow them to do that.
  So, it is not quite the level of local control that people would have 
us believe. They would have the Federal Government keep those local 
jurisdictions from using this.
  But the fact of the matter is, let us take a look at it. Both sides 
and political leaders of both parties have gotten up, and very often do 
it in June when we are talking about students who are graduating from 
high school and cannot read their diploma, most of those students were 
tested with State tests. Most of those students got a C average or D 
average or something to get that high school diploma. But there was a 
bit of a fraud perpetrated on the student and on the family. And that 
is that somehow this student was performing to standards that were 
worthy of the diploma and was prepared to go on to the rest of American 
society, whether that is to work, or training, or education, or what 
have you.
  What, in fact, we see is a lot of students take State tests; and then 
when we assess them against the NAEP, huge numbers of those students 
that looked like they were performing very well on the State tests do 
terribly on the tough tests of the NAEP.
  The fact of the matter is that in the last 4 or 5 years American 
parents and communities have decided to reengage their education 
system. America has decided that if, in fact, it is going to compete, 
it is going to have to revalue education; that we have been letting it 
slide too long for our children, we have not asked enough of our 
children, we have not set the standards high enough, we have not 
recognized what they were able to, in fact, achieve. We simply let them 
muddle through. But parents now understand that muddling through is not 
good enough if their children are going to be able to actively 
participate in the American economy and in the world economy and as 
productive members of our society.
  In fact, in California what we now see is a change in terms of what 
local communities are doing in terms of the reinvestment of their tax 
dollars into the public system. In almost an unprecedented rate, bond 
issue after bond issue that must be passed by two-thirds vote is 
passing in our State because people have decided that they are going to 
reinvest in this public system. For all of the horror stories that they 
have been told about it, they still decide that that is where they want 
to make the investment.
  I would think that they would want the NAEP test so they can decide 
how they are doing, how they are doing alongside of North Carolina, 
which is achieving changes in its educational achievement and 
attainment that many States would envy. They would like to know how 
they are doing against Massachusetts or Alaska or Maryland. Is what 
they are doing now and the investments that they are making, the new 
investments in technology, the new investments in physical plants and 
equipment and teacher training, is that paying off? Are they headed in 
the right direction with their curriculum?
  That is the standard that NAEP would provide them to make those kinds 
of comparisons. They do not want to do that? Nothing in the law says 
they have to do that. They do not want to participate in that 
comparison? They do not have to. They do not want their children to 
take the test? They do not have to.
  But what, in fact, we are seeing is, we are seeing local school 
districts coming forward, asking to be able to participate, and we are 
seeing States saying they would like to participate. And somehow the 
Congress cannot find it quite right that these people have made an 
informed judgment, that they have made a good determination, what is 
good for their State or what is good for their school district, to 
participate in this. We have decided what we will substitute our 
judgment at the Federal level and they cannot participate in this 
program.

                              {time}  1945

  I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has been 
on both sides of this issue, and so have I. I pushed very hard for 
opportunity-to-learn standards so we would make

[[Page H7336]]

sure that resources would accommodate testing. But I also think that 
testing is a road map and is a guidance for communities as to whether 
or not they are getting shortchanged in some manner or fashion in those 
school districts.
  It also lets communities and school boards know where resources ought 
to be allocated, because all of those things are true today without the 
NAEP. It is all true today, the misallocation of resources, 
misallocations of talented teachers, roofs that leak and all the rest 
of it. NAEP is not going to cause that to happen. It is happening 
today. But it may very well provide a blueprint and a guideline and an 
assessment as to how these renewed efforts that are going on all over 
our country as people are reinvesting billions and billions of their 
local tax dollars back into the public education system in this 
country.
  This is a chance for them to determine whether or not they are making 
not only a wise decision, but the right decision. I happen to think 
they are making the right decision. But they need to know as to whether 
or not their local efforts are paying off on behalf of those students.
  But the heavy hand of the Federal Government apparently tonight is 
going to decide that they will not even be able to do that. If they 
vote at the local level, if they vote at the district level, if they 
vote at the school level or if they vote at the State level, the 
Federal Government tonight will decide that that will not happen.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham], a member of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. I just wanted to point out that after intense lobbying 
by the administration, only seven of those States decided to 
participate. After intense lobbying by the administration over months, 
only fifteen cities out of thousands have decided to participate. 
Intense lobbying, I might add.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling 
amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
having the guts to say nationally what people locally are saying about 
national testing.
  In my district, I presented a flag to a local elementary school. We 
talked very glowingly about what the flag meant and how much we should 
honor and respect it. The one thing that I left with that meeting was 
that there are good, polite kids at that school, and every teacher was 
following this debate, and every administrator was following this 
debate and said, please do not impose upon us another testing regime. 
Give us some assets to implement the changes we need to make in South 
Carolina to improve education.
  If you are a taxpayer out there channel flipping, you might want to 
stop for a minute. This debate involves your money. It is going to take 
$15 to $16 million to design the tests. In the year 1999, it is going 
to take $90 to $100 million to administer the tests. That is a lot of 
money. At least I think it is a lot of money.
  The question you ought to be asking is take a few minutes to go to 
your local education board, to your superintendent, to your teachers, 
and write your State representative and ask those folks what are we 
doing in our State right now to test our students, and see if that 
suffices. This really is about power. If you do not have an agenda, you 
ought not be in this place. My agenda is clearly to take the education 
debate and get it home and get as much resources into the hands of a 
teacher who knows the child's name and less resources here in 
Washington.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman will direct 
his comments to the Chair and not to an audience.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Strike what I said, Mr. Chairman, and I will make it to 
the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest that everybody in the country do 
is do what I just said a few minutes ago. Take some time to find out 
how much money is being spent at the local level and see if this $100 
million program does any good, or if we should take the $100 million 
and give it to the classroom teacher who will actually meet their child 
every day and see if it will help produce a better result.
  Let me tell my colleagues politically where we are. The State has 
already voted on this. They decided not to give the Department of 
Education the ability to fashion the test. It passed in the Senate, but 
there is going to be a Washington-picked group that will design the 
test.
  One reason I think the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus is 
against this is they do not want some elite group in Washington 
designing a test for their children, not knowing anything about their 
community, and creating standards that may not be appropriate for their 
community.
  If you give the power to test, you are eventually going to give the 
power to change curriculum. It has traditionally been in America a 
local function to test and prepare students to learn. A local teacher 
will show up in your classroom, somebody that lives in your community, 
who will probably see you Friday night at the ballgame. Would it not be 
nice to be able to talk to that teacher and tell her or him that, I 
support you and your endeavors to educate my child, and I am against 
giving more money in Washington, DC to do the job that you are capable 
of? That is what this debate is about.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has got a lot of guts. 
He is willing to take the feel-good 30-second, 60-second sound bites 
and fight for values. I think his agenda is what most people's agenda 
in the education business is. Give me more of the assets available in 
education, and I will do a better job. A dollar spent here in 
Washington will not do what a dime spent in a classroom in South 
Carolina will do.
  Let us take the money, the desires, hopes and dreams we have for our 
children and put it in the hands of the people who will actually meet 
the child day in and day out, and do not buy into the dream that 
Washington knows best. If you want to send your kid to a Washington, DC 
school system, come up here and go. You would not stay here 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment. I am 
from one of those States apparently that was intensely lobbied. We did 
not need to be. As the gentleman from North Carolina has mentioned, we 
believe that assessing performance is critical if we are going to 
achieve excellence, if we are going to have expectations of our school 
system, of our students, of our teachers and of our system.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment because 
I believe it is a crucial part of preparing our children for the next 
century to have a national assessment available to local States and 
local education agencies. Available is the key word; not imposed, but 
available, at their option, voluntary, as everybody has noted.
  The funds provided for in this bill will support the implementation 
of voluntary national tests. States and local districts will have the 
opportunity to participate in the tests, but the tests are not 
mandatory. No Federal funds will be withheld if a State or district 
does not choose to participate. It seems to me the proponents of the 
Goodling amendment ignore that fact and just suppose that somehow it 
will turn into being mandatory.
  Parents, Mr. Chairman, deserve, having spent their hard-earned money 
and invested in their school systems, to know how their children are 
performing based on rigorous standards no matter where they live in 
this country. The chairman of the subcommittee spoke. The gentleman is 
from a State of 32 million people. One-ninth of America lives in his 
State, one-eighth or one-ninth of America lives in his State, so it is 
very nice to say, well, we will have this State standard, larger than 
most nations or many nations of the world.
  National tests, Mr. Chairman, will provide parents with the 
information they must have to determine if their children are on track 
in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed in a global society, not 
needed in South Carolina, not needed in California, not needed in 
Maryland. Our young people will compete in a global marketplace. They

[[Page H7337]]

need to be ready, as this country needs to be ready.
  In my State of Maryland, as has been mentioned, national tests will 
serve as an enhancement to the rigorous assessment program already in 
place. Why do we have it in place? Because our citizens have demanded 
that we use their money effectively. All of us, and particularly the 
majority party, has talked about spending taxpayers' money effectively. 
How do you know that? By osmosis? I suggest not. You have got to find 
out, and you have got to tell parents, are your children getting what 
you are paying for? This is the way to find out.
  Since the implementation of this program in Maryland, Mr. Chairman, 
test scores have continued to climb, dropout rates have dropped 
significantly, and attendance rates have risen. I hope that everybody 
listens to that, because that is exactly what the gentleman from North 
Carolina said was the result in his State of these tests.
  The American public supports, I tell my colleagues, high national 
standards. According to a national education survey, 84 percent of 
voters favor establishing meaningful standards for what students should 
be expected to learn in skills such as reading and math. And 77 percent 
of those surveyed favor national reading and math tests. Why? Because 
they know their children are going to compete with the young people 
from California and Florida and New York and Maryland and Mississippi, 
and they want them to be able to do so, because they know it is crucial 
for them and for their families' welfare as well as the welfare of our 
Nation.
  The American Federation of Teachers, the National Education 
Association, the National School Boards Association and the Council of 
Chiefs of State Schools Officers all endorse voluntary national tests 
and oppose the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, when expectations are raised, students rise to meet 
them. I hope that we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a book written by Jonathan Kozol some years 
ago. The title of that book was ``Death at an Early Age.'' The premise 
of that book was that we do not have high expectations of some young 
people, minority young people, educationally deprived young people, 
economically deprived young people, and because we do not have high 
expectations that they will perform, they meet those expectations. They 
are low ones. But if we had a way to assess all of our students, then 
their parents would know that our expectations were not high enough for 
their children or that our performance in getting them to our 
expectations were not successful. In either event, parents, 
communities, States and, yes, this Nation ought to know, are we 
preparing our young people to compete in a global marketplace.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] will control the time of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
briefly observe that what this debate is about is whether national 
testing is a proper role for the Federal Government. As a former 
Governor himself, as a former head of the National Governors 
Association, the President should realize that he is intruding on what 
is historically a State and local responsibility. In fact, just last 
March at a summit in Palisades, NY, the Nation's Governors and 
prominent business leaders reconfirmed their commitment to developing 
State standards and State assessments in their own States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLay], the distinguished majority whip of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and those that have brought this amendment 
because I rise in support of this common-sense amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  We do not need the Federal Government and national organizations 
getting involved in our local school districts. There are many problems 
with our educational system. Parents need more choices when it comes to 
sending their children to primary and secondary schools. We had a 
proposal that would have given parents greater opportunities to make 
these choices, but the President turned it down. Clearly the President 
was frightened by the power of the teachers' union, and I think that is 
a shame. We do not need to legislate merely to please the teachers' 
union. We should legislate to improve the quality of our children's 
education.
  This amendment says that we should not waste our precious resources 
by identifying problems through more tests administered by Washington 
bureaucrats. We know the problems. Our kids are not getting the kind of 
quality education that they need to compete into the next century. We 
do not need a national test to figure that out. We need to improve our 
schools by promoting competition and by giving parents more choices to 
provide better opportunities for their kids. We need to move our 
precious resources out of Washington and away from the NEA and other 
national associations and send those resources to our schools where 
they belong.

