[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 125 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8037-H8072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). Pursuant to House Resolution 
543 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. 3248.

                              {time}  0902


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H8038]]

House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3248) to provide Dollars to the Classroom, with Mrs. Emerson 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 California (Mr. Martinez) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, it was last evening when I indicated that I would try 
to be as kind as I could to the Department of Education and as kind as 
I could to the lobbyists for the chief school administrators, but it is 
very difficult to be kind with my words when it is very obvious that 
they knew exactly what they were doing when they sent erroneous 
material to Members of the Congress. They knew very well that what they 
were talking about was an appropriation bill. We are not talking about 
an appropriation bill today. We, as a matter of fact, are talking about 
Dollars to the Classroom.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if the 
appropriators reduce spending in any category, less money will be 
available. But this has nothing to do with that. No matter what the 
appropriators do, we, with Dollars to the Classroom, will send more 
money to the classroom. No matter what, as I said, the appropriators 
would do.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has labored long and hard 
for 2 years to bring this legislation to us. And I want to point out 
before anybody gets up and says our State would lose money, that they 
are wrong. Let me pick off some States, and those in the committee will 
know which States I am choosing, since they sit to my right, one, two, 
three, four, five, six, down the line.
  Missouri. Missouri gets $8 million more in Dollars to the Classroom. 
California gets $25 million more in Dollars to the Classroom. New 
Jersey gets $12 million more. Michigan gets $17 million more. New York, 
$13 million more. Indiana, $5.5 million more. Hawaii, about $2 million 
more. All those States gain, not lose, with Dollars to the Classroom.
  I can understand why the bureaucracy and those who represent 
bureaucracies are trying to derail the program. They want to save the 
bureaucracies. They apparently do not care whether money gets to 
teachers and to children. They apparently are only concerned about 
having the bureaucracy in Washington and having the bureaucracy back in 
the States. Well, that does not help improve education in the United 
States. And that additional money to each of those States that I 
mentioned, and all other States, means that every school will get 
$9,300 more and every classroom will get $425 more. And that is from 
the Congressional Research Service, not from me.
  We have 760 programs across 40 bureaucracies at the present time. Do 
my colleagues realize it takes teachers and administrators 48 million 
hours a year to complete the paperwork required by the Federal 
Government, or the equivalent of 25,000 teachers working 40 hours per 
week for a full year just to cut through the red tape? Not one penny to 
a child. What a tragedy.
  Well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and our committee 
have before us today an opportunity to get the money down to the 
children, 95 percent down into the classroom where the teacher and the 
children and the administrators and the parents can make a true effort 
to bring about the necessary reform in order to make sure that all 
receive a quality education in the United States.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to yield 
time?
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I do not want to end up finding that we 
have yielded all the time and then have no time to refute all the 
misstatements that may be made later on. And I am sure they will be 
made.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
and for bringing this reform to the floor.
  Before I go into the specifics of this bill, let me just cover some 
charts here. This is a $2.74 billion bill that directs money to the 
classrooms, to the parents, the teachers, and the children of this 
Nation. And what I am looking forward to is delivering this check. 
Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to go to their 
districts and give a check to their children, to their teachers, to 
their parents, similar to this for the 16th Congressional District. 
This money can be used the way they want to spend it, and this is 
additional money under the existing appropriations level. This is the 
kind of money that is being freed up due to elimination of the 
administrative requirements that are presently required that eat up 
about 35 percent of Federal education tax dollars.
  Let me just briefly describe the bill. What the bill does is 
consolidate 31 Federal programs and, instead of those Federal programs, 
as this chart shows, being siphoned off at every level, the Federal 
level, the State level, instead of money being used for agencies and 
assistance centers and private organizations, administrative cost, 
paperwork, the money will be a single stream from the U.S. Federal 
Department of Education down to the local school districts. This means 
a tremendous savings, with more flexibility, more money, and more local 
control.
  Every State is held harmless 100 percent. There is an inflationary 
provision in the bill. And the result is the children of this Nation 
are going to win. Whatever the local teachers and parents decide is 
their need in spending education tax dollars, they can spend that 
money. And it might be spending money to make smaller class sizes, it 
might be for computers hooking up to the internet, microscopes, maps, 
globes, teachers' salaries, aids, equipment, books, supplies, whatever 
their priorities are is what they can use the money for.
  And so, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased that organizations like the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce are saying this is going to be a key vote in 
how they rate Members.
  I think it really comes down to this: Who do we trust with our tax 
dollars? Our local teachers, our local educators, our local parents, or 
the bureaucracy, the Federal bureaucracy? I cast my vote for our 
children, our teachers, our parents on the local level.
  Support the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3248, the Dollars 
to the Classroom Act. This legislation converts 31 targeted popular, 
effective elementary and secondary education programs into a block 
grant to the States. The replaced programs include Eisenhower 
Professional Development, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Goals 
2000, School to Work, Comprehensive School Reform, and even Close-Up. 
This is the only attempt by the majority to address education reform 
during the 105th Congress, and it relies on a measure that removes 
accountability, eliminates targeting to the neediest children, and 
promotes reduction in education spending.
  H.R. 3248 abandons the Federal commitment to target education dollars 
to the neediest children in America. Currently, the Federal Government 
targets education funds to impoverished areas at seven times the rate 
of State and local efforts. H.R. 3248 repeals this targeting and allows 
Governors and States to divert limited resources away from needy 
schools and students.
  H.R. 3248 also replaces existing programs that have strong 
accountability with a blank check to the States, and does not provide 
the oversight necessary to ensure quality programs. In addition, H.R. 
3248 will cause a loss in education funding generally. In 1981, more 
than 40 education programs were merged into a block grant. Since then, 
funding for this education block grant has decreased by more than half. 
We should be enhancing our investment in education not gradually 
dismantling the Department of Education through budget cuts and block 
grants.
  Finally, H.R. 3248 does nothing to address real education priorities, 
such as modernizing our public schools, reducing class size, improving 
reading and reforming our most troubled schools.

[[Page H8039]]

  Our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, will offer an 
amendment that represents a key ingredient in education reform. This 
amendment will substitute the bill with a class size reduction 
initiative. Support for class size reduction cuts across party lines. 
In the State of California, the class size initiative was put in place 
by Governor Wilson. Other State and local officials, including a 
Republican gubernatorial candidate in the State of Maryland, are 
looking to class size reduction initiatives to spur education reform.

                              {time}  0915

  My colleagues should consider H.R. 3248 for what it is, just one more 
attempt to do away with the Federal role in education. We should 
support nonpartisan efforts to improve the quality of instruction for 
children across the Nation. We should help local schools address 
education reform at its most basic level, the size of the class and the 
quality of the instruction.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting legislation that 
dismantles viable, important education programs and support class size 
reduction substitute of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like 
to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that as a matter of fact 
Illinois will receive an additional $15,960,940. That is Illinois that 
will receive that additional $16 million. I would also remind the 
speaker that we do not abandon a commitment to children. We abandon the 
commitment to bureaucrats. We are intending to make very, very sure 
that it is children we focus on. I also would remind him that it does 
not call for a loss in funding. That loss comes if the appropriators 
appropriate according to the way they said they are. They will not.
  He also indicated that maybe there was a loss in Chapter 2 money. 
There was--under a Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives. 
I would remind all of them that there is an increase to Illinois of 
$15,960,000 that goes right down to the classroom to help children.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I love it when our chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
gets angry about these things and tries to emphasize how we are going 
to being better off in actuality, and he really believes that. But we 
on the other side happen to believe differently.
  In the first place, this is not really about dollars to the 
classroom. How do you get more dollars to the classroom when you cut 
the appropriation by 16 percent? As far as 95 percent to the classroom, 
the reality is that all these Federal programs, the administrative cap 
on them does not exceed 5 percent, anyway.
  So what is it really all about? I will tell you. It is really all 
about block-granting. The block grant concept is the idea of giving 
flexibility to local jurisdictions. That is fine, too. Except that 
these programs, in all these 31 programs we are targeting special 
populations, because locals either for one reason or another, because 
of budget constraints or because of just no concern for the problem, 
were neglecting these populations, these special populations. These are 
national priorities, not local priorities. As a result, we are going to 
block-grant and give the locals the discretion of how to use the money. 
Well, that is fine, too, and I could go along with that in certain 
programs, but in these certain programs where there are special 
population needs, the problem is that if the local decides that that is 
not the problem and it is not sufficient and they do not want to 
address the problem and serve that special population, they are not 
going to do it.
  By the admission of the chairman the other day himself when the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) was complaining about that special 
population program for native Hawaiians, he said, ``Hey, look, in this 
system that we are setting in place, she could have all the money for 
that program. She could convince her locals that that is the greatest 
need and they could get all the money.'' Therein lies the problem. I do 
not think that the chairman realizes that that very thing might happen 
and that special populations where we determine their greatest need are 
not going to get served.
  This bill is a shameful attempt to sabotage the Federal support for 
education. The bill would destroy a number of popular and effective 
elementary and secondary programs such as the Eisenhower professional 
development, Goals 2000, school-to-work, comprehensive school program 
and technology for education by creating this block grant. Repealing 
these programs effectively eliminates critical programs designed to 
enhance professional development for teachers, to develop challenging 
State standards, to expand employment opportunities and to create 
innovative educational instruction methods.
  H.R. 3248 abandons the Federal commitment to target funds to the 
neediest of children. The Federal Government targets education funds to 
poor areas at seven times the rate of State or local efforts. H.R. 3248 
repeals targeting and allows governors and States to divert limited 
resources away from needy schools and students.
  H.R. 3248 also eliminates accountability for Federal dollars. While 
existing programs have strong accountability provisions, this block 
grant gives the States a blank check and fails to provide oversight 
necessary to ensure quality programs.
  Most importantly, H.R. 3248 will cause a loss in educational funding 
generally. In every case where there has been a block grant, programs 
put together in a block grant, subsequent appropriators have 
appropriated less money for that and the programs get less money to 
deal with the very vast problems that they have. Past efforts to block-
grant programs have led to substantially decreased funding levels in 
education. We should be enhancing our investment in education, not 
dismantling the Department of Education through budget cuts and block 
grants.
  Finally, H.R. 3248 does nothing to address the real educational 
priorities such as modernizing our public schools, reducing class size, 
improving reading and reforming our most troubled schools.
  Madam Chairman, later we will offer a substitute amendment to insert 
the Democratic plan to reduce class sizes. This initiative would enable 
school districts across the country to hire 100,000 new teachers and 
ensure that existing teachers have access to the latest and most 
successful instructional techniques. The goal of the plan is to reduce 
the class size in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18.
  We all know that small class size means more individual attention to 
the students. High quality teachers and smaller classes are the key to 
enhancing student achievement. Rather than adopting phony education 
reform through block grants, we should move swiftly to hire new 
teachers to reduce class sizes so that every child in America has a 
fair shot of succeeding.
  Madam Chairman, in the State of California, Governor Wilson, a 
Republican governor, put forth a program of reducing class sizes and it 
has been implemented in California. They have found that in 
implementing that program that there is a tremendous need, new need for 
a great number of more teachers. In fact, there was a shortage of 
teachers before. They are having a difficult time reaching that. Then 
they find out that aside from needing more teachers, they are going to 
need more classrooms, they are going to need more equipment, they are 
going to need better trained teachers in the new technologies and all 
of this. This program does nothing to enhance any of that and still 
leaves those States like California who had the initiative to reduce 
class size in the beginning without the wherewithal to be able to 
provide for those students.
  Madam Chairman, our students have the greatest need. I do not think 
we ought to be politicizing this thing and getting into theories about 
what might work, but we ought to be working solidly to provide the 
needs for these students. If we get up and we mean what we say in our 
speeches that our children are our future, that our children are the 
most important thing in our lives, then we ought to be working to help 
them, not hurt them.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8040]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Michigan, I say, aha, we just heard one more time, ``You can't trust 
those local people. You can't trust the State.''
  We are going to give Pete Wilson $24,928,828 more to reduce his class 
size and to prepare his teachers to teach in those classrooms.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton), an important member of the committee who will receive in his 
State an additional $16,756,290.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, the last time I looked, our school boards 
were local, they are not Federal. As I look at the decisions that they 
make, whether it be in curriculum or different programs for the 
students that they serve in every community, they have a very tough 
job. They do it very well.
  As I look at a number of the programs that have been consolidated, 
some 31 programs to the tune of a little bit more than $2.5 billion, 
this bill that we are taking up today allows them the flexibility to 
use the dollars as they decide. I visited just about every school 
district in my district over the last year and visit a school virtually 
every week. I have seen programs work and I have seen programs that 
have not worked. One of the programs that works I think terrifically is 
the math and science program that we have across our district. That 
program is well under way in many areas across the country. Now that it 
is under way, in the future, if this bill passes, they can use funds 
that are already in place for something else.
  The gentleman before me spoke about reducing the classroom ratio. 
They can do that under this bill. That is a very admirable goal. My 
brother is a public school teacher. As a parent, I know the importance 
of having a small teacher-student ratio. If that is a priority as it 
should be under this bill, they can do exactly that.
  We do not need a Democratic substitute to this bill that solely does 
that because it is redundant. It is already included in the bill. This 
bill allows the flexibility for school boards and staff across the 
country to make sure that the dollars that they are receiving go to the 
areas that they want to be a priority. They can mix and match. They can 
take those funds. They are not cut. The reason why virtually every 
State is going to receive more money is because this bill allows for 
that.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I am amazed that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle support the Dollars to the Classroom Act. And I 
am amazed that we hear that the majority of districts will receive more 
money when the Congressional Research Service has estimated that 27 out 
of the 50 States will receive less money in fiscal year 1999 under this 
legislation than they would have under the existing 31 programs that 
were funded in fiscal year 1998. In fact, some States will lose as much 
as 68 percent of their fiscal year 1998 funding.
  Now, of course I am delighted that California will receive more in 
this round of appropriations if this is passed. But we cannot count, 
with the priorities of this Congress on block granting, supporting 
increased funding when appropriations is cutting education by 20 
percent in this year alone.
  It truly appears to me that the majority party, not the minority 
party--the Republicans, not the Democrats--would tell communities how 
they should spend their education dollars. Education in America has 
always been a local issue. We know that. I for one think that is the 
way it should be. But in the communities that I represent, Marin and 
Sonoma counties, the two counties just north of San Francisco across 
the Golden Gate Bridge, it is the parents, the educators and the 
students who join together with local elected school boards to decide 
how to spend their education dollars. They do not need Washington, 
D.C., and they do not need Sacramento to tell them what they need.
  In my district, the majority of educators and the majority of 
education funding is spent in the classroom. But sometimes a community 
needs to spend funds in other ways, such as teacher training 
activities, educational technology, coordinated services. It will not 
matter how much money we spend in the classroom, Madam Chairman, unless 
we have world class teachers and our children come to school ready to 
learn. We have always relied on parents, educators, and the local 
community leaders to make local education decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to show their trust in the folks back home by 
voting against the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Montana, I would point out once again, California will get an 
additional $24,928,828, right to the classroom.

                              {time}  0930

  I just heard the gentlewoman say what the Congressional Research 
Office said. That is totally opposite what the Congressional Research 
said. Those are manipulated figures from the department that deal with 
a budget with an appropriation bill. It has nothing to do with the 
legislation before us. So let us not mix apples and oranges.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Hill), who will receive an additional $1,868,822 under Dollars to the 
Classroom to help children.
  Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, if we listen to the debate on the left, we 
would think that only bureaucrats in Washington care about the kids, 
but I can tell my colleagues that there are teachers and parents and 
school administrators in Montana that care more about the kids in 
Montana than anyone here in Washington.
  The debate here today, Dollars to the Classroom, is a simple debate. 
It is not a new idea, Madam Chairman; it is about taking dollars from 
the bureaucracy and giving it to our schools. Cutting the overhead is 
what we call it in business.
  But those who are defending the status quo, the establishment, say 
that we cannot reform education. They say that we should measure 
success by how many people we put to work in Washington. They say we 
should measure success by how many forms we require people to fill out 
or how many filing cabinets we put them in.
  The establishment says that we will measure our success by how much 
activity we generate. Reformers say, no, that we can measure our 
success by how well our kids are doing. Our kids can do better and need 
to do better, and we can do that by trusting local teachers, local 
school boards and holding schools accountable to their parents.
  Sending more dollars to the classroom will begin the process of 
shifting the emphasis away from Washington to our home towns, to our 
local schools, and to our kids. I urge my colleagues to support Dollars 
to the Classroom.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman realizes that 
under this block grant program, his State would lose 12 percent.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time I 
have remaining be controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) 
for a few minutes in my absence.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Dollars to the Classroom, which leaves schools with no guarantee 
that they would actually get any additional dollars.
  This bill would distribute education grants based solely on student 
population, not based on poverty rates, or having a good idea for 
making a school work, demonstrating success and improving student 
achievement, or any other criteria. And once the money goes out, we 
have no way to hold the States accountable for how they spend taxpayer 
dollars. In fact, there is no accountability that is built into this 
program.
  We need to make sure that all of our American children who attend 
public schools learn to the high standards, that they have qualified 
teachers in classrooms who are equipped with up-

