[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.

                          ____________________