[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H339-H355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED NATIONAL TESTING
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.
{time} 1015
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 348
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2846) to prohibit spending Federal education
funds on national testing without explicit and specific
legislation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 348 is a completely open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2846, a bill that will prohibit
Federal testing unless specific and explicit statutory authority is
given. H. Res. 348 provides for 1 hour of general debate divided
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order the
Committee on Education and the Workforce amendment in the nature of a
substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall
be considered as read. This rule also accords priority in recognition
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record and allows the chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to
5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question. These provisions
will facilitate consideration of amendments. House Resolution 348 also
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, this is a straightforward open rule for a
straightforward bill that ensures that there will be no Federal
education testing in the future without specific and explicit statutory
authority. This is not the end of the debate on national testing. But
simply a reassertion of the fact that any Federal testing measure must
go through the proper committee process of the United States Congress
first.
I have been asked a number of times, what is so wrong about national
testing for America's children? This is a legitimate question. I want
to explain why we are so concerned about this nationalized planning
concept. First, according to the chairman of the committee and Senator
Ashcroft, the Federal Government's record in Federalized testing is
substandard to be generous. In addition I am most fearful that a
national testing standard would lead us down a slippery slope toward a
national curriculum most certainly designed by some bureaucrat here in
Washington. I dread the one-size-fits-all education approach contrived
by someone who does not know the first thing about the citizens of
Georgia.
This idea also gets to the heart of what we believe. We are committed
to providing more freedom and less government for the American people.
Education decisions belong with local school districts and families and
teachers in their communities. We cannot support additional
multimillion-dollar testing mechanisms that waste money and strip local
control of education.
As Republicans prepare an education agenda which returns
decisionmaking to parents and teachers, gives school districts more
flexibility, gives children more opportunity, I grow increasingly
frustrated as the President moves in the opposite direction toward a
more bloated Washington education bureaucracy. We passed legislation
forcing 90 percent of education spending to be spent in the classroom.
Now in the President's budget, he has decided to increase the Education
Department's bloated administrative budget and add $143 million in
programs that would never send a dime to the classroom.
Madam Speaker, we heard arguments in the Committee on Rules that
consideration of this legislation is premature and unnecessary. On the
contrary, with only about 86 legislative days in this session of
Congress, Chairman Goodling deserves praise for moving this important
legislation through the normal authorizing process ahead of the
appropriations process. This bill deals very specifically with the
issue of Federal testing, and there is no better time for this House to
begin consideration of this matter than today.
H.R. 2846 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Education
and the
[[Page H340]]
Workforce as was this open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general
debate and consideration of the merits of this very important bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Republican majority seems unable to offer a positive, forward
working agenda for the people of this great Nation. Instead my
Republican colleagues seem to have chosen the refrain of the 1980s,
just say no, to apply to any and all proposals of the current
administration. And indeed my Republican colleagues seem to want to
ignore the fact that they struck a deal just last fall with the same
administration on the issue of national testing of fourth- and eighth-
grade schoolchildren.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seek to enact a permanent ban
on the expenditure of Department of Education funds for any work on the
development of such testing beyond the preliminary work agreed to last
fall. Without waiting for the results of studies which are being
conducted by the highly respected National Academy of Sciences, the
Republicans want to just say no to the entire issue of national testing
in reading and mathematics. This bill flies in the face of a carefully
crafted compromise and undoes an agreement that was hard fought and
hard won.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the studies
that are now under way, studies that were agreed to by the full
Congress just 3 short months ago. By doing so, Madam Speaker, I believe
the Congress would be undermining the role of the independent and
bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board whose role it is to
oversee and assess the studies conducted by the NAS. In fact, Madam
Speaker, the agreement reached last fall specifically calls for these,
for those findings to be incorporated into reauthorization legislation
for the testing program which will be considered this fall. Therefore,
I must oppose both this rule and the bill because they break a deal
this Congress agreed to.
Madam Speaker, we all want the best for our children and for all the
children in this great Nation. I suggest that jumping to conclusions
before the results have been tabulated is not doing the best for our
kids. Why is it that my Republican colleagues are so opposed to the
concept of testing children to determine if a child is keeping up with
his grade level? The Republican Governor of my own State, George W.
Bush, has publicly advocated the necessity of testing children for
reading and math. He rightly says, and I quote, a child who can cannot
read cannot learn, and to send our children through the system without
teaching them to read is like sending them to Mount Everest without the
tools or the training to reach the summit, close quote.
Governor Bush has advocated holding back third-graders who cannot
pass a reading test and requiring that children pass reading and math
tests in the fifth grade and reading and writing and math tests in the
eighth grade. If the Republican Governor of Texas can advocate such
testing and in fact recognizes the necessity to determine if our kids
are meeting educational benchmarks, why are my Republican colleagues
here in Congress so opposed to conducting a study and perhaps
conducting field tests based on the results of those studies?
Madam Speaker, let me quote Governor Bush one more time. As he said
to the Texas Education Association last week, ``Some say tests should
not matter, but I say our children are not with us long before they
have to face the real world. And in the real world tests are a
reality.''
Madam Speaker, our children deserve the very best. The Congress has a
moral obligation to ensure that the education they receive will prepare
them for the very real world to which Governor Bush referred. This bill
is a bargain-buster and is short-sighted and could, for all we know,
shortchange our children.
Madam Speaker, while the resolution before us in fact is an open
rule, it does not allow amendments which would permit the House to
consider matters that would give our children access to the kind of
public education we know they need and deserve.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the full committee ranking
member, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), ranking
member of the subcommittee, oppose this bill and yesterday requested
that the Committee on Rules make their alternative proposals in order.
Those proposals which were rejected by the Republican majority would
offer the House the opportunity to support a major school construction
and renovation program as well as an initiative to assist in the
implementation of locally developed public school renewal plans. Those
are the issues we should be addressing today, Madam Speaker. It is the
intention of the Democratic side to seek to offer those proposals by
amending this rule, and accordingly it is my intention to ask for the
defeat of the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that this proposal does not do
much for America's children. We would do much better by them by
ensuring that their schools are safe inhabitable and that the programs
we offer them will prepare them for life in the new century. We cannot
do that by just saying no. Instead we must look for new answers. I urge
defeat of the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond that
while both the gentleman from Texas and I agree that reading is
important, he thinks we should spend the money discovering they cannot;
we should spend the money teaching them to read.
This is an open rule. This rule does not prohibit any amendments from
coming to the floor to amend this bill. If the gentleman would like to
bring amendments to the floor that are simply not germane, that is
their problem, not the problem with this rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling), chairman of the committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I want to correct one or two statements
that were made in the gentleman's time from the other side. First of
all, this legislation has nothing to do whatsoever with anything that
the National Academy of Science is doing. We are the people who ask the
National Academy of Science to look at existing tests and see whether
existing tests as a matter of fact can be used for whatever purpose it
is they want to use them. We expect to use that when they present that
to us as we go ahead and reauthorize NAEPS. That is the time for the
discussion; that is the time for the debate. That is the time for the
amendments, when we are involved in this whole business of testing from
the national level.
We as a matter of fact have made it very clear that as we review all
of the testing procedures, and keep in mind we spend $30 million every
year for NAEPS and NAGB, every year we spend that amount of money, but
we will review what they are doing, we will review all of the testimony
that we get, and then we will make a determination about this.
What this legislation does is give us the right that we have to make
the determination of whether or not we want to move ahead with a
national test. In other words, the President has always proposed,
whomever that President is proposes, we dispose. That is our
constitutional right; not only our right, that is our responsibility.
All this legislation says is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) said last fall, that we, when we authorize, will make that
determination and that they do not go ahead until as a matter of fact
we go through the authorizing process.
Now, Governor Bush is saying the same thing that 40 some other
Governors have said. They have moved so far ahead of us when it comes
to upgrading standards, they are so far ahead of us when it comes to
determining assessments based on those standards, they are so far ahead
of us in trying to put the horse before the cart. We are trying to do
it the other way and trying to better prepare teachers.
{time} 1030
That is what he is talking about. That is what all those governors
are talking about. And basically what they are saying to us is what I
said to the
[[Page H341]]
President. We are going to fool around and we are going to dumb down
what these governors and their legislative bodies are doing to improve
standards and the ability to assess those standards.
What I have said so many times, is we do not fatten cattle by
constantly weighing them. We should not tell 50 percent of our children
and their parents one more time that they are doing poorly. They want
to know what it is we are going to do to help them do better.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
It is very interesting, my Republican governor often disagrees with
the far right Republicans in the House of Representatives. I suppose
this will go on from time to time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, during yesterday's Committee on Rules consideration
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and myself offered two
amendments that addressed urgent public education priorities. One
amendment calls for a $5 billion investment to help local communities
repair crumbling and overcrowded schools. The other would provide
critical assistance to communities that are committed to locally driven
public school renewal. Unfortunately, the majority of the Committee on
Rules blocked consideration of these education measures by refusing to
waive points of order against the amendments.
To me it is incomprehensible that we continue to ignore the needs of
millions of schoolchildren desperately in need of our help. It is also
incomprehensible to me that with all of the problems that we are facing
and our school systems are facing that this silly piece of legislation
would be the first one to come out of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities in this session of Congress. It has nothing
to do, it has no relevancy whatsoever with resolving or addressing the
problems that our children are facing in the school system, and I urge
my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we may address the
Nation's real educational priorities.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, national testing is opposed by the far
right. It is opposed by the far right but not just the far right. That
is quite the definition. Apparently, the conspiracy is America has now
gotten to be now 350 Members of Congress. Two-thirds of America and
two-thirds of the Representatives in Congress voted against this.