                              {time}  2000

  Let us send a signal to this administration: Improve our schools, not 
our tests.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Early 
Childhood, Youth and Families.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Goodling amendment. As a 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and someone who 
wants all children to achieve the highest standards of learning, I am 
reluctantly opposing the administration's current national testing 
proposal in its current format.
  The goals and intentions behind the proposal are excellent, to enable 
States, schools, and students on a voluntary basis to see how they are 
doing relative to other State schools and students. At its best, this 
can spur reform efforts and help target resources where they are most 
needed. The tests can also provide one indicator of how successful 
local reform efforts are.
  Unfortunately, this proposal has been poorly managed and executed, 
and consequently has not gained adequate support from families, 
educators, the States, or Congress.
  My home State of Delaware recently implemented world class education 
standards. These standards were not developed at the top level and 
presented to educators and parents as a done deal. These standards were 
the product of extensive discussion and feedback from all parties at 
the local and State level. Consequently, when the standards were 
complete, there was widespread, although not universal, support for 
them.
  I believe this serves as a model for how testing should be developed 
at the national level. Instead, the administration's national testing 
proposal was developed in a top-down manner at the Education Department 
without adequate input from Congress and State and local educators.
  National standards in testing are issues we should address in a 
cooperative and coordinated manner. The administration's proposal has 
gotten off on the wrong foot, and we should go back to square one. The 
Senate has developed a reasonable compromise, and I hope we in the 
House can work with the Senate in conference to provide some guidance 
to the administration about how to revise the testing proposal.
  Among other things, the Senate has done the following: Reaffirmed the 
voluntary nature of the national test; given the National Assessment 
Governing Board exclusive authority over all policies, direction and 
guidelines for establishing the tests; provided that the National 
Assessment Governing Board has authority and responsibility over any 
activities already begun by the Department of Education and has 90 days 
to review any contracts; directed the National Assessment Governing 
Board to ensure that the content and standards for the national tests 
shall be the same as those to the National Assessment for Educational 
Progress, which is widely respected, as we have heard on the floor 
tonight; changed the composition of the 25-

[[Page H7338]]

member National Assessment Governing Board to ensure it is truly 
bipartisan and independent; and reasserts the independence of the 
National Assessment Governing Board from the Department of Education.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this compromise has potential. As Governor of 
Delaware, I had the opportunity to serve on the National Assessment 
Governing Board, which is the organization of State officials, 
educators, and parents that work with the Department of Education on 
national policy to improve educational standards and assess the 
educational progress of our children.
  I am supportive of increasing the involvement of the National 
Assessment Governing Board as a good way to involve Governors, local 
elected officials, business and industry representatives, as well as 
educators and parents, in the development and oversight of the tests. 
So while I support the Goodling amendment, I reiterate my hope that the 
House will work with the Senate on its compromise, and I will work to 
create a compromise we can all support.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to a strong Federal role in education. 
The Federal Government should be a partner with local schools, parents, 
and our States in improving the education we provide to our children. 
However, the Federal Government cannot dictate policy. Standards and 
tests must have the input and support of everyone who cares about 
education, including parents, teachers, administrators, and State 
officials. The current administration proposal does not do this, and, 
thus, I support the Goodling amendment to prevent it from moving 
forward until it is revised.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
because I cannot understand the reasoning behind denying communities 
across the country the opportunity to engage in a voluntary system, a 
system which will enable them to more accurately test their students to 
see if they are doing well.
  This is not, as some have suggested, about establishing a national 
curriculum. After all, math and reading are part of every curriculum. 
It is about testing for those two subjects. These are the two critical 
parts of every curriculum. If a student cannot participate in math and 
do math well, they are not going to succeed very well in society. If 
they cannot read and use language arts very well, they are not going to 
succeed in society. That is what this program is all about.
  The President is offering communities across the country the 
opportunity to participate voluntarily so they can judge and test 
whether or not their students are making progress, so that they can 
compete more effectively throughout the school system on into higher 
education and then on into the economy.
  Some have said that testing establishes a stigma. Well, what kind of 
stigma is worse than the stigma of not being able to do simple 
mathematics, or what kind of stigma is worse than the stigma of not 
being able to read and write, to be able to communicate properly?
  That kind of stigma is a real stigma, one that prevents people from 
participating in the economic system in a fair and just way, prevents 
them from getting jobs and taking care of their families.
  Testing will simply measure the progress that is being made. It is 
not something that the administration is trying to force on anyone. 
They are simply offering it. If you want to participate in it, you may. 
If you want to establish your own statewide tests, you certainly may do 
that and leave this one alone.
  If you want to establish different tests for different communities, 
do that, if you like, within your States. But if you want a national 
test that is available to you, which will enable you to see whether or 
not your students are keeping pace with others in other parts of the 
country so when they get older and as they move to other parts of the 
country, and, indeed, to other parts of the world, they will be able to 
compete effectively with those students who are educated in other 
places, that simply is what is at stake here.
  Mr. Chairman, I just cannot understand why we should be opposed to 
giving communities the opportunity to allow students to find out more 
about themselves and about the progress they are making through the 
educational system. That is what this test does, and we ought to reject 
the amendment therefore.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goode], a new Member of the body.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Goodling for this 
amendment and for his leadership on this issue. During the recent 
August recess and during the last two weekends, I have talked with area 
school superintendents from across Virginia's 5th district. I have 
talked to school administrators, with teachers, with students and with 
the parents and with citizens, and there is widespread opposition to 
any national test.
  Recently Cheri Yecke, a member of the Virginia State Board of 
Education, also spoke out against the national test. We do not want a 
commission, we do not want an appointed body, we do not want a board 
making the decision on a national test. We believe that a national test 
decision should be by elected Representatives of the United States 
Congress, and I am glad to see the bipartisan opposition to a national 
test, and I hope we can kill this snake today overwhelmingly on the 
floor of this body.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield three and a half minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate my remarks with those of 
my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goode]. Certainly we are 
talking ultimately about a national test, a national test that will 
lead to a national curriculum. Anybody who is going to be regulated by 
this national test, who has ever been in the classroom, knows that 
eventually you have to make efforts to respond to the test. You do not 
exactly have to teach the test, but you certainly move in that 
direction, and that leads in the direction of a national curriculum at 
the elementary and secondary level.
  This is not a good way to spend $50 million. There are good ways to 
spend $50 million that encourage education. This is not a good way to 
do that. The States are already doing this job. Forty-seven States are 
in the process of adopting State assessment vehicles through testing, 
through monitoring, through grading of how efforts are being made in 
schools. Forty-seven of 50 states are already doing this job. I think 
it needs to be done at the State and the community level.
  In fact, education tests need to be really developed from the bottom 
up, not from the top down. The closer you get to where kids leave home 
to go to school, the closer you need to be to their house where that 
test is developed.
  For four years, Mr. Chairman, I was the president of a university, 
and during that entire four years we talked about whether or not the 
national tests at the university level were adequate vehicles to 
measure how students were going to do in college. The SAT, the ACT 
tests were constantly being criticized because of their inability to 
really measure how people were doing or how people were going to do. 
And this is not to attack those tests, privately developed, well-used, 
indicators, I think, of what can happen at the college level. But, 
remember, the people taking those tests were people who had gone to 
school 11 or 12 years, people who intended to go to college, people who 
should by that time have had some commonality of what they were talking 
about in terms of how you measure those skills. People at the third 
grade level generally do not have yet a national perspective. They do 
not have that at the eighth grade level. They may not even quite have 
that at the 11th and 12th grade level when they are now taking all 
kinds of national tests that really frankly do not measure people's 
ability to compete in higher education as effectively as we would like.
  A national test for elementary school does not make sense. Government 
involvement in testing at the Federal level does not make sense. We 
have handled that well in higher education with privately developed 
tests. The States are handling that well by encouraging local school 
districts to develop tests.
  Remember, geography comes into how you take this test. Where you live

[[Page H7339]]

comes into how you take this test. Let us not try to act like that by 
the third grade, American students become so homogenized that they can 
react to a national test, because they cannot.
  It will be misleading, it will be a misservice to parts of the 
country. There is no way you can develop this test so that it 
adequately measures fairly children all over America. Of course, 
children all over America I think is what motivates both sides here.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to those who oppose national testing. 
They have attempted to claim that the new national test will lead to a 
national curriculum. They argue that the tests are really just another 
intrusion into education by the Federal Government and an attempt by 
Washington to usurp control of education on the State and local level.
  Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman. The 
establishment of a reading test for fourth graders and a math test for 
eighth graders is not an attempt to create a national curriculum. The 
tests are meant only to serve as a way of ensuring that students all 
over America are receiving the type of education they deserve.
  We are not talking here about history or interpretive studies. We are 
talking about the very basic skills needed to survive in America today, 
reading and math. That has nothing to do with history; it has nothing 
to do with revisionism. It has to do with the very basic skills that we 
need to survive. These tests are based on generally accepted standards 
that students should know.
  As a former local official and as a mayor, I recognize the importance 
of keeping control of education at the local level. I support national 
testing because it assists local school boards in States to measure how 
well they are doing their job without undermining their ability.
  I have heard others argue that we should be dedicating greater 
resources to improving our schools and then to the classroom. I agree 
with that premise. I do not, however, believe the two are mutually 
exclusive. In fact, national testing will provide us with a better 
picture of where we need to better target our resources.
  Let me be clear on this issue: National tests will improve the 
education that our students receive by providing parents and educators 
with the knowledge of how their students' individual achievements rank 
in comparison to widely respected national-international standards by 
an independent commission of educators and scholars, not the Federal 
Government.