[[Page H8041]]

to-date materials, and our kids are able to attend school in a safe 
environment.
  This bill would accomplish none of those goals. It would repeal 31 of 
the most effective education programs on the books. Among the 
casualties, Eisenhower Professional Development Program. This supports 
teacher training in math and science. School To Work, which helps young 
people realize their aspirations and to develop career goals. Safe and 
Drug Free Schools, which gives parents security in knowing that their 
child is safe when they are in school. All of that would be gone.
  If we are truly serious about improving public education, and we must 
be serious about improving public education, then we would be talking 
here today about reducing class size, about putting 100,000 new 
teachers in grades 1 through 3, not just because of numbers, but 
because of smaller class size. What it does is it allows for individual 
attention, it allows for more discipline. It creates better standards.
  What we would be doing here today is to say, let us modernize our 
schools. Let us provide local government with a tax credit that allows 
them to build schools and new classrooms and to be able to wire their 
schools up to the Internet to get the new technology that our 
youngsters need in order that they may succeed for their future. That 
is what we would be discussing here today, if our goal is to improve 
our schools and make sure our children learn. This Dollars to the 
Classroom is spurious, it does not work, it will not work.
  Let me just say one more thing. My colleague from Pennsylvania who 
was in the chair before, and I do not know if this will resume, will 
talk about those States that are increasing their dollars. Well, my 
State of Connecticut will lose money, 8.5 percent of dollars, $2.5 
million. In addition to which, what is not being discussed here is that 
in the overall appropriation bill that the committee just passed, all 
of these programs are cut back by 20 percent, so that this notion that 
there are additional dollars going to the classroom is really a false 
promise.
  What we need to do today is to vote ``no'' on this bill and vote for 
a Democratic substitute that in fact says, let us improve public 
schools in this country. Let us give all of our kids the break that 
they need and the opportunity that they need to succeed for the future.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  I would just note for the previous speaker who is opposing the bill 
that the CRS, Congressional Research estimates will mean at least $1.9 
million more than under the current law for all school districts in 
Connecticut, averaging about $9,300 per school.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson), whose school districts in this State would receive at 
least $2.3 million more under the Dollars to the Classroom act, 
averaging again $9,300 more per school and $425 per classroom.
  Mrs. WILSON. Madam Chairman, I am amazed, amazed at my opponents on 
the other side of the aisle. The question in this debate and about this 
bill is who do we trust? Of course the Department of Education in 
Washington opposes this bill and wants accountability with its reams 
and reams of paperwork.
  I will tell my colleagues who I trust. I trust the teachers and the 
principals and the school administrators in my hometown to come up with 
an integrated plan of how we are going to educate our kids. We do not 
need stovepipes from Washington telling us how to spend those dollars 
and requiring us to hire administrators to fill out paperwork, to tell 
bureaucrats in Washington how they spent them. That is wrong.
  We can educate our children at the local level, increasing funds to 
the classroom, and we have seen it work in State government. Get rid of 
the bureaucrats, and hire the teachers. That is what this bill does, 
and that is why I am supporting it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  I hope the gentlewoman understands that her State, New Mexico, loses 
20 percent under this bill.
  They all talk about us on this side wanting to micromanage and tell 
the locals what to do. Well, on those particular means of those special 
populations, we are telling them what to do because they were not doing 
it. But if we want to talk about micromanaging, look at the bill, read 
the bill. The bill has so many instances where they tell exactly the 
school districts what to do, that they know best in this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  This is not about Dollars to the Classroom, this is about eliminating 
programs that have been created by previous Congresses that target 
funding to the local communities, local educational systems to the 
States for specific purposes. Make no mistake about that. It is the 
elimination of these important programs.
  Just take a look at the list that is prepared for us in the committee 
report. Title I, school-wide programs. Goals 2000. We know that the 
majority does not like Goals 2000. Why do they not just come forward 
with a straightforward bill to eliminate it. Instead they talk about 
Dollars to the Classroom and in the bill is the elimination of Goals 
2000. School To Work is also on the list. Eisenhower Professional 
Development. Every one of the majority members of our committee talks 
about the importance of teacher training, and they are eliminating 
Eisenhower Professional Development. STAR schools, magnet schools, 
gifted and talented, arts and education, civic education, and all of 
these very, very important things. They have taken the funding, lumped 
it all together in a $2 billion program and given it to the States.
  There is no assurance that the States or the governors or anybody 
that will be handling the distribution of this money will send these 
Dollars to the Classroom. There is nothing in the bill that requires 
the State agencies or the State government or whoever is going to 
distribute the money to put this money into the classrooms. So it is a 
fraud. It is a basic effort to try to eliminate these important 
programs.
  The bill will change the whole nature of education funding where we 
have built into it accountability. As the previous speakers on this 
side have pointed out, accountability is very important. The 
distinguished chairman of our committee gave a passionate speech on the 
floor earlier this week about the need for quality and accountability 
in Head Start, and yet here today we are debating a bill that virtually 
eliminates all accountability in the 31 education programs that are 
included in this block grant.
  The programs that are listed are basically geared to disadvantaged 
children. We have no assurance that the disadvantaged in our 
communities are going to be better served.
  The idea that this bill is eliminating Federal bureaucracy, and that 
is why we have to block grant it to the States, is a complete fraud. 
Every person that has testified from the Federal Government about the 
amount of administrative monies that are going into the management of 
these programs will tell us that the U.S. Department of Education 
spends no more than 2 percent of the Federal budget for administrative 
purposes. So 98 percent of the funding is going to the States for the 
purposes that are outlined in these 31 eliminated programs.
  Look at the programs and we will see that some of it is not classroom 
designated, but that is not the fault of the Federal Government. It is 
for teacher training, counseling and all of these other things. So that 
is an absolute misstatement.
  The second thing I have heard over and over is that there are 760 
education programs, and the Federal Government therefore has this huge, 
mountainous bureaucracy. Let me correct the facts. The U.S. Department 
of Education has only 183 programs out of which only 102 are in the 
elementary secondary level. So we are talking about 760 programs that 
are in the NIH, in Commerce, in Agriculture, in Interior, in all the 
other areas of government, but not the U.S. Department of Education.
  So we are mixing all sorts of rationale for this very, very devious 
effort to try to eliminate the whole concept of Federal aid to 
education, and I urge this House to defeat this bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

[[Page H8042]]

  I would just note to the previous speaker that these programs are not 
eliminated. They continue. They will continue in Hawaii, they will 
continue in Michigan, they will continue in Ohio. We just changed from 
Father Knows Best in terms of the Federal Government to the local 
schools are going to decide what is best for those students, and that 
is where those dollars are going to be utilized.
  I would note to the gentlewoman from Hawaii that under this bill, the 
authorization bill that Hawaii is going to get $1.8 million more under 
this program which accounts for about $9,300 per school and $425 per 
classroom.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), whose district will benefit from this program.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time, and I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the committee for bringing this bill 
forward.
  This is common sense reform, taking 31 programs of the Department of 
Education, consolidating them and block granting the money back to the 
States. They have made sure that we have held States harmless from 
losing funds, so every school in America will benefit as a result of 
this.
  But as I have listened to this debate this morning, it conjures up 
memories. Memories of the debate that we had over welfare reform in 
this House for years. The debate was never over money; the debate was 
always over who was going to reform welfare. Were we going to continue 
the Washington Knows Best mentality and try to reform it from 
Washington, or were we going to send these programs back to the 50 
States, the 50 laboratories of democracy, and allow them to reform 
welfare, to meet the needs of the people in their States.

                              {time}  0945

  We did it. The President signed the bill on the third try.
  What has happened? We have had a 50 percent, almost 50 percent 
reduction in case loads in welfare all around the country. We have got 
another opportunity here today to move power and influence away from 
Washington back home to States, local communities, and, in this case, 
most importantly, to parents of children who attend school.
  The question over how we are going to reform education and how we are 
going to ensure that our children get a better education is the essence 
of this bill. We have got one side of the aisle that wants Washington 
to continue to mandate on the States, mandate on local schools what 
should happen, make those decisions here.
  We on the Republican side say no. Let us trust parents. Let us trust 
the teachers and our local communities to make those decisions about 
our children's future at home where those decisions belong.
  This is a great piece of legislation. Let us support it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 9 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I would prefer if the other side went 
so we can even out the time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of Michigan (Mr. Smith) whose district will benefit from 
this.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Chairman, as I have been down here since 
1993, I see one danger, and that is many people in Washington tend to 
become elitists. They study a problem. They think they can solve that 
problem better than anybody else in the world even if it is a local 
problem.
  In this case, we have come up with many decisions on how the 
Washington money has to be spent as we send it back to local schools 
and to the States. So we say, look, here is some money to build a roof, 
but you can only use it for roof building. Here is money for the 
Internet and wiring for the Internet, but that is all you can spend it 
for. If you have already put in that kind of technology, tough luck.
  This bill moves that decision making from Washington back to 
teachers, back to parents, back to that local school board. Anybody 
that believes that those solutions that are closest to the problem have 
the best chance in success of solving that problem are going to support 
this kind of legislation that gets 95 percent of the money out of 
Washington, gives it back to the classrooms where we can use it to 
teach students to the best of the ability of those parents.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) whose district will receive $31.5 million more under 
this program.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the money. I am rising in 
support of this common sense legislation and urge my colleagues to vote 
for it.
  Today we have a simple choice. We can give more money to teachers and 
classrooms to help students learn, or we can give more money to the 
Washington bureaucracy.
  So if my colleagues are in favor of improving education in this 
Nation, they will vote for this piece of legislation. If my colleagues 
are in favor of expanding the Washington bureaucracy, they will vote 
against this legislation.
  The American people believe that education is best handled at the 
local level, not in Washington. This legislation gives our teachers and 
school boards help without giving them unfunded mandates.
  Make no mistake about it. This legislation is a winner for our 
Nation's schools. Under this bill, no school districts would lose 
money. This bill signals and shows how Federal education dollars can be 
delivered to our Nation's schools. It will send more dollars directly 
to the classroom while giving States and local educators more funding 
options.
  School districts could choose to put greater amounts of Federal money 
into priorities such as school technology, teacher improvement, and 
school reform.
  Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and 
vote to really improve education in this country.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I am sorry, but I disagree with the previous speaker. 
The fact is that States will lose money on the reduction of the 
appropriation bill. Hawaii will lose $77 million. As a matter of fact, 
they realize it because they put it in the bill; that ``if the amount 
allocated to a State to carry out this title for any fiscal year is 
insufficient to pay the full amounts that all local education agencies 
in such State are eligible to receive under paragraph (2) for such 
year, the State shall ratably reduce such amounts for such year.'' They 
knew that the money was going to be reduced.
  Madam Chairman, 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 Chairman, I will try and talk as fast as I can in 2 
minutes on what I have heard just since I have been here on the floor.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), he and I share 
Harris County. I know if he gets $31 million, I know where he is taking 
it out of. He is taking it out of inner city schools like I represent.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) represents a very suburban 
district. If that is the intent of this bill, and that may very well be 
happening, then that is a great reason to oppose it.
  Let me talk a little bit about the title of the this bill, the truth 
in taxation is truth in Dollars to the Classroom. The truth in the 
labeling in this bill is something we should have, because if it 
actually sends dollars to the classroom, how come the report I see from 
my folks in Texas show that we are going to lose $17 million, 9.3 
percent of the programs that are allocated under this to the Dollars in 
the Classroom? So I think maybe the numbers are incorrect.
  This is just a continuation, Madam Chairman, of what I have seen in 
the last 4 years. In 1995, we saw an effort to eliminate the Department 
of Education, attack on school lunches, the effort just last week to 
have Federal Government tell local States what to do with bilingual 
education even with

[[Page H8043]]

State money and eliminate safe and drug-free schools.
  So what we are seeing now is under a false labeling, Dollars to the 
Classroom. We are seeing an effort to block grant a great many Federal 
funds. Eighty-five percent of the Federal funding for education goes to 
12 key programs, Title I, Pell Grants, IDE, Individuals with 
Disabilities. That is where most of the money is at. That is in these 
programs, not in the programs they are talking about, although these 
are impacted by this.
  So, again, the block granting to States would probably benefit 
districts like my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I 
represent a very inner city district; 60 percent minority population. 
Most of the students are minority. They are either poor or they have 
language needs that need to be addressed.
  What we are seeing in this bill is the taking away of the urban needs 
where this targeted money goes to and sending it to the suburbs. That 
should be a State decision, but let us not give them Federal money to 
make that State decision.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, I would note again there is no elimination of 
programs in this bill and that the State of Texas under this bill would 
get $31.5 million more.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones) whose district in his State will receive more than 
$4 million.
  Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, Dollars to the Classroom will free up $2.7 
billion of the taxpayers' money so that dollars can go directly to the 
schools. If we truly want to make a difference in education of our 
Nation's children, the Dollars to the Classroom Act is an important 
step forward.
  Under this bill, education decisions will be made by the parents, the 
teachers, communities who best know our children and who together hold 
the key to strengthening our schools.
  My State of North Carolina will receive additional dollars. I can 
assure my colleagues that those dollars will be better spent by the 
people of North Carolina than the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Madam 
Chairman, if we want to truly educate our children, we need to return 
our tax dollars to the classrooms where it can truly make a difference.
  Madam Chairman, in closing, if we want to help our children, we need 
to vote for Dollars to the Classroom, give it back to the parents, give 
it back to the communities, and help education in America.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, everybody loses in this bill. This is not 
a bill to invest in American education, the kind of new investment we 
need. This is a bill to move money around. This is a Houdini bill. This 
is a swindle. This is a con game brought to us by the people who wanted 
to abolish the Department of Education in 1994. They wanted to reduce 
education funding by $4 billion in 1995.
  This is another way to do the same thing that the voters have already 
rejected. This is an abolishment of Federal authority in the area of 
education. Already the States have most of the authority. We only have 
7 percent of Federal expenditures, therefore, Federal's influence and 
control can be no more than 7 percent.
  The other 93 percent of the authority to make decisions, the 
authority to have our education system is in the hands of the States 
already. If education is in a bad state, it is because the States have 
made it so. Giving them more money from the Federal Government will not 
help the matter.
  When World War II started, we were unprepared to fight a war. The 
draftees were in bad health from across the country from various States 
because the States had neglected them. Their health was poor. We had to 
have Federal intervention to deal with that.
  We were approaching the 21st Century, and we are not going to be 
prepared for global leadership because we are not allowing the Federal 
Government to exercise the minimal influence that it has been 
exercising to try to improve education in the States.
  This is a con game. These are Houdini experts. The public I think is 
smart enough to understand. There is no new money here. The people who 
wanted to abolish the Department of Education and the Federal authority 
of education have taken a different route.
  We need a major investment in education for school construction. We 
need a major investment for technology. We need a major investment to 
reduce class sizes by having more teachers. We need to do those things 
and do them right away in order for us to keep pace with the kind of 
leadership role that we have in the world at this point.
  We are at a pivotal point in our history. Yet, we are trivializing 
and almost making a joke of the whole responsibility that we have. My 
colleagues are playing around with something that is very vital to the 
national security. This is a swindle.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, I would note again that reducing class size is an 
eligible activity under this program, and the State of New York, under 
this bill, would get $13 million more than current law.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee whose State 
would receive $16.8 million more.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for bringing this issue forward.
  This is not a swindle. The Federal Government provides 7 percent, I 
have been told this many times, 7 percent of the money and 70 to 80 
percent of the paperwork. They are the bureaucracy that stifles our 
system.
  This is about more teachers, less bureaucracies. This does move money 
around from the bureaucracy to the classroom. How do we do it? How do 
we put $800 million in the classroom and $9,300 per school to $425 per 
classroom with no school getting less? Because there are 31 Federal 
programs who have 31 managers here in Washington and their staffs. That 
is 50 States. That makes 1,550 program managers, because every State 
has to have one, and all of their staffs.
  All the thousands of grant riders that have to go through all the 
Federal paperwork to get this money for our schools. That is where the 
money comes from. There is not one grant rider, there is not one 
bureaucrat that enters the classroom. Urban, rural, and poor districts 
often do not even apply.
  Seven percent of our money comes from Washington in education. Many 
of my districts get zero to 2 percent. The Federal grant process is 
difficult. Dollars to the Classroom makes good sense. A Federal program 
manager, State program managers, grant riders, they do nothing to raise 
the quality of education in this country. But dollars in the classroom 
will make a difference without raising taxes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 8 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), a member of the powerful Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3248, 
Dollars to the Classroom Act, and a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, I am proud to say I have already been able 
to vote in favor of this essential legislation that improves the 
quality education our children receive. It will be the States, not the 
Federal Government, that will direct these funds to the classroom.
  As a Tennesseean, I trust my State's ability and the people there to 
help our children much more than a bureaucrat in Washington who has 
never even set foot on Tennessee soil. In addition, the States must 
ensure quality by directing 95 percent of these funds to the classroom. 
They can not and will not be able to divert funds to other areas and 
State projects. This translates into more supplies, more computers, 
more teachers, and higher teacher salaries.

                              {time}  1000

  I want to stress also that all the additional money will not have the

[[Page H8044]]

strings that are attached to Federal education dollars at the present 
time. Right now, if Washington says to spend the money on cafeteria 
silverware, a school system must spend it on new silverware, even if 
there is plenty of silverware at that location. Thus, even if that 
school desperately needs more teachers, more computers, or more 
textbooks, they would have to waste these Federal dollars on more 
knives, more spoons, and more forks.
  Dollars to the Classroom allows local and State educators to put the 
money where it belongs. Let us do what is right by our children. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), whose school district in his State will 
receive at least $8.3 million more under the act.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for bringing this 
bill to the floor. I think the fundamental point here is that no school 
district has to lose money or will lose money under this bill. This is 
not about school districts losing money. This is about bureaucrats in 
Washington losing money. This is about bureaucrats at the State level 
losing money. This is not about school districts losing money.
  Those people who say this money is going to go from one school 
district to another are not reading the bill the way the bill has to be 
read. This is the difference in whether 95 cents out of every education 
dollar gets to the classroom, or 65 cents out of every education dollar 
gets to the classroom.
  This is clearly not something that people who are in favor of the 
bureaucracy growing would want to be for. It is clearly something that 
people who are for money being spent in classrooms, on teachers, on 
education should be for. This is about a teacher who knows every 
student's name having more to say about how the money is spent. This is 
about districts that now may not qualify for all 31 of these different 
grant programs, but is a district that gets to qualify for money, they 
get to use the money in the way that they understand is best for their 
district.
  Even the opponents of this bill concede that the Federal impact they 
say is minimal. Well, the minimal impact is not what does the job. What 
does the job is making education work. It is involving families more in 
the process. It is involving teachers more in the process. It is 
involving the local building administrator in the process. It is 
figuring out what can be done for those kids at that school on that day 
with 95 percent of this money.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, may I just inquire how much time we have 
remaining on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who serves on the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, whose State would get $31.5 million more.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, whether we are talking 
about education savings accounts, opportunity scholarships, or block 
grants, what this is all about is who should benefit more, bureaucrats 
or children. Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer to see a 
bureaucrat get a paycheck rather than see a child get an education.
  This act provides more money and greater flexibility to the States so 
that local officials can decide how to spend these funds on their 
schoolchildren. Opponents say States cannot be trusted with such a 
responsibility. Apparently they have forgotten that the Founders of 
this Nation placed the responsibility of education with the States, not 
the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers trusted their States, and 
I trust the Founding Fathers.
  Opponents also say this bill cuts the amount of money that will go to 
public schools. That is simply untrue. Millions of dollars extra, 
additional dollars, go to public school classrooms. The reality is that 
this bill reduces bureaucratic meddling, increases flexibility, 
increases funding, and ensures that more resources are spent on our 
children.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the last two speakers spoke about money going to 
bureaucrats. The money we are talking about does not go to pay 
bureaucrats' salaries, it goes to help needy children. What we are 
talking about here is not money for bureaucrats, but money that is 
going to be denied children for special programs.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I have heard more rhetoric going around 
here in the last hour or so than I think is warranted by this 
particular subject. If we were serious about improving educational 
opportunities, this particular subject matter would have come up during 
the course of regular deliberations over the Secondary and Elementary 
School Act reauthorization, which is going to be next year.
  The fact of the matter is every time our colleagues on the other side 
stand up and tell us how much money is here for every State, what they 
are really telling us is they are authorizing a certain amount of 
money. But the fact of the matter is they are not appropriating that 
amount of money.
  What does history show us when things get block granted? Its shows us 
this is all about the ``Contract on America'' theory that if they block 
grant things, they can eventually defund them. No matter how much is 
authorized to be appropriated, in the end, when it comes to be 
appropriated, it has been reduced.
  That is what happened under Title 6. Programs were put in a block 
grant and they were defunded over time. It is what happened in other 
areas of community service block grants in different communities, and 
it happens over and over again. It is part of the theory of putting 
them in a block grant, defunding them, and moving the money to some 
other priority.