I hope that this resolution puts to rest this whole idea of national
testing. The President seemed to have gotten confused in his State of
the Union address. He said, ``Thanks to the actions of this Congress
last year, we will soon have, for the first time, a voluntary national
test based on national standards in 4th grade reading and 8th grade
math.''
Did I miss something? The truth is we proactively opposed these
testing standards; 300 Members of Congress. We allowed very limited
development as part of the compromise but, in fact, this has been taken
that they are going to go ahead when that is the opposite message that
we sent, which is why we are here this morning.
The idea that we had a compromise that somehow is going to move
national tests means anybody did not read the details of the language.
The fact is the specifics in that language are self-contradictory. It
is dead as a doornail. We cannot satisfy both the minority concerns and
those who want to measure.
We have restrictions in there that the tests cannot be biased. Quite
frankly, that has been lodged against every test, and if that is the
criteria these tests cannot go ahead. We have restrictions in there
that it cannot be used for promotion. If it cannot be used for
promotion and those type of things, what value is the test to the
others?
There are self-contradictory things in one section and another in the
restrictions we put on to kill it. It was a face-saving compromise. It
was not a compromise to move ahead on national testing.
Now, why do so many people oppose it? Conservatives oppose it,
minorities oppose it, teachers oppose it. And here is why.
Conservatives oppose it because parents and local school boards believe
they should make these decisions.
We want standards in our schools, we want standards on our teachers,
but we do not want them in Washington. We do not want a national
curriculum developed in Washington. It scares us to think that Congress
and the President are going to control the curriculum.
Furthermore, this affects home schoolers. It affects private schools.
Because if we want to move our kids back into the public schools, all
of a sudden we have to be teaching to the tests they are taking in the
public schools, which they will do, as the chairman pointed out, teach
to test.
Minorities are justifiably concerned because it can be skewed against
them, one, depending on the content of the test but, secondly, how it
is used and how it makes inner city schools stack up against suburban
schools or marginal schools. And parents then move around districts and
businesses locate by that. That is something state and local people
need to work through, not the Federal Government biasing people against
local schools.
My daughter is in college right now studying to be an elementary Ed
teacher. A lot of the reasons teachers oppose this is they know there
are a lot of reasons other than what is right in front of them and what
they are teaching that lead to the scores of their students. Yet if we
publish these scores, particularly if it is a national standard seen as
some kind of litmus test for every teacher in America, those teachers
are going to be very reluctant to go in the schools where we need them
most. This is a death warrant, a death certificate potentially on the
schools that we most need our best teachers.
Now, lastly, do we really want a test under the control of Congress?
It is laughable to think that we are going to improve our educational
standards in America by having a national test subject to politicians,
whether it is the President of the United States or Members of
Congress.
The truth is when history standards were developed Congress, House
and Senate, overturned those history standards, I believe lousy history
standards. We have math standards being floated that are both insulting
and simplistic and stupid. Now, if those math standards go ahead, we
are going to overturn those math standards.
I happen to be a creationist, many people are evolutionists. Do we
really want to have that debate on science here in Congress as to these
kind of tests? The idea that we will have an independent board at a
national level that we are authorizing and we are not going to have
control over things that are contradictory is silly. I think it is a
devastating analysis in the end to put politicians in Washington in
front of what is in the best interest of educating students at the
local level.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, Democrats are ready to address the
problems facing our public schools: To reduce class size, repair
crumbling buildings and put computers in the classroom. We are prepared
to go to work to raise standards and prepare our children for the
challenges ahead.
Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are not addressing the real
issues facing our schools. Instead, they bring unnecessary legislation
that blocks voluntary national tests, an important tool which can be
used to ensure that every child can read, write and do basic math.
Parents across the country share my belief that these are very
minimum standards to which our students, our schools, our teachers must
be held accountable. Parents want higher standards. They want their
children to succeed. Parents deserve an objective, reliable measure of
how their children are doing in school and how well their schools are
preparing their children. Parents and indeed all of us taxpayers
deserve to know that our local schools are meeting our national
expectations.
Madam Speaker, this issue was resolved last year during the
appropriations process. The bipartisan agreement calls for test
development to go forward and for the National Academy
[[Page H342]]
of Science to study what type of test might work best for all of our
kids.
Republicans in this Congress, as their nominee for President last
fall articulated, do not believe that our country and the Federal
Government should have a role in education. That is why they are
backing out of the agreement.
The American people do want to have higher standards that they want
their children to be able to meet in fact so that they can succeed in
life and to have the opportunities as early as possible. We should vote
against this legislation that works against our young people. We need
to make education work for all children in this country.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to point out it is not us backing out of the agreement, it is the
President and the Secretary of Education backing out of the agreement.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Ballenger).
Mr. BALLENGER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 2846, a bill
prohibiting any new Federal testing without specific congressional
authority.
Let me first say that we do not need another achievement test for our
Nation's students. Let me name a few of the tests we already have in
existence. The Stanford Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic
Skills, the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, the National Assessment
of Educational Progress, known as NAEPS, and the Third International
Math and Science Study, known as TIMMS. Again, these are just a few of
tests currently used to assess student performance.
So let us focus now for a moment on TIMMS. It is the largest study of
educational achievement undertaken so far. There are 45 countries
participating. Five grades are assessed in two school subjects, and
approximately one million students tested in 31 languages. Through this
study we already know how students in this country are performing in
math and science, so why do we need another math test?
In July of 1997 the results of the TIMMS 4th grade math and science
test were announced and we found out that American students scored
about average in both math and science when compared with other
countries. However, we found that students in six countries, Singapore,
Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Austria and Hong Kong did
better than the U.S. students in math in the 4th grade.
Also in November of 1996, the TIMMS report showed that United States
8th graders were performing slightly above average in science but
slightly below average in math.
Madam Speaker, the point is that we already know how American
students are stacking up in these subjects and there is no need to
spend more money on another test aimed at the same students, as
proposed by the President. The money and the effort involved in
conducting another test could better be used to improve our educational
system and help students achieve academic excellence.
Now let me ask that we vote for the previous question and the rule.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Speaker, I am going to ask all of our Democratic
colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against the previous
question, because I really believe we are wasting our time here.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member on the
committee, and I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday and offered
two amendments that would really do something for the children in our
schools across this Nation. They were rejected as nongermane. I guess
that is the prerogative of the majority in the Committee on Rules, but
let me say why I believe we are wasting our time here.
I supported the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) when it came before us the last time, and that bill ended up
in the labor HHS appropriations and was sent to conference. And during
that conference there was a great controversy over whether that should
remain in the bill, and the President, of course, wanting national
testing, stood stiff and strong on it.
A compromise was made. An agreement was made. And in that agreement
there was offered three studies which we were going to have the benefit
of before we made any decisions on this side. But it was agreed that no
money would be expended for field tests or deploying the test. In the
act itself it recommends, as it was agreed to by both sides, it
recommends that NAGB, who has exclusively rights to develop the test,
would do certain things by certain dates. And that is all NAGB is
doing.
I understand the concern of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) is that they are moving ahead too quickly and that this may
become a reality, contrary to his wishes. As I said before, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and myself supported the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, and we did so because we had some questions about
whether this expenditure of monies was the wisest or not.
The fact is we still have that question, but we were just as pleased
that in the agreement there was a chance to provide studies to prove to
us one way or the other whether they were needed or not or whether they
would do any good or not. I think we should stick by that agreement.
I do not think that the administration is the reneging on the
agreement. I think we are now, when we try to push forward this bill in
order to nail closed the barn door in order to make sure no horse gets
out at all, not even one that would give us the knowledge we need to
determine whether or not we need to proceed with those tests.
So I for one would ask all my Democratic colleagues to remain strong
and stiff and resist this bill. This bill has been passed once already.
There was a compromise in the conference and, as a result, all sides
are proceeding according to that conference agreement, and I think we
ought to abide by it.
This resolution will allow H.R. 2846, a bill to ban national testing,
to come to the floor under an open rule. However, this rule, while
being deemed ``open,'' will not allow us to have a substantive
discussion on the education issues of great concern to the American
people--school construction and renewal of our neighborhood public
schools.
Members who are listening to this debate may question why I am asking
for consideration of such initiatives as a part of our discussion on
this legislation since it is solely directed towards testing. I want to
point out to the body that our committee and this House has had little
opportunity to debate the real pressing educational needs of our
country. Instead of considering measures to respond to our crumbling
schools and efforts by our local communities to raise academic
achievement, this House has considered legislation to authorize
vouchers and block grants. These Republican-sponsored efforts are aimed
at producing good sound bites for the 6 o'clock news rather than
producing good public policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are not the answers America is looking
for from its leaders.
Yesterday, during Rules Committee consideration of H.R. 2846, my good
friend Bill Clay and I asked that two separate amendments, dealing with
local public school renewal and school construction, be made in order
under the rule. Because these amendments are not particularly directed
toward national testing, it was deemed that their consideration today
was unnecessary.