                              {time}  2015

  National tests will focus attention on the need to improve basic 
skills. The tests will provide teachers and parents and students a very 
clear picture of where students should be in their education at 
specific points. This picture will help guide parents and teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, there are those in the Congress, many of my good 
friends, who oppose these tests on the grounds that they fear that 
children in under-funded school districts will fail at a higher than 
average rate. I understand that fear, but believe that these tests 
actually make the argument for the tests.
  The tests will serve as proof that we need to better direct our 
funding, and direct and provide a guide for which districts are most in 
need of funding, and our children can compete. To say that tests are 
simply going to prove failure is absolutely wrong. We send the wrong 
message to those children. As a former educator, I think it is 
insulting to those kids if we say, ``The more we test you, the more we 
will know you fail.'' That is wrong, that is absurd. There is no 
science to back that up.
  In the end, we must understand that we do not live in 50 different 
bubbles, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to briefly respond and point out to the gentleman, as we have 
already said on this floor this evening, only 7 of the 50 States have 
said that they will participate in these tests, which begs the 
question, if these tests are so essential to the education of our 
children and to gauging and assessing the progress of our children, if 
these tests are so essential in that regard, it would seem that more 
States would already be on board.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], for yielding me this time.
  I rise to speak in support of the Goodling amendment. I do so even 
with the understanding that reading and arithmetic are the base 
fundamentals of the development of any educational program. However, I 
rise to speak in favor of this amendment because I am concerned about a 
national testing program because of the differences and variations in 
our society. I am not sure that when we measure and how we use that 
data, that it will not be used in such a manner that it is not designed 
to point out the needs that really exist.
  If we want to improve education, what we really need to do is 
galvanize our communities so that people believe that education is 
essential to making it. Once again, I would be in favor of a national 
testing program if we had a national funding program, if we had a 
national resource development program, if we had a national training 
program so that we could train, inspire and motivate teachers to give 
their best.
  So when that time comes, then I would be in favor of a national 
testing program. But until then, I believe it makes more sense to make 
greater use of those resources, to find a way to equalize educational 
opportunity by finding ways to bring equity to school systems 
throughout this Nation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Goodling amendment.
  Throughout this Congress we have had a lot of discussion about an 
increasing concern across this Nation about the growing differential in 
wages, the growing differential between the wealthy and those who are 
somewhat more impoverished.
  When I look at what the potential for voluntary testing provides, I 
think more than anything else it is going to ensure that all of our 
children are going to have the same opportunities to succeed. Because 
what we are talking about here more than anything else is how do we 
empower students, how do we empower parents, how do we empower our 
educational institutions as well as our communities?
  By giving them information on how students and how schools are 
performing, whether it be in Hanford, CA, or Waco, TX, or Boston, MA, 
we are going to allow parents to understand whether or not their 
children are gaining the proficiency in such basic subjects which are 
critical to their success.
  When I talk about the growing wage differential, what is absolutely 
critical is that when we look at the potential lifetime earnings of any 
individual, the greatest determinant is the level of education they 
receive. When we look at what institutions our children are going to be 
able to get into, oftentimes it is their ability to perform well on 
college entrance exams. And unfortunately, all too often, some children 
coming from some areas that might not necessarily be getting the level 
of academic training that they need, are not being accepted into these 
higher levels of academic institutions.
  What the voluntary testing will allow, it will allow that parent and 
those schools to gain a greater understanding of whether or not they 
need to be doing a better job, whether or not they ought to be making 
some improvements in the way they are trying to educate their children 
and how they make them more proficient in reading. We are going to be 
doing a better job in giving schools and again parents the information 
they need to know, whether or not they ought to be doing something and 
trying to define some of the basic math skills which are critical to an 
individual's future success.

[[Page H7340]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think the administration has put together a terrific 
program that would allow again the information which is critical to the 
future success of a child to be known through this voluntary national 
test program. These are some things that are going to allow the 
greatest influence to be utilized at the local level, and more than 
anything else it will give the information to parents so they can make 
the decisions, so that they can play a major role in the success of 
their children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support 
the Goodling amendment. The reason we are here discussing this issue 
tonight is that Johnny and Suzie cannot read as well as they should, 
and Suzie and Johnny do not do mathematics, they do not add, multiply, 
subtract and divide as well as they need to, many of them. So that is 
why we are discussing this tonight.
  I ask my colleagues, do we really think a national test will help 
Johnny read and Suzie do math? Do we really think it will make a 
difference?
  What are some of the problems that we are facing in basic education 
today? Parental involvement, helping Johnny and Suzie read and do math. 
Will a test change that? I do not think so. Discipline in the schools, 
to help Johnny and Suzie read and do math. Will a national test change 
that? I do not think so.
  National and State bureaucracies which chew up our administrators and 
principals' time, if my colleagues have ever walked through a school, 
how often do they really get into the classroom? They tell me by the 
time they get the State and Federal paperwork done, the day is over. 
They do not have time to get into the classroom like they need to. If 
my colleagues have ever walked through a State bureaucracy, they are 
very busy. Ninety percent of the bureaucracy is caused by the Federal 
Government which gives 6 percent of the money.
  Do we reward good teachers? Oh, no, that is not cool, that is not 
appropriate, to reward good teachers. Will national testing help there? 
No. Is funding fair and equal in all of our schools? Absolutely not. We 
have schools that spend 2 and 3 times as much per student as others. 
Will national testing change that? National testing will not change 
that. Is the classroom size equal from school to school? No, it is not 
equal, and national testing will not change that.
  We will add another layer of bureaucracy. We will have a Federal 
bureaucracy, we will have a State bureaucracy in 50 States, regional 
bureaucracies and local bureaucracies administrating tests. One hundred 
million dollars to set it up and approximately that much at the Federal 
level to administer it thereafter, plus the unmeasured costs at the 
State and local level that never gets figured into the mix.
  National testing will not change education, I say to my colleagues. 
We would be far better off to spend that $100 million getting at one of 
the problems I have mentioned, but a test will give us a couple more 
years to observe, we will hire some more employees for the Federal and 
State governments to build the educational bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling], our chairman, is right on the ball, he is right on the 
money. National testing is not the answer. It will not change a thing. 
It will give a few people a few jobs, but it will not help Johnny and 
Suzie read and it will not help Suzie and Johnny do multiplication, add 
and subtract.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have listened to some of the debate, I have gotten 
the impression that many of my colleagues feel that any amount of 
testing is not worthwhile, and I think we need sort of a reevaluation 
of what testing is all about. Obviously we spend hundreds of millions 
of dollars on testing elementary and secondary students today across 
this country. The question is, do we have a good measurement instrument 
in terms of making that assessment? Is it valid, is it reliable?
  The fact is, I think the real genius of this administration, of this 
particular proposal, lies in first of all setting some national 
standards for reading and math. There is an area I think where there is 
not great controversy. Setting national standards for that is I think 
of paramount importance; and then, attempting to measure. We cannot 
have standards unless we know how we are going to assess whether we 
attain them.
  I would submit to my colleagues that testing of course is paramount 
to that. We cannot tell by the color of the hair of the student or 
other extrinsic factors that one might look at in terms of making that 
determination. One can only do that with a valid and reliable 
measurement instrument, and that is what we are about in terms of this 
particular case.
  We have a lot of private sector companies today developing tests. I 
do not know if they are all valid and reliable; I doubt very much that 
they are. I think there are a lot of questions being raised about 
cultural bias and other things in testing, and the question is, why are 
we doing this type of testing?
  One of my colleagues mentioned we test the 12th grade to see if they 
can get into the Air Force, the military academies; we give them 
various scores, all very interesting. However, the one thing that I 
think most of the parents would come to us in terms of suggesting at 
the end of the 12 years of elementary and secondary education is, ``Why 
did you not tell me that something was happening where a student could 
not read or could not do math? Why did you not let me know? We used to 
get it after just one semester. Why did you not tell me so I could do 
something about it?"
  The fact is that that is what these tests are aimed at, the fourth 
grade, reading and math, eighth grade, reading and math, to let them 
know, to give some feedback.
  A test as a measurement instrument has an ability to communicate. It 
tells us and gives us information that we can use, that we can evaluate 
what is being done in the elementary and secondary schools across this 
Nation.
  I will tell my colleagues, when we look at the billions of dollars 
being spent, and I frankly very much support the increased budgets in 
education at the national level and the compensatory education, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so, but we are spending those billions of 
dollars and we have a responsibility to also try and include some 
evaluation measurement instruments so we can communicate back some of 
the internal type of dynamics that work.
  Yes, testing will improve achievement and testing will tell us what 
is happening, and as I pointed out, we live in such a mobile society 
today that many individuals that come from other States or from my 
colleagues' States, come from my State, Minnesota or others. I urge 
opposition of the amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer, another gentleman from the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refute 
the arguments of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] who just 
spoke. I have a lot that I find that I like about Minnesota, one of 
which is an author and a storyteller named Garrison Keillor, who writes 
about a mythical town in Minnesota called Lake Woebegone. He talks 
about Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average, all the 
children are above average.
  If Members are inspired by that particular statement, that particular 
comment, I would suggest that they really would want to embrace 
national testing, because that is what they will get. They will get 50 
States where all children are above average.
  Let me suggest, the gentleman who said that those who favor the 
Goodling amendment, as I do, and hope we have support here today, that 
this amendment would deny States the opportunity to participate in 
voluntary testing, I would suggest this debate is not about national 
testing. It is not about testing at all, and it is not about the value 
of testing.