  Madam Chairman, our priority on this side of the aisle is education. 
We do not need to be throwing programs like technology training, 
programs to combat illiteracy, programs for gifted and talented 
children, education reform projects into a block grant so that we can 
lose accountability on them and fail to track whether or not the money 
is actually being spent in that regard and doing a good job, and then 
eventually having the focus shifted so they get defunded.
  We need to make sure that we do what the Federal Government has 
always done, provide the resources that are requested by local and 
State governments. It is the job of local and State governments to do 
the general, operational task of education. That is why they have 94 
percent of the responsibility and they take it that way. The 6 or 7 
percent of monies that are spent from the Federal resources on 
elementary and secondary education are targeted to programs where a 
request has been made that money comes down from the Federal Government 
for assistance. That money is for reform projects, it is for illiteracy 
projects, it is for technology and for teachers.
  If we want to move forward, we will remodel our classrooms and make 
sure that we have more teachers in the classroom, and we will not set 
up a structure to defund education.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) who is on the Speaker's Task Force on 
Education Reform, and whose State of Florida receives $3 million more 
under this legislation.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Chairman, despite all the heated rhetoric 
today, there are some stubborn facts that cannot be denied. First of 
all, Dollars to the Classroom requires that 95 percent of the funds go 
into the classrooms where my two boys attend public school in Florida.
  Passage of this bill will mean an additional $800 million to local 
schools, $9,300 per school for my two boys and $425 per classroom for 
my two boys in public schools.
  This class warfare argument that we are hearing today really hides a 
simple elementary fact and that is that the

[[Page H8045]]

state of modern American liberalism in 1998 believes that local 
communities, that parents, that my boys' teachers, that my boys' 
principals, are too stupid or corrupt to educate my children. That is 
an offensive fact, and yet that is a fact that has lain at the heart of 
liberals' arguments in this country for the past 60 years.
  It is time we get past this and ask a simple question, and that is: 
How do we get the most money to teachers? How do we get the most money 
to local school boards? How do we get the best education to not only my 
boys, but to those people that come from inner cities?
  If these liberals were so interested in helping students in inner 
cities, then why would they continue to fight choice when the majority 
of people in inner cities want to be able to choose what schools their 
children go to?
  Madam Chairman, with the passage of this bill, we ensure that States 
and local communities can look at each school's problems and assess 
them on an individual basis and make sure that every child in America 
has the opportunity to grow up in a country where they have a chance to 
pursue the American dream with an American education.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) be allowed to control the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do not know why we have to get into this name calling about this is 
a ``liberal idea.'' This is not a liberal idea. This is about kids and 
their education.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, this bill before us, this 
so-called Dollars to the Classroom bill, really sends the wrong message 
about our responsibilities to improve public schools and would weaken 
our national commitment to education.
  It would eliminate 31 elementary and secondary education initiatives 
and then block grant these programs for the Governor of each State to 
decide how the money is spent. Among the programs eliminated: After-
school programs that give kids alternatives to crime and violence; 
technology grants to help prepare the schools for the 21st century; 
drug and violence prevention initiatives that are crucial and needed 
right now.
  The proponents of this bill cannot guarantee that a single dollar 
would be spent by any State on investing in these programs or 
technology.
  We need to reject this smoke and mirrors of the funding in this bill. 
Just because the authors of this legislation would authorize a higher 
level of funding and throw around the increased figures does not mean 
this Congress will appropriate at that level.
  Madam Chairman, we need to scrap the rhetoric. Look at the 1994 
independent General Accounting Office study. It says of all Federal 
funds allocated through State education agencies, 98 percent reach the 
local level. We want local school districts, local communities to make 
decisions. This month alone, 10 school districts in my district in 
Northern Wisconsin, little towns, Niagara, Rhinelander, got an $800,000 
technology grant to enhance distance learning. The idea for this 
project was entirely locally driven. It will be carried out locally, 
yet it can only happen with a strong national commitment to education. 
That is the local innovation and it is a national commitment we are 
looking for. This bill takes us in the wrong direction.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I wanted to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney) that as a matter of fact, the only time any block grant 
money was cut, it was cut by the Democrats, Chapter 2, not by any 
Republicans.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Mrs. Linda Smith), who will receive an additional $1,229,000 for her 
local classrooms.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I think we are 
standing here today debating a philosophy of who we think knows best 
for our children. For me, is it bureaucrats 2,500 miles away from the 
classroom or is it the teacher, the parent, the superintendent, and the 
community? I am going to bet that the people in my State believe it is 
their families that know best, and I believe that this measure moves us 
closer to that.
  Now, it is not hard to know what my people want, because for 2 years 
I had a task force of public schoolteachers and the bottom line was 
this:
  They said, do not give us any more regulation. Get rid of the Federal 
programs. Get rid of the paperwork. The Federal Government is making us 
spend all of our money on administering Federal programs and Federal 
paperwork. Just give us back the money.
  Well, I trust the teachers in my district, in my State, more than I 
do the bureaucrats, too. This just simply says instead of us 
administering, managing, mandating education from here in Washington, 
D.C., we are going to give 95 percent of that back to the classroom.
  I will tell my colleagues that my grandson's teacher can use that 
$400 a lot more than a bureaucrat can here in Washington, D.C. This is 
a great bill and I commend it to the body.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, I do not think that the gentlewoman's grandson's 
teacher will get that money, because her State loses 16.5 percent.
  In closing, I want to say that I know there are compassionate, 
reasonable people on that side of the aisle that have great sympathy 
for some of these 31 programs that are being cut. I want them to 
understand that in the bill, under section 107, every one of those 31 
programs are repealed. That is what the section says: These programs 
are repealed. Which means that under a block grant, they may or may not 
provide that.
  The other side talks about wanting to tell the locals that we know 
best. In the other section it does not say ``may'' in the use of those 
funds, it said ``shall.'' ``They shall,'' for these 27 ideas, use the 
money for these ideas. And they run the gamut of anything we can think 
of, including some things that can be interpreted to be using money 
that really does not go to the educational need, especially of those 
special populations.
  Madam Chairman, I wonder who is telling the locals what to do? Who is 
micromanaging? Who is being a liberal, us or them?
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) who worked so hard for 2 years to try to save 
children rather than bureaucrats.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, the liberal Democratic philosophy seems to 
be based on the Federal Government knows best. We believe that the 
States, the local teachers, not the Federal Government, should be 
making the decisions.
  This bill does not hurt poor kids. None of the programs for poor kids 
go away. It only goes away for bureaucrats. Perhaps the gentleman 
believes that having bureaucracy eat up 35 percent of our Federal funds 
is effective. I do not.
  We can use these funds for all the programs listed, and we make them 
much more effective by requiring 9 percent to get to the classroom.
  I want to read just a portion of a letter from the Missouri State 
Teachers Association that represents 41,000 members. They have always 
made local control a major tenet.
  They say, the history of Federal programs has been one of bureaucracy 
and red tape. The application of the common sense approach to assist 
the needs of the local community's public schools has been handcuffed 
by Federal Rules, regulations and excessive administrative overhead. 
Freedom of choice is what we support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to close by making sure, again, that everybody understands we 
are not talking about what the committee may have done in relationship 
to appropriations. That has nothing to

[[Page H8046]]

do with this legislation. Those are the figures that are being 
presented by those lobbyists downtown both in the department and those 
lobbyists who want to protect their downtown bureaucracy and those who 
want to protect the bureaucracy back in the State. We are not talking 
about those figures.
  By the time my senior Senator is finished and they are finished with 
conference, the amount of money for education will be up, not down. No 
matter what the appropriators do, there will be more money to your 
individual classroom through this legislation, no matter how much they 
may cut. It is important to remember that.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Dollars to Classroom Act. Each one of the members of this chamber has 
visited numerous schools located in their Congressional District. On 
each of those visits, principals, teachers, parents, and students, each 
have approached us saying if we just had a little more funding we could 
do so much more. Today the House of Representatives is going to do 
more.
  Today we start sending dollars directly to the classroom; what a 
novel concept! For the first time in 30 years, we are beginning to take 
meaningful steps in improving our educational system.
  The Dollars to Classroom Act will eliminate block grants. Which in 
turn will improve the current education system by eliminating federal 
bureaucracy and by redirecting federal education dollars to our 
nation's schools.
  This legislation will allow states and local educators to gain more 
funding options and a wide array of flexibility in receiving federal 
funding. The schools in each and every Congressional District will 
reach your classrooms faster and will be used more effectively.
  When I travel throughout the Seventh Congressional District of 
Georgia, I meet parents and teachers and I know these individuals 
realize what steps need to be taken in educating their child. Our 
schools need new construction, and our children need new computers. The 
list of needs is great and the resources are scarce.
  What better way to give to America's future than sending 95% federal 
funding directly to the classroom. The additional funding will provide 
a better education for children who some day in the not to distance 
future will be the leaders of this nation.
  Ninety-five percent of all the dollars a school district receives 
will be spent on children in the classroom. This bill is a definite 
turning point for education. H.R. 3248 takes a scissor to the 
bureaucratic red tape.
  The Dollars to Classroom Act puts children first by sending education 
dollars directly to the classroom. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues 
to support this important piece of legislation for the sake of our 
children and for the sake of education across this country.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, Dollars From the Classroom is a more 
appropriate term for this bill. There is no doubt that we want to 
ensure all of our children access to quality education. But block 
granting these 31 proposed programs will do nothing to enhance the 
quality of education--only harm it.
  A recent GAO study of Federal and State education financing patterns 
found that States overwhelmingly are less likely to focus state 
directed education funding on low-income students than are programs 
with funding that is federally directed.
  What this bill does for schools that have low-income children is put 
them at a disadvantage. For example, one of the provisions in H.R. 3248 
eliminates the existing requirement that 50% of a school's enrolled 
children be from low-income families in order to conduct a schoolwide 
program under Title I. School districts like mine need this 50% 
threshold in order to ensure that schools that have significant levels 
of poverty are able to conduct total school reform. We have these 
requirements because poor school districts have traditionally been 
underserved and the children often undereducated.
  Reforming a program like Title I without even having committee 
hearings is completely irresponsible. If we really want to expand the 
Title I program, let's wait until the reauthorization of ESEA, when a 
greater number of individuals can have the opportunity to give this 
full consideration. This has been the problem with many of our 
education bills that have come to the floor this session--attempts to 
rework ESEA at an inappropriate time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of fairness and vote against 
H.R. 3248.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 3248. It is a flawed approach to education funding, 
and it will take money from students who should be the focus of any 
education legislation. Coupled with the crippling funding cuts to 
education currently included in the Labor, HHS, Education 
appropriations bill, H.R. 3248 will achieve a loss in ``dollars to the 
classroom'' in every state in the U.S.
  The bill completely eliminates states' accountability for the 
spending of education dollars. If adopted, this bill would give 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the state education 
departments with no way to account for which dollars are actually spent 
in the classrooms. In fact, federal programs currently provide a much 
larger percentage of their funding to classroom activities than state 
and local education programs.
  Many have argued that this bill would cut down on the bureaucracy 
involved in allocating federal educational funds, but we will instead 
be creating or enlarging 50 state bureaucracies.
  Federal educational funding represents less than 10% of most states' 
educational funding, and it has traditionally been targeted at poor or 
otherwise disadvantaged students. We have long shied away from giving 
general federal aid to schools and instead tried to make federal 
educational funding have a real impact.
  In the last few years, we have already increased the flexibility of 
federal educational funding by combining similar programs and allowing 
statewide waivers to federal requirements on a trial basis in the Goals 
2000 act. We should continue our successful efforts at making federal 
educational funding more flexible for the states, but we should not 
embrace a wholesale dilution of federal educational priorities.
  Education professionals across the board--teachers, principals, and 
administrators--oppose this bill. These individuals who have devoted 
their lives to helping children know that this bill would actually harm 
many children throughout the United States. Education professionals 
agree that the most important education issues we should focus on are 
those that actually benefit the students--well-qualified teachers, 
small class sizes and school modernization. This bill actually cancels 
a number of teacher training initiatives, initiatives that will almost 
certainly not be replicated at the state level.
  National educational standards go hand in hand with teacher training 
in helping students achieve excellence and the ability to compete 
successfully with students from all over the country. Since its 
inception--originally proposed by President Bush--Goals 2000 has helped 
local school districts set priorities to allow their students and 
teachers to achieve excellence. This bill would cancel the Goals 2000 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to keep the best interests of the children of 
our nation in mind and oppose this ill-conceived measure.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, today the House is voting on H.R. 3248, 
the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I will support this legislation 
today, but I believe that the legislation must be improved in a number 
of key areas before it can become law. I would like to take this 
opportunity to explain the reservations I have regarding the bill in 
its current form. If these issues are not addressed, I will not support 
the bill if it is returned by the Senate for a final vote this year.
  First, let me say that I support the goal of this legislation. We 
must work to ensure that all federal education assistance directly 
benefits our children. These funds should not be wasted on unnecessary 
bureaucracy. However, achieving this goal is not simple. I am very 
interested in finding ways to streamline federal programs and bring 
more efficiency to the Federal Government's role in education. I do not 
support the status quo and I do not believe that what we have now is 
working. The concept of Dollars to the Classroom gives us a new option 
for making changes that may benefit students in the country.
  I have struggled for some time in trying to determine if this 
legislation will achieve its intended goals. I have supported moving 
the bill through the legislative process while working with Committee 
staff and other Members to resolve my initial concerns. After a lot of 
careful thought, and after reviewing analysis from many different 
sources, I think the fundamental concept of Dollars to the Classroom is 
worth advancing while we work to answer key questions before it can 
become law. This may not occur this year and probably should not. There 
is not much time left in this session for the Senate to pass the bill 
and to work out all remaining issues. This bill establishes the 
principle that more federal dollars must directly benefit our children. 
We should now work to ensure the legislation achieves this principle. 
It may be best to address these issues comprehensively next year when 
Congress must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

[[Page H8047]]

  As I noted, there are several unanswered questions raised by the 
legislation. One that must be answered is exactly how much money is 
going to go to the states and local districts. We have a number of 
estimates, but we don't have hard numbers. My view is that additional 
work must be done to understand how current levels of funding will be 
changed by the Dollars to the Classroom Act. To help you understand my 
concern, I have attached two charts, both prepared by the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS). The first chart raises some questions. It takes 
the Fiscal Year 1998 funding level and compares it to the amounts a 
state would receive if the money was put into this block grant. You'll 
notice there are differences in how much money each state gets. I was 
elected to represent the people of Delaware, and when I see a chart 
from CRS, the nonpartisan research agency for the Congress, saying that 
the State of Delaware could lose 13.2% of its education funding, it 
concerns me greatly. Now, I am not going to argue that these numbers 
are perfect, they are estimates. However, they raise the legitimate 
question that some states may receive less funding in total under this 
legislation. The second chart that I have attached, is a comparison of 
how much the Local Education Agencies would get, using Fiscal Year 1998 
numbers, before and after the block grant. This chart is more 
encouraging. Delaware wins by a slight percentage and most districts do 
not lose, but again there is variation in these numbers. I have been 
assured by the Chairman that he will work with me to ensure that 
Delaware is treated fairly in this legislation.
  We need to sit down and look at this data and understand how funds 
are going to flow so that we can't be absolutely sure that any change 
in funds is truly for the benefit of our children. I want more dollars 
in the classroom, but I will not support final passage of this 
legislation unless I am convinced that it will benefit the children and 
schools in Delaware.
  In addition to the funding process, we should review the 31 programs 
included in the block grant to be sent to school districts to ensure 
that no important aspect of the specific programs will be lost. Let me 
give you an example. The Comprehensive School Reform program involves a 
very important--in fact crucial--research component. States and locals 
do not have the capacity to do research and disseminate research like 
we do at the national level. They simply don't have the capacity. Does 
this mean that we want to sacrifice the research being done in this 
program? I think we need to consider that as part of the process of 
evaluating this proposal and we have not done that. The same principle 
applies for the Eisenhower Professional Development program and 
possibly other programs included in this block grant. The fact that 
some of these programs contain research and national components 
indicates that we must review them more closely to ensure we retain 
aspects that help improve education for our children.
  The final area that I want to address is the accountability measures 
included in this proposal. They have been improved, but need to be 
further strengthened. We need to ensure that the accountability 
measures are very strong. Let me give you an example. Yesterday, 
Congressman Roemer and I introduced a bill to expand the Ed-Flex 
demonstration projects to all 50 states. This makes sense to me. Our 
bill is based on a strong program currently available to only 12 
states. Ed-Flex allows states to waive burdensome regulations that 
interfere with the schools' main purpose--to improve academic 
achievement. This is flexibility, but it is flexibility with 
accountability. In order to be eligible a state has to have approved 
content standards, performance measures and assessments. In addition, 
to be eligible for an extension of a waiver, schools have to establish 
procedures for increasing the percentage of teachers in the state who 
have demonstrated subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skill 
necessary to provide effective instruction in content areas, while 
decreasing the percentage of teachers without such knowledge in high 
poverty schools. This is accountability in combination with 
flexibility. I encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Roemer and I in 
encouraging responsible flexibility.
  I strongly support the goal of making every federal education program 
more effective. Every dollar we spend should benefit our schoolchildren 
as directly as possible. The Dollars to the Classroom bill is a 
reasonable start. It is not perfect and this legislation must be 
further refined to ensure that it meets its intended goal. I will work 
to improve the bill if it receives further consideration this year, but 
I believe the best strategy would be to address all federal K-12 
programs in the context of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act in 1999. I look forward to actively participating in that 
effort.

    TABLE 11C.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS UNDER H.R. 3248, AS ORDERED TO BE REPORTED, COMPARED TO ESTIMATES   
      PREPARED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) OF FY 1998 GRANTS UNDER ALL PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO BE     
                                          CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248                                          
 [H.R. 3248 Estimates: An Amount Equal To FY 1998 Allocations Under Formula Grant Programs To Be Consolidated is
 First Allocated To Each State. Next, Remaining Block Grant Appropriations (Assumed To Be Equal To $2.74 Billion
 Minus the Formula Grant Portion) Are Allocated With 50% in Proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A Grants And 50% In
     Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Grants Are Estimated At The Maximum Authorized Level For FY 1999.]     
      [ED Estimates of FY 1998 Grants: Include Actual Or Projected Grants Under All Programs Proposed To Be     
  Consolidated. For Grants to Entities That Provide Services Nationwide, Funds Are Spread Among All States, in  
               Proportion To Population Aged 5-17, Data Were Received From ED On Sept. 15, 1998.]               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total estimated                              
                                                                     grant under    ED estimates of             
                              State                                H.R. 3248 at FY   total FY 1998    Percentage
                                                                   1999 authorized       grants       difference
                                                                        level                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................................................      $43,427,000      $37,847,464         14.7
Alaska...........................................................       10,396,000       21,791,724        -52.3
Arizona..........................................................       42,557,000       39,586,425          7.5
Arkansas.........................................................       26,450,000       21,687,428         22.0
California.......................................................      315,580,000      298,178,752          5.8
Colorado.........................................................       31,706,000       31,361,652          1.1
Connecticut......................................................       27,552,000       30,118,669         -8.5
Delaware.........................................................       10,134,000       11,672,901        -13.2
District of Columbia.............................................       10,009,000       29,603,406        -66.2
Florida..........................................................      126,307,000      120,603,903          4.7
Georgia..........................................................       72,595,000       62,047,160         17.0
Hawaii...........................................................       11,295,000       34,723,242        -67.5
Idaho............................................................       12,016,000       13,038,722         -7.8
Illinois.........................................................      118,597,000      106,357,682         11.5
Indiana..........................................................       48,734,000       47,454,205          2.7
Iowa.............................................................       23,036,000       38,284,832        -39.8
Kansas...........................................................       23,464,000       23,615,556         -0.6
Kentucky.........................................................       42,372,000       37,141,163         14.1
Louisiana........................................................       59,024,000       62,317,031         -5.3
Maine............................................................       12,505,000       12,142,653          3.0
Maryland.........................................................       42,122,000       43,739,157         -3.7
Massachusetts....................................................       53,801,000       59,841,778        -10.1
Michigan.........................................................      109,986,000       90,721,762         21.2
Minnesota........................................................       40,119,000       36,383,455         10.3
Mississippi......................................................       37,531,000       32,293,424         16.2
Missouri.........................................................       49,873,000       49,857,568          0.0
Montana..........................................................       11,462,000       13,052,614        -12.2
Nebraska.........................................................       14,727,000       21,557,260        -31.7
Nevada...........................................................       12,648,000       12,905,969         -2.0
New Hampshire....................................................       10,987,000       13,283,611        -17.3
New Jersey.......................................................       66,235,000       54,511,691         21.5
New Mexico.......................................................       21,328,000       26,175,853        -18.5
New York.........................................................      211,655,000      185,851,927         13.9
North Carolina...................................................       59,565,000       59,271,274          0.5
North Dakota.....................................................       10,131,000       12,982,323        -22.0
Ohio.............................................................      110,142,000       96,755,688         13.8
Oklahoma.........................................................       32,982,000       34,898,615         -5.5
Oregon...........................................................       28,316,000       28,584,893         -0.9
Pennsylvania.....................................................     116,992,000,      106,949,829          9.4
Rhode Island.....................................................       11,349,000       16,087,033        -29.5
South Carolina...................................................       34,950,000       35,192,514         -0.7
South Dakota.....................................................       10,562,000       14,255,337        -25.9
Tennessee........................................................       48,747,000       48,234,290          1.1
Texas............................................................      220,192,000      188,545,340         16.8
Utah.............................................................       18,817,000       21,657,436        -13.1
Vermont..........................................................        9,830,000       11,905,763        -17.4
Virginia.........................................................       50,445,000       52,686,574         -4.3
Washington.......................................................       47,584,000       56,993,741        -16.5
West Virginia....................................................       21,863,000       24,498,214        -10.8
Wisconsin........................................................       49,155,000       43,326,942         13.5
Wyoming..........................................................        9,650,000       11,682,323        -17.4
Puerto Rico......................................................       71,099,000       51,413,604         38.3
Outlying Areas...................................................       13,700,000       12,140,665         12.8
BIA..............................................................       13,700,000        9,749,076         40.5
Other............................................................  ...............       28,726,870           na
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
      Total......................................................    2,740,000,000    2,686,289,000          2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table prepared by CRS on Sept. 16, 1998.                                                                        