I believe that if you ask the American people today whether we should
be engaged in partisan wrangling over national testing or considering
real measures to advance our children's educational opportunity, their
support would be for the latter. I urge Members to defeat the previous
question so we can have a real substantive debate on the educational
needs of our Nation.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Why are we doing this bill? That is a good question. A lot of what
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) said I agree with, about
the substance of the bill. The reason I think we are having to do the
legislation now is because the President and the administration has not
taken the results of our agreement seriously and there is a constant
state of spin. Everything has to be spun.
The truth cannot be announced that when he sent a bill over here to
create another national test, 295 Members of the House said no, not a
good idea, Mr.
[[Page H343]]
President, for a variety of reasons. Two hundred ninety-five Members of
the House is a veto-proof vote.
Why were we so upset with this proposal and why did we support the
Goodling amendment that stopped it in its tracks? There is a lot of
reasons. If one is in a minority community, an inner city, where
parents have a hard time getting their kids into a quality school, and
we do a national test, those kids are going to do a lot worse on the
test than somebody here in the suburbs of Washington. We already know
that. We do not need to stigmatize those kids any more.
{time} 1045
It is $100 million. That bothers some of us, that we are going to
spend $100 million to develop yet another national test on the top of
the ones that we have. So we said no overwhelmingly to the President.
But every time he got to speak, the spending would reflect that he just
could not get his way on this issue.
I thought the agreement was a good agreement, the slowdown, stop, no
field testing, no pilot programs. We have done nothing in this
legislation to prejudice the studies, to look at the existing tests we
have so we can get some useful information out of it. This bill does
not prejudice those studies that this House and the President agreed
on.
The President said in the State of the Union, ``Thanks to the actions
of this Congress last year, we will soon have for the first time a
voluntary national test based on national standards in fourth grade
reading and eighth grade math.''
That is not true. That is not what we agreed to. On the website for
the Department of Education, they are advertising the implementation of
a national test that Congress said, whoa, stop, slow down, no go. We
are not going to give you the money. This is about keeping your word.
We need a legion of lawyers, apparently, to do a deal with this other
crowd down the street. And that is very disturbing to me. I understand
that many of my colleagues that voted for us are going to vote against
it because they feel like they have to support the President.
The truth of the fact is that this agreement that we all worked so
hard to get, a lot of hours spent by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) and others, handshakes were had; and it is in the law
now not to implement a national test that Congress said is okay is
being violated by the Department of Education. And every time the
President speaks, he is denying that agreement.
That is what this bill is about, and that is why we are having the
vote 2 weeks into that Congress to put us back on track, and we do need
a legion of lawyers to do a deal with this guy.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, by ``this guy,'' I think my colleague is
referring to the President of the United States. Is that correct? So I
would hope that after yesterday, when we named that airport for a
former president, it is obvious that he will continue to respect the
current president that was elected in 1992 and reelected in 1996,
instead of just referring to him as ``this guy.''
Like a lot of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, I am not particularly
thrilled about a national test. We have lots of State tests and
everything else. But this bill is so premature I think it is ludicrous.
The number one concern of America's people is improving our Nation's
schools. Americans are concerned about school children being required
to attend classes that are overcrowded, school facilities that are
falling down, schools that are not being held to accountable results.
And yet, what do we get? The first bill out on education is to prohibit
a national test.
I do not want a national test. The first bill we ought to do is say,
okay, how can we fix the public schools instead of stopping the
national test? Instead of bringing bills forward that address these
critical concerns, we are seeing this bill today.
Nothing can happen on a national test until this Congress approves
it, whether it be reauthorization or whether it be some other
agreement. This bill is a waste of our time. We ought to be spending
more time talking about fixing public education instead of this bill
and talking about vouchers that supposedly are going to save
everything. This bill is completely unnecessary, and it is an attack on
our bipartisan agreement last year.
Why are my Republican colleagues wasting this time in the House? One
of the reasons is that they do not have anything else to do. But the
answer is that the Republicans, my colleagues, do not really have a
pro-education agenda. They do not really want to fix overcrowding. They
do not want to put more qualified teachers in the schools. They do not
want to fix it to make sure that the schools are safe. They do not want
to work with the States and the local communities to make sure
education is a national concern and a national issue.
But it is really local folks in the school districts in our States
who do most of the work. But we need to be the ones that say, hey, let
us help.
Prohibiting a national test is, again, a waste of time. Many
educational reforms, such as reducing the class size, building safer
schools, training more teachers are much more important than some straw
person that we are throwing up here, ``We are going to fight a national
test.''
Again, there is not a demand for a national test. Last year, we had
almost 300 Members of Congress, and I was one of them. I do not mind a
voluntary national test that says, okay, State of Texas, you have lots
of tests. But this is what we would like to do. See if we can correlate
those tests. Let us do it. But it is voluntary.
That is what that agreement called for, and that is what I hope the
Department of Education is working for. This bill is a make-work
legislation. It does nothing to make education more effective or
better.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield another 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I was just amused that we ought to spend
more time fixing public education.
First of all, in many areas of the country it ain't broke; and they
prefer that we do not try to fix it. And, in other areas, we spent 35
years trying to fix it; and we messed it up royally. So I think we
better be careful about how much knowledge and how much one-size-fits-
all from Washington goes in relationship to improving academic
achievement of our students.
We will have a lot of discussions on how we do that in the committee.
We will have suggestions. We will have ideas. We will have legislation.
All we are trying to do at the present time is say, there is a
procedure. The procedure says that the Congress of the United States
determines the direction we should be going. Only the President can
suggest and recommend. All we are asking is give us what is our right
and our responsibility, and that is to determine how this test should
be put together. If this test should be enacted at all, the Congress
makes that decision.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to refute the statement that is continually made on the
other side that the Democrats are violating a bipartisan agreement.
Madam Speaker, the only agreement that we have was that in the
appropriations bill passed last fall.
The appropriations bill agreement made two points. One, it made the
National Assessment Governing Board responsible for development and
administration of the test; and, two, it gave the National Academy of
Science the obligation to conduct a series of studies that would help
to inform future deliberations by this Congress.
If this bill passes, it will undermine the NAGB's role and prejudice
the finding of the National Academy of Science. The bill that we passed
only prohibited the use of 1998 fiscal year funds to field tests to
administer or implement any national test. Fiscal year 1998 ends
September 30th of this year. So this bill would preclude any testing.
We are not in violation of the agreement; they are.
[[Page H344]]
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am not sure we are going to settle that
violation question here today. But I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) to try.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule; and I support H.R.
2846, which forbids the use of Federal funds to develop or implement a
national test without explicit authorization from Congress.
Supporters of protecting the United States Constitution from
overreaching by the executive branch should support this bill. The
administration's plan to develop and implement a national testing
program without Congressional authorization is a blatant violation of
the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to
imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing.
Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can
only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power.
Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to
legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning
education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate
children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846 which stops the
administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose
all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead,
this Congress should work to restore control over their children's
education to the American people by shutting down the Federal education
bureaucracy and cutting taxes on American parents so they may better
provide for the education of their own children.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Speaker, let me explain something very clearly.
In the agreement that was made and in the law now, no test can be
conducted without the authorization of Congress. That is in there. In
fact, in its planning stage with what is authorized in that agreement,
they have changed the date. They have renewed the contract, changed the
contract. The contract had already been let by the administration
because they thought they had the prerogative to do that.
And NAGB then, when they were given the sole responsibility for this,
not the responsibility of education as my friend from South Carolina
says, but NAGB was given sole authority, and, in doing so, they called
back the contract and renegotiated the contract.
They have the option now under the law and the agreement as it was
made to terminate that contract at any time, at any time upon the
authority of Congress or on Congress deciding whether or not they
should proceed. This is doing it without the benefit of the three
studies that was also included in that agreement to give us a chance to
really look at the merits of national testing.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
With all due respect to my colleague on the other side, I am afraid
he does not read carefully the agreement which occurred last year. The
legislation which addressed this issue was an appropriations bill. It
cannot authorize. Appropriations acts cannot do that.
In the appropriation bill, it said specifically, no funds in this
legislation may be used to implement or field test a national test. But
I think listening to the debate, it is clear that we are missing some
issues here.
Some of us believe strongly in education but strongly oppose a
national test. Let me tell my colleagues why. Because if they go across
America, as I have done and others have done on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, they discover that schools work where
parents and teachers get involved, where they have possession of the
curriculum, not where the curriculum is dictated by a national test.
But, for purposes of this debate, that is not even the issue. We can
indeed, with the passage of this legislation, debate whether or not a
national test dictated from Washington is a good idea. This bill lets
the Congress do that. This bill gives us a chance to get into the
merits of a debate of whether a national test crammed down the throats
of the American people is the best thing for the American children.
I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous
question.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the rule that will make in order the amendments offered in the
Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the Public Schools Renewal
and Improvement Act and the School Construction Act. These are the
kinds of programs we need to improve in order to improve our public
education.
Vote no on the previous question so we can consider these two worthy
legislative initiatives to improve the quality of our public schools.
Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 2846 To Prohibit Spending Federal
Education Funds on National Testing
text:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 2. One amendment offered by Representative Clay of
Missouri and one amendment offered by Representative Martinez
of California each shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a
demand for a division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against an
amendment offered under this section are waived.
The majority argues that our attempt to defeat the previous question
is futile because our proposed amendment is not germane. The fact of
the matter is that the chair has not made a ruling nor heard our
arguments as to the germaneness of our amendment. The only way to make
that determination is to allow us to offer the amendment by defeating
the previous question.