[[Page H7341]]

  What it is, though, is about whether we should embrace a government-
owned test versus an independent test. States around this country 
realize the value of independent testing, testing that is outside of 
the U.S. Department of Education, that is not controlled and dominated 
by Federal bureaucrats who are rewarded when they treat all States and 
all students as though they are somehow all above average.
  Members of my State board of education told me that they did not want 
the government-owned national testing program. Other State legislators 
and leaders in the areas of schools told me the same. Local school 
leaders told me the same thing.
  Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, there was a meeting here in Washington about 
this national testing program. It was a meeting of the national test 
panel which is organizing this effort. The National Governors 
Association did not show up because they have withdrawn from the 
effort. State after State after State is coming to the conclusion that 
when we come here tonight, that this national testing effort is a bad, 
bad idea, and that the Goodling amendment ought to be passed; that $100 
million a year to support this nonsense is something we should not do. 
We should redirect those dollars directly toward children, not toward 
more bureaucracy and more administration.
  A government-engineered national test, I will submit, is the most 
direct pathway to mediocrity in America. It is an idea that we should 
reject, and we should reject it tonight by voting in favor of the 
Goodling amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Weygand].
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening with great attention to some of my 
colleagues on the other side, and I rise in opposition to the Goodling 
amendment. Like many Members have said this evening, testing will not 
solve many of the ills of our educational system.
  In my district, I have some very diverse areas of education. In part 
of my district I have the most affluent district or section of our 
State. SAT scores are the highest, income level is the highest, and the 
schools are phenomenal. I also have the poorest section of our State, 
where over 75 percent of the students are minority. Over 40 percent of 
the students in the last 3 years did not live in the United States of 
America. It is very difficult for education in that area.
  But testing is extremely important. Remember when we went to school, 
we went to college and we took those SAT scores. They always scared us, 
but we had to take them because that was the only tool that educators 
could use to evaluate whether we were capable of getting into college. 
It is a national test, the SAT's.
  Just 2 weeks ago I dropped off my youngest child to college, and I 
worried whether he was going to be able to make the test. Was he going 
to be able to pass all the things that he needed to do in college? 
Because I was concerned whether he really had all of the kinds of tools 
from the school system he came from to be in college.
  Every one of us lives up to three basic things in life. We set 
standards, we have assessments or testing, and then there is 
accountability afterward. Every educational system from kindergarten to 
graduate studies has the same three elements. Yet we are saying this 
evening that we do not even want to begin to consider assessments or 
testing on a national level? That is completely wrong, and completely 
opposite of what we have all learned.
  The poor districts will argue, well, maybe our students will not bear 
up with national testing. I say that is what we should be doing is to 
help them with regard to more money, more teacher training, and more 
professional development, and the kind of assistance and infrastructure 
that they need. But we should not disregard testing, because, quite 
frankly, that is the only vehicle that we have to be sure our students 
in all districts, rich and poor, make the grade.
  Testing is what we call tough love. It is difficult. We often do not 
like to do it, but we have to go through it if we are going to raise 
the standard of quality education in our States and in our districts. 
Quite frankly, those of us who believe in it have seen the merit of it. 
As a former professor, I know that it works. As former teachers, all of 
us know it works.
  Quite frankly, we are a little bit edgy about the concept of national 
testing. Local cities and towns felt the same way about State testing, 
and local neighborhoods felt the same way about city- and townwide 
testing. Quite frankly, we have to live with it. We should live with 
it. It will make our students better. It will make our children better. 
It is tough love, but we should be doing it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon], the subcommittee chairman on our committee.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and commend him for his 
leadership and the work he has done to bring us to this point on this 
debate.
  The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funds under this bill from 
being used by the Clinton administration for a new Federal testing 
program in grades four to eight. Mr. Chairman, there is no question 
that our K-12 education system needs reform and attention, but an 
arbitrary new Federal testing system is not the answer nor the cure-
all.
  There are already a number of tests that continue to be administered. 
In fact, in 1997 the Federal Government spent approximately $540 
million in testing students. The question is, when you have a test, 
what do you test? I think we have heard the administration talk about 
when you have a test, you have to have standards. The question is, who 
sets the standards? If you have a Federal test, I guess it would be the 
Federal Government setting the standards. What is the next step?
  I spent 9 years on a local school board. My wife was a PTA president. 
We have reared six children. We have 15 grandchildren. We have real 
concerns about the Federal Government setting their standards and 
setting testing. The administration now wants to move forward and 
implement new testing without input or authorization from Congress. As 
a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along with 
my committee colleagues, would like the opportunity to evaluate and 
study any such proposal.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the prohibition of this new, 
unauthorized Federal testing proposal. Let us do what local school 
boards are asking. Let us take some of the Federal regulation off of 
their backs. Some of the testing that we now have let us take off of 
their backs. Let us let them be free to do the things that are best for 
children. That is what our children need to move forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling amendment, with 
the highest regard for the maker of this motion and for his commitment 
for education, the education of our children. However, I part company 
with him on this testing issue.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems like yesterday when we were all gathered, 
celebrating the proposal, was it called America 2000, that included 
this national testing. There was bipartisan support in the Congress of 
the United States, including some of the people who are speaking out 
against the testing this evening. The President of the United States, 
President Bush, gathered the Governors in a bipartisan fashion. They 
worked with the business community to develop a proposal that would 
meet the needs of our children, first and foremost, to prepare them for 
the work force, as well as to meet the needs of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why it seems so strange to me this evening to 
hear people who were so bullish, if I may borrow a word from the 
business community, on that proposal, which included testing, which the 
business community was emphatic about, national voluntary testing to be 
part of the proposal that was put forth.

[[Page H7342]]

  President Clinton was at the time a Governor, and he was one of the 
cochairs of the education task force. I think that the credentials of 
President Clinton in education are unsurpassed. It has been one of the 
priorities of his public life, the education of our children. He was 
committed to it in the statehouse, and he brought that value and that 
priority to the White House, and with it, a focus on what is best for 
our children.
  That includes this national voluntary testing, and I repeat 
voluntary. The test that is being proposed by the administration will 
not impose a national curriculum. It will help States and local 
communities to tailor a curriculum to the needs of their students. It 
will provide parents and educators with information that will be 
helpful to assess the needs, as well as the progress, of their 
children. The voluntary national test, based on national assessment of 
educational progress, are tools to give parents and educators 
information on how students are performing academically.
  Others have mentioned, and I will, too, voluntary testing for fourth-
graders in reading and eighth-graders in math sets up a challenge, a 
standard of excellence. We need to invest in the education of our 
children through funding of programs like title I, but this is 
imperative, and national standards enhance that effort by allowing us 
to determine what tools are most effective in preparing our children 
most successfully for their futures. Setting challenges and higher 
standards leads to greater efforts to reach those standards.
  I am proud to say that after a concentrated effort to meet the 
individual needs of students, and I repeat, a concentrated effort to 
meet the individual needs of students, test scores in my district, the 
district I represent in San Francisco, are up in reading and math for 
the fifth straight year.
  It is my hope that over time, the voluntary testing program will be 
developed to include limited English-proficient students in testing our 
efforts to provide these students with equal access to quality 
education. That is a must.
  Parents want to know that their children are learning. Educators want 
to know how to better reach students. Students need and want to live up 
to standards and challenges. Without an attempt at accountability in 
education, our children will not be as well prepared to compete in the 
21st century.
  I was interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
who spoke from his experience as a professor and as a father, and I as 
a mother recall taking one of my five children to college when she was 
looking at colleges in her senior year in high school. And I remember 
the comment that she made when she was aspiring to one college or 
another about what was expected and what standards had to be met to be 
admitted to certain colleges. She said, ``I really wish I knew this 
when I was a freshman in high school, because I would have spent my 
time a little differently.''
  Well, she did well and she got in, but I do think that children 
should know what is expected of them, and I think that this balanced 
approach that the administration is taking of voluntary national 
testing helps students to know the challenges so they can meet the 
challenges.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time 
to me, Mr. Chairman, and commend him for his work as the chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and for this amendment.
  Some people think we do not have enough standardized national 
testing. They think we need to spend more than $90 million on telling 
us how our kids are doing. Right now in my home State of South Dakota 
and other States around this country, we already give students two 
standardized tests at a cost of about $30 million. Both of those tests 
are given in the month of March, and both take about a week to 
administer.
  Now we are talking about yet another nationalized test, which would 
take about another week to administer and would be administered in the 
month of March. That means that people back home, students back home in 
my State of South Dakota, would spend virtually the entire month of 
March not learning, but testing. Think about it. Would you like to 
spend the better part of 3 weeks doing nothing but filling in the oval 
next to the correct answer with a number 2 pencil? I cannot think of 
anything I would dislike more, unless it is spending $90 million to do 
it.
  I have a novel idea. If we want to find out how our kids are doing 
and how they are doing in their local schools, we should call our 
child's teacher. I know it sounds crazy, but I believe the teachers and 
the parents back in South Dakota have a better idea of what is right 
for their children than do the bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
  The keys to good education are good parents, good students, good 
teachers, and good schools. Another layer of bureaucracy is not going 
to improve American schools. If we really want to know how our students 
and our schools are doing, go to the people with the answers, our 
students and teachers. Our child's teacher knows more about how our 
child is doing than any staff in Washington is ever going to know.
  I would also suggest in the area of the money that it is going to 
take to finance this test that we could probably ask parents in this 
country, and certainly in my State of South Dakota, if they could think 
of a better way to spend $90 million. Do we think we have enough 
computers in the schoolrooms? We could buy a lot of computers with $90 
million. How about our teachers? Is your child's teacher doing a good 
job? We could give your child's teacher a significant, substantial 
raise with $90 million.
  I do not believe national testing is in the best interests of our 
children, and certainly not the best use of our education tax dollars. 
That is why I am urging my colleagues to vote against Federal testing 
for America's schoolchildren and vote in favor of the Goodling 
amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Goodling amendment and in favor of finding out just how well this 
country is educating its future work force.
  Today we are behind other nations in educational achievement. Forty 
percent of our children are not reading at the level they should be; 20 
percent of our 8th graders are not even taking algebra. We know these 
statistics because we recently conducted studies comparing the 
achievement of our students with those in other countries.
  This analysis is a valuable tool for educators, and the 
administration is trying to conduct a similar analysis to determine how 
local school districts compare nationally. It is the same kind of 
approach to find out what we need to be doing to better serve our 
students.
  Despite what proponents of this amendment argue, no such mechanism 
for analysis currently exists to compare and find the information we 
need on a national basis. The National Assessment of Educational 
Progress, for example, is a sample test for a variety of subjects. The 
tests are not universally administered and are administered as a blind 
study telling us only national trends.
  The new national test would be administered uniformly, it would 
provide a scale by which standards and progress can be measured, and it 
will help all of our local educational authorities assess the areas in 
their curriculum that need improvement.
  Another critical difference in the new test is they would be 
available to parents and teachers who can chart their own children's 
progress and more easily assess their child's individual educational 
needs. If Johnny is the worst reading student in the 4th grade, it may 
help the teacher to know that he is actually way above the national 
standard. We need to know this kind of information.
  Many of the discussions relating to education in this bill have 
focused on getting parents more involved in their child's education. 
These steps are a major part of that process. Experts in education, 
including the National Education Association, the National Association 
of Elementary School Principals, the National School Boards 
Association, they all support the proposal