    TABLE 15.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS SPECIFICALLY TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEA'S) UNDER H.R. 3248   
  COMPARED TO ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LEA'S UNDER CURRENT PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3245  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total           Total                 
                                                                        estimated       estimated               
                               State                                 grants to LEAs  grants to LEAs   Percentage
                                                                       under H.R.     under current     change  
                                                                      3248 (at 96%)     programs                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................     $32,480,640     $28,726,364         13.1
Alaska.............................................................       8,574,720       9,973,738        -14.0
Arizona............................................................      31,996,800      27,196,850         17.6
Arkansas...........................................................      19,791,360      14,926,966         32.6
California.........................................................     237,103,690     212,174,852         11.7
Colorado...........................................................      23,896,580      18,948,065         25.1
Connecticut........................................................      20,659,200      18,744,802         10.2
Delaware...........................................................       8,339,520       7,893,343          5.7
District of Columbia...............................................       6,355,840       7,431,557         12.4
Florida............................................................      94,823,040      91,729,340          3.4
Georgia............................................................      54,471,360      42,934,372         26.9
Hawaii.............................................................       8,868,480       8,995,313         26.8
Idaho..............................................................       9,253,440       8,516.800          8.7
Illinois...........................................................      88,915,360      72,854,420         21.9
Indiana............................................................      36,408,080      30,973,512         17.5
Iowa...............................................................      17,131,200      12,779,617         34.1
Kansas.............................................................      17,618,880      15,544,068         13.3
Kentucky...........................................................      44,801,920      24,600,251         29.3
Louisiana..........................................................      44,208,960      34,665,652         27.5
Maine..............................................................       9,648,000       8,159,272         18.2
Maryland...........................................................      31,515,840      25,493,567         23.5
Massachusetts......................................................      40,377,600      38,492,132          4.9
Michigan...........................................................      82,742,400      65,986,110         25.4
Minnesota..........................................................      30,007,680      23,832,451         25.9
Mississippi........................................................      28,125,120      21,427,695         31.3
Missouri...........................................................      37,344,980      29,020,065         28.7
Montana............................................................       9,038,400       7,169,578         26.1
Nebraska...........................................................      11,083,200      11,733,360         -5.5
Nevada.............................................................       9,567,200       8,894,458          6.7
New Hampshire......................................................       8,675,520       7,389,104         17.4
New Jersey.........................................................      49,601,280      37,348,162         32.8
New Mexico.........................................................      16,026,240      13,700,687         17.0
New York...........................................................     159,475,200     148,444,545          8.9
North Carolina.....................................................      44,536,320      40,495,357         10.0
North Dakota.......................................................       8,333,760       7,915,179          5.3
Ohio...............................................................      62,574,400      85,323,229         26.4
Oklahoma...........................................................      24,687,360      20,223,570         22.1
Oregon.............................................................      21,254,400      17,502,102         21.4
Pennsylvania.......................................................      87,825,440      71,081,085         23.7
Rhode Island.......................................................       9,001,920       7,181,698         25.3
South Carolina.....................................................      26,136,000      23,189,775         12.7
South Dakota.......................................................       8,543,040       7,702,811         10.9
Tennessee..........................................................      38,509,760      29,345,405         24.4
Texas..............................................................     155,546,240     134,012,463         23.5
Utah...............................................................      14,062,080      11,304,868         24.4
Vermont............................................................       8,166,880       7,350,078         11.4

[[Page H8048]]

                                                                                                                
Virginia...........................................................      37,887,680      30,384,366         24.0
Washington.........................................................      35,669,760      34,440,440          3.6
West Virginia......................................................      16,408,320      13,455,322         21.9
Wisconsin..........................................................      36,780,480      27,895,883         32.9
Wyoming............................................................       8,081,280       6,853,872         17.9
Puerto Rico........................................................      63,332,800      40,548,467         31.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-
called ``Dollars to the Classroom'' Act. This sham bill is a public 
relations ploy for election year votes and a policy nightmare for our 
children.
  This bill sounds like a good idea--who could resist sending dollars 
to our schools? But calling the bill one thing does not make it so. We 
might as well have the Budweiser frogs pitching this bill because you 
would have to be a sucker for marketing to believe this bill will do 
anything to put more dollars into the classroom.
  H.R. 3248 attempts to redistribute federal education dollars. It 
claims to be an increase, but in reality would provide less funds to 
the classroom. In addition, it assumes a funding level that is not 
included in the House Appropriations Committee reported Labor-HHS-
Education bill. So, even if H.R. 3248 becomes law, the funds won't be 
available to finance it.
  Let's review the Republican education agenda for a moment. We've 
debated a bill to allow prayer in schools--a right that is already 
protected by current law--we've discussed taking public education 
dollars and putting them into private voucher accounts for private 
schools, and my Republican colleagues have introduced legislation to 
eliminate the Department of Education. We have also defeated attempts 
to eliminate bilingual education, and defeated a bill to eliminate 
affirmative action programs in place at colleges and universities.
  As if that weren't enough, the Majority has refused to include any of 
the President's education proposals in the FY '99 Labor, HHS and 
Education Appropriations bill. Rather than putting dollars into 
education, the Majority's plan would cut Head Start by 50%, prevent 
much needed dollars to update and modernize school facilities and 
eliminate funding for GOALS 2000.
  The Department of Education shows that this bill, if enacted, would 
have a devastating impact on funds available for classrooms. In some 
states, the reduction of funds will exceed 60% of current funding 
levels. All states will lose dollars to the classroom. I am submitting 
for the record an analysis by the U.S. Department of Education which 
shows the impact on education funding if this bill were to become law.
  Who opposes this legislation? The organizations and schools on the 
front lines of teaching. The very classroom workers this bill claims to 
be helping. The National Parent Teacher Association, the American 
Federation of Teachers, the American Association of School 
Administrators, the American Association of University Women, the 
Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary 
School Principals, the National Association of State Boards of 
Education, and the National Education Association all oppose this 
legislation.
  It is clear where the Republicans stand on education. I urge my 
colleagues to take a real stand for our children and make a real 
commitment to our schools. Vote against H.R. 3248 and support effort to 
put real dollars into real classrooms.

                            IMPACT OF H.R. 3248 THE ``DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT''                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Estimated       Change from current law  
                                                    Allocations       allocations   ----------------------------
                                                   under current    under H.R. 3248                             
                                                  law FY 1998 \1\     1999 House          Dollars       Percent 
                                                                     committee \2\                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................       $37,847,464       $33,864,590       -$3,982,874      -10.5
Alaska.........................................        21,791,724         7,861,824       -13,929,000      -63.9
Arizona........................................        39,586,425        34,648,518        -4,937,906      -12.5
Arkansas.......................................        21,687,428        20,674,162        -1,013,266       -4.7
California.....................................       298,178,752       246,693,707       -51,485,045      -17.3
Colorado.......................................        31,361,652        25,153,676        -6,207,976      -19.8
Connecticut....................................        30,118,669        21,509,447        -8,609,222      -28.6
Delaware.......................................        11,672,901         7,632,086        -4,040,815      -34.6
District of Columbia...........................        29,603,406         7,771,532       -21,831,873      -73.7
Florida........................................       120,603,903        99,093,164       -21,510,739      -17.8
Georgia........................................        62,047,160        56,847,358        -5,199,802       -8.4
Hawaii.........................................        34,723,242         7,719,586       -27,003,656      -77.8
Idaho..........................................        13,038,722         8,412,811        -4,625,910      -35.5
Illinois.......................................       106,357,682        92,729,841       -13,627,841      -12.8
Indiana........................................        47,454,205        38,515,955        -8,938,249      -18.8
Iowa...........................................        38,284,832        18,449,587       -19,835,245      -51.8
Kansas.........................................        23,615,556        18,194,580        -5,420,976      -23.0
Kentucky.......................................        37,141,163        32,558,769        -4,582,394      -12.3
Louisiana......................................        62,317,031        45,191,954       -17,125,077      -27.5
Maine..........................................        12,142,653         8,770,726        -3,371,928      -27.8
Maryland.......................................        43,739,157        32,923,149       -10,816,008      -24.7
Massachusetts..................................        59,841,778        42,240,583       -17,601,195      -29.4
Michigan.......................................        90,721,762        84,334,390        -6,387,372       -7.0
Minnesota......................................        36,383,455        31,413,175        -4,970,280      -13.7
Mississippi....................................        32,293,424        29,039,690        -3,253,734      -10.1
Missouri.......................................        49,857,568        39,162,392       -10,695,176      -21.5
Montana........................................        13,052,614         7,923,255        -5,129,359      -39.3
Nebraska.......................................        21,557,260        11,263,406       -10,293,853      -47.8
Nevada.........................................        12,905,989         9,532,789        -3,373,200      -26.1
New Hampshire..................................        13,283,611         7,591,797        -5,691,814      -42.8
New Jersey.....................................        54,511,691        52,155,401        -2,356,290       -4.3
New Mexico.....................................        26,175,853        16,362,927        -9,812,927      -37.5
New York.......................................       185,851,927       163,029,308       -22,822,619      -12.3
North Carolina.................................        59,271,274        47,488,942       -11,782,332      -19.9
North Dakota...................................        12,982,323         7,623,710        -5,358,613      -41.3
Ohio...........................................        96,755,688        85,343,169       -11,412,519      -11.8
Oklahoma.......................................        34,898,615        25,680,671        -9,217,944      -26.4
Oregon.........................................        28,854,893        21,916,128        -6,668,765      -23.3
Pennsylvania...................................       106,949,829        90,564,769       -16,385,060      -15.3
Puerto Rico....................................        51,413,604        54,860,183        -3,446,579       -6.7
Rhode Island...................................        16,087,033         7,938,680        -8,148,353      -50.7
South Carolina.................................        35,192,514        27,729,484        -7,463,030      -21.2
South Dakota...................................        14,255,337         7,681,834        -6,573,503      -46.1
Tennessee......................................        48,234,290        37,941,158       -10,293,132      -21.3
Texas..........................................       188,545,340       170,952,456       -17,592,884       -9.3
Utah...........................................        21,657,436        14,744,735        -6,912,701      -31.9
Vermont........................................        11,905,763         7,579,018        -4,326,745      -36.3
Virginia.......................................        52,686,574        40,010,221       -12,676,352      -24.1
Washington.....................................        56,993,741        37,235,777       -19,757,964      -34.7
West Virginia..................................        24,498,214        16,756,748        -7,741,465      -31.6
Wisconsin......................................        43,326,942        38,478,067        -4,848,865      -11.2
Wyoming........................................        11,682,323         7,522,112        -4,160,210      -35.6
Outlying Areas.................................        12,140,665        10,643,000        -1,497,665      -12.3
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................         9,749,076        10,643,000          -893,924       -9.2
    Totals.....................................     2,657,562,130     2,128,600,000      -528,962,130      -19.9
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes each State's total for the 26 programs proposed for consolidation under H.R. 3248 the ``Dollars to 
  the Classroom Act.'' Excludes funds for administrative expenses (e.g., peer review and national evaluations). 
\2\ Estimates are based on the formula H.R. 3248, Section 102, and the FY 1999 House Committee level for each   
  program consolidated in the bill.                                                                             


[[Page H8049]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3248, the 
``Dollars to the Classroom'' legislation. This legislation repeals many 
small arts programs that have met with great success, stood the test of 
time, and benefited children, young people and adults all across this 
country.
  Each year, Very Special Arts brings the transforming power of the 
arts into the lives of over 3.5 million people. Founded 25 years ago by 
Jean Kennedy Smith, Very Special Arts is an international, nonprofit 
organization dedicated to providing educational opportunities through 
the arts for children and adults with disabilities. Both Very Special 
Arts and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts receive 
funding each year through the Department of Education's Arts in 
Education program. Very Special Arts' federal dollars are matched with 
state, local, corporate and foundation support in all 50 states. Each 
VSA state affiliate develops programs to match unique community needs 
and interests, further strengthening the program by guaranteeing local 
involvement. Whether programs take place in classrooms, nursing homes, 
day care facilities, fine arts centers, libraries, VA facilities, or 
children's hospitals, they are built on the premise that art is a 
universal language that strengthens communities and connects us to each 
other.
  In May of 1999, Los Angeles will be the host city for Art & Soul, an 
international celebration of the arts, disability and culture sponsored 
by Very Special Arts. Held in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of 
Cultural Affairs and the Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau, the 
five day festival will take place at the Los Angeles Convention Center, 
and will bring together more than 3,000 artists with disabilities from 
around the world. The festival will feature performances, exhibits, 
workshops, art demonstrations and an educational symposia--all in an 
effort to provide an international exchange of information on the arts, 
education, disability and technology among educators, artists, parents, 
arts organizations, and the general public. The festival will also 
offer a learning opportunity for the more than 600,000 Los Angeles 
school children. These students, 8,000 of whom have disabilities, will 
be invited to participate in all aspects of the festival--broadening 
their awareness of the endless possibilities the arts provide in 
education, business and technology.
  Another highly effective program in my state, the VA/VSA Artist-in-
Residence Program, builds independence and self-confidence in veterans 
across the country by using artistic outlets to enhance the 
rehabilitation process. The program provides veterans who receive care 
at VA medical centers with quality arts experiences through artist-in-
residence programs and community-based activities. VSA California 
provides ten-week residency programs at the Palo Alto VA Day Care & 
Homeless Center in the Mission district of San Francisco.
  Mr. Speaker, the programs I have mentioned today are just two 
examples of the wonderful work Very Special Arts accomplishes each year 
in California and on behalf of all people with disabilities across our 
great nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3248, and 
continue to support programs, like Very Special Arts, that provide 
important and valuable services for all of our constituents.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3284, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, a bill which I am proud to co-
sponsor. I would like to congratulate my colleague Congressman Joe 
Pitts for his work in bringing this important legislation forward.
  As a former high school teacher, I am concerned about he current 
state of our Nation's schools, Clearly the lack of progress in 
educational reform at the K-12 level is a serious threat to the health 
of the economy and to the future prosperity of American children. 
However, in order to place the discussion about what to do about our 
failing educational system in context, a brief review of the history of 
the economics of federal involvement in education is in order. Thus 
far, school reforms have focused only on increasing funding to public 
schools. Since 1983, government funding to public K-12 schools has 
increased by 44 percent and average per-student spending has increased 
by 32 percent. Total spending for public K-12 education now totals 
nearly $300 billion per year.
  One of the central problems with education funding today is where 
this funding goes. For example, the federal government spends 
approximately $100 billion a year on more than 760 federal education 
programs. However, more than a third of the $15.4 billion spent by the 
Department of Education on elementary and secondary education programs 
never reaches the all important classroom; instead it is lost in a sea 
of bureaucracy.
  Madam Chairman, last year, the House took a first step toward 
assuring that taxpayer education dollars get where they are supposed to 
be going. The House passed, and I supported, the Dollars to Classrooms 
Resolution which expressed the sense of the House that the Department 
of Education, state education departments, and local education agencies 
work together to ensure that not less than 90 percent of all education 
funds are spent on children in their classrooms. In other words: let's 
get the money to the place it will do some good--the classroom.
  House Republicans have had some important successes over the past few 
years: we've balanced the federal budget for the first time in a 
generation, produced the first tax cut in 16 years, and moved millions 
of Americans from welfare to work. Today we are building on these 
successes by taking an important step toward bringing the best 
education possible within reach of every child in this country.
  The Dollars to the Classroom Act represents a major change in the 
federal government's approach to education funding. Instead of pouring 
money into the Department of Education and hoping some of its trickles 
down to our children's classrooms, this legislation will assure that 95 
cents out of every federal education dollar goes directly to our kids' 
classrooms.
  What does this legislation mean for America's families and children? 
It means that every classroom in America will receive, on average, an 
extra $425 because this Act consolidates many grant programs that never 
reach the classroom and lifts restrictions that keep many schools from 
even applying for these grants. It means that $800 million additional 
education dollars will go to our public schools. It means that my home 
state of Illinois will receive $44 million more education dollars--an 
increase of more than 40%. In short, Mr. Speaker, the passage of the 
Dollars to the Classroom Act means that more education dollars will 
reach more kids. I cannot believe that anyone can oppose this.
  Madam Chairman, we have to ask ourselves where the solution to the 
problems with our education system lie. Some of my colleagues are 
convinced that if we could only send more money to the Department of 
Education they will be able to fix our schools.
  As a teacher, I must disagree. I know that innovation in education--
something we desperately need--will not come from Washington 
bureaucrats. In fact, they are at the root of the problem. Innovative 
solutions will only come from families, teachers, and local communities 
who actually do the job of teaching our kids.
  Madam Chairman, I am happy to co-sponsor the Dollars to the Classroom 
Act because it will free the hands of local schools to fix the problems 
without education system and it provides them the funds they need, no 
strings attached, to carry out these reforms. I urge all my colleagues 
to stand for our kids and support this important legislation.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3248, the 
Dollars to the Classroom Act. The title is a misnomer. In fact, this 
bill takes dollars out of the classroom. Funds to the State of Texas 
would be reduced by $17,592,884! I have listened to this debate and 
heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the 
states are held harmless. Perhaps they're using new math, but the math 
I learned in school tells me that a reduction of more than $17 million 
is not being held harmless.
  Local control is the key. We must allow our local school districts to 
implement programs that are best for their communities. The federal 
government is and should be a junior partner in education, providing 
the needed tools for those programs. However, this legislation will 
block grant our federal education programs. This bill would eliminate 
many key federal elementary and secondary education programs by rolling 
them into a single education block grant to the states. The Eisenhower 
Teacher Training program, the School-to-Work program, and the voluntary 
Goals 2000 School Reform program would be eliminated. No federal funds 
would be guaranteed for programs to improve the quality of teacher 
training in such core subjects as reading and math. No funds would be 
guaranteed for programs to improve the transition from school to work. 
And no funds would be guaranteed to implement school reform efforts and 
raise academic standards.
  In this bill, we see a continuation of the assault on our public 
schools. It is a continuation of efforts to shift federal aid away from 
the public schools. It is a continuation of efforts to undermine the 
local control of our local school districts.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that they want to 
let the teachers make the decisions. If that is so, why are teachers 
and other local school officials opposed to this bill? I have heard 
from the Texas Education Agency, Texas State Teachers Association, the 
Texas Federation of Teachers, the National PTA, the Council of Chief 
State School Officers, the American Association of School 
Administrators, the National Association of State Boards of Education, 
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National 
Association of Secondary School

[[Page H8050]]

Principals, the National Association of State Directors of Special 
Education, the National Science Teachers Association, the American 
Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. The 
Republicans claim that they are letting the members of these 
organizations make the decisions. If that is true, why are they all 
opposed to it?
  There is nothing we do as Members of Congress that is more important 
than safeguarding the future of our children. We should be working to 
improve education, but this bill is not the way to go about it. We 
should be helping our local school districts with the modernization or 
construction of schools. We should be passing legislation to allow our 
local districts to hire more teachers so we can have small classes. We 
should be helping our local communities fund after school learning 
programs. We should be giving our local schools the ability to ensure 
that all students are computer literate and all classrooms are 
connected to the Internet by the year 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, I challenge this body to consider and pass real 
education reform. Vote no on this sham of a reform.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my 
reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take 
a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. 
Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently 
voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In 
fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation 
of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others 
have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power 
over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. 
However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal 
bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term 
effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government's control 
over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress 
should reject this bill.
  If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would 
be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by 
this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from 
taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government 
lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution 
between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are 
redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no 
``block grant exception'' to the principles of federalism embodied in 
the United States Constitution.
  The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies 
are spent ``in the classroom,'' (a term not defined in the act) and 
report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve 
student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management 
on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units 
of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the 
Federal Government for their management of educational programs.
  For all its flaws, the original version of H.R. 3248 at least 
restored some measure of state control of education because it placed 
no restrictions on a state's use of funds. It was, thus, a pure block 
grant. However, this bill does not even give states that level of 
discretion as H.R. 3248 has been amended to restrict the uses to which 
a state can apply its block grants.
  Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their 
block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by 
the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example 
of ``mandate federalism'' where states are given flexibility to 
determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states 
the authority to select a particular form of federal management of 
education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is 
hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!