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least
for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive
policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those
who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative
plan.
I ask unanimous consent to insert material in the Record at this
point.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate
[[Page H345]]
vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual:
Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to urge all of my
colleagues to vote for the previous question and for the rule. This is
the third rule we have had on the floor in the second half of the 105th
Congress. All three of them have been open rules, allowing any
amendment in order at any time.
What the gentleman from Texas would like to do is create a political
issue, to say, if you vote against the previous question, you are
voting against schools construction when, in point of fact, they are
not germane to the bill. They have nothing to do with testing.
Even were he to win his previous question vote, those amendments
would continue to be ruled out of order for lack of germaneness. So I
urge my colleagues to see through this little bit of a game. Vote for
the previous question. Vote for the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 185, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 8]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--25
Becerra
Blumenauer
Burton
Chenoweth
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Herger
Johnson, Sam
King (NY)
Klink
Largent
Markey
McKeon
Neal
Pomeroy
Radanovich
Riggs
Rogan
Schiff
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Visclosky
{time} 1121
Messrs. WYNN, MURTHA, KLECZKA and TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 348 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2846.
{time} 1122
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole
[[Page H346]]
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2846) to prohibit spending Federal education funds on national testing
without explicit and specific legislation, with Mr. Ewing in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, about a year ago, President Clinton announced his
proposal for a Federal test in fourth grade reading and eighth grade
math, and the White House and the Department of Education relied upon a
little-known program, the Fund for the Improvement of Education, for
their authority. Yet, nowhere, nowhere in the Fund for the Improvement
of Education is there specific or explicit authorization for the
President's national tests in reading and math. Nor was the program
ever intended as a justification for national tests.
A few years ago, the predecessor to the Fund for the Improvement of
Education specifically and explicitly provided for ``Optional Tests of
Academic Excellence.'' However, the majority at that time in 1994
changed all that. That testing language was purposely removed by
Congress in the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. It is now
clear that there is no current specific or explicit authority in the
Fund for the Improvement of Education or any other statute for
implementing the President's national tests.
When the testing issue was put to vote last Congress, nearly 300
Members voted against national testing, including many Members from
both sides of the aisle. I realize that is diminishing because there
are all sorts of pie-in-the-sky promises, and therefore, the vote will
be different. That is obvious.
The final result of the appropriations activities last year was to
prohibit pilot testing, field testing or any implementation or
administration of the tests in 1998. Limited test development
activities could go forward, because they already put up $17 million,
but what happens beyond 1998 was never addressed.
Despite the appropriate language, the White House and the Department
of Education continue to represent to the public that testing will
automatically go forward in future years, even without any action by
Congress. That is wrong. No decision has ever been made by Congress
about testing policy in the fiscal year 1999 or any other time
thereafter.
Now, at the November 13, 1997 signing of the appropriation bill, the
President said, ``For the very first time, Congress has voted to
support the development of voluntary national tests to measure
performance in fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. The tests
will be created by an independent, bipartisan organization and will be
piloted in schools next October 1998.'' 1998.
Just last week the President reiterated in his State of the Union
address, and at that time the President said, ``Thanks to the action of
this Congress last year, we will soon have, for the first time, a
voluntary national test based on national standards in fourth grade
reading and eighth grade math.''
Again, the point is that the Congress has made no decision about
Federal testing in 1999 or future years. That was never even talked
about. In addition, beginning in November of 1997 and continuing
through January of 1998, the day of our markup last week, the
Department of Education's website represented to the public that pilot
testing would in fact take place beginning in the fall of 1998.
{time} 1130
Here is how the web page read at that time: ``The bill, [PL 105-78]
provides full funding to proceed with immediate development of the
first-ever voluntary national test in fourth grade reading and eighth
grade math . . . The bill permits pilot testing to begin in fall
1998.''
Never, never did any Congress ever say that that is what is going to
take place. That is a decision that we as a Congress will make, not the
President of the United States.
On the very next day after our markup, the Department changed the
year for pilot testing from 1998 to 1999. Well, I know why. We all
tried to tell them they cannot get a test that is going to be valid,
worth anything, in less than 3 to 5 years. So NAGB, of course, redid
the contract and rebid the contract and told them here is what we have
to do.
We also found out a day after the markup that the display now says on
their web site, ``The first pilot tests are scheduled for the fall of
1999, and the first field tests in the spring of the year 2000.''
Again, what I am trying to point out is there is no agreement about
1999, the year 2000, or any time thereafter. That is the only point we
are trying to make in this legislation. It is our responsibility. The
Congress of the United States, to make that determination.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues who probably gave us the best
argument for slowing down this train. It was the minority members on my
committee. The minority members on my committee during markup gave us
all the reasons why we should slow down this train. What did they say
during markup? There were those that were concerned about tests being
used for tracking. There were those who talked about we are concerned
about language barriers in tests. There were those who said how are the
tests going to be used? Are they going to be used to compare schools,
children, et cetera? There were those who were concerned about who
determines the content.
All of these things came up during the debate when we were marking up
this legislation. And what did I say to them? I said, ``Well, let me
ask you, did the Secretary call and ask you for any input on how they
were putting this test together?'' Total silence.
Then I said, ``How about the contractors, did the contractors call
you and ask you to give input on how they are putting together these
tests?'' Total silence.
And then I said, ``Well, how about NAGB? Have they called and asked
you for any input in what they are doing?'' Total silence.
And, of course, that is the whole purpose of this piece of
legislation today; to give those people who were asking those questions
an opportunity to participate in any kind of development. To make sure
that their concerns that they had, legitimate concerns, are realized
and that they are understood.
But if we do not do what we are going to do today, they get no
opportunity to participate in any way, shape, or form, it is a done
deal. And so we get 300 math professors who say, wait a minute, they
are moving in a way of constructing a test that really is not the best
way to teach mathematics. We have reading people saying is the reading
test dealing with phonics? Is it dealing with look-see? Is it dealing
with any other kind of programs that may be out there, whole language?
They need to have answers to those questions.
My colleagues on the committee have to have answers to those
questions. My colleagues who are on the minority side truly need to
have answers to those questions.
The only way they get to participate is if we, as a matter of fact,
accept this legislation today so that we become the players, the
Congress of the United States, in determining what goes forward as we
reauthorize NAEP and NAGB this year, we look at the whole picture.
Now, there are some who say this would jeopardize what the National
Academy of Sciences is doing. It does not have anything to do with what
the National Academy of Sciences is doing. As a matter of fact we will
take what they do. They are due, I believe, June 1 with their report.
That will be considered. It does not interfere with anybody out there
who has any kind of input they want to put in.
Mr. Chairman, all it says is: Hold it, administration. The decision
is made here in the Congress of the United States. Constitutionally, it
is our authority. Constitutionally, it is our responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that we find ourselves debating
this bill today. With all the problems facing our schools, overcrowded
[[Page H347]]
classrooms, crumbling buildings, teacher shortages, it boggles the mind
to see that the first bill passed out of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities this year is one as petty as this one.
It is designed as a political ploy to embarrass Secretary of
Education Riley and President Clinton. There is no reason to act on
this bill today. The fiscal year 1998 Labor HHS Education
Appropriations bill is very clear. It prohibits the use of 1998 fiscal
year funds to field test, administer, distribute or implement any
national test. The appropriations bill also requires three separate
studies by the National Academy of Sciences, which are due later this
year.
This proposal fails to address a number of issues of critical concern
to parents, students, teachers and schools. And I ask some questions,
some very basic questions that this Congress ought to be asking, that
our Chairman referred to in his opening remark:
Will a national test accommodate students who have limited English
proficiency or disabilities? Could the test be used for high stakes
purposes such as tracking, funding reductions, grade retention and
graduation thresholds? How will civil rights protections be ensured in
the development, use, and administration of the test? How do we weed
out bias and discrimination in the content of a national test? And most
importantly, will those students who fail the test be provided
significant new resources to ensure that they will have real
educational opportunities?
These are legitimate concerns and legitimate questions that this
Congress ought to answer. But if this bill passes, the sponsor of this
bill will preclude the Congress from ever acting in these areas.
Mr. Chairman, we should act to resolve these and other serious
questions about national testing in a measured, deliberate way during
this year's reauthorization of the National Assessment of Education
Progress, and the National Assessment of Governing Boards.
Mr. Chairman, with so few days in this legislative session, it is
critical that the House act wisely and constructively on urgent
education priorities. We should be passing legislation to repair our
Nation's crumbling schools and overcrowded schools. We should be
initiating legislation calling for reduced class sizes and stronger
after-school programs. This bill does nothing to address these critical
needs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay) for yielding, and I agree with the gentleman's statement.
Mr. Chairman, this bill seems to follow in the footsteps of Forrest
Gump. That is that it seems to be in a state of denial. I am not
qualified to participate in this debate, because I have taken
educational measurement courses and have taught secondary school for
about 10 years and I do not find much of a discussion that is connected
to the real world of education or testing.
I think maybe following the logic in this bill we ought to ban all
testing, because they are imperfect instruments. And the issues being
raised in terms of problems are not unique. In fact, there is a body of
knowledge that for 100 years has gone on with educational measurement
that has tried to address these issues and perfect the ability to
utilize reliable and valid instruments.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Members of Congress for taking this on in a
few hours today in resolving this problem in favor of not having
banning national tests. That way nobody will know what they are
receiving and whether or not they are attaining the educational goals
and we will all be happier for it; just like the character Forrest
Gump.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) a distinguished member of the committee.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and also in
support of his statement. I want to associate myself with the
gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the authorizing committee, I believe it
is not only inappropriate, it is also wrong for the President to use
any funds on a program that has not been authorized by the relevant
committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
If we do not pass this bill today, we will be allowing the President
to circumvent our committee and that action would mock the fundamental
constitutional separation of powers principle.