[[Page H7343]]

to administer a voluntary national test. I am sure I will be corrected 
if I am wrong.
  In addition, the proposal has overwhelming support from the business 
community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the presidents 
and CEOs of hundreds of technology, manufacturing, service firms 
throughout the country.
  The Goodling amendment would prohibit the use of educational 
improvement funding for the development of a national testing program 
in reading and mathematics. It is shortsighted because the ability to 
compare educational outcomes nationally is the critical first step 
necessary to improve our educational standards. This proposal is only 
in its infancy but its potential is enormous.
  While I understand the committee chairman's interest in securing 
jurisdiction over this testing program, this is too important to be 
stopped because of that kind of territorial dispute. In fact, former 
Secretary Lamar Alexander used similar authority to develop voluntary 
national tests. We need to do so and we need to encourage the pursuit 
of excellence among our future work force.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  If I believed that the money for national testing would help the 
children of this country to do better in math and reading, I would 
support it in an instant. But, Mr. Chairman, we know where we are with 
respect to the academic achievement of our kids in America. Our States 
administer hundreds of tests and they know where the problems are. They 
know where the kids are who are poor at reading and math and they know 
where those are who excel. Further tests, in my judgment, do not add 
anything to what they already know. They are really unnecessary.
  What we need to do is to take the money that might be spent on 
national testing and spend it to help those kids who need to be helped. 
That is where the money ought to be spent, not on tests that are not 
needed and are merely symbolic, as if that would solve our problem. We 
need to actually aim at the problem and get it solved.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment. He has his 
priorities right.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodling 
amendment. Today's students will be entering a highly competitive work 
force that will demand greater knowledge and skills. If we hope for our 
children to compete in our increasingly global economy, we need to know 
that they match up to the highest possible academic standards, 
particularly with regard to reading and mathematics.
  Voluntary national testing allows local school districts to focus on 
how best to improve these basic skills. They provide a measure of 
student performance against national standards in reading and math as 
well as against international standards of mathematics. These tests 
will empower parents by providing them with the information they need 
to determine if their kids are on track in the basic skills.
  By 4th grade, students need to have mastered basic reading skills in 
order to begin to learn other subjects. Reading is an essential skill 
in learning science, history, mathematics, geography and social 
studies. Students who are not able to read independently by the end of 
3rd grade have a very difficult time learning other subjects and will 
likely suffer academically. By 8th grade, students need to have 
mastered basic math skills if they want to take the advanced 
mathematics courses necessary for success either in college or in the 
work force.
  Providing a voluntary reading test in 4th grade and a voluntary 
mathematics test in 8th grade will not create a national curriculum. 
Parents, teachers, schools and States will decide what their reading 
and math curriculum should be and how the subject should be taught.
  Education is an issue that belongs in the hands of local school 
boards. Voluntary national tests give local school districts important 
information about how to use the results in shaping their own 
curriculum. The results of these voluntary national tests help teachers 
and principals to better understand where resources are most needed and 
how they can best be spent.
  I am one Member of Congress who continues to fight for a far greater 
investment in education. In my own State of Massachusetts we have 
already instituted statewide testing in math, science and English. 
Furthermore, we are one of six States that have already volunteered to 
participate in President Clinton's national testing initiative. In the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts we are proud to apply rigorous academic 
standards to our teachers, our schools and our students.
  Instituting tough academic standards for our children should not be a 
partisan issue. Politics should stop at the schoolhouse door. Voluntary 
national tests improve the odds of success for all students, help 
energize local efforts to improve teaching and learning, and provide 
students, parents and teachers with accurate and reliable information 
about student performance.
  Parents have a right to know how well their children are doing, and 
they have a right to insist that their children be given an education 
that will allow them to compete on a global scale as we move into the 
21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Goodling 
amendment and stand up for higher academic standards in our schools.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The Chair would advise that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 11 minutes remaining 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 4\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of the 
ranking member. If the gentleman is finished yielding time, I would be 
willing to close debate at this particular time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is entitled to close 
the debate.
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will close the 
debate. Does the gentleman have any more speakers?
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think those defending 
the committee position have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will advise that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]--as a member of the committee controlling 
time in opposition to the amendment--has the opportunity to close the 
debate.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everyone understands that to 
have a valid test someone or some entity must determine what it is they 
want to test. Therefore, someone or some entity must determine the 
curriculum, and then the teacher must be trained to teach to that 
curriculum and to teach to that test.
  I heard a lot of discussion about we are doing this on the State 
level, we are doing that on the State level. That was what Goals 2000 
was all about, was spending $50 million this year. We spent hundreds of 
millions in the past for Goals 2000. What was the purpose? The purpose 
was to give seed money to States and local entities to improve their 
education programs.
  Forty-six States have already done that, and several have gotten up 
here opposing my amendment, at the same time saying all the wonderful 
things their States have done to elevate their curriculum, to elevate 
their standards.
  Everybody wants high standards. As a matter of fact, when this debate 
began, the administration liked to say 80 percent of the people are for 
this. Well, what they did not say is what they asked the people is, 
``Do you believe in motherhood, apple pie and ice cream?'' Well, I am 
surprised it was not more than 80 percent that believed in that. In 
other words, they were saying, ``Do you want higher standards?'' Of 
course.
  But let me tell my colleagues what the poll tells us. Only 22 percent 
of the American people who were polled want the Federal Government to 
have any involvement whatsoever in determining those standards, in 
determining

[[Page H7344]]

curriculum. They say the Federal Government should not be involved. 
That is why only seven States, after all the pressure that was put on 
them, all the lobbying, only seven States said we will go along. Only 
15 cities said we will go along.
  So now we must have a national curriculum. Call it whatever we want, 
but if we are to test, then everyone has to be taught the same. As I 
said earlier, when the secretary said they do not have algebra until 
they get to 8th grade but we will test them for algebra, that does not 
make very much sense, does it?
  So we take away all the creativity, all the creativity of that 
classroom teacher. This is what I hear from teachers in a State next to 
here. They say we have to teach to the test all day long. No creativity 
in our teaching. We must teach to all the tests that are out there.

  I want to give my colleagues a good example. I was supervising 
student teachers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At the time there was the 
so-called Cuban missile crisis. I could not wait to get into all my 
student teachers' classrooms because I saw here they had a golden 
opportunity to teach math in relationship to the distance between Cuba 
and Pittsburgh, to teach history in relationship to that initiative 
that was going on at that time, a golden opportunity to get all of 
those children on the edge of their seat.
  Not one student teacher mentioned the missile crisis in relationship 
to the headlines that they could hit Pittsburgh. And that evening I 
said, ``I should fail all of you, you missed a golden opportunity to 
turn these people on.'' The response was, our master teachers told us 
we must stick strictly to the syllabus because that is what we have to 
cover. What a tragedy that was.
  Now, people mentioned tests are for diagnostic purposes. Every time I 
told a teacher that their purpose for testing was to determine whether 
they presented the material well enough that everyone understood it or 
even if they presented it real well, there may be some who did not, who 
will need extra help. That was the purpose of that test.
  To say somehow or other that the 50 percent who are not doing well in 
our schools are going to do better if we just have one more national 
test, there is no logic to that. No matter how we slice it, there is no 
logic. All of our children should have equal opportunity to do well. 
One more national test does not help them at all.
  As I indicated before, reading readiness is very, very important. 
Parents being able to be the first and most important teacher that the 
child has is very, very important. And can my colleagues imagine that 
we would wait until 4th grade to determine that a child cannot read? 
What would we do? I would love to get my colleagues into a classroom 
and see us do remedial work with 5th grade students and 6th grade 
students in reading. I want to see it done with 8th, 9th and 10th grade 
students in math. Why would we ever wait until that point to determine 
whether a child is doing well or doing poorly?

                              {time}  2100

  But I want to give credit. I want to give credit to the people out 
there who are working day and night to try to improve our education 
system. We are doing very well with 50 percent of our students because 
they are getting a lot in this debate. They have done very, very well.
  Keep in mind we educate all. We educate all. Do not compare us with 
many, many other countries who have an elite system. We educate all. If 
we are going to give the 50 percent who are doing poorly an opportunity 
to do better, then we have to start much earlier than 4th grade, much 
earlier than 8th grade. It is over by that time, folks. It is over by 
that time for 90 percent of those people. They have dropped out, not 
physically, but they have dropped out by the time they got into 2nd or 
3rd grade. They were not reading-ready, so we pushed them into 1st 
grade. And then many places they got social promotion, so we just 
compounded the problem.
  Let us not make that mistake. Let us not have them fail. Let us have 
them ready. Let us have their parents ready to play a leading role. 
Over and over I heard people say, ``Well, parents need to know.'' 
Parents have to know. Parents do not know now.
  Again, I would love to have my colleagues in a classroom and I would 
love to have them get that 50 percent to attend parent conferences. Why 
do not many of them come? Because they have literacy problems and they 
do not have the confidence to come to a meeting of that nature.
  So again, I would call on all of my colleagues to think in terms of 
children. Do not get the Federal Government involved in one more 
national test to tell 50 percent of our students one more time, make it 
1,001 now, that they are doing poorly and to tell their parents one 
more time they are doing poorly.
  All of these States, including California, including New York, are 
setting high standards; and they do not need us to dumb down what they 
are doing. And that is what I fear will happen if we get involved any 
more than we presently are involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ballenger). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, the committee officially on this 
side of the aisle will accept this amendment. But I will vote against 
it, for a number of reasons. I would, essentially, like to simply 
direct my remarks to the most conservative Members of this House and 
the most liberal.
  To conservatives I would simply say, I think it is necessary for us 
to recognize that not all Federal initiatives are bad. We have a 
national interest, indeed a national responsibility, to produce quality 
education in this country. We have a national responsibility to see to 
it that local school districts are measuring up to that responsibility 
and are indeed providing the quality opportunity for every American 
child which each and every American child under this Constitution has 
the right to expect.
  I disagree fundamentally with the gentleman from Texas who said the 
Constitution does not even allow the Federal Government to prepare 
testing. The Constitution, the preamble, spells out the Federal 
Government's responsibility to provide for the common defense, to 
promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberties 
for ourselves and our posterity, among other things.
  I think seeing to it that everyone has equal educational opportunity 
and that that opportunity is met with quality is indeed a Federal 
responsibility, even though the instruments by which we have chosen to 
meet that responsibility are largely local school districts.
  It is naive to the extreme, in my view, to assume that, totally left 
to their own devices, local school districts will produce that equality 
of opportunity. That is why we have Federal law enforcement. That is 
why we have civil rights laws. That is why we have title I and a number 
of education programs aimed at assuring equal quality.
  I would say to liberals, they do children no favors when they run 
away from either standards or testing. It seems to me that children 
desperately need to know where they stand. They desperately need to 
have us level with them in terms of how they are really doing. If we do 
not, then we get pressures for the very social promotion which a number 
of people in this House have voiced objection to.
  I recognize that testing may demonstrate that students may have had 
an unequal opportunity to get a good education and that, therefore, 
they will do poorly on tests. I think that is one of the advantages of 
having those tests, because it will then demonstrate to this country 
the need to put additional resources into districts which, through no 
fault of their own, do not have the financial ability to provide the 
same kind of opportunity that some of our districts provide.
  So I think on this issue it is necessary for both sides to put aside 
their ideology, to put aside their bias, to put aside their own 
philosophic preferences, and to instead put the needs of children 
first.
  I think the President is trying to do that by his testing initiative. 
I would point out this bill does not allow testing to proceed until a 
lot of other