  The federal government's power to treat state governments as their 
administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress' taxing-
and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state 
and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal 
government has illegitimately taken from a state's citizens. Of course, 
this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other 
states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who 
can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal 
funding!
  As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states 
and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not 
that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the 
real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
  Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing 
federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to 
fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even 
local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these 
mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state 
governments into mere agents of the federal government.
  Madam Chairman, those who doubt the likelihood of the above scenario 
should remember that the Education Committee could not even pass the 
initial block grant without ``giving in'' to the temptation to limit 
state autonomy in the use of education funds because ``Congress cannot 
trust the states to do the right thing!'' Given that this Congress 
cannot pass a clean block grant, who can doubt that some future 
Congress will decide that the States need federal ``leadership'' to 
ensure they use their block grants in the correct manner, or that 
states should be forced to use at least a certain percentage of their 
block grant funds on a few ``vital'' programs.
  I would also ask those of my colleagues who claim that block grant 
will lead to future reductions in expenditures how likely is this will 
occur when Congress had to increase expenditures in order to originally 
implement the block grant programs?
  Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and 
local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over 
education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will 
be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I 
wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education 
officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The 
officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls 
in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers' 
dollars to spend as they wish.
  It will be claimed that this bill does not increase spending, it 
merely funds education spending at the current level by adding an 
adjustment to inflation to the monies appropriated for education 
programs in Fiscal Year 1999. However, predicting the rate of inflation 
is a tricky business. If, as is very likely, inflation is less than the 
amount dictated by this bill, the result will be an increase 
in education spending in real dollar terms. Still, that is beside the 
point, any spending increase, whether real or nominal, ought to be 
opposed. CBO reports that H.R. 3248 provides ``additional authorization 
of ``9.5B.''

  Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this 
bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact 
is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of 
this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional 
questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of 
adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said 
to be a return to state's rights since it decentralized the management 
of federal program; this is a new 1990's definition of the original 
concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, 
constitutional definition of federalism.
  Rather than shifting responsibility for the management of federal 
funds, Congress should defund all unconstitutional programs and 
dramatically cut taxes imposed upon the American people, thus enabling 
American families to devote more of their resources to education. I 
have introduced a bill, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816) to 
provide parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for education 
expenses. This bill directly empowers parents, not bureaucrats or state 
officials, to control education and is the most important education 
reform idea introduced in this Congress.
  In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some 
unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal 
government's equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America 
people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for 
education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be 
closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for 
future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than 
continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, 
Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as 
the ``bosses'' of America's education system.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, Plutarch once wrote that 
the very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in good education. 
The proposed ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' would rent this spring 
and root from the fertile soils of our school systems and would leave 
only a desolate land of ignorance.
  This measure attempts to tear the elementary and secondary education 
system apart in an effort to make political gains rather than 
substantive policy improvements for children and education.
  H.R. 3248 would eliminate 31 existing elementary and secondary 
programs--including Eisenhower Professional Development, School-To-
Work, Goals 2000, Comprehensive School Reform, Magnet Schools 
Assistance, Technology for Education, 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers, and Civic Education programs, among others, with no assurance 
that any of the funding for these programs would stay in the education 
arena. It seems

[[Page H8051]]

that we should instead name this the ``Dollars FROM the Classroom 
Act.''
  This legislation would also permit all States to participate in the 
current Ed-Flex demonstration program without any emphasis on ensuring 
quality academic achievement among students.
  H.R. 3248 also would eliminate the requirement that school districts 
with significant percentages of children in poverty be permitted to do 
schoolwide programs under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  This act also errs by nullifying the accountability for taxpayer 
dollars that is so integral to our education system. Accountability for 
the Federal education dollar is extremely important in both ensuring 
that programs are conducted consistent with the priorities in Federal 
law, and that we can ensure that program dollars are being effectively 
utilized.
  Without provisions ensuring strong accountability, we have no 
assurance that our nation's children are being well-served and little 
information on the effectiveness of our programs. Fortunately, the 
programs affected by this bill have existing accountability measure 
that ensure that resources are utilized in a manner consistent with the 
goals of each program and the overarching mission to educate our 
children.
  H.R. 3248 makes only superficial attempts at ensuring accountability 
for the funding that would go out under the bill's block grant scheme. 
First, the bill requires a generic annual report on how funds have been 
used to improve student performance that will tell us little about 
effective strategies and uses of funding under the block grant.
  Second, States would be required to use any measures of student 
academic performance to gauge the effectiveness of funding. These 
provisions have no requirement to link outcomes, assessments, or 
reporting to challenging, high quality, State academic standards and 
will do nothing to ensure effective use of Federal education resources.
  Moreover, the Secretary of Education is specifically barred from 
imposing any meaningful performance or accountability standards 
regarding the expenditure of funding under this bill. We should not 
enact legislation that jeopardizes accountability of Federal dollars 
and, in turn, jeopardizes the quality of our children's education.
  Very simply, this legislation destroys the very nature of the Federal 
commitment to education through a complete abandonment of 
accountability and a lack of focus on high student achievement, and the 
elimination of targeting our limited resources to those children most 
in need.
  It is important to remember that block grants are not new. While they 
appeal to cries for simplification, the result has been largely to 
reduce funding. This approach to Federal assistance has been tried 
before, especially during the early 1970's and again during the early 
1980's.
  Specifically, in 1981, more than 40 smaller education programs were 
block granted. The total funding at the time was reduced because of the 
theory of more flexibility. Funding for the block grant decreased over 
time from 1982 to 1992 by roughly 52 percent.
  Rather than advancing this destructive agenda, we should be advancing 
one which reflects the real needs of America's educational system. We 
need real solutions to the demands of our education system, not 
divisive measures that will cause disruption.
  Yet, instead of responding to the educational needs of our nation, 
the majority has sought to divide us along partisan lines. This does 
nothing to assist our principals, parents, teachers, and students in 
their quest for educational excellence.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 3248. As a former educator in the Los Angeles Unified School 
District, one of the largest in this country, I cannot support this 
bill. It repeals 31 elementary and secondary education programs, 
including Goals 2000, School to Work, and Eisenhower Professional 
Development State Grants.
  I am particularly concerned about elimination of the Eisenhower 
Professional Development program because it has been a successful tool 
in providing critical teacher training opportunities. The only way for 
our students to become the best they can be is for their teachers to be 
the best they can be--which requires on-going quality training for 
teachers. In this rapidly changing world, it is essential for teachers 
to have up-to-date training and the latest information and technology 
if they are to teach our children and prepare them for the next 
millennium.
  This bill eliminates existing mechanisms that assure that federal 
funds are used as intended and that children are well served--yet it 
fails to provide adequate replacements. This bill completely eliminates 
the ability of the federal government to target federal funds on poor 
children, and instead leaves the targeting of federal funds to the 
political whims of state legislatures. As a former state legislator, I 
know the risks of federal funding reaching the intended programs when 
these funds are directed to block grants for states. The Government 
Accounting Office has found that federal funding is more targeted to 
poor students than state funding in 45 of 47 states. This targeted 
focus of federal education dollars is intended to address national 
problems that are not being adequately addressed at the state and local 
levels.
  This bill is opposed by respected educators across the country, 
including the National Education Association, the National PTA, the 
American Association of School Administrators, the National Association 
of Elementary School Principals, and the American Association of 
University Women.
  My constituents in California, including the State Superintendent of 
Public Instruction, do not want to see this bill passed. Yesterday, a 
group of California educators, led by the President of the Los Angeles 
County School Board came to my office and urged me to oppose this bill. 
They were particularly concerned that this bill would eliminate the 
successful Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers. In Los Angeles, 
these Centers have provided vital resources to our classrooms and given 
teachers more tools to help our children learn to read. One of the 
tools in this guide, ``Taking a Reading,'' which aids teachers in 
teaching our children to read. If this bill passes, my local teachers 
will lose this tool.
  Another program that will be eliminated if this bill passes is the 
``We The People'' program. Participants of this civic education program 
in the 37th District of California have called my office and urged 
opposition to this bill. Even though we have a strong and active 
program in Southern California, local leaders say the program is 
enhanced because of the national network they participate in through 
the existing federal funding. I must ask my colleagues, with all we 
have witnessed this summer, how can we in good faith, vote to eliminate 
funding for civics education for America's children? If anything, we 
should be providing more resources for programs that teach our children 
about responsible and good citizenship.
  This bill also eliminates funding for Women's Educational Equity, 
Arts in Education and Magnet Schools, just to name a few. This is not a 
good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and support 
real efforts to improve education, like improving teacher training, 
reducing class size, adding new qualified teachers, and improving the 
condition of our school facilities. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the substitute amendment to this bill. This legislation, of 
which I am an original cosponsor, would hire 100,000 new teachers and 
reduce class size in my state in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18 
students. This amendment puts the focus in our education system back 
where it belongs, with our children.
  This issue is raised so often by the families in my district, and I 
believe that we here in Congress have the responsibility to provide for 
our children and help localities provide the kind of education they 
expect and our children need to be competitive in the modern world. 
Studies have shown that strong reading skills at a young age lead to 
greater success later on. This amendment will give our teachers the 
ability to dedicate more of their time to working with each individual 
child, providing more focus on the development of this important 
skills.
  This legislation is already funded in the President's budget 
proposal. This bill, too, would mean more dollars for my home state. 
For Connecticut, this means more than $115 million to help local school 
districts hire and train additional teachers. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment, and give our communities the resources they need 
to prepare our children for the future.
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3248, The 
Dollars to the Classroom Act in my home state of Utah we have a strong 
public education system with many successful programs. The teachers and 
administrators at the local level are what has made these programs work 
so well. They know our children, they know their names, they know their 
needs. They should not be superseded by a federal program handed down 
by Washington, D.C. We need to give our nation's teachers the power to 
make our children's education successful.
  This bill will do that.
  H.R. 3248 mandates that 95 percent of the money appropriated under 
this grant is to be used as we intend it to be used, in our children's 
classrooms. This bill combines 31 separate programs, eliminates the 
bureaucracy that administers those programs and makes sure that the 
money doesn't go to special interest groups. Our children will instead 
get $2.74 billion in additional federal funding. That is $425 per 
classroom. What teacher couldn't use an additional $425 to improve the 
quality of education in their classrooms?
  This is money that our children's teachers and local officials will 
be deciding how to

[[Page H8052]]

spend, not some special interest group or bureaucrat sitting not far 
from here. The money can be used to purchase supplies, buy computers, 
pay for Internet access, hire new teachers and increase teachers' 
salaries.
  Our nation's teachers are molding the world leaders of tomorrow. They 
know our children's strengths and their weaknesses. No one influences 
our children like their teachers. Let's give them the power and 
resources to do their job right.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in opposition to the block 
grant, H.R. 3248. As a former educator, I am a strong supporter of 
legislation which invests in the education of our children. However, 
this legislation, despite its name, does nothing to improve educational 
opportunities.
  Federal aid was originally adopted because individual states were 
either unwilling or unable to meet specific needs in our schools and 
often to address and encourage service to special needs. H.R. 3248 
fails to guarantee that any federal money would be used to continue 
initiatives which provide our children with the best opportunities to 
succeed and especially children with disabilities who deserve the 
opportunity and assurance with the chance to succeed. Instead, it 
dilutes the impact of federal funding, shortchanges high need students, 
reduces accountability and undermines national education priorities. 
And discards programs and commitments that work.
  Supporters of this legislation insist that this block grant provides 
the perfect vehicle to get more dollars to disadvantaged children and 
their teachers. In fact, the very opposite is true. H.R. 3248 contains 
no state to local formula, leaving up to 95% of the funds to be spent 
at the sole discretion of the governor who incidentally isn't 
responsible for raising such funds. Funds could be spent on equipment, 
operating expenses and personnel. Federal dollars could become nothing 
more than general aid or tax relief for communities who do not wish to 
invest in important programs which address the needs of disabled, 
gifted, minority and disadvantaged youth the populist sentiment in the 
state would surely erode help for those children and families that have 
little political power. This block grant ignores the needs of preschool 
children by funding only activities and services for children aged 5 
through 17, even if local officials wish to continue preschool 
activities.
  In addition, this legislation proves for no accountability. The Block 
Grant Act requires only that each state submit an annual report that 
describes how the funds have been used to improve student performance, 
using any measures the state deems appropriate. Block grants are 
difficult to evaluate in terms of their impact on teaching and 
learning, and this legislation would essentially allow states to create 
their own standards. In a worst case scenario, they may even choose not 
to include data which measures the performance of students with lower 
achievement levels. These children could be completely cast aside, 
because states will no longer have to comply with the current 
regulations we have in place to protect them.
  Block grants for education will likely go into atrophy, as it is far 
easier for the National Congress to cut non-specific programs and 
shrink the block grant to a shadow of its $125.
  Rather than continuously undermining public education, Congress needs 
to take proactive measures which will bring more resources into our 
schools. The Republican majority continues to craft schemes which 
siphon money away from important programs. Instead of putting the 
education of children with various needs in jeopardy, we should work to 
ensure that every child is given the chance to partake in a quality 
learning environment which allows them the best opportunity to acquire 
skills necessary to be successful in the future. The Block Grant Act 
does not promote a reasonable or adequate approach to ensuring that 
this occurs. I oppose this legislation, and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, with the dawn of a new century 
imminently upon us, there's a great deal that's going right about 
America. Our economy is the envy of the world. Unemployment and 
inflation are both down. It is clear that the economic political 
message of President Ronald Reagan has been internalized, to a greater 
or lesser extent, by everyone in the political system.
  Yet amid this economic prosperity, the education and future of our 
children is in doubt. As a nation, we have not lived up to our 
responsibility of educating our children, and our public school system 
is simply not competitive with the OECD nations with which we do battle 
in the marketplace.
  We desperately need to ensure that our children in school today grow 
up to be the best educated young adults in the world. While school 
choice and government scholarship programs is the single best way to 
achieve this goal, the best interim measure that we can do is to 
decentralize our public educational system.
  We need to devolve educational resources from the federal to the 
state level. We need to give the governors and state legislators the 
resources they so desperately need in order to creatively deal with the 
educational challenges at the local level in their communities.
  The bureaucratic waste in educational programs at the Federal level 
is enormous. Currently, there are 788 programs originating in 
Washington which are supposedly meant to augment education. These 
programs span 39 different federal departments and consumes $100 
billion a year. Can you imagine what governors and legislators could do 
if $100 billion was block-granted to the states? That's over $2000 per 
student annually.
  H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classrooms Act, is a modest yet 
concrete step towards reaching this necessary and justified goal. It 
consolidates 31, or about 4% of the 788 Federal education programs 
currently in existence. This will free up about $2.74 billion in 
federal tax dollars, which will be transferred and sends the money in a 
block to the States. This ``Dollars to the Classroom'' bill is the 
first step towards ensuring that a full 95% of our Federal education 
dollars bypass the bureaucracy in Washington entirely, and go directly 
to the classroom level, where they can help school age children the 
best.
  In short, I urge you to give our children the resources they need and 
lend your support to H.R. 3248.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 
3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I commend the sponsor, Mr. 
Pitts, Chairman Goodling and the Education and the Workforce Committee, 
for their continual hard work to ensure that real reform occurs in our 
nation's education system.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation sends more dollars to the classrooms 
while giving local educators more funding options. It is currently 
estimated that only 65 percent of all federal funds allocated for 
education actually reach our nation's classrooms. This town is 
notorious for talking about reforming the education system but this 
dismal statistic proves that nothing has been accomplished.
  The Dollars to the Classroom Act is a great way to send a message to 
the Administration that we in Congress are prepared to invoke real 
reform at the Department of Education. Our goal should be an education 
system where every child can out-score, out-perform and out-compete the 
students of every other nation in the world.
  It's time to put our children before bureaucrats. The decision of how 
our education money is spent must be made by local teachers, 
administrators and parents. Not the federal government. It's time that 
we invest more wisely. We must spend our education dollars where they 
can achieve the most--right in the classroom.
  This legislation would mean that schools in Cape Girardeau, West 
Plains, Rolla and every other school in Southern Missouri would receive 
$9,300 on average and each classroom would receive $425. At Dexter High 
School in my district, where I have taught a few classes, $9,300 is the 
difference between having computers and much newer books and other much 
needed learning resources. It's finally time for Congress to take a 
stand and do what is right for our nation's children. I urge my 
colleagues to support Dexter High School and support the Dollars to the 
Classroom Act. We must localize education not nationalize it.
  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 under the 5-minute rule and is considered as 
having been read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3248

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Dollars to the Classroom 
     Act''.
       TITLE I--IMPROVEMENT OF CLASSROOM SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 101. GRANTS TO STATES.

       The Secretary is authorized to award grants in accordance 
     with this title to States for use by

[[Page H8053]]

     States and local educational agencies to improve classroom 
     services and activities for students.

     SEC. 102. GRANT AWARD.

       (a) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount appropriated to 
     carry out this title for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve--
       (1) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the outlying areas, to be 
     distributed among the outlying areas on the basis of their 
     relative need, as determined by the Secretary in accordance 
     with the purposes of this section; and
       (2) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior 
     for programs under this title in schools operated or funded 
     by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       (b) State Allocations.--Funds appropriated to carry out 
     this title for any fiscal year, which are not reserved under 
     subsection (a), shall be allocated among the States as 
     follows:
       (1) Hold harmless.--If the amount of funds appropriated to 
     carry out this title in any fiscal year equals or exceeds the 
     aggregate amount all States received in fiscal year 1998 
     under--
       (A) title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 
     U.S.C. 5881 et seq.);
       (B) section 1002(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(g));
       (C) section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492);
       (D) part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.);
       (E) section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842 et seq.);
       (F) title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7311 et seq.); and
       (G) part B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.),

     as such provisions were in effect on the day preceding the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     allocate to each State the aggregate amount such State 
     received for fiscal year 1998 under such provisions.
       (2) Insufficient funds.--If the amount of appropriations to 
     carry out this title for any fiscal year is insufficient to 
     pay the full amounts that all States are eligible to receive 
     under paragraph (1) for such year, the Secretary shall 
     ratably reduce such amounts for such year.
       (3) Remaining funds.--If funds remain after meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (1), such remaining funds shall be 
     allocated among the States in the following manner:
       (A) 50 percent of such remaining funds shall be allocated 
     to States in proportion to their grants under part A of title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for 
     the preceding fiscal year; and
       (B) 50 percent of such remaining funds shall be allocated 
     to States in proportion to the number of children ages 5 
     through 17, inclusive, according to the most recent available 
     data that are satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (c) Definition of State.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``State'' includes the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (d) Definition of Outlying Area.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``outlying area'' includes American Samoa, 
     Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (e) Payments.--Funds awarded to a State under this section 
     shall be paid to the individual or entity in the State that 
     is responsible for the State administration of Federal 
     education funds pursuant to State law.
       (f) Use of State Awards.--
       (1) In general.--From the amount made available to a State 
     under subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the State--
       (A) shall use not more than 5 percent of the total amount 
     to support programs or activities, for children ages 5 
     through 17, that the State determines appropriate, of which 
     the State shall distribute 20 percent of the 5 percent to 
     local educational agencies in the State to pay the 
     administrative expenses of the local educational agencies 
     that are associated with the activities and services assisted 
     under this section; and
       (B) shall distribute, pursuant to section 103(a), not less 
     than 95 percent of the amount to local educational agencies 
     in the State for the fiscal year to enable the local 
     educational agencies to pay the costs of activities or 
     services provided in the classroom, for children ages 5 
     through 17, that the local educational agencies determine 
     appropriate subject to the requirements of section 103(b).
       (2) Administrative expenses.--For the purpose of paragraph 
     (1)(B), the costs of activities and services provided in the 
     classroom exclude the administrative expenses associated with 
     the activities and services.
       (g) Supplement Not Supplant.--A State or local educational 
     agency shall use funds received under this title only to 
     supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of 
     such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal 
     sources for the education of pupils participating in programs 
     assisted under this title, and not to supplant such funds.
       (h) Annual Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Each State receiving assistance under this 
     part shall issue a report on an annual basis, not later than 
     April 1 of each year beginning the year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, to the Secretary, the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, and 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives that describes how funds under this title 
     have been used to improve student performance in that State.
       (2) Certification.--The report must also include a 
     certification by the State that 95 percent of funding 
     provided under this title during the preceding fiscal year 
     has been expended by local educational agencies within that 
     State for classroom activities and services pursuant to 
     subsection (f)(1)(B).
       (3) Measures of performance.--In determining student 
     academic performance within the State, the State shall use 
     such measures of student academic performance as it deems 
     appropriate. The State may disaggregate data by poverty, 
     subject area, race, gender, geographic location, or other 
     criteria as the State deems appropriate.
       (4) Availability of report.--Each State shall make the 
     report described in this subsection available to parents and 
     members of the public throughout that State.