Despite the fact that the administration has no specific or explicit
authorization, the President has already put the Department of
Education on a track to develop and implement these tests automatically
without our authorization. I do not understand this.
Until Congress has the opportunity to review the proposal, no action
should be taken. Congress must and should act to look into any national
testing proposal and whether such an idea is a good test or not. I do
not believe it is a good way of spending Federal dollars, but that is
really beside the point of this debate right now.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to say and advise our colleagues here that we
already have numerous tests, including two federally funded testing
programs. The first, the National Assessment of Education Progress, and
the other, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, not
to mention all the State programs.
Additional Federal dollars, and I want my colleagues to understand
this because we are under very strong restrictions about Federal money
and where it is coming from and where it is going, additional Federal
dollars should be better spent improving our schools and the education
of our children. We should be spending those Federal dollars, limited
as they are, in the classrooms on programs such as Head Start and Early
Start and teacher preparation.
Additionally, in my opinion, the national test would inevitably lead
to a de facto national curriculum, but that is one of the discussions
we should have and the debate when the committee discusses and really
evaluates whether or not there is any merit to a national testing
program.
But I even have a greater concern, and all of us know it, and I
actually think the ranking member made an indirect reference to this,
there is a question as to whether or not a national testing program
leads to teaching to the test. There have been all kinds of studies
done about the limitations of testing and to what extent teaching to
the test will really obscure proper educational goals.
So there are all kinds of reasons why we should be having an
appropriate national debate through the committee of authorization on
this subject. And no money should be spent without the authorizing
committee's action on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, last fall, Members of Congress from both
parties worked with the administration and drafted a bipartisan
agreement on what we could and what we could not do regarding national
testing. Since then, there has been no evidence that the administration
or any of the agencies named in that agreement have broken the
agreement. Yet here we are, Mr. Chairman, not 3 months later, after
putting the agreement together, debating again the development of
national tests.
I cannot help but believe that this legislation is motivated more by
political urgency than by any real need. I hope that my colleagues will
join me in putting the partisan politics aside. Vote ``no'' on H.R.
2846 and let us get to work on what we really need to do on reducing
crowded classrooms, training more teachers, building new schools, and
helping all of our children achieve high standards.
[[Page H348]]
{time} 1145
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), another member of the committee.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I think we have a tremendous disconnect in the reality of education
in America today which concerns me a great deal. And that is that we
have studies that show that the ultimate consumers in terms of what
happens to the education product, if you want to phrase it that way,
the colleges and the workplace all say the kids are just not doing as
well as they should, that education is not where it should be. But if
we look at polls on how our schools are doing on a local basis, we will
find that parents and others say, gee, they are achieving at an 80
percent level or whatever it may be be. We just do not find that to be
the right answer out in the workplace.
I am one who believes that we need some sort of national comparison.
I am not sure if we need a national voluntary test or not, and for that
reason I am going to support the legislation. I do not think that this
legislation has gained adequate support from families and educators in
the States or Congress yet, and the National Assessment Governing
Board, on which I actually served for a couple years, has recommended
that the test be delayed until 2001. And the administration wants to
move it up. Tests cannot be done that rapidly. They are very difficult
to do.
But having said that, I do not come down on the side of those who say
that we need no testing at all. I would hope that in our looking at
reauthorization of NAGB and NAEPS later this year that we look
seriously at that question. I will tell my colleagues most of the tests
that are given now on a national level do not lend themselves to
comparisons from one place to another because they are not given in a
way so that we can make the comparisons. That is intentional to some
degree, and I do not think we are going to learn too much by any
studies on tests which exist right now. But I think we have to do
something about it.
We talk about State standards, for example, as a way of doing this.
My State happened to adopt very tough standards, and most of the
students did not meet the standards. Then they took a national test and
they did pretty well on the national test. There is at least one
Southern State in which 80 percent of the kids did extraordinarily well
on that State's standards, and they took the national test, and I think
fewer than 20 percent of them actually did well on the national test.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the Delaware students are better
or worse because they did well on the Federal, not well on the State? I
do not know. I think we need that comparison.
Believe me, now, in my State, we have comparisons school by school,
and it has driven education reform tremendously. It appears in our
newspapers. They see what it is. Parents are able to make choices now
within public schools. It has made a huge difference as far as
education is concerned. I think we really have to continue to look at
the subject and develop it in every way we possibly can.
There are those who I know oppose any kind of national testing, and I
would tell them I would hope they would keep their powder dry, continue
to look at this subject. I think we understand there are reasons, which
range from fears of discrimination or national curriculum or wasting
Federal dollars or students' time with yet another test. But there has
to be something to improve education.
I think part of it is to get into this whole issue of some sort of a
comparison, be it testing or whatever it may be. I have heard critics
of testing say that one does not fatten a cow by weighing it regularly,
and we should not test kids that way. But I will tell Members that this
is not testing kids in the same way from one State to another. We have
got to be able to make a fair comparison. Right now the State tests do
not do it. So let us all try to work together on this. This is a very
important issue for the future of this country.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding the time to me.
It seems that we are into this thing again when we did it once last
year at the close of the last session. I do not know why we are doing
this thing at this time. I would rather be spending the time very
clearly making a difference in things that matter to children across
the Nation, things that are desperately needed like teacher training,
classroom construction and a whole lot of other things that I could go
into and I will not at this time.
What really disturbs me is that in the past we, in the majority on
the committee, especially this committee, have worked in a bipartisan
way. That is not true in the debate that is before us today. Only a few
months ago the chairman deservedly has to be given credit for working
out a compromise, and that compromise that was reached between the
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the
administration on what national testing activities would be allowed
during the fiscal year of 1998.
As Members know, that agreement banned all activities except those
related to the development and planning of tests. In addition that
compromise required the National Academy of Science to issue three
studies, and those studies were intended to give the Members
information which would be key to enlightening us to the policy
decisions on this issue. Lastly the compromise transferred oversight of
the test to the National Assessment Governing Board, or NAGB, as the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has referred to that he served on,
to assure a nonpartisan supervision of those tests.
With this compromise recently put into place, I was one Member who
thought that we would be informed by the NAGB studies prior to a
substantive debate during our committee's consideration of NAGB; that
is, NAGB reauthorization. However, this is clearly not the major intent
here.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling); I always have had. Traditionally our committee, as I said
before, has resolved our differences in a bipartisan fashion. The past
session of Congress, under the leadership of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), we followed that theme. Consideration of
this bill, however, has been handled in exactly the opposite fashion.
Despite the objections of Secretary Riley, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Clay), ranking member, and several prominent civil rights groups,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has pushed forward with
this legislation. In the committee we asked him to postpone its
consideration until the review of the reauthorization of NAGB, and he
did not see fit to do so.
Frankly there is little if any need for us to be considering this on
the floor today. It is all in law and exactly the things that he is
concerned about exist in that law, and the National Assessment
Governing Board is following the letter of that law. They have sent a
letter, as I said before, to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay),
and I have a copy of the letter which indicates that they have every
intention of following the law and not proceeding with testing or
deployment of testing until the Congress authorizes it. Frankly, I
believe that Members on our side of the aisle, even if they voted for
the bill the first time, in this case should vote against this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), another member of the committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I would also like to congratulate the chairman on leading the
fight on this issue.
I think there is at least three issues we need to talk about today.
The first thing is that the executive branch is moving outside of the
intent of Congress. They are moving forward in defining the Federal
Government's role in education without an agreement and without a
consensus having been developed between the executive branch and
Congress. This is a key issue and we should not move forward on this
issue without an agreement between the executive branch and this
Congress. This
[[Page H349]]
Congress and this committee should set the direction for national
testing.
A second issue that we really need to have a national debate about,
beginning in this committee, is exactly what is the role of the Federal
Government in education. Last year we went to 14 States, had hearings,
had 22 different field hearings, and what we are hearing at the local
level are some tremendous progress being made in education. It is not
because of what we are doing here in Washington, but it is because of
what parents, teachers and administrators are doing at the local level.
They are not sure that at the local level they want the Federal
Government building their schools, hiring their teachers, feeding their
kids, developing their curriculum, putting in their technology or
determining their class size. They would like to have something to do
at the local level as it regards to their schools and their children.
The third issue is even if we did testing, is this the right way to
do it? We had hearings in Delaware, my colleague from Delaware
described the process that they have gone through in that State. It is
a difficult process. In Delaware I believe it took about 3 years. They
worked aggressively at the grassroots level to involve parents, to
involve teachers, to involve administrators, and to involve elected
officials. That is the way to do it. We do not do testing, we do not
make this kind of change by one branch of government moving forward and
saying, this is what we are going to do, and leaving the rest of us
behind.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the Nation's attention is
focused on education as a national priority and certain significant
initiatives and programs have been clearly set forth by the President
in the State of the Union address, the response of the committee of
jurisdiction is a bill which implies that testing is the number one
priority. And even worse than that, it appears that the sequence and
the date for the testing and the fine print of a deal that was
negotiated by a handful of people is more important than a response of
the committee of jurisdiction to the agenda that has been laid out by
the President.