[[Page H7345]]

things happen and that they cannot proceed this year at all, and we 
have another appropriation bill next year that we can deal with if we 
do not like the kind of testing or the kind of tests which the 
administration has prepared, and under the Senate amendment, indeed, 
the preparation of those tests will be left in other hands.
  So I will personally vote ``no,'' even though I recognize that this 
amendment is going to pass by a very significant margin.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling Amendment 
regarding the issue of National Tests for Education. I commend the 
gentleman for his diligence on this matter; it is a testimony to his 
hard work that the amendment the House will now consider has been 
accepted by the House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee. 
I also commend my colleague from Illinois, Chairman Porter, and Ranking 
Member Obey for their excellent legislation. Debate on the Labor/HHS/
Education bill has been long and in some cases contentious, and I 
commend their excellent leadership.
  The Goodling Amendment prohibits the spending of any funds in this 
bill for the development, planning, implementation or administration of 
new national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math.
  As many of you know, earlier this year, President Clinton announced 
plans to develop and implement individual tests to compare student 
progress throughout the United States. Supporters of the Clinton 
testing proposal believe that the development of the tests, patterned 
after the widely acclaimed National Assessment of Education Progress 
(NAEP), is consistent with the Department of Education's traditional 
role in research and development and that Congressional input is 
unnecessary and not required by the general authority inherent in the 
Fund to Improve Education. Further, they assert that state 
participation in the testing program is strictly voluntary, and simply 
offers an unprecedented opportunity for individual students to compare 
their abilities with other students from across the nation.
  Mr. Goodling's contention is that testing is not the answer to our 
education problems and that testing will not boost the academic 
achievement of American students. In addition, opponents of the Clinton 
testing proposal assert that there are already enough existing tests 
for evaluation and that the development of national tests is too 
controversial for the Administration to act without Congressional 
review or authorization.
  My feelings on this matter are somewhat mixed. Most education experts 
would agree that the idea of national standards is an essential 
component of education reform. I believe that these standards should be 
based on core academic skills which are essential for the success of 
today's students. I voted for Goals 2000, and I continue my support for 
this legislation which encourages schools in their efforts to implement 
high academic standards. But, if we as a nation concede that academic 
standards are too low and that we must raise the academic bar for our 
students, then testing and evaluation of students' progress must 
necessarily follow the development of high standards. How else can 
parents, local school boards, school principals, and charter school 
founders compare the achievement of students?
  However, confessing my support for some kind of national test, I 
still oppose the current effort by the Clinton Administration to 
develop said tests with no Congressional or outside education experts. 
Indeed, in the words of former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, 
``if faced with a choice between no test and the Clinton test, I would 
endorse no test.''
  However, I am pleased that the House has an additional choice. I rise 
in support of the Goodling amendment, but also with the understanding 
that the Senate has acted on this proposal and that the Senate language 
offers a different and promising alternative. A proposal, offered by 
Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), adopted by the Senate, and endorsed by the 
Clinton Administration, seeks to make key changes to the Clinton plan 
which keep the idea of a national test, but add safeguards to ensure 
that the control and development of these tests is academic, and not 
political.
  The Coats proposal will give the National Assessment Governing Board 
(NAGB), a well-respected, independent, nonpartisan body, power to set 
policy for the national tests. Further the proposal will give NAGB 
authority to review and change all aspects of national test 
specifications, development contracts and advisory committees already 
implemented by the Administration. To further ensure NAGB non-
partisanship, the proposal also makes key changes in the composition of 
the NAGB so that it has greater independence, adding another Governor, 
additional mayors, and representatives of business and industry.
  I echo the sentiments of education reformers who state that they 
would prefer no test to a bad test, but most of all, prefer a good 
test. Indeed. Let's pass the Goodling amendment, delaying the flawed 
Clinton Administration testing proposal, and support the efforts of 
those who seek to implement good tests for our nation's children.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Goodling Amendment to prohibit funding for President Clinton's national 
testing plan. This Congress has an obligation to ensure that any test 
administered on the national level will provide constructive 
information to help improve our educational system. However, President 
Clinton's national testing proposal was created without proper 
Congressional input. At the very least, the public deserves 
Congressional hearings on the matter.
  I strongly support providing educators with the best tools to improve 
our classrooms and raise the level of student performance. 
Congressional hearings on national tests would allow parents, educators 
and the test designers to voice their concerns and offer their input, 
helping to design the most appropriate and effective test.
  With the proper design, national tests would provide a much needed 
national standard for comparison. While some argue that these tests 
simply will divert much needed dollars from the classroom, national 
tests have the potential to help focus educational resources where they 
are needed most, eventually bringing all local schools to a higher 
level. If not constructed and implemented properly, however, these 
tests will not only waste taxpayer dollars, but could unfairly 
mischaracterize student and school performance. Clearly, a testing plan 
of this scale merits full Congressional attention.
  We cannot deny that our schools are in need of reform. However, if 
national tests are meant to enhance school performance, their design 
and implementation must be well founded. America's students deserve no 
less.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, we are today discussing how to give our 
children the tools they need to succeed in school. This administration, 
one of the most committed to improving opportunities for all students 
to learn, has gone a step too far in proposing the national testing 
initiative.
  Don't misunderstand me. I agree with the administration's desire to 
raise standards for our children. We must have high standards. We must 
know what and if our children are learning in the classroom. Their 
success is our success.
  We are discussing which tools will best serve schools, teachers and 
students. There is no question that we need to continue to find 
innovative approaches to meet the challenges of the late 20th century. 
Students who can't read can't learn to the fullest.
  But national standardized testing is not necessarily the best tool to 
encourage learning and measure progress. In Texas, our kids are already 
tested every which way. It's not just students who think there are 
enough tests, but also teachers and parents.
  Testing is necessary, of course, but too much testing, like too much 
of just about anything, can work against us. Teachers want their 
students to succeed. If success is measured only by test after test 
after test, then teachers will teach to the test rather than teach to 
learn. Students must learn how to think not just how to fill in the 
bubbles with a number 2 pencil.
  Each child learns differently, and they all learn at a different 
pace. This is especially true for children with limited English 
backgrounds and for children with special needs.
  These students need to be challenged to learn and grow. With the 
proper tools and attention, students with limited English skills will 
succeed. But they must be given a fair opportunity to do so.
  Mandatory national tests won't help all kids. Testing should be 
optional; their should be alternatives; we should make sure that we 
don't have a one-size-fits-all national education program.
  The best tools we have for teaching kids are the teachers themselves. 
We should direct our resources to them. Almost every teacher I have 
met, and during my time as a school board member I met many, wants to 
succeed and genuinely cares for the students. But they face terrible 
challenges: crumbling buildings, crime, drugs, lack of parental 
support, overcrowding, and a dearth of financial resources in our 
poorest neighborhoods.
  I am afraid that national testing will ultimately stigmatize students 
who already face the greatest challenges. They need teachers empowered 
with proper resources, they need challenge, and they need a safe and 
secure place to learn. But they don't need another standardized test in 
the morning.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Representative 
Goodling's amendment to bar funds for the national testing initiative 
as it currently exists. I hope that my vote, and that of other Members, 
especially those of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, sends a signal that such initiatives must become more 
inclusive and equitable.
  I truly endorse the concept of standards in education. Our children 
have the right to obtain the core skills and knowledge they will

[[Page H7346]]

need to compete in a global marketplace. However, I cannot support 
President Clinton's voluntary national testing program in its present 
form.
  I share the views of several prominent national civil rights groups 
including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Leadership Council on 
Civil Rights. Congress ought to support a Federal initiative that 
creates higher academic standards, but in manner that is participatory 
and equitable. The Federal Government has a responsibility to watch out 
for the education of our students, especially those in poor 
communities. But national standards and assessment must be accompanied 
by funding to support curriculum development and teacher training so 
students of all backgrounds can do their best on the tests.
  The reality is that students taking these tests do not start out on 
an equal ground. Because public schools rely significantly on local 
property taxes, some school districts are better funded than others. 
Any Federal standards and testing initiative must address these gaps. 
Unless Federal funds are earmarked for making sure that poorer children 
have an opportunity to learn, the federal testing program will 
discriminate against poor and minority children.
  Additionally, parents, students, and teachers need assurance that the 
tests will not be misused. The Department maintains that the tests will 
be used for information purposes only. But the misuse of standardized 
tests is widespread. In my own district, I know of honor roll students 
who were not allowed to graduate 8th grade because they missed the 
passing test score by less than one point. Federal guidelines should 
urge school districts not to use the results of these tests as the sole 
factor in making high stakes decisions about a student's educational 
progress such as tracking, ability grouping, and retention.
  Finally, there is the issue of making sure that national tests are 
developed with respect to the growing diversity of our Nation's 35 
million school children. The growing multiculturalism of our 
communities, and hence, our public schools, demand that we respect 
diversity and different learning styles. National Assessment should 
identify the knowledge and skills students already possess rather than 
their deficiencies. We should always strive to build on students' 
strengths, not their weaknesses. As Federal funding for low-income 
disabled children shrinks, especially due to Federal welfare reform, 
national testing must accommodate the special needs of these students.
  I also support the position of my colleagues in the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus who point out that high standards should be established 
for all children. In its present form, the national test is designed to 
exclude limited English proficient [LEP] students from the reading 
test. This policy discriminates and cannot be tolerated. The national 
tests are supposed to tell us how our school districts are doing. But 
how do we hold them accountable to LEP students and their families if 
these very students are excluded from taking these test? I cannot 
support the administration developing tests that exclude a growing 
segment of the student population.
  The education of our children is among our Nation's top priorities. 
Despite my vote today, I will continue to work with my constituents, 
including parents and schools in the first congressional district, and 
the administration to do whatever is necessary to fulfill our 
children's right to a first-class education based on respect.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling 
amendment.
  I am not against educational testing as a tool to assess our 
children's level of achievement and in order to address uncovered 
deficiencies.
  But, Mr. Chairman, additional testing is not needed to tell us what 
we already know--that children in our public schools, especially in 
minority communities are underachieving.
  This is true in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, for the same 
reasons as our counterparts on the mainland.
  First, we send our children to schools that are dilapidated, unsafe, 
and in need of repair. We tell them every day when they look at the 
schools they attend, that we don't care--that they, our children, are 
not important--that we are not willing to invest in their future.
  And we don't invest in providing the tools that all of our children 
must have if they are to be prepared to take their rightful place in 
society.
  I am not against testing, per se, but I am against it until the 
playing field has been leveled for our children: until they are 
provided with a good and nurturing educational environment; until they 
are provided with well paid teachers, basic books, and supplies and the 
all important technology.
  Then, Mr. Chairman, I will support testing, but not before.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I'm a strong supporter of the 
amendment offered by my chairman, Mr. Goodling, to prohibit the 
expenditure of public funds to develop national tests, until Congress 
has explicitly given the go ahead.
  Congress has the responsibility for setting major policies for this 
Government. And, certainly, creating national education tests for our 
children is an issue Congress must decide. We can't leave the 
development of national tests that could mark our children for 
generations, to some bureaucrat at the White House or at the Department 
of Education.
  National tests are controversial and deserve to have the sunlight of 
debate. National tests are more than just having an excuse to have a 
Rose Garden ceremony at the White House.
  Congress will be taking action on this question within the next year 
or so. Surely, the deliberative process, and the will of the people, 
should be heard before the President launches us down the testy road of 
national testing.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Goodling amendment. No 
matter what side of the issue you are on; whether you favor or oppose 
national testing--the right of the peoples' House to set national 
education policy, must be respected by the administration.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling 
amendment.
  The administration is attempting to avoid the current education 
policy by implementing an agenda that focuses on national testing. 
These tests only undermine the State and local curriculum. This 
proposal serves as an unfair comparison between schools and students.
  In addition, the Department's of Education's budget did not include 
any type of national testing and further, the Department has not 
submitted a proposal to Congress requesting authorization for this type 
of testing.
  It is critical that we concentrate on the real problems such as 
teacher training, improved academic performance, and increased parental 
involvement in our classrooms. Local solutions enhance a child's 
education, not another Federal standardize test.
  My constituents back in Riverside County, CA, are tired of the 
Federal Government meddling with their children's education.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote to stop the intrusion of Government 
and support the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling 
amendment, but I certainly would like the opportunity to state my 
concerns as a parent and longtime educator regarding national testing.
  First and foremost, our children are already over tested. Children in 
nearly every school system in this country are subjected to a battery 
of standardized tests for a variety of reasons; some are diagnostic, 
some are meant to gather information to measure individual progress, 
and some are used to make institutional comparisons. Frequently, these 
tests are designed for one purpose and used for another purpose. This 
doesn't lead to better data or more comprehensive conclusions, but 
testing abuse which is a form of child abuse.
  Tests should be used primarily to measure what is learned and what 
isn't learned. Tests could also be used to measure what is taught and 
what isn't taught. And the tests should be tied as closely to classroom 
realities as possible. The further we get away from the classroom and 
the dynamics of the classrooms, the more convoluted the lesson of 
testing becomes and the potential for abuse of testing results 
increases.
  Here in Washington, far removed from the classroom we are quick to 
use tests to make generalizations about the characteristics of student 
populations, the underlying ability of individual students and to make 
wholesale generalizations about the quality of school systems. We crave 
the statistics to help make our point regardless of whether the case of 
learning is advanced. Regrettably, we help create the opportunity for 
more testing abuse.
  We do need testing, but we need to understand that testing is a tool 
to achieve the basic purpose of assessing what is taught and what is 
learned. We need to identify the criteria of what we hope to achieve 
before we leap into the bottomless pit of standardized test after 
standardized test.
  We do need standards and we need a discussion of national standards. 
It occurs to me that we struggle with a kind of national schizophrenia 
about the state of our schools in this country. On the one hand we 
decry our standing in the world when compared to Japan, Korea, and many 
countries in Europe, whose school systems are national in scope and 
implementation. But we shrink from discussing standards under the fear 
of undermining local authority. We live in a global economy and we live 
in an educationally competitive world and we should not shrink from 
discussion about standards which will guide our children to be 
productive, competitive citizens in the next millennium.
  But we shouldn't confuse testing with standards, not until we 
understand what kinds of standards we wish to implement. Testing should 
reflect standards and not define them.