     SEC. 103. LOCAL AWARDS.

       (a) Determination of Amount of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The individual or entity in the State that 
     is responsible for the State administration of Federal 
     education funds pursuant to State law of each State receiving 
     assistance under this title, in consultation with the 
     Governor of such State, the chief State school officer of 
     such State, representatives from the State legislature, and 
     representatives from local educational agencies within such 
     State, shall develop a formula for the allocation of funds 
     described in section 102, to local educational agencies, 
     taking into consideration--
       (A) poverty rates within each local educational agency;
       (B) children living in sparsely populated areas;
       (C) an equitable distribution of funds among urban, rural, 
     and suburban areas;
       (D) children whose education imposes a higher than average 
     cost per child; and
       (E) such other factors as considered appropriate.
       (2) Hold harmless.--No local educational agency shall 
     receive an award under this subsection for any fiscal year in 
     an amount that is less than the amount the local educational 
     agency received to carry out programs or activities for 
     fiscal year 1998 for title III of the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act (20 U.S.C. 5881 et seq.), part B of title II of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6641 et seq.), section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842 et seq.), title VI of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7311 et seq.), and part B of title VII of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.) as 
     in effect on the day preceding the date of the enactment of 
     this Act plus amounts the local educational agency is 
     eligible to receive during fiscal years 1999 through 2003 
     pursuant to all multiyear awards made prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act under any program that is repealed by 
     section 107 that is not listed in this sentence.
       (3) Insufficient funds.--If the amount allocated to a State 
     to carry out this title for any fiscal year is insufficient 
     to pay the full amounts that all local educational agencies 
     in such State are eligible to receive under paragraph (2) for 
     such year, the State shall ratably reduce such amounts for 
     such year.
       (b) Local Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this 
     section to a local educational agency shall be used for the 
     following classroom services and activities:
       (1) Programs for the acquisition and use of instructional 
     and educational materials, including library services and 
     materials (including media materials), assessments, reference 
     materials, and other curricular materials which are tied to 
     high academic standards and which will be used to improve 
     student achievement and which are part of an overall 
     education reform program.
       (2) Professional development for instructional staff.
       (3) Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of 
     disadvantaged elementary and secondary school students and to 
     prevent students from dropping out of school.
       (4) Efforts to lengthen the school day or the school year.
       (5) Programs to combat illiteracy in the student 
     population.
       (6) Programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted 
     and talented children.
       (7) Promising education reform projects that are tied to 
     State student content and performance standards.
       (8) Carrying out comprehensive school reform programs that 
     are based on reliable research.
       (9) Programs for homeless children and youth.
       (10) Programs that are built upon partnerships between 
     local educational agencies and institutions of higher 
     education, educational service agencies, libraries, 
     businesses, regional educational laboratories, or other 
     educational entities, for the purpose of providing 
     educational services consistent with this section.
       (11) The acquisition of books, materials and equipment, 
     payment of compensation of instructional staff, and 
     instructional activities that are necessary for the conduct 
     of programs in magnet schools.
       (12) Programs to promote academic achievement among women 
     and girls.
       (13) Programs to provide for the educational needs of 
     children with limited English proficiency or who are American 
     Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian.
       (14) Activities to provide the academic support, 
     enrichment, and motivation to enable all students to reach 
     high State standards.
       (15) Efforts to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.
       (16) Projects and programs which assure the participation 
     in mainstream settings in arts and education programs of 
     individuals with disabilities.
       (17) Projects and programs to integrate arts education into 
     the regular elementary and secondary school curriculum.
       (18) Programs designed to educate students about the 
     history and principles of the Constitution of the United 
     States, including the Bill of

[[Page H8054]]

     Rights, and to foster civic competence and responsibility.
       (19) Mathematics and science education instructional 
     materials.
       (20) Programs designed to improve the quality of student 
     writing and learning and the teaching of writing as a 
     learning process.
       (21) Technology related to the implementation of school-
     based reform programs, including professional development to 
     assist teachers and other school officials regarding how to 
     effectively use such equipment and software.
       (22) Computer software and hardware for instructional use.
       (23) Developing, adapting, or expanding existing and new 
     applications of technology.
       (24) Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and 
     services, including the acquisition of hardware and software, 
     for use by teachers, students, and school library media 
     personnel in the classroom or in school library media 
     centers, in order to improve student learning.
       (25) After-school programs designed to engage children in a 
     constructive manner and to promote their academic, 
     developmental, and personal growth;
       (26) Developing, constructing, acquiring, maintaining, 
     operating, and obtaining technical assistance in the use of 
     telecommunications audio and visual facilities and equipment 
     for use in the classroom.
       (27) Developing, acquiring, and obtaining technical 
     assistance in the use of educational and instructional video 
     programming for use in the classroom.
       (c) Parent Involvement.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving assistance under this section shall involve parents 
     and members of the public in planning for the use of funds 
     provided under this section.

     SEC. 104. PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PRIVATE 
                   SCHOOLS.

       Each local educational agency that receives funds under 
     this title shall provide for the participation of children 
     enrolled in private schools, and their teachers or other 
     educational personnel, in the activities and services 
     assisted under such section in the same manner as private 
     school children, and their teachers or other educational 
     personnel, participate in activities and services under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.) pursuant to sections 14503, 14504, 14505, and 
     14506 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 8893, 8894, 8895, and 8896).

     SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
       (2) the term ``educational service agency'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education; and
       (4) except as otherwise provided, the term ``State'' means 
     each of the several States of the United States, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
     Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
     the United States Virgin Islands.

     SEC. 106. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government to require, direct, or control a State, local 
     educational agency or school's specific instructional content 
     of pupil performance standards and assessments, curriculum, 
     or program of instruction as a condition of eligibility to 
     receive funds under this title.
       (b) State and Local Determination.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not issue any 
     regulation regarding the type of classroom activities or 
     services that may be assisted under this title.
       (2) Instructional method and setting.--No local educational 
     agency shall be required to provide services under this title 
     through a particular instructional method or in a particular 
     instructional setting in order to receive funding under this 
     title.

     SEC. 107. REPEALS.

       The following provisions are repealed:
       (1) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 
     U.S.C. 5881 et seq.).
       (2) Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 
     U.S.C. 5911 et seq.).
       (3) Title VI of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 
     U.S.C. 5951).
       (4) Titles II, III, and IV of the School-to-Work 
     Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6121 et seq., 6171 et 
     seq., and 6191 et seq.).
       (5) Section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492).
       (6) Section 1503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6493).
       (7) Section 1002(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (8) Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621 et seq.).
       (9) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.).
       (10) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
       (11) Part A of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
       (12) Part B of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.).
       (13) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7311 et seq.).
       (14) Part B of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.).
       (15) Part C of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.).
       (16) Part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
       (17) Part B of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8031 et seq.).
       (18) Part D of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8091 et seq.).
       (19) Part F of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8141 et seq.).
       (20) Part G of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8161 et seq.).
       (21) Part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8241 et seq.).
       (22) Part J of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8271 et seq.).
       (23) Part K of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8331 et seq.).
       (24) Part L of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8351 et seq.).
       (25) Part A of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.).
       (26) Part C of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8671 et seq.).
       (27) Subtitle B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.).

     SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title, $2,740,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; $2,800,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000; $2,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; 
     $2,940,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and $3,001,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003.
                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. EXPANSION OF ED-FLEX DEMONSTRATIONS.

       (a) Waiver Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the 
     Secretary may waive any statutory or regulatory requirement 
     applicable to any program or Act described in subsection (b) 
     for a State educational agency, local educational agency, or 
     school if--
       (A) and only to the extent that, the Secretary determines 
     that such requirement impedes the ability of the State, or of 
     a local educational agency or school in the State, to carry 
     out the State or local improvement plan;
       (B) the State educational agency has waived, or agrees to 
     waive, similar requirements of State law;
       (C) in the case of a statewide waiver, the State 
     educational agency--
       (i) provides all local educational agencies and parent 
     organizations in the State with notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the State educational agency's proposal to seek a 
     waiver; and
       (ii) submits the local educational agencies' comments to 
     the Secretary; and
       (D) in the case of a local educational agency waiver, the 
     local educational agency provides parents, community groups, 
     and advocacy or civil rights groups with the opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed waiver.
       (2) Application.--(A)(i) To request a waiver under 
     paragraph (1), a local educational agency or school that 
     receives funds under this title, or a local educational 
     agency or school shall transmit an application for such a 
     waiver to the State educational agency. The State educational 
     agency then shall submit approved applications for waivers 
     under paragraph (1) to the Secretary.
       (ii) A State educational agency may request a waiver under 
     paragraph (1) by submitting an application for such waiver to 
     the Secretary.
       (B) Each application submitted to the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) identify the statutory or regulatory requirements that 
     are requested to be waived and the goals that the State 
     educational agency or local educational agency or school 
     intends to achieve;
       (ii) describe the action that the State educational agency 
     has undertaken to remove State statutory or regulatory 
     barriers identified in the application of local educational 
     agencies;
       (iii) describe the goals of the waiver and the expected 
     programmatic outcomes if the request is granted;
       (iv) describe the numbers and types of students to be 
     impacted by such waiver;
       (v) describe a timetable for implementing a waiver; and
       (vi) describe the process the State educational agency will 
     use to monitor, on a biannual basis, the progress in 
     implementing a waiver.
       (3) Timeliness.--The Secretary shall act promptly on a 
     request for a waiver under paragraph (1) and shall provide a 
     written statement of the reasons for granting or denying such 
     request.
       (4) Duration.--Each waiver under paragraph (1) shall be for 
     a period not to exceed 4 years. The Secretary may extend such 
     period if the Secretary determines that the waiver has been 
     effective in enabling the State or affected local educational 
     agencies to carry out reform plans.
       (b) Included Programs.--The statutory or regulatory 
     requirements subject to the waiver authority of this section 
     are any such requirements under the following programs or 
     Acts:
       (1) Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (2) Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.

[[Page H8055]]

       (3) Part A of title V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (4) Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965.
       (5) Part B of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (6) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
     Education Act.
       (c) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary may not waive 
     any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs or 
     Acts described in subsection (b)--
       (1) relating to--
       (A) maintenance of effort;
       (B) comparability of services;
       (C) the equitable participation of students and 
     professional staff in private schools;
       (D) parental participation and involvement; and
       (E) the distribution of funds to States or to local 
     educational agencies; and
       (2) unless the underlying purposes of the statutory 
     requirements of each program or Act for which a waiver is 
     granted continue to be met to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Termination of Waivers.--The Secretary shall 
     periodically review the performance of any State, local 
     educational agency, or school for which the Secretary has 
     granted a waiver under subsection (a)(1) and shall terminate 
     the waiver if the Secretary determines that the performance 
     of the State, the local educational agency, or the school in 
     the area affected by the waiver has been inadequate to 
     justify a continuation of the waiver.
       (e) Flexibility Demonstration.--
       (1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     ``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act''.
       (2) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out an education 
     flexibility demonstration program under which the Secretary 
     authorizes not more than 50 State educational agencies 
     serving eligible States to waive statutory or regulatory 
     requirements applicable to 1 or more programs or Acts 
     described in subsection (b), other than requirements 
     described in subsection (c), for the State educational agency 
     or any local educational agency or school within the State.
       (B) Award rule.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall select for participation in the demonstration 
     program described in subparagraph (A) three State educational 
     agencies serving eligible States that each have a population 
     of 3,500,000 or greater and three State educational agencies 
     serving eligible States that each have a population of less 
     than 3,500,000, determined in accordance with the most recent 
     decennial census of the population performed by the Bureau of 
     the Census.
       (C) Designation.--Each eligible State participating in the 
     demonstration program described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     known as an ``Ed-Flex Partnership State''.
       (3) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the 
     term ``eligible State'' means a State that waives State 
     statutory or regulatory requirements relating to education 
     while holding local educational agencies or schools within 
     the State that are affected by such waivers accountable for 
     the performance of the students who are affected by such 
     waivers.
       (4) State application.--(A) Each State educational agency 
     desiring to participate in the education flexibility 
     demonstration program under this subsection shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require. Each such application shall demonstrate 
     that the eligible State has adopted an educational 
     flexibility plan for the State that includes--
       (i) a description of the process the State educational 
     agency will use to evaluate applications from local 
     educational agencies or schools requesting waivers of--
       (I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements described 
     in paragraph (2)(A); and
       (II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to 
     education; and
       (ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and 
     regulatory requirements relating to education that the State 
     educational agency will waive.
       (B) The Secretary may approve an application described in 
     subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that such 
     application demonstrates substantial promise of assisting the 
     State educational agency and affected local educational 
     agencies and schools within such State in carrying out 
     comprehensive educational reform, after considering--
       (i) the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational 
     flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
       (ii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for 
     the activities and goals described in such plan;
       (iii) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory 
     requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
       (iv) the quality of the State educational agency's process 
     for approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory 
     or regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and 
     for monitoring and evaluating the results of such waivers.
       (5) Local application.--(A) Each local educational agency 
     or school requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirement described in paragraph (2)(A) and any 
     relevant State statutory or regulatory requirement from a 
     State educational agency shall submit an application to the 
     State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the State educational agency 
     may reasonably require. Each such application shall--
       (i) indicate each Federal program affected and the 
     statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
       (ii) describe the purposes and overall expected results of 
     waiving each such requirement;
       (iii) describe for each school year specific, measurable, 
     educational goals for each local educational agency or school 
     affected by the proposed waiver; and
       (iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local 
     educational agency or school in reaching such goals.
       (B) A State educational agency shall evaluate an 
     application submitted under subparagraph (A) in accordance 
     with the State's educational flexibility plan described in 
     paragraph (4)(A).
       (C) A State educational agency shall not approve an 
     application for a waiver under this paragraph unless--
       (i) the local educational agency or school requesting such 
     waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable 
     to such agency or school, respectively; and
       (ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory 
     requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) will assist the 
     local educational agency or school in reaching its 
     educational goals.
       (6) Monitoring.--Each State educational agency 
     participating in the demonstration program under this 
     subsection shall annually monitor the activities of local 
     educational agencies and schools receiving waivers under this 
     subsection and shall submit an annual report regarding such 
     monitoring to the Secretary.
       (7) Duration of federal waivers.--(A) The Secretary shall 
     not approve the application of a State educational agency 
     under paragraph (4) for a period exceeding 5 years, except 
     that the Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary 
     determines that such agency's authority to grant waivers has 
     been effective in enabling such State or affected local 
     educational agencies or schools to carry out their local 
     reform plans.
       (B) The Secretary shall periodically review the performance 
     of any State educational agency granting waivers of Federal 
     statutory or regulatory requirements described in paragraph 
     (2)(A) and shall terminate such agency's authority to grant 
     such waivers if the Secretary determines, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing, that such agency's performance has 
     been inadequate to justify continuation of such authority.
       (f) Accountability.--In deciding whether to extend a 
     request for a waiver under subsection (a)(1), or a State 
     educational agency's authority to issue waivers under 
     subsection (e), the Secretary shall review the progress of 
     the State educational agency, local educational agency, or 
     school affected by such waiver or authority to determine if 
     such agency or school has made progress toward achieving the 
     desired results described in the application submitted 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B)(iii) or (e)(5)(A)(ii).
       (g) Publication.--A notice of the Secretary's decision to 
     grant waivers under subsection (a)(1) and to authorize State 
     educational agencies to issue waivers under subsection (e) 
     shall be published in the Federal Register and the Secretary 
     shall provide for the dissemination of such notice to State 
     educational agencies, interested parties, including 
     educators, parents, students, advocacy and civil rights 
     organizations, other interested parties, and the public.

     SEC. 202. EXPANSION OF SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS.

       Section 1114(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6314) is amended by striking 
     ``if, for the initial year of the schoolwide program'' and 
     all that follows through the end and inserting a period.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 105-726.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
subject to amendment.
  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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in House 
Report 105-726.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-726 offered by 
     Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).


Request  for  Modification  of  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of 
                                 Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be modified to include the Alaska Native Education Act.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

[[Page H8056]]

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The inclusion of the Native American in Alaska and Hawaii in this 
list of 31 programs that are to be block granted is wholly 
inappropriate and basically inexplicable. The whole purpose of this 
list, as I have been able to rationalize it, is that presumably those 
programs were to have some national perspective and, therefore, lumping 
all of the monies in these programs into one block grant and allowing 
the States to make a decision as to which ones they wanted funded was 
the purpose of the legislation.
  Unfortunately, in drafting the list of 31 programs, the majority 
included the Alaska Native Education Program and the Hawaii Native 
Education Act. And it makes no sense, because these two programs are 
designated specifically for the Native American population in these two 
States. To take the monies away from this program and put it into a 
block grant making the total dollars available for the entire Nation 
and sacrificing these two designated programs is absolutely untenable.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act was established by Congress in 1988 
and it was part of the Federal Government's assumption of 
responsibility for the Native Americans that were in the State of 
Hawaii. That was true also for the Alaskan native peoples as well.
  The program is comprised of 6 programs and is funded in fiscal year 
1998 at $18 million. To completely obliterate this special funding 
denies my State and the Native American population in my State of $18 
million and puts this whole funding into a national pot.
  Notwithstanding what the majority has been saying about the funding, 
I have been advised that if this bill is enacted into law, that my 
State will lose 67 percent of the funding based upon the current level 
of funding in our programs, and Alaska will lose 52 percent, and we are 
the two States with the highest loss. That is directly attributable to 
the loss of this specific funding, which we would otherwise be entitled 
to receive.
  The Congress has a unique responsibility to Native Americans. There 
are no other Native American programs that are included in the 31 that 
are being eliminated, except for Hawaii and Alaska. It is a basic 
failure to understand the purpose and policies that were behind the 
enactment of these special laws.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act is an acknowledgment of the Federal 
Government's responsibility for the improvement of the quality of 
education, the quality of health and other areas of our native 
population.
  Therefore, I hope that this House will recognize the uniqueness of 
these two programs and support the amendment that I have offered.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time on this very 
important amendment offered by our good friend from Hawaii.
  About four years ago I offered an amendment on this floor during the 
appropriations process to eliminate this $5 million program called the 
Native Hawaiian Education program, intended to provide some money to 
help in the education of native Hawaiian children. The reason for that 
is very simple. In Hawaii there is the Bishop estate left by the heir 
to King Kamehameha and this Bishop estate has a $10 billion endowment. 
That is $10 billion.
  Their sole purpose, their sole charter is to educate native Hawaiian 
children.
  This estate has squandered this money for a number of years to the 
point where the school that receives this funding of the amendment 
offered by my friend from Hawaii, this school is being investigated by 
the Attorney General in the State of Hawaii. The school is being 
audited, investigated by the Internal Revenue Service. The trustees of 
this Bishop estate are paid, in 1996, $843,109, $843,000 to each 
trustee, more than what most CEOs in America are paid.
  I think the Bishop estate has its own series of problems. The Clinton 
administration, in 1997, zero funded this same program because they 
said that the services provided by the special $5 million grant were 
already covered under other programs that these children would qualify 
for.
  This is nothing more than $5 million worth of extra pork intended to 
go to one State. It is unnecessary, and the amendment should absolutely 
be defeated.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, it is very difficult to talk about 
the amendment which we have in front of us when the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) has brought up an entirely extraneous point.
  I hope the chairman will recognize this stuff and that this has 
nothing to do with the amendment. The estate that he is talking about 
is involved with a private school. We are talking about public funds 
here that go to public schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with 
the Bishop estate, with the Kamehameha school. None of this money goes 
to that school or to the estate.
  This is a completely extraneous issue, and I beg the Members, please, 
not to be, I will say misled, because maybe the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) has a misconception. I would be happy to discuss it with 
him at some other point. Our amendment has to do with this block grant 
proposal. I indicated to the chairman yesterday and to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) that we were not arguing with the block 
grant proposal. That is an argument for another day.
  What we are saying is that we will be eliminated. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) himself used the word ``eliminate'' because that was 
the object. We would be eliminated, as would the native Alaskans. So 
all we are asking for is consideration, not an exception but 
consideration to be included. If this amendment does not pass, the 
likelihood of our being able to be included in the block grant in any 
way that would allow us to adequately participate in any of these 
programs is virtually eliminated.
  I beg the Members, we can argue at length, and I would be happy to do 
it, not argue but discuss at length the efficacy of the gentleman from 
Ohio's (Mr. Boehner) remarks in another context. But with this 
particular amendment, I urge with all the sincerity that I can that we 
not confuse the issue of the public schools, the money to go to 
children that would otherwise not necessarily have the opportunity if 
the amendment does not pass.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Because I have the greatest admiration and respect for the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii and because I enjoy her company, publicly, that 
is, better make that clear, I am going to ask everyone to vote no on 
her amendment.
  Why would I do that if I have that much respect for her? Because I 
want to give her more than 18 million to spend. At the present time she 
can only spend 18 million on her program, only 18 million. With this 
program that we are offering, she can spend the total, the total 
allocation of all of these programs on that one specific program.
  Now, I am sure that the State of Hawaii will not neglect their 
obligation to native Hawaiians. In fact, she assured me that would not 
happen. So I want Members to vote no on the gentlewoman's amendment 
because I want her to be able to spend more than 18 million, and the 
only way she can do that is if we defeat her amendment and pass the 
underlying legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 105-726.