Leadership on education improvement should be regained by the
committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. We have all kinds of folks who have taken over that
leadership. Most of all the Committee on Appropriations makes the most
significant legislation on education nowadays. I do not think that is
appropriate and it is not the wisest use of the talent here. The
committee that has the institutional memory, the committee that knows
the issue across the board should be the committee where the major
decisions are made.
We would like to get on with it. Let us have the hearings on the
construction initiative. I do not agree with the gentleman from
Michigan who said that local people want something to do, to keep the
Federal Government totally out of it. There is plenty for local people
to do. I think most localities would appreciate some help with school
construction. That is rural, suburban and certainly the inner-city
communities. New York City certainly needs some help just to convert
coal-burning boilers in schools into more efficient and less dangerous
boilers. Just a few days ago we had a situation where a school had to
be evacuated because a 70-year-old coal burning boiler was leaking
carbon monoxide.
So we have an emergency in many ways. Certainly the infrastructure
emergency, the emergency which cries out for help most is the one
related to construction. Let us have a hearing, a series of hearings;
let us begin legislation on that. Sequence is very important. Before
you get into testing, I am all against testing until we deal with
opportunity to learn. This opportunity to learn which the Committee on
Appropriations took out of legislation a few years ago, that has to
come first. Opportunity to learn means you provide decent, safe,
physical facilities. Opportunity to learn means that you provide
teachers who are trained, and you improve the teacher-student ratio.
Some of the things that have been set forth by the President in the
State of the Union address relate to providing an opportunity to learn.
Before you drop the load on the backs of the children and say, we are
going to test you, give them a chance to learn.
At present there is a great need for leadership from the Federal
Government in terms of leading the States and the municipalities to do
more to improve these opportunities to learn. We had a deal that was
negotiated by a few members on the subcommittee outside of the usual
democratic process where you have a committee of the conference, a
committee, a group of members in the committee. So we are sort of
locked out of this process of really knowing what the agreement was
except what we see in writing. Why should we proceed with that? Let us
deal with the substance of the education improvement issue and not with
the frills and the details of a deal that somebody thinks has gone bad
but there is plenty of time to correct if they think there is
correction needed.
I urge a no vote on this unnecessary legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and commend him for
his tireless efforts in this area and thank him for yielding time to
me.
I totally agree with the gentleman that preceded me. The gentleman
from New York says that testing is unimportant. The fact is we should
be spending money elsewhere. I am particularly pleased that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has brought the bill to the
House early though in this session so that it can be fully aired,
passed and sent to the other body and sent to the President early this
year.
There is no argument that students should be held to high standards
and teachers, students and parents should have a clear idea on their
educational progress toward meeting those standards. But national
testing is a perfect example of how the Clinton administration makes
policy. If it sounds good, if it polls good, and if the focus groups
say it is needed, well, then it is automatically great national policy
even when it does not work. It is spending resources, valuable
resources, scarce resources, in areas that do not need it.
We do not need national testing. We need good education, just as the
gentleman from New York said. The fact is that there are many ways to
assure high quality education to meet the needs of today's economy, and
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for putting a
stop to this single-minded big government approach to the problem.
{time} 1200
If there was any doubt that the Clinton testing plan was at best
folly, simply imagine the logistic and cost nightmare on test day. On
that day the reading test would have to be delivered to over 3 million
students in 64,000 elementary schools in the Nation at more or less the
same time. Delivery would have to be an overwhelming task. Security so
that people do not cheat, an endless ordeal. The cost would be
astronomic and the cost would recur each year.
Mr. Chairman, the testing, as proposed by the administration,
violates our values of local control. People that know the best about
education are the people at home. It provides opportunities for
educational fads like ``whole math'' to be suddenly imposed and is
scornful of the real issues raised by the minority and disadvantaged
communities and just will not work. We need to apply the money on
teachers and better schools, not on national testing.
I support this bill and urge its adoption.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. This bill
would stop
[[Page H350]]
the development of voluntary testing dead in its tracks. It would block
cities and States from pursuing a new tool in our efforts to make our
schools the best in the world. These tests are not about history, not
about science curriculum, they are about the ability to read and write,
to add and subtract. Mr. Chairman, there are just no politics in the A,
B, Cs; no hidden agendas in the 1, 2, 3s.
Mr. Chairman, an agreement on Federal support for voluntary Federal
testing was reached last year. That agreement permits limited test
development but not its implementation. It was my understanding that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania approved that compromise. Why are we
wasting time revisiting an issue that we resolved just a few short
months ago?
Last year six of the Nation's seven largest cities accepted the
challenge of voluntary national tests, including New York City,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Detroit. These
communities have decided that voluntary national performance measures
can help them determine what is working and what needs fixing.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to permit limited test
development to move forward and move on to debate ways to repair
crumbling schools, reduce class size and keep schools open after hours.
Let us talk about ways to promote educational reform and excellence,
not slow it down. Vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), a member of the committee.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the President wants voluntary tests identifying
individuals, schools and States as meeting or failing voluntary
education standards. His education plan calls for voluntary tax credits
to build more schools. He is also volunteering the Federal Government
to hire 100,000 teachers. Sounds to me like the era of big government
is still alive and well over at the White House.
Mr. Chairman, are we to volunteer ourselves to the nationalization of
our education system? Will Uncle Sam test, set standards, build the
schools and hire the teachers? If so, we might as well tell our State
legislatures, boards of education and local school boards to go home,
Uncle Sam has taken charge.
H.R. 2846 brings sanity to the process. It tells the administration
that Congress will live up to the deal we made in the last
appropriations bill but, most importantly, the bill maintains the right
of people's Representatives to settle the question of education
testing. Support H.R. 2846 and preserve the rights of Congress.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
This debate is really a debate about our Nation's future. This
morning in this hall we opened the session with a pledge of allegiance
in which we pledged to be one Nation. But what is that debate? What
does it mean when we want to be one Nation? Well, one Nation is about
national priorities and to have priorities we must make priorities.
This Nation has found it important to have national standards for
aviation, obviously for food safety, and even for truck tires, but we
have never made it a national priority for education. There are no
national standards. Think about that.
High school standards are set by local communities and State
legislatures. College boards exams are a private industry, not
regulated by government. Everyone knows that tests are essential to
function in our society. We require them for everything from driving a
car to entering the Armed Services.
This bill is the wrong way to go because we ought to have our
national priorities be as important to us in education as they are for
entering the military or driving a car. And we will never be one Nation
unless we put education at that high priority. And when we do, we truly
will be one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goode), a State where on their own they have done
remarkable things in relationship to standards and assessment.
(Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his initiative in this area, and he is
correct, Virginia is a leader in testing its students. We want to see
education maintained at the local and State level.
I supported this measure the first time and am very glad to support
it this time, and I want to read a few statements from a teacher in the
Pennsylvania County School System.
``I am greatly disturbed by the President's attempt to sponsor
national student testing. I am intimately aware of the problem
confronting teachers, parents, employers and students' ability to
perform many needed basic skills. I don't see that more tests,
especially those generated by administrators or bureaucrats at a
national level, will identify any problems that teachers on the front
line have not already known. National standards have no meaning to
localities except one more example of the Federal Government trying to
run the show.''
He said it all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, what gall for the majority to
argue today the merits of local governance when just yesterday they
trampled on the local rights of Virginians. Are we only principled when
it suits our purposes?
I rise today in strong opposition to this extraneous legislation. I
happen to support national tests, so it is easy for me to oppose this
bill. But I would oppose it even if I opposed national testing. Have we
already forgotten how painstaking was the compromise that was mapped
out before the Labor-HHS appropriations bill could be signed into law?
That compromise is good policy. It will give us an opportunity to get
the facts before we debate the merits of national testing. The National
Academy of Sciences would conduct a series of studies to inform us
before we administer any national tests.
I think we all want to do the right thing on the national testing
issue, we just disagree about what the right thing is. Getting the
facts on national testing before we debate whether or not to have tests
is a step in the right direction, but this legislation would deny us
that opportunity.
While I understand the desire of the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, to keep discretion over authorization of national testing
in his own committee, he will have that opportunity when the committee
reauthorizes the National Assessment of Education Progress and the
National Assessment Governing Board. There is no reason not to wait
until we consider legislation to reauthorize those programs and debate
this issue at the appropriate forum.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this politically motivated attempt to
secure jurisdiction where jurisdiction has already been established.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a former member of the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a vision for education and a
vision that could be bipartisan, but it chooses not to, unfortunately,
because of partisan politics.
We can have big government control of education or we can have it
where parents, teachers, local administrators can control that. We talk
about voluntary national testing. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Dale
Kildee, who was the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, he and
I killed national history standards. Why? As a previous history
teacher, the gentleman from Michigan saw they were teaching more about
Madonna than they were the Magna Carta, and that the Federal Government
was getting involved in socialized history and the standards that went
into it. And the worst part was that the textbook companies, before
that bill was ever passed, had set forth that liberal agenda into our
schools. And that is wrong.
[[Page H351]]
The President talks about more money for school construction, but yet
the other side of the aisle denied the average age of D.C. schools is
60 years. And when they talk about school construction and more tax
dollars for it, the other side rejected that all we had to do is waive
Davis-Bacon and we would save 35 percent of school construction. But
yet the union bosses controlled the other side of the aisle and they
rejected it. So there is a difference in vision.