[[Page H7347]]

In this debate, as well as far too many other debates regarding 
education, we have allowed the tail to wag the dog, the tool to govern 
the handyman, the test to run the classroom.

  We need to understand that a national test at this time will not move 
us toward such standards nor will they help us make meaningful 
comparisons to other nations. National testing at this time will not 
contribute to clarifying which communication or computational skills 
are necessary as basic standards or are necessary to survive in the 
world.
  Instead, these tests would be used to make internal comparisons, 
between States, between districts, between groups of students. Testing 
without informed use to make judgments about how much progress we are 
making towards clearly identified criteria will be used to make claims 
about progress in others.
  Instead of moving us toward standards, these test would be additional 
tools for some politicians to make charges about schools, to stigmatize 
entire blocks of students, and to criticize entire school districts. 
Therefore, our responsibility should be to make every effort to 
adequately fund education, to articulate standards which may lead to 
informed testing and to protect our children in this process from 
testing abuse;.
  Some of this abuse includes using the tests for making detrimental 
educational policies that will do irreversible damage to our children. 
For example, administrator of schools with low test scores are 
pressured to weed out below average scoring students rather than 
providing much needed resources to improve student performance. This 
``Gaming of Tests'' provides incentives for school systems to purge 
low-test scorers from public schools and herd them into alternative 
schools.
  This type of stigma has already had its damaging effects on the 
faith, hopes, and aspirations of many of our children. We see it here 
in Washington, we see it in many urban areas, and we see it in many of 
the schools in our own districts.
  As an educator, as a parent, as your colleague, let's bring some 
reasoned discussions to this most important topic. This is beyond 
politics, beyond credit for national initiatives, beyond this side of 
this aisle and that side of the aisle. This is about the aisles in 
classrooms, this is about moving each student from basic skill to basic 
skill, from this century into the next and from rural and urban 
classrooms throughout America into a complex and competitive new world.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Goodling's 
amendment. In so doing, I want to thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton for helping me remember an important lesson learned.
  We have a crisis in the schools of the District of Columbia--like we 
do in my home district in Philadelphia. Here in Washington, school 
opening day was postponed by 3 weeks and Congresswoman Norton 
challenged us to take in a student as an intern. In the absence of 
school, the hope is that we would be able to provide students with 
another avenue of learning.
  My office has been lucky enough to host Heyda Benkriera, a junior at 
the Woodrow Wilson Senior High in Tenleytown. Heyda is a joy--smart, 
hard-working, mature, and a great sport. Some people who have worked 
with Heyda are shocked to learn that she's in high school, that she's 
not a member of our staff.
  Heyda and Congresswoman Norton reminded us of a truism that we 
already knew but took for granted--that Heyda, and her fellow students, 
are our future. I am here today to remind this Congress what Heyda has 
taught us--that we as a nation must meet the challenge of bringing back 
our schools here in the District of Columbia, in Philadelphia, and 
across the Nation.
  I am convinced that one way we can do this is to embrace the kind of 
national testing program our President has proposed. This is a way for 
us to better insure that kids in Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC, and 
Selma AL, are getting a fair and equal chance at a great future. The 
best education is a local concern but also a national challenge.
  Bright minds and bright futures depend on our commitment to education 
in big cities and rural schools.
  Thank you for your time, Heyda, and thank you for the lesson you 
taught us. For Heyda and all the other Heydas, I urge my colleagues to 
support the President's testing program.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as a father, grandfather, and former 
member of the Carlsbad, CA, School Board, I take a personal interest in 
providing quality education for our children. Parents and local school 
boards know best what their children's education needs are--not 
bureaucrats in Washington. For these reasons, I rise today to express 
my grave concerns about President Clinton's proposal for national 
school testing.
  This is a waste of taxpayer's money and will do little more than 
increase Federal involvement in our schools. In my view, national 
school testing is an unnecessary Federal intrusion. I am pleased that 
our colleague, Bill Goodling, has chosen to offer an amendment to 
prohibit any funds from being used to develop and implement a national 
test. We need to restore more local control of education. I intend to 
wholeheartedly support the Goodling amendment in order to ensure for 
the prosperity of our schools and the education of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, the Government already spends more than $500 million a 
year to help States develop their own achievement tests. The Clinton 
plan would cost another $22 million. This is money that could be better 
spent in the classrooms.
  Let's put education policy back in the hands of parents and teachers, 
rather than the Department of Education. Instead of developing new 
national tests, I believe we should send scarce Federal dollars 
directly to the classroom, bolster basic academics, and increase 
parental involvement. These should be our top priorities--not more 
testing. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the Goodling 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 516. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the expenses of an election officer appointed 
     by a court to oversee an election of any officer or trustee 
     for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Federal 
funding for the Teamsters election, or perhaps the Federal funding for 
rerunning of the teamsters election. Let me share with my colleagues 
some of the facts about the election that was just recently completed.
  Nearly $20 million of Federal taxpayers' dollars was spent on the 
Teamsters election that was completed in December of 1996. This 1996 
Teamsters election was recently invalidated by the Clinton 
administration due to charges of illegal campaign contributions and 
other improprieties.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, with jurisdiction over 
all Federal education and work force policy issues, I believe it is the 
responsibility of this committee to provide accountability to the 
taxpayers for their dollars, to ensure honesty and integrity in this 
election process, and to facilitate learning from the mistakes that we 
may make so as not to repeat them in the future.
  My subcommittee is going to be involved in these kinds of efforts. We 
are going to find out where were these dollars spent in the elections 
that were just completed in 1996. We are going to audit those dollars 
and share the results with Congress. We want to find out and discover 
why this process has to be so complex.
  When we take a look at $20 million of taxpayers' money for this 
election, that cost almost $45 for every vote that was cast. What did 
we get for those dollars? What is the election officer's role? It 
appears to be almost virtually unrestricted. How long did this process 
go on? Even after this election is completed, there is a whole series 
of appeals that are now available. And now most troubling, what 
happened in this election is that the election officer points out the 
types of illegal campaign contributions that were made and some of the 
improprieties.
  Let me give my colleagues some examples. Martin Davis, a top campaign

[[Page H7348]]

consultant to the Carey campaign, the November Group, he was indicted 
in New York on charges of illegally diverting at least $95,000 of 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters money into the campaign. Michael 
Ansara of the Share Group pled guilty in New York on charges of 
conspiracy to illegally divert at least $95,000 of IBT money into the 
Carey campaign. Or Rochelle Davis, she is deputy director for Citizen 
Action and its affiliate, Campaign for a Responsible Congress, seeks 
immunity for her cooperation with regard to $75,000 to $475,000 in 
funds channeled to Carey's campaign. Jere Nash, the Carey campaign 
manager, took the fifth amendment in testimony before a Federal appeals 
court on the information that he provided to the election officer. 
Carey's campaign has returned over $220,000 in questionable campaign 
donations.
  No one knows the full story yet. But we do know that the Federal 
Government running this campaign or supervising this election could not 
guarantee us a fair election. What we now need to do is to step back 
and take a time-out to learn from the mistakes that were made and to 
make sure that we do not spend more taxpayers' dollars in a process 
that does not give us the kind of results that we would like to have.
  So what does my amendment do? My amendment strictly prohibits the use 
of taxpayer funds for a rerun of the Teamsters elections. The 
Government can still supervise the election. That is our role and 
responsibility, to make sure that Federal laws are followed. But we 
should not be paying for or administering the printing of ballots, the 
counting of ballots, and these administrative types of activities. This 
is an internal function to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
that should be paid for by the Teamsters, not by the taxpayers.
  As I talked with my constituents about this issue, they are amazed 
that the taxpayers would be paying for that kind of internal 
operations; and they want it known that they do not approve and do not 
want to pick up the tab for another election or rerun elections. There 
is no debate that the Teamsters deserve an honest and a fair election. 
We will work with them through that process, but the taxpayers should 
not pay for it.
  In addition, there is no proof that Federal funds provide assurance 
of a fair election. In fact, the 1991 election was paid for by the 
Teamsters, was certified, and Ron Carey was elected as president. What 
this shows is that Federal taxpayer dollars do not make or break an 
election.
  It is time to step back to evaluate and make sure that we do not make 
the same mistakes over. There were lots of mistakes that were made in 
this last election. They were made at the cost of $20 million to the 
American taxpayer. It should not happen again. We do not have a 
responsibility to do that.
  CRS has issued an opinion that stated that there would be no 
consequences should the Congress not pay for the 1996 election.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoekstra was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. It went on to say that the decree embodies the consent 
of the Union defendants to governmental supervision, not the consent of 
Congress. The consent decree states that the Federal Government has the 
option of running the Teamsters election and references Government 
financing with a 1996 opinion.