[[Page H8057]]

 Amendment No. 2 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

  Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 
105-726 offered by Mr. Martinez: 
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class-Size 
     Reduction and Teacher Quality Act of 1998''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Rigorous research has shown that students attending 
     small classes in the early grades make more rapid educational 
     progress than students in larger classes, and that these 
     achievement gains persist through at least the elementary 
     grades.
       (2) The benefits of smaller classes are greatest for lower-
     achieving, minority, poor, and inner-city children. One study 
     found that urban fourth-graders in smaller-than-average 
     classes were three-quarters of a school year ahead of their 
     counterparts in larger-than-average classes.
       (3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with 
     more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction 
     and less on other tasks, and cover more material effectively, 
     and are better able to work with parents to further their 
     children's education.
       (4) Smaller classes allow teachers to identify and work 
     more effectively with students who have learning disabilities 
     and, potentially, can reduce those students' need for special 
     education services in the later grades.
       (5) Students in smaller classes are able to become more 
     actively engaged in learning than their peers in large 
     classes.
       (6) Efforts to improve educational achievement by reducing 
     class sizes in the early grades are likely to be more 
     successful if well-prepared teachers are hired and 
     appropriately assigned to fill additional classroom positions 
     and if teachers receive intensive, continuing training in 
     working effectively in smaller classroom settings.
       (7) Several States have begun a serious effort to reduce 
     class sizes in the early elementary grades, but these actions 
     may be impeded by financial limitations or difficulties in 
     hiring well-prepared teachers.
       (8) The Federal Government can assist in this effort by 
     providing funding for class-size reductions in grades one 
     through three, and by helping to ensure that the new teachers 
     brought into the classroom are well prepared.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to help States and local 
     educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000 
     additional teachers over a seven-year period in order to--
       (1) reduce class sizes nationally, in grades 1 through 3, 
     to an average of 18 students per classroom; and
       (2) improve teaching in the early grades so that all 
     students can learn to read independently and well by the end 
     of the third grade.

     SEC. 3. PROGRAM FUNDING.

       For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999, $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $1,500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,735,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $2,300,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, and $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2008.

     SEC. 4. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.

       (a) Reservation for Evaluation.--From the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3 for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may reserve up to $2 million to carry out the 
     evaluation described in section 13.
       (b) Reservation for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     section 3 for each fiscal year and remaining after any 
     reservation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve 
     a total of not more than 1 percent to make payments, on the 
     basis of their respective needs, to--
       (1) American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for activities, 
     approved by the Secretary, consistent with this Act; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Interior for activities, approved 
     by the Secretary, consistent with this Act in schools 
     operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       (c) Allocations to States.--(1) After reserving funds under 
     subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall allocate to each 
     State an amount that bears the same relationship to the 
     remaining amount as the amount of funding the State received 
     under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 for the previous fiscal year bore to the total 
     amount available for allocation under that section.
       (2) If any State chooses not to participate in the program 
     under this Act, or fails to submit an approvable application, 
     the Secretary shall reallocate its allocation to the 
     remaining States, in accordance with paragraph (1).

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Application Required.--The State educational agency of 
     each State desiring to receive a grant under this Act shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     form, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (b) Contents.--Each application shall include--
       (1) the State's goals for using funds under this Act to 
     reduce average class sizes in regular classrooms in grades 1 
     through 3, including--
       (A) a description of current regular classroom class sizes 
     in the local educational agencies of the State;
       (B) a description of the State's plan for using funds under 
     this Act to reduce the average class size in regular 
     classrooms in those grades; and
       (C) the regular classroom class-size goals the State 
     intends to reach and a justification for those goals;
       (2) a description of the State educational agency's plan 
     for allocating program funds within the State, including--
       (A) an estimate of the impact of those allocations on class 
     sizes in the individual local educational agencies of the 
     State;
       (B) an assurance that the State educational agency will 
     make this plan public within the State; and
       (C) a description of the current and projected capacity of 
     the State's school facilities to accommodate reduced class 
     sizes;
       (3) a description of the State educational agency's 
     strategy for improving teacher quality in grades 1 through 3 
     within the State (which may be part of a broader strategy to 
     improve teacher quality generally), including--
       (A) the actions it will take to ensure the availability, 
     within the State, of a pool of well-prepared, certified 
     teachers to fill the positions created with funds under this 
     Act; and
       (B) a description of how the State educational agency and 
     the local educational agencies in the State will ensure 
     that--
       (i) individuals hired for positions created with program 
     funds (which may include individuals who have pursued 
     ``alternative routes'' to certification) will meet all of the 
     State's current requirements for full certification, or will 
     be making satisfactory progress toward achieving full 
     certification within three years;
       (ii) teachers in first through third grade will be prepared 
     to teach reading effectively to all children, including those 
     with special needs, and will take part in continuing 
     professional development in effective reading instruction and 
     in teaching effectively in small classes; and
       (iii) individuals hired as beginning teachers in first 
     through third grade will be required to pass a teacher 
     competency test selected by the State;
       (4) a description of how the State will use other funds, 
     including other Federal funds, to improve teacher quality and 
     reading achievement within the State;
       (5) a description of how the State will hold local 
     educational agencies that use a significant portion of their 
     allocations under section 8(a)(2)(B) accountable for that use 
     of funds;
       (6) an assurance that the local educational agency and its 
     schools will comply with the requirements of subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 11; and
       (7) an assurance that the State educational agency will 
     submit such reports and information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (c) Approval of Applications.--The Secretary shall approve 
     a State's application if it meets the requirements of this 
     section and holds reasonable promise of achieving the 
     purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 6. WITHIN-STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) State-Level Expenses.--Each State may use not more than 
     a total of one-half of one percent of the amount it receives 
     under this part for any fiscal year or $50,000, whichever is 
     greater, for the administration costs of the State 
     educational agency and for State-level activities described 
     in section 7.
       (b) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--(1) Each 
     State shall use the remainder of its allocation to make 
     subgrants to local educational agencies, for the purpose of 
     reducing class size and improving instruction in grades 1 
     through 3, on the basis of--
       (A) current or projected regular classroom class sizes in 
     grades 1 through 3 in those agencies; and
       (B) the relative ability and effort of those agencies to 
     finance class-size reductions with their own funds.
       (2) Each State shall make the allocations described in 
     paragraph (1) in such manner as to enable local educational 
     agencies to reduce their average class sizes in regular 
     classrooms, in grades 1 through 3, to the average class size 
     proposed in the State application.
       (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), each State shall ensure, 
     in allocating funds under this subsection, that each local 
     educational agency in which at least 30 percent of the 
     children are from low-income families, or in which there are 
     at least 10,000 children from such families, receives at 
     least the same share of those funds as it received of the 
     State's allocation under section 1122 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 for the preceding fiscal 
     year.
       (c) Maintenance of Effort.--(1) A local educational agency 
     may receive an allocation under this section for any fiscal 
     year only if it submits to, or has on file with, the

[[Page H8058]]

     State educational agency an assurance that it will spend at 
     least as much from non-Federal sources as it spent in the 
     previous year for the combination of--
       (A) teachers in regular classrooms in grades 1 through 3 in 
     schools receiving benefits under this Act; and
       (B) the quality-improvement activities described in section 
     8(b).
       (2) The Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of 
     paragraph (1) for a local educational agency if the Secretary 
     determines that doing so would be equitable due to 
     exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances affecting that 
     agency.

     SEC. 7. STATE-LEVEL ACTIVITIES.

       East State educational agency may use the funds it reserves 
     for State-level activities under section 6(a) to carry out 
     activities described in its application, which may include 
     such activities as--
       (1) strengthening State teacher licensure and certification 
     standards;
       (2) developing or strengthening, and administering, teacher 
     competency tests for beginning teachers; and
       (3) program monitoring and other administrative costs 
     associated with operating the program.

     SEC. 8. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Each local educational agency shall 
     use all funds it receives from the State under this Act, 
     except for funds it reserves under subsection (b), to pay the 
     salaries of, and benefits for, the additional teachers needed 
     to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 to the level set 
     by the State as its goal in the State application.
       (2) A local educational agency that has already reached 
     this level may use those funds to--
       (A) make further class-size reductions in grades 1 through 
     3;
       (B) reduce class sizes in kindergarten or other grades; or
       (C) undertake quality-improvement activities under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Quality Improvement.--(1) Each local educational agency 
     shall use at least 10 percent of the funds it receives under 
     this Act for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for 
     activities to ensure that teachers who will teach smaller 
     classes are prepared to teach reading and other subjects 
     effectively in a smaller class setting.
       (2) The activities described in paragraph (1) may include--
       (A) training teachers in effective reading instructional 
     practices (including practices for teaching students who 
     experience initial difficulty in learning to read) and in 
     effective instructional practices in small classes;
       (B) paying the costs for uncertified teachers hired in 
     grades 1 through 3 to obtain full certification within three 
     years;
       (C) providing mentors or other support for teachers in 
     grades 1 through 3;
       (D) improving recruitment of teachers for schools that have 
     a particularly difficult time hiring certified instructors; 
     and
       (E) providing scholarships or other aid for education and 
     education-related expenses to paraprofessionals or 
     undergraduate students in order to expand the pool of well-
     prepared and certified teachers.

     SEC. 9. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this Act may be up to 100 
     percent in local educational agencies with child-poverty 
     levels greater than 40 percent, but shall be no more than--
       (1) 95 percent in local educational agencies with child-
     poverty rates of more than 30 percent but not more than 40 
     percent;
       (2) 85 percent in local educational agencies with child-
     poverty rates of more than 20 percent but not more than 30 
     percent;
       (3) 75 percent in local educational agencies with child-
     poverty rates of more than 10 percent but not more than 20 
     percent; and
       (4) 65 percent in local educational agencies with child-
     poverty rates of not more than 10 percent.
       (b) Local Share.--A local educational agency shall provide 
     the non-Federal share of a project under this Act through 
     cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, except that if an 
     agency has allocated funds under section 1113(c) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to one or more 
     schoolwide programs under section 1114 of that Act, it may 
     use those funds for the non-Federal share of activities under 
     this program that benefit those schoolwide programs, to the 
     extent consistent with section 1120A(c) of that Act and 
     notwithstanding section 1114(a)(3)(B) of that Act.

     SEC. 10. CARRYOVER OF FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds 
     received under this Act by a State or by a local educational 
     agency shall remain available for obligation and expenditure 
     by the State or local agency for one fiscal year beyond the 
     fiscal year described in section 421(b) of the General 
     Educational Provisions Act.

     SEC. 11. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) School Report.--Each school benefitting from the 
     program under this Act, or the local educational agency for 
     that school, shall produce an annual report to parents and 
     the general public on its student achievement in reading 
     (using available evidence of reading achievement of its 
     students in grades 1 through 5 and the assessments the State 
     uses under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, disaggregated as required under that 
     part), average class size in its regular classrooms, and 
     teacher certification and related academic qualifications in 
     grades 1 through 3.
       (b) Local Educational Agency Reports.--(1) Interm 
     Reports.--Each local educational agency shall provide each 
     year, to its State educational agency, a report summarizing 
     the information reported by, or for, its schools under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Subsequent Reports.--Within three years of receiving 
     funding under this Act, and each year thereafter, each local 
     educational agency shall provide evidence, to its State 
     educational agency, of the reading achievement of its 
     students, in grade 3, 4, or 5 in schools served under this 
     Act, which shall be--
       (A) in a form determined by the State educational agency;
       (B) based on the assessments that the local educational 
     agency is using under title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, or on comparably rigorous State or 
     local assessments; and
       (C) disaggregated to show the achievement of students in 
     individual schools and of students separately by race and by 
     gender, as well as for students with disabilities, students 
     with limited English proficiency, migrant students, and 
     students who are economically disadvantaged.
       (c) Program-Improvement Plan.--A local educational agency 
     with schools that fail to show improvement in reading 
     achievement within three years of receiving funds under this 
     Act shall, with the approval of the State educational agency, 
     develop and implement a program-improvement plan to improve 
     student performance.
       (d) Reduced Local Allocations.--If a school participating 
     in the program under this Act fails to show improvement in 
     reading achievement of its students within two years after 
     the local educational agency develops a plan subsection (b), 
     the State educational agency shall reduce the allocation to 
     that local agency by an amount equal to the share of the 
     local agency's allocation attributable to that school.

     SEC. 12. PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       Each local educational agency receiving funds under this 
     Act shall, after timely and meaningful consultation with 
     appropriate private school officials, provide for the 
     inclusion (in a manner proportionate to the number of 
     children residing in the area served by the agency's project 
     under this Act who attend private schools) of private school 
     teachers in the professional-development activities the 
     agency and its schools carry out with those funds.

     SEC. 13. EVALUATION.

       With funds reserved under section 4(a), the Secretary shall 
     carry out an evaluation of the program authorized by this 
     Act, including a measurement of its effectiveness in 
     accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993.

     SEC. 14. WAIVERS.

       The Secretary may, at the request of a State educational 
     agency, waiver or modify a requirement of this Act if the 
     Secretary determines that such requirement impedes the 
     ability of the State to carry out the purpose of this Act and 
     that providing a waiver would better promote the purpose of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the following terms have the following 
     meanings:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(18) 
     (A) and (B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) and a Member opposed, each will control 30 
minutes.

                              {time}  1030

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. GOODLING. I claim the time in opposition, Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will 
control 30 minutes in opposition.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment I have will establish an initiative to reduce class 
sizes in grades 1, 2, and 3 to an average of 18 students per class by 
the year 2005. It would enable schools to hire over 100,000 additional 
teachers and would require school districts to contribute matching 
funds, with the amount of the match depending on the level of poverty 
in the district. Funds could be used to recruit, train, and pay teacher 
salaries of the additional teachers necessary to reduce the class size, 
and to ensure that all teachers are equipped with the latest and most 
successful instructional techniques. In ensuring

[[Page H8059]]

this program has strong accountability provisions, school districts 
would be required to demonstrate how reduced class sizes are resulting 
in increased student achievement.
  This amendment would help make sure that every child receives 
personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further learning, and 
learns to read independently by the end of the third grade. The impact 
of reducing class size was highlighted in the recent report issued by 
the Department of Education, ``Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?'' 
This report reached three conclusions:
  Research shows that smaller classes promote student achievement in 
early grades. The significant effect of class size reduction on student 
achievement appears when class size is reduced to the point between 15 
and 20 students. If class size is reduced from substantially more than 
20 students per class to below 20 students, the related increase in 
student achievement moves the average student from the 50th percentile 
up to the 60th percentile. For disadvantaged minorities, the effect is 
even larger.
  Students and teachers and parents report positive effects from the 
impact of class size reduction on the quality of classroom activity. 
Most importantly, the study shows that 25 States already have started 
or are considering some sort of class size reduction initiative showing 
how this initiative truly has widespread support.
  Madam Chairman, I believe this amendment is a critically important 
aspect of the education reform for today's schools and urge all Members 
to support its adoption.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is 
just the opposite of what we should be trying to do if we really are 
interested in reform in local school districts.
  One size fits all has no place in this debate whatsoever. That has 
been the problem. With the money they now get, they can take it all and 
reduce class size. That is the beauty of this. If that is their most 
important initiative. But let me tell my colleagues, there had better 
be another initiative that is even more important, and that is teacher 
preparation. I do not care what size the class may be in relationship 
to students, if there is not a competent teacher in that classroom, it 
is not going to make a difference. Many sisters who taught in large 
classes for years will attest to that. It was the excellence of the 
teacher and the control of the teacher of the classroom.
  So I do not want to tell somebody that they have to use this money to 
reduce class size. I want to tell them if that is what they want to do, 
that is allowable. And if they are going to prepare the teachers for 
those reduced classes, that is allowable. So the beauty of what the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is offering is the fact that it 
gives those local areas the opportunity to determine what they need 
most in order to improve education in their local area. And that is 
what we should be considering.
  We have to forget the bureaucrats who are campaigning against any 
changes because of what they get as far as the bureaucracy is 
concerned. And many of them are private, and they still get these 
grants. Many of them are grants that they do not even have to compete. 
So, again, let us not mix apples and oranges.
  We have a golden opportunity. If in our districts we want to reduce 
class size, we can use the money for that purpose. If we want to better 
prepare teachers so that they can better teach, we can use it for that. 
If we want to use it because the equipment and the textbooks and so on 
are in bad shape, it can be used for that. It can be used for a 
combination of things. But, please, do not come here and tell the local 
district one more time that we, in Washington, D.C., have all the 
answers and they can only use the money specifically as we say, one 
size fits all.
  Let me close just by again reminding everyone: The money that is 
available here can be used for the same activities that they have been 
using the money for in the past. What we take away is the one size fits 
all, we take away the paperwork, and we give them the flexibility to 
determine what is most important in their local district to improve 
education for all children.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to just comment that the gentleman has just said it: They can 
use the money for anything they feel like. So that if those programs 
that have been protected for so long by the national interest are not 
of vital concern to that locality, they will not use the money for it. 
So, in reality, the beauty of this, as they see it, is that these 
things may never happen.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
reduce class size and opposition to the underlying bill.
  Because I wish I were as wealthy as Bill Gates does not mean I am. If 
I wish that I could be as great a basketball player as Michael Jordan, 
it does not mean I am. And this debate is not about what we wish, it is 
not about families. Because I even agree with the philosophy of trying 
to drive more dollars to our local schools and classrooms and that 
parents and teachers should be in charge. This debate is not about 
families, it is about facts. It is about where this money is and where 
it actually goes.
  To get to the facts, with all due respect, we said, let us see how 
all 50 States come out of this formula from this block grant that the 
chairman has devised, and so we said that we would not use the 
chairman's number, out of all due respect, and we would not use the 
Department of Education numbers either, and we would not use the 
Democrat or Republican numbers. We went to the CRS. The Congressional 
Research Service is a bipartisan organization. We wanted to see what 
they say, with the thick glasses and the green eyeshades and pounding 
the statistics.
  Well, here are the facts: They say 27 States lose money. Twenty-seven 
States lose money.
  Fact one. When we send money to the State and the local schools, 27 
States come out lower under this bill.
  Fact two. And we all know this is a fact. We can authorize and wish 
and hope and pray under this committee that we are going to get this 
money, but when the appropriation committee cuts this money by $550 
million, a half a billion dollars cut, more States lose money.
  So the fact of the matter is, my colleagues, look at the CRS money.
  This is not a debate on a philosophy that I think we all disagree on: 
Trying to get our parents and teachers more involved in our local 
schools, trying to get our families more involved. It is not over 
promising to the parents and others that they are going to get all this 
money. Let us be truthful. Let us be real. Let us look at the facts.
  The second point on this amendment. If we are going to make a 
difference in schools, it is with charter schools and public choice, it 
is with better trained teachers, it is with accountability and family 
involvement, and it is with discipline. And, with this amendment, it is 
with more teachers, better-trained teachers, and less children in the 
classroom.
  This amendment, if we are going to make a difference, as this 
amendment does, reduces the average class size from 26 to 18. A teacher 
is teaching 18 children rather than 26. That is a huge difference. In 
Indiana, we have the Indiana prime time in first grades, where when we 
do this, reading scores are going up and up and up.
  Let us make a difference, making the hard choices, providing more 
teachers and providing better ratios for our teachers in our schools. 
Vote for the Clay amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before yielding to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to make 
sure everybody understands that fact one is totally wrong. CRS has made 
it very clear that that is totally wrong. And, in fact, in fact one he 
is again mixing apples and oranges. He is talking about an 
appropriation bill. We do not know what the appropriation bill will be 
when it is completed. I will guarantee it will be more, as it always is 
every year.