The Democrats had 40 years to establish the foundation of public
education. Public education should be the foundation of this country.
It spreads across a lot of lines, but yet they want big bureaucracy,
big government control. There are 760 Federal education programs. The
President wanted $3 billion for a new literacy program. There are
already 14 literacy programs, Title I is one of those.
What is wrong with saying let us take one or two and get rid of the
rest of the bureaucracy that steals the money for big Washington
government and keeps it from going down to the classrooms so that
teachers and parents and administrators can have more control instead
of big Washington union bosses and bureaucrats?
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
In the balanced budget President Clinton presented to the Congress
last week he laid out an action plan for improving America's schools, a
plan to reduce class size, thereby creating a better learning
environment for our children, better opportunity to have discipline in
our schools. The plan also called for repairing of crumbling schools,
putting computers into every classroom, training teachers so that our
children will be prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
And instead of considering legislation to improve our schools,
Republicans today are bringing this unnecessary legislation to the
floor to block national tests that would, in fact, help to ensure that
every child in our country meets higher standards in math and in
reading.
Voluntary national tests would give us the opportunity to gauge our
children's progress in these basic skills. These are essential skills
to ensuring a future success in life. Tests will let parents know that
local schools, that teachers are doing their job and holding them
accountable for the results that they achieve.
Mr. Chairman, this issue was resolved last year during the
appropriations process. The bipartisan agreement calls for test
development to go forward and for the National Academy of Sciences to
study what type of test might work best for our kids. Quite honestly,
Republicans in this Congress, as their nominee for President last year
articulated, do not believe that our country and the Federal Government
should have a role in education. That is why they are backing out of
that agreement.
The American people want this Nation to have high education
standards. I want high education standards. We in this body should be
for high education standards. That is why I oppose this legislation.
{time} 1215
Let us stop wasting our time on this unnecessary legislation. We
ought to be working together to pass measures that improve our schools
and make education today work for our young people.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say to the Chairman of the
committee that we have several people who have indicated they want to
speak, but only one is on the floor. So I guess we will call on him.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Largely ignored in this morning's debate on this question of the
testing on national educational concerns is the fact there is a test
going on right here this morning, and the scores are already in. When
the question is concentrating on those issues, on the periphery of the
lives of ordinary Americans, this Republican leadership scores an
unqualified A-plus.
Whether it is naming an airport and switching the name of one
President for another or dealing with something that the administration
is not really doing right now, they have done excellent, absolutely
outstanding, in concentrating on these issues that do not really make a
flip to ordinary American families who are out there struggling to make
a go of it and are trying to get their kids through the schools.
But when it comes to a commitment, a Federal commitment to back up
our families, to support our local school boards and the many other
groups, whether it is the PTA or the large adopt-a-school program that
our Chamber of Commerce does down in Austin, TX, and Uvalde, TX, and in
Pflugerville, TX, to back up and support those local efforts, when it
comes to ideas, new ideas and new approaches to improve the quality of
education, that test score is in also. And just like last year, this
Republican leadership scores an unqualified F. They do not even get up
to D-minus.
Because the only new idea they have only advanced, other than trying
to prevent other people from doing something to improve the quality of
public education in this country, something that our parents and our
communities all over this land want, the only solution that they have
offered, they will not vouch for public education, they want to voucher
out a privileged 10 percent and move them off into private academies
and leave the other 90 percent to sink. That is not a solution. It is
contributing to part of the problem.
What we need to be doing is not dealing with things on the edge of
reality but concentrating on how we can reshape and reinvigorate some
of our existing programs and channel those resources to reduce class
size, improve teacher training, focus on many things, that we share
common concerns and not focus on these things that will not make a
difference one way or the other in the quality of any child's
education.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman for yielding.
I want to rise in favor of this resolution because this resolution is
quite simple. It says that the President cannot formulate a national
test for our students unless the Congress specifically authorizes such
a test. It is just that simple. It is not all the other things that we
have heard.
This might seem like a typical inside-the-Beltway type of squabble
between the President and the Congress, but I say to my colleagues that
there is a bigger principle at stake in this resolution: Who should
control the education of our children? Should it be parents or should
it be the Federal Government?
The administration and its supporters in the Congress want more
control over local communities and parents when it comes to educational
policy. They want to expand the national bureaucracy at the expense of
working families. They want to promote a one-size-fits-all education
system, a system that dictates national standards and promotes a
national curriculum and gives more power to Federal bureaucrats.
We want to return power to families. We want to give parents more
choices. We want our local communities to make the decisions, not some
huge Federal bureaucracy. That is why we support the concept of school
choice. That is why we believe working families should be able to use
tax-free education savings accounts so that parents can have more
options for their children. And that is why we oppose efforts by this
administration to waste money on needless tests and wasteful national
bureaucracies.
So I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and support
America's working families.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to
thank the Chairman of this committee. Because many would shirk at the
issue
[[Page H352]]
of national testing because we often think that testing is the way to
assure education.
But this last week, my school board members came to me and they said,
``Oh, please, do not test us any more. We already in our State have a
4th and 8th grade test. We are already having the teachers complain
that they are working to test instead of working to teach.''
So today what we are saying is Congress should take a look at this.
And it really says, Mr. President, you cannot spend that $342 million
developing a new bureaucracy, a new test, until you talk to us and we
talk to the people. That is what this debate is about. It is about
talking to the people.
When my school board members, one by one, from all over the State
that has little to big districts, come and say, all of our
administration is Federal regulation, testing and bureaucracy and it is
even affecting the classroom, we should take a look. The people elect
Congress, they elect us to represent them, and I think we should stop
and take a look.
This is a great bill, and I strongly support it.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished Ranking Member
for giving me this opportunity to speak in opposition to H.R. 2846, the
prohibition on Federally sponsored national testing.
As my colleagues know, this legislation would prohibit the
development and the administration of volunteer national testing
without specific statutory authority. This is a controversial issue,
clearly; and there are Members on both sides of the aisle who have
questions about testing. But that is not the issue before us today.
Last year, members of the Committee on Appropriations spent weeks
diligently working with the author of the legislation, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the authorizer, to craft an
acceptable compromise to this language. But that never, in fact,
belonged in an appropriations bill in the first place, that the
National Academy of Science would continue its studies on development
of the test.
The National Assessment Governing Board has recently determined that,
even if we should decide that the voluntary testing should proceed, the
test cannot be sufficiently developed and ready to be administered
until the year 2001.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the proposed test is to help our
students learn and to improve their performance. A voluntary national
test will determine whether our children possess the basic skills they
need to achieve and help their parents and teachers help them learn.
But a bipartisan compromise was worked out in good faith 3 months ago
to resolve this controversial issue. We do not need another resolution.
What we do need is to focus our efforts on making educational
opportunity possible for all other children by rebuilding schools in
desperate need of repair, reducing class size, and creating after-
school programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2846.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 8 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 4\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), and then I will close.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I know many people are concerned about the
standards in their schools. But this is something different. This is
Washington pointing an accusing finger at our Nation's children, many
trapped in inner city, broken down schools and saying you miserable
little failures. Do we really want Washington doing that?
Many people, myself included, I think have been very confused by the
mixed signals that the President is sending. Now I happen to believe
that there is a responsible public policy approach to dealing with a
potential surplus. For that reason, I am cosponsoring legislation
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) which is
consistent with a number of important policy objectives.
Last year, 300 of us had the courage to say that is not Washington's
business, that is the business of parents, local school boards, and the
States.
The question today and the question before us is who is going to
flip-flop their vote today.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, let me once again focus the debate on the real issue. I
agree with every question the Ranking Minority Member asked. We need to
have answers to those questions before anyone progresses with a test as
a done deal.
The only way we get to do that, as a matter of fact, is if we now
pass this legislation. Otherwise, we do not participate. We have not
been allowed to participate up to this point. We will not then.
We have a lot of questions to ask. We have hearings in February. We
have a hearing in March on testing. A lot of questions to ask. And we
need a lot of answers. One of those will be, who pays? Who pays? They
are very leery back there about who pays. Cops on the beat, oh, yes, we
will pay one time, and then we are stuck.
Well, let me tell my colleagues about the President's budget. The
President cuts $450 million from effective programs that operate on the
local level. The President adds $150 million for programs that will be
operated out of Washington, D.C. They have a right to ask who pays. We
do it one time and then they are stuck with it. Again, this is putting
the cart before the horse for them to move ahead without any
consultation with us.
We have all the questions I ask. We have all the questions the
Ranking Minority Member asks. They need to be answered. And they will
be answered as we have our debate in committee and then as we bring
that debate to the floor of the House.
But the only way we can get answers to those questions is if we are
players. And the only way we can be players is if we pass this
legislation so that, as a matter of fact, we get to participate in this
debate, and we get to ask the questions that the Ranking Member has
asked and I have asked.
So I ask my colleagues to, I realize, as I said before, there are a
lot of pie-in-the-sky promises out there. I know the vote will be
different. But I ask Members to vote for it. Vote your conscience. Do
not vote pie-in-the-sky promises.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding to me and I rise to express my support for overriding the
President's veto of H.R. 2631, the Line Item Veto Cancellation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am a long-time supporter of the line-item veto. This
new law makes possible a more restrained Congress, but also entrusts
the President with the important responsibility of using this new power
wisely. That is why I was so disappointed to see the President make a
misinformed decision in canceling funding for 38 military construction
projects, including 2 in my home state of Idaho, and then repeating
this mistake by vetoing this legislation.