                              {time}  2115

  It is silent on the issue of funding beyond 1996. Therefore, it is 
the prerogative of Congress to speak at this time. We need to make sure 
that we have accountability for taxpayer dollars, ensure honesty and 
integrity in the election process and facilitate learning. Now is the 
time to step up and protect the taxpayer dollars and to ensure and put 
together a process to give the Teamsters a fair election.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Michigan has an excellent 
amendment. I would say that it is consistent with what is already in 
the bill. There is no money in this bill for the Federal Government to 
pay for another Presidential election for the Teamsters. This amendment 
merely makes that explicit. I certainly accept the amendment.
  We provided through the Department of Labor, $5.6 million in fiscal 
1996 and an additional $3.8 million in fiscal 1997, a total of about 
$9.5 million for the 1996 Teamster election. This amount was more than 
matched by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, 
which provided the balance of $21 million to conduct the 1996 election.
  As the gentleman mentioned, under the consent decree of 1989 entered 
when President Bush was our President, the Federal Government agreed to 
pay for the 1996 Teamster election, and the Teamsters themselves agreed 
to pay for the 1991 election. What was the national interest in doing 
that? It was to take a union that was obviously and by everyone's 
evaluation under the control of unsavory elements and attempt to assure 
democratic elections. The goal was to reform the union and remove that 
unsavory control that had been a part of their history for a long, long 
time.
  I think the taxpayers have gone as far as they should go in paying 
for Teamster elections. I do not think we should ask the taxpayers to 
pay again for the irregularities that have occurred in the last 
election, and I believe that any further responsibility for reform is 
up to the Teamsters Union and new elections paid for by them. I think 
the gentleman has offered a very good amendment. We accept it and 
believe that it makes explicit what is already implicit in the bill; 
namely, that this is no longer a Federal responsibility in any way, 
shape or form.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Hoekstra 
amendment, but, frankly, I believe the $20 million that was spent on 
the Teamsters election in 1996 should be paid back. Talk about general 
welfare. They represent one-half of 1 percent of the population, yet 
the taxpayers of this country had to foot the bill for almost $20 
million to pay for their election. That makes no sense. So in this 
amendment we simply say since that election in 1996 was fraudulent, 
certainly the taxpayers will not have to pay again.
  The gentleman pointed out that there is no money authorized or 
appropriated for a rerun of their election, but I would point out there 
was no money appropriated in 1996 for the election either. It was a 
transfer of funds in the Justice Department.
  Those who do say that the 1989 consent decree, which is right here, 
said that the taxpayers should pay for the 1996 election have not read 
the consent decree real well. It said clearly that the taxpayer will 
pay to supervise an election, not pay to run the entire election, 
printing ballots, et cetera. We need to make sure at least on this 
amendment that we do not fall into the trap again of having the 
American taxpayer foot a $20 million bill.
  On August 22, 1997, the election officer issued a 134-page decision 
that she would not certify the election and requested a rerun of the 
election as the result of finding illegal campaign contributions to the 
Carey campaign as well as a very complex scheme of money laundering to 
fund the Carey campaign with funds from the Teamsters' treasury. This 
money laundering scheme involved Citizen Action and the National 
Council of Senior Citizens, front groups for the unions, and it 
involved a complex scheme to put money into congressional campaigns. In 
the last election, labor unions tried to buy this Congress with their 
illegal activities, distortions, and misrepresentations of the facts 
with their whatever it takes plan. This laundering scheme was part of 
all of that.
  Every one of you in this Congress who have been attacked by the 
unions unfairly and untruthfully should vote for this amendment. Every 
one of you in this Congress who do not want the taxpayers to pay 
another $20 million to benefit one-half of 1 percent of the taxpayers 
should vote for this amendment. Every one of you that represent the 49 
percent of the Teamsters that voted for Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., for president 
of the Teamsters should vote for this amendment. Every one of you that 
say we

[[Page H7349]]

should fund special education to its legal amount of 40 percent should 
vote for this amendment. Every one of you who want more inspectors at 
OSHA should vote for this amendment.
  This is what is meant by prioritizing your spending. We cannot afford 
to waste another $20 million of the taxpayers' money to have an 
election for one-half of 1 percent of the people. Vote for the Hoekstra 
amendment, and do not cheat the taxpayers out of another $20 million.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois indicated that he accepted 
the amendment for the committee. We also accept it on this side of the 
aisle. I would simply note that I have some doubts about it, because 
the original funding provided by the Congress to supervise these 
elections came as the result of an agreement entered into by the 
Justice Department under the Bush administration.
  I think it is in the national interest of the United States to see to 
it that fair elections are conducted in this union. It has a long and 
checkered history. I think it is in the interest of the country to see 
to it that the union is as clean as possible.
  It is obvious at this point that there are considerable problems with 
the last election. We do not know yet what the court decision is going 
to be, but as the gentleman has indicated, there is no money in this 
bill for financing supervision of any pending election, so there is 
certainly no problem at this point with accepting the amendment.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoekstra amendment. The 1996 
Teamsters election of its officers, including the election of its 
President Ron Carey, has been nullified as has been indicated because 
of fraud, and under the order of a Federal court-appointed election 
officer, one Barbara Zack Quindel, who had the duty to supervise the 
election.
  Previously, in 1988, the United States Government had initiated 
litigation against the Teamsters to rid the union of the influence of 
organized crime. That led to the entry of a consent decree, which has 
been referred to, by a New York Federal court providing for the 
election officer to supervise the 1996 Teamster election to make sure 
the election was fair and open. As we all know, the election was not 
very fair. Even though the 1996 Teamster election was supervised by the 
court-appointed election officer, still, as the election officer 
herself recently ruled, the 1996 election of Teamster officers was a 
nullity because of the fraudulent siphoning of union funds to various 
third parties, who in turn laundered such funds and then contributed 
them back into the campaign fund of Ron Carey, the president of the 
Teamsters. Mr. Carey won a very narrow victory in that election for a 
second term as president of the Teamsters over challenger James Hoffa, 
using, however, the tainted contributions. And apparently, as has been 
indicated, the cost of conducting and operating this fraudulent 1996 
Teamster election was financed by the American taxpayers at an 
estimated cost of $20 million.
  It now appears that a rerun of the court-monitored but fraudulent 
1996 election will be required. I think most people do believe that 
this time around, the cost of conducting and/or supervising a rerun 
election under court order should be paid for by the Teamsters Union 
and not by the American taxpayers. Thus this amendment attempts to make 
it clear that at least none of the funds made available in this 
appropriation bill may be used to pay the expenses of the election 
officer appointed to oversee the rerun of the Teamster election, 
whoever that may be.
  By the way, I might add that the election officer has seen fit to 
resign from her post.
  At this point, no one knows just how much the conducting and 
supervising of the Teamsters' 1996 election did or will cost the 
American taxpayer, nor do we know what the cost will be for a rerun of 
the election. I do think that this time around, though, as we find 
ourselves in a position where the United States Government has to now 
monitor a rerun of a previously monitored but corrupt 1996 election, 
that certainly this time the union is the entity who ought to pay those 
costs and not the taxpayer. The amendment may not do the whole job, but 
it certainly is pointed in the right direction.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let us focus on what happened here. A judge in New York 
allowed a consent decree as part of a settlement of a corruption charge 
against the Teamsters Union. That 1989 consent decree said that the 
Teamsters would pay for the 1991 election; the American taxpayer would 
pay for the 1996 election.
  Mr. Chairman, rightly or wrongly, the families of this country did 
pay tens of millions of dollars out of their pockets for an election in 
1996. Is it their fault the Teamsters and the Federal Government could 
not conduct an honest election? No. It is not the fault of the American 
taxpayer, and it is not their responsibility to clean up the mess. They 
have lived up to their end of the bargain, and it is time for Congress 
to stand up and prevent the taxpayer from being fleeced by forcing them 
to pay for a rerun election. The taxpayers funded an election for a 
private union. The election was filled with unethical behavior. That is 
it. The Teamsters had their bite of the apple, and this amendment would 
guarantee that taxpayer funds would not be wasted again.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Michigan. The issue here is whether taxpayers 
should pay twice for the same Teamsters' election. Hardworking, law-
abiding American workers have already forked over more than $20 million 
for a corrupt, fraudulent 1996 election. Some estimate that when we are 
done sorting out this whole mess that taxpayers will have paid $30 
million or more. It was not the taxpayers' fault that this election 
stunk to high heaven. It was not the taxpayers' fault that ``funny 
money'' was illegally floated around Ron Carey's campaign. This 
Nation's taxpayers should not be on the hook for the re-run election 
which has been ordered by the election overseer.
  It has been said that this amendment would mean the Congress is 
meddling with the courts. Yes, a settlement of corruption charges 
against the Teamsters did result in a 1989 consent decree saying that 
the Teamsters would pay for the 1991 election and that the taxpayers 
would pay for the 1996 election. But the consent decree did not say 
that the taxpayers would pay for a re-run election in 1997 that is 
ordered because of corruption.
  American families have already paid for one election that they did 
not get, and they should not have to pay for another. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, July 31, 1997, proceedings will now resume on those 
amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following 
order: Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling]; amendment No. 41 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H7350]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 295, 
noes 125, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No 398]

                               AYES--295

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--125

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clement
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Flake
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Hinojosa
     Martinez
     Ortiz
     Pelosi
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Torres
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2156

  Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs. MALONEY of Connecticut, BORSKI, STUPAK, 
FATTAH, and RAHALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. BONIOR, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on the Goodling amendment I was delayed on 
official business and unable to get here in time to cast my vote.
  Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________