As we all now know, based on faulty and outdated information provided
by the Department of Defense, President Clinton eliminated needed funds
for a B-1B bomber avionics facility for low-altitude navigation and a
F-15C squadron building for planning and briefing combat crews at
Mountain Home Air Force Base. Both of these projects are among the Air
Force's top priorities and were a part of the President's own 1999 and
2000 Pentagon budgets. These facilities are critical because the 366th
Composite Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base represents one of our
nation's premier rapid-deployment forces in times of an emergency. Even
Defense Secretary Cohen has reflected on the critical role of the 366th
Wing in our national security structure and acknowledged that ``it must
maintain peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to diverse
situations and conflicts.'' For service at home and in the Middle East,
Central America, and Europe, the men and women of Mountain Home Air
Force Base have answered the call of their country; it is only right
and proper that the Commander in Chief recognize this important
commitment.
I was pleased to assist in the effort to provide the President with
line-item veto authority. However, this power is significant and must
be practiced with great care and attention to preserve the system of
``checks and balances'' in our Constitution. It is my hope that the
President understands this and will in the future only exercise the
veto in appropriate cases.
At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman
Packard, Chairman
[[Page H353]]
Skeen, and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for
considering this measure today to overturn the President's veto. This
action today will send a strong message to the Senate and White House
that the American people expect careful use of the line-item veto. It
will also demonstrate to opponents of the line-item veto that the new
law works and is consistent with our Constitution.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2846
which bars Federal spending for planning, developing, implementing or
administering national education testing unless such tests are
specifically authorized by Congress.
Passage of this bill is good for our schools. The President's strong
support of national testing reveals serious philosophical differences
between many in Congress and the Administration with regard to the role
that teachers, parents, school board members and local communities play
in ensuring that our children have the best possible opportunities for
education available to them.
A national test would tell us little more than we already know--that
the measure of a child's education is determined both by the quality of
the education that the child has access to and the willingness and
ability of that child to learn. I oppose such a test because I believe
that we need to invest in our schoolchildren and in their education,
not study them.
Make no mistake, I think schools should provide minimum requirements
and standards of learning. However, we should not expand the role of
the Federal Government in education to achieve this goal. Our teachers,
parents, school districts and local communities, particularly those in
California's Central Valley, are more capable of cultivating a better
education for our children, and in measuring that education, than
federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Federal money is better spent
on improving the conditions and quality of our schools than on a full-
employment program for administrators of a national education test.
National testing is the first step towards further federal
intervention and control of the education of our children. In order to
administer a national test, it first must be written. This job, no
doubt, will be performed by federal bureaucrats in the Department of
Education. Soon, these same individuals will be setting the reading and
math standards for our nation's schoolchildren. Next, the Department of
Education will want to set the curriculum of school districts and
classrooms to meet those standards as evaluated through the federal
test.
Mr. Speaker, we spend over $29.5 billion on the federal Department of
Education. According to a recent study, only 85 cents of each dollar
that the department allocates for elementary and secondary education
actually makes it to the local school district. One study of a New York
public school system showed that only 43 cents of every district dollar
actually made it into the classroom.
If we want to maximize our return on federal education dollars, we
need to skip over the bureaucracy, reject national testing and provide
as much funding as possible directly to communities and schools.
Besides shifting education funds to local communities, it is
important that we ensure our children are given the educational choices
and opportunities they deserve. This means giving states, school
districts, local communities, teachers, and parents flexibility to
implement policies and use resources that best respond to the education
needs of that particular community--and not forcing them to adopt a
national one-size-fits-all test.
My goals for educating our children are not tied to national testing.
Instead, we must maintain our strong commitment to education funding
that shifts more dollars and greater control to our states,
communities, parents and teachers.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2846.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 2846, which forbids
the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National Test
without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters of protecting
the United States Constitution from overreaching by the Executive
Branch should support this bill as the Administration's plan to develop
and implement a national education test without Congressional
authorization is a blatant violation of the constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers.
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to
imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After
all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of
government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the
United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this,
in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will
of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the
United States Government.
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from
developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing
with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the
Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear,
the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an
explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no
legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all
matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best
able to educate children--individual states, local communities, and,
primarily, parents.
Implementation of a national test also must be opposed because of its
primary effect: the de facto creation of a national curriculum. Many
supporters of a national testing try to minimize this threat to local
and parental sovereignty by claiming the program would be voluntary.
However, these are many of the same people who consider 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 measure for college entrance exams and entry-level
jobs. At the very least, schools would soon find federal, and perhaps
even state, funding conditioned upon their ``voluntary'' participation
in the national testing program.
Educators will react to this pressure to ensure students scored
highly on the national test by ``teaching to the test''--that is,
structuring the curriculum so students learn those subjects, and only
those subjects covered by the national tests. As University of Kansas
Professor John Poggio remarked in February of last year, ``What gets
tested is what will be taught.'' Government bureaucrats would then
control the curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be
able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national test!
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well, as
performance on the national tests becomes the standard by which student
performance is judged. Those in private and home schools will face
increasing pressure to participate in national testing and shape what
is taught to fit the criteria of the tests.
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government
can control the curriculum of every school in the nation.
Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to
constitutional government and parental control of education.
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and
develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize
the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which
stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests
and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test.
Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their
children's education to the American people by shutting down the
federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America's parents so
they may provide for the education of their own children.
Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, last year this Congress voted 295-125
against allowing the federal government to establish national tests for
education. However, President Clinton and the Federal Department of
Education continue to pursue their effort to establish national
testing. I am very disturbed, but quite frankly not surprised by the
President's efforts to bypass the Congress and establish national
testing. He has done this in other areas as well.
The Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, discretion
over federal spending. The Congress has not authorized the
Administration to expend taxpayer funds on developing or implementing a
national education test and its is wrong for the Administration to
pursue such efforts.
The American people don't want federal control of education and that
is exactly what national testing moves us towards. H.R. 2847 would
ensure that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (the
Congress) will have increased involvement and discretion over this
program. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation and am hopeful that
we can move it forward.
Unlike liberals in Washington, I believe that states and local
communities are better equipped to design and implement school
assessment programs because they are closer to the needs and abilities
of their students, teachers, and schools. Furthermore, national testing
could lead to a watered-down, ineffective test which holds everyone to
lower standards. It also would divert scarce federal education dollars
away from the classrooms and would reallocate them toward bureaucracy
and test administrators.
I am very concerned about the potential that a national test could
effectively lead to the adoption of a national curriculum. In this
scenario, individual school districts would be compelled to conform
their classroom curriculum
[[Page H354]]
to the national test in order to ensure that their students did well on
the test. Educating children and giving them the skills and abilities
they need would be sacrificed so that learning is geared toward doing
well on a national test. I believe education decisions should be made
by state and local governments, not the federal government.
Finally, many states and local communities have done a considerable
amount of work to develop their own standards. Florida has been a
leader in this area and has just completed an extensive effort to
improve standards and implement its own state test. For the federal
government to thwart the extensive effort and expenditure of the State
of Florida is wrong and should be rejected. I trust the people in the
State of Florida to do what is right, not the bureaucrats and education
elite at the Federal Department of Education in Washington.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2846
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) High State and local standards in reading, mathematics,
and other core academic subjects are essential to the future
well-being of elementary and secondary education in this
country.
(2) State and local control of education is the hallmark of
education in the United States.
(3) Each of the 50 States already utilizes numerous tests
to measure student achievement, including State and
commercially available assessments. State assessments are
based primarily upon State and locally developed academic
standards.
(4) Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education Appropriations Act, 1998, ensures that Federal
funds may not be used to field test, pilot test, implement,
administer, or distribute in any way, any federally sponsored
national test in fiscal year 1998, requires the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to determine whether
an equivalency scale can be developed that would allow
existing tests to be compared one to another, and permits
very limited test development activities in fourth grade
reading and eighth grade mathematics in fiscal year 1998.
(5) There is no specific or explicit authority in current
Federal law authorizing the proposed federally sponsored
national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade
mathematics.
(6) The decision of whether or not this country implements,
administers, disseminates, or otherwise has federally
sponsored national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth
grade mathematics or any other subject, will be determined
primarily through the normal legislative process involving
Congress and the respective authorizing committees.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED TESTING.
Part C of the General Education Provisions Act is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 447. Prohibition on federally sponsored testing
``(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law and, except as provided in sections
305 through 311 of Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act, 1998, funds
provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable
program under this Act or any other Act, may not be used to
develop, plan, implement (including pilot testing or field
testing), or administer any federally sponsored national test
in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not
specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing
legislation enacted into law.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
Third International Math and Science Study or other
international comparative assessments developed under
authority of section 406(a)(6) of the National Education
Statistics Act of 1994, and administered to only a
representative sample of pupils in the United States and in
foreign nations.''.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in
the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will
be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2846) to
prohibit spending Federal education funds on national testing without
explicit and specific legislation, pursuant to House Resolution 348, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays, 174, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 9]
YEAS--242
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H355]]
NAYS--174
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Becerra
Burton
Cannon
Dellums
Eshoo
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Herger
Istook
Kilpatrick
Klink
McKeon
Pickering
Schiff
{time} 1250
Mr. SNYDER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EVANS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________