[[Page H8060]]

  Fact two. Completely wrong. Mixing apples and oranges, because he is 
talking about an appropriation bill. CRS did this very clearly, very 
carefully, and the State of Indiana will receive $5,432,568 more down 
to the classroom to help reduce class size and to help better prepare 
teachers.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, again the Democrats are cooking the books. 
This amendment takes away the States' flexibility that we are trying to 
provide under our bill. It is based on the philosophy that the Federal 
Government knows best. The States and local districts should be making 
the decisions about how best to achieve the goal of improved student 
performance.
  Under this amendment, States are allowed to use only one-half of 1 
percent of their funds to carry out activities relating to improving 
teacher quality. At the local level such use of funds are only 
allowable after they have met certain specific targets in class size 
reduction. In effect, this amendment puts a very low priority on the 
importance of teacher quality and too much faith in the benefits of 
class size reduction.
  In fact, teacher quality is more important than class size. After 
all, what good is a classroom of 20 or 10 or even 5 students if the 
teacher has no idea about the subject in which he or she is teaching? 
We have seen massive class size reduction efforts in several States 
that have led to negative impacts in certain poor and rural areas where 
already they are experiencing shortage of qualified teachers. A mandate 
that further reduces class size will, in effect, force them to hire 
more inexperienced and unqualified teachers with emergency license.
  This amendment will only force thousands more children to be sent 
into trailers parked in the backs of schools. Is this what the 
supporters of this amendment really want? The quality of the teacher is 
much more important. We should emphasize that and let the local 
districts and the States, who understand that, have that flexibility.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member from 
California for yielding me this time, and would ask that Members study 
the CRS numbers, which I will submit for the Record, and see for 
themselves the 27 States that are cut under this funding.
  I think it is very important for my colleagues to be able to see not 
what the Republican committee has put together, not what the Democratic 
administration at the Department of Education has put together, but 
what the nonpartisan number crunchers at CRS have put together. I would 
ask Members to look at the 27 States that are cut under those figures. 
And more States will be cut under that table when the Committee on 
Appropriations follows through on a $550 million cut in the 
appropriations process, when that bill comes to the floor.
  Now, the committee chairman says it is apples and oranges. We all 
know that an authorization bill is directly tied to the appropriation 
bill and the appropriators determine the funding level. That is fact.
  Madam Chairman, the tables I referred to above are submitted 
herewith:
     Alaska--52.3% ($11,395,724)
       Young
     Connecticut--8.5% ($2,566,669)
       Shaps
       Johnson
     Delaware--13.2% ($1,538,907)
       Castle
     D.C.--66.2% ($19,594,406)
     Hawaii--67.5% ($23,428,242)
     Idaho--7.8% ($1,022,722)
       Chenoweth
       Crapo
     Iowa--39.8% ($15,248,832)
       Leach
       Nussle
       Ganske
       Latham
     Kansas--0.6% ($151,556)
       Moran
       Ryun
       Snowbarger
       Tiahrt
     Louisiana--5.3% ($3,293,031)
       Livingston
       Tauzin
       McCrery
       Cooksey
       Baker
     Maryland--3.7% ($1,617,157)
       Gilchrest
       Ehrlich
       Bartlett
       Morella
     Massachusetts--10.1% ($6,040,778)
     Montana--12.2% ($1,590,614)
       Hill
     Nebraska--31.7% ($6,830,260)
       Bereuter
       Christensen
       Barrett
     Nevada--2.0% ($257,989)
       Ensign
       Gibbons
     New Hampshire--17.3% ($2,296,611)
       Sununu
       Bass
     New Mexico--18.5% ($4,841,853)
       Wilson
       Skeen
       Redmond
     North Dakota--22.0% ($2,851,323)
     Oklahoma--5.5% ($1,916,615)
       Largent
       Coburn
       Watkins
       Watts
       Istook
       Lucas
     Oregon--0.9% ($268,893)
       Smith
     Rhode Island--29.5% ($4,738,033)
     South Carolina--0.7% ($242,524)
       Sanford
       Spence
       Graham
       Inglis
     South Dakota--25.9% ($3,693,337)
       Thune
     Utah--13.1% ($2,840,436)
       Hansen
       Cook
       Cannon
     Vermont--17.4% ($2,075,763)
     Virginia--4.3% ($2,241,574)
       Bateman
       Goodlatte
       Bliley
       Wolf
       Davis
     Washington--16.5% ($9,409,741)
       White
       Metcalf
       Smith
       Hastings
       Nethercutt
       Dunn
     West Virginia--10.8% ($2,635,214)
     Wyoming--17.4% ($2,032,323)
       Cubin
                                  ____


    TABLE 11C.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS UNDER H.R. 3248, AS ORDERED TO BE REPORTED, COMPARED TO ESTIMATES   
      PREPARED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) OF FY1998 GRANTS UNDER ALL PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO BE      
                                          CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248                                          
 [H.R. 3248 Estimates: An Amount Equal to FY1998 Allocations Under Formula Grant Programs To Be Consolidated Is 
 First Allocated To Each State, Next, Remaining Block Grant Appropriations (Assumed To Be Equal To $2.74 Billion
 Minus the Formula Grant Portion) Are Allocated With 50% In Proportion To ESEA Title I, Part A Grants And 50% In
      Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Grants Are Estimated At The Maximum Authorized Level For FY1999.]     
      [ED Estimates of FY1998 Grants: Include Actual Or Projected Grants Under All Programs Proposed To Be      
  Consolidated. For Grants to Entities That Provide Services Nationwide, Funds Are Spread Among All States, In  
               Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Data Were Received From ED on Sept. 15, 1998.]               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total estimated                              
                                                                     grant under                                
                                                                     H.R. 3248 at   ED estimates of   Percentage
                              State                                     FY1999        total FY1998    difference
                                                                      authorized         grants                 
                                                                        level                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................................................      $43,427,000      $37,847,464         14.7
Alaska...........................................................       10,396,000       21,791,724        -52.3
Arizona..........................................................       42,557,000       39,586,425          7.5
Arkansas.........................................................       26,450,000       21,687,428         22.0
California.......................................................      315,580,000      298,178,752          5.8
Colorado.........................................................       31,706,000       31,361,652          1.1
Connecticut......................................................       27,552,000       30,118,669         -8.5
Delaware.........................................................       10,134,000       11,672,901        -13.2
District of Columbia.............................................       10,009,000       29,603,406        -66.2
Florida..........................................................      126,307,000      120,603,903          4.7
Georgia..........................................................       72,595,000       62,047,160         17.0
Hawaii...........................................................       11,295,000       34,723,242        -67.5
Idaho............................................................       12,016,000       13,038,722         -7.8
Ilinois..........................................................      118,597,000      106,357,682         11.5
Indiana..........................................................       48,734,000       47,454,205          2.7
Iowa.............................................................       23,036,000       38,284,832        -39.8
Kansas...........................................................       23,464,000       23,615,556         -0.6
Kentucky.........................................................       42,372,000       37,141,163         14.1
Louisiana........................................................       59,024,000       62,317,031         -5.3
Maine............................................................       12,505,000       12,142,653          3.0
Maryland.........................................................       42,122,000       43,739,157         -3.7
Massachusetts....................................................       53,801,000       59,841,778        -10.1
Michigan.........................................................      109,986,000       90,721,762         21.2
Minnesota........................................................       40,119,000       36,383,455         10.3
Mississippi......................................................       37,531,000       32,293,424         16.2
Missouri.........................................................       49,873,000       49,857,568          0.0
Montana..........................................................       11,462,000       13,052,614        -12.2
Nebraska.........................................................       14,727,000       21,557,260        -31.7
Nevada...........................................................       12,648,000       12,905,989         -2.0
New Hampshire....................................................       10,987,000       13,283,611        -17.3
New Jersey.......................................................       66,235,000       54,511,691         21.5
New Mexico.......................................................       21,328,000       26,175,853        -18.3
New York.........................................................      211,655,000      185,851,927         13.9
North Carolina...................................................       59,565,000       59,271,274          0.5
North Dakota.....................................................       10,131,000       12,982,323        -22.0
Ohio.............................................................      110,142,000       96,755,688         13.8
Oklahoma.........................................................       32,982,000       34,898,615         -5.5
Oregon...........................................................       28,316,000       28,584,893         -0.9
Pennsylvania.....................................................      116,992,000      106,949,829          9.4
Rhode Island.....................................................       11,349,000       16,087,033        -29.5
South Carolina...................................................       34,950,000       35,192,514         -0.7
South Dakota.....................................................       10,562,000       14,255,337        -25.9
Tennessee........................................................       48,747,000       48,234,290          1.1
Texas............................................................      220,192,000      188,545,340         16.8
Utah.............................................................       18,817,000       21,657,436        -13.1
Vermont..........................................................        9,830,000       11,905,763        -17.4
Virginia.........................................................       50,445,000       52,686,574         -4.3
Washington.......................................................       47,584,000       56,993,741        -16.5
West Virginia....................................................       21,863,000       24,498,214        -10.8
Wisconsin........................................................       49,155,000       43,326,942         13.5
Wyoming..........................................................        9,650,000       11,682,323        -17.4
Puerto Rico......................................................       71,099,000       51,413,604         38.3
Outlying Areas...................................................       13,700,000       12,140,665         12.8
BIA..............................................................       13,700,000        9,749,076         40.5
Other............................................................  ...............       28,726,870           na
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
      Total......................................................    2,740,000,000    2,686,289,000         2.0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table prepared by CRS on Sept. 16, 1998.                                                                        

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, when the gentleman gets around to 
putting charts in the Record, I will put

[[Page H8061]]

the CRS chart in that the CRS just recently sent us, which will 
disprove all of that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema) a very important member of the committee who will be 
receiving $12,253,118 for her local classrooms through this 
legislation.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I know we will put it to good use. 
Absolutely. Because in this legislation and, by the way, I oppose this 
gutting amendment, but in this legislation, not only are we giving that 
local discretion to the informed people at the local level who know 
what their choices are and what their needs are, but we have here a 
vast number of really good options open to them. I think the debate 
thus far has distorted the meaning of the options that are there at the 
local level. For example, the implication has been that you cannot have 
more teachers in the classroom. We not only have more teachers in the 
classroom but they can use it to decrease teacher-pupil ratio and 
increase professional development for teachers. I could go on about the 
various things. In fact, here in the report, there are a number with 
specificity to the professionalism and the way it is going to improve 
standards, whether it is math and science or computers right in the 
classroom. I want to stress, as a former teacher, as a former PTA 
President, and as a former school board member, we at the local level 
know where this money should be going. That is the best way to do this.
  Finally, and I do not think it has been stressed enough, the State in 
this legislation must comply with reporting to Congress, and those 
requirements to report how the funds are spent. We are not just giving 
them a blank check with total discretion. But they have to report back 
and explain exactly how, with precision, those funds were used to 
increase student achievement by the measurement of the State standards.
  I urge defeat of this gutting amendment and support for the bill.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us 
today.
  It is time for the federal government to leave more decision, and 
send more money, to the local level.
  This legislation will send 95%--that is 95%--of every dollar to the 
local school district. This is a $2.68 billion bill that we are 
discussing. Based on last year's figures, that is over $2.54 billion 
that will go directly to local school districts!
  But that is just the money in the various programs. This bill also 
allows the schools to use their limited federal dollars to focus on the 
areas of most importance to that school district. They will not be tied 
to use funds in a program dictated by the federal government, but 
instead can make their own informed discretion--choices such as 
teachers in the classroom options, 27 uses, professional development, 
math and science instructions, computers, and teachers-pupil ratios.
  This legislation allows the local school district to decide what 
program it wants to emphasize. This bill consolidates 31 separate 
federal education programs, and pools that money together to send to 
the local school districts.
  It will be the local school district that decides whether to use that 
money on programs to combat illiteracy, efforts to reduce the pupil-
teacher ratio, activities of comprehensive school reform, or any of a 
long list of allowable activities.
  As a former teacher, PTA president, and school board member in my 
home community, I have always been active in the local school system. I 
believe that our schools are best prepared to meet the educational 
needs of our youth when decisions about our school are made by that 
local community.
  This bill would allow the schools the option of continuing any of 
these 31 programs in their own school. The great benefit is that the 
school is not tied to any one particular program, but instead could use 
the funds for whichever program the school chooses to emphasize.

       (b) Local Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this 
     section to a local educational agency shall be used for the 
     following classroom services and activities:
       (1) Programs for the acquisition and use of instructional 
     and educational materials, including library services and 
     materials (including media materials), assessments, reference 
     materials, and other curricular materials which are tied to 
     high academic standards and which will be used to improve 
     student achievement and which are part of an overall 
     education reform program.
       (2) Professional development for instructional staff.
       (3) Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of 
     disadvantaged elementary and secondary school students and to 
     prevent students from dropping out of school.
       (4) Efforts to lengthen the school day or the school year.
       (5) Programs to combat illiteracy in the student 
     population.
       (6) Programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted 
     and talented children.
       (7) Promising education reform projects that are tied to 
     State student content and performance standards.
       (8) Carrying out comprehensive school reform programs that 
     are based on reliable research.
       (9) Programs that are built upon partnerships between local 
     educational agencies and institutions of higher education, 
     educational service agencies, libraries, businesses, regional 
     educational laboratories, or other educational entities, for 
     the purpose of providing educational services consistent with 
     this section.
       (11) The acquisition of books, materials and equipment, 
     payment of compensation of instructional staff, and 
     instructional activities that are necessary for the conduct 
     of programs in magnet schools.
       (12) Programs to promote academic achievement among women 
     and girls.
       (13) Programs to provide for the educational needs of 
     children with limited English proficiency or who are American 
     Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian.
       (14) Activities to provide the academic support, 
     enrichment, and motivation to enable all students to reach 
     high State standards.
       (15) Efforts to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.
       (16) Projects and programs which assure the participation 
     in mainstream settings in arts and education programs of 
     individuals with disabilities.
       (17) Projects and programs to integrate arts education into 
     the regular elementary and secondary school curriculum.
       (18) Programs designed to educate students about the 
     history and principles of the Constitution of the United 
     States, including the Bill of Rights, and to foster civic 
     competence and responsibility.
       (19) Mathematics and science education instructional 
     materials.
       (20) Programs designed to improve the quality of student 
     writing and learning and the teaching of writing as a 
     learning process.
       (21) Technology related to the implementation of school-
     based reform programs, including professional development to 
     assist teachers and other school officials regarding how to 
     effectively use such equipment and software.
       (22) Computer software and hardware for instructional use.
       (23) Developing, adapting, or expanding existing and new 
     applications of technology.
       (24) Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and 
     services, including the acquisition of hardware and software, 
     for use by teachers, students, and school library media 
     personnel in the classroom or in school library media 
     centers, in order to improve student learning.
       (25) After-school programs designed to engage children in a 
     constructive manner and to promote their academic, 
     developmental, and personal growth;
       (26) Developing, constructing, acquiring, maintaining, 
     operating, and obtaining technical assistance in the use of 
     telecommunications audio and visual facilities and equipment 
     for use in the classroom.
       (27) Developing, acquiring, and obtaining technical 
     assistance in the use of educational and instructional video 
     programming for use in the classroom.

  We all read about the many concerns people have with schools today. 
This is one way to improve our schools.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clay 
amendment to reduce class size. We know that the size of the class and 
the quality of education go hand in hand and that overcrowded 
classrooms are one of the biggest obstacles to improving education for 
our children. We now have studies to confirm what parents and teachers 
have known for years. The smaller the class size, the better the 
learning experience. Even the very Republican governor of my home State 
of California has made smaller class size a priority for our State. But 
it costs money to reduce class size. Smaller classes mean training and 
hiring more teachers and building more classrooms. The Clay amendment 
will give school districts a good start toward smaller classes. 
Matching Federal and local funds could be used to recruit, to train, to 
pay the salaries of new teachers. Unlike the Dollars to the Classroom 
block grant, the Clay amendment holds schools accountable for the use 
of these funds. It requires school districts to show how reduced class 
size results in increased student achievement.
  I urge my colleagues, vote for the Clay amendment. Turn H.R. 3248 
from a bill that takes dollars from the classroom into a bill that 
improves education for all of our kids.

[[Page H8062]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Georgia, I want to make sure that no one thought that I was questioning 
the gentleman from Indiana's figures in relationship to the figures 
that he had. The figures that he had is a CRS study that includes 
nonprofits and nonschool district. We are only talking about money to 
the classroom in the local school district. That is a big difference.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) another member of the committee who will receive $11,536,998 
more to his local classrooms.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, we thank the chairman and, of course, we 
are delighted to see that. I want to point out that this is just the 
facts. This is just the facts, folks. We are going to get it right this 
particular time. I am really for reducing class size. That is 
important. But I am for each school district determining if they need 
to reduce their class size.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3248, the Dollars to 
the Classroom Act. Guaranteeing that 95 percent of Federal funds for 
elementary and secondary schools is spent directly in the classroom and 
not on the bureaucracy is common sense.
  A recent Department of Education study found that 15 percent of every 
Federal education dollar is eaten up by the Federal and State 
bureaucracy. I am sure they have got another study giving us another 
number. Everybody has got their studies. The bottom line is we want 
this money to go to the students and go to the classrooms where people 
at home can make the decision about what is best for their children. 
Having it eaten up by the Federal government, that should not be so.
  If we are going to spend Federal dollars and, remember, that is your 
dollars that you send up here for education and education programs, 
then we should make sure that these dollars support those people who 
actually teach our children.
  That is not the only reason why I support Dollars to the Classroom. 
Under this bill, the great State of Georgia will receive an additional 
$26 million for education. With this legislation, each classroom in the 
10th District of Georgia, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), will receive an average of 425 additional dollars. For 
a modest size, 20-classroom school at home, that can mean an additional 
$8,500. Madam Chairman, that is real money for our teachers and 
principals and students. Not only will this bill spend more Federal 
education dollars directly in the classroom, it gives our schools 
greater flexibility to receive money for any of the authorized uses for 
the existing 31 programs block-granted under the bill. Schools can 
choose to put a greater amount of moneys into priorities such as school 
safety or school reform or teacher improvement and technology if that 
is what that school determines it needs. Again, the key here is that 
with the Dollars to the Classroom Act, we let the schools decide what 
their priorities are.
  I plead with my colleagues, do not let the Department of Education 
confuse you. We are going to increase the number of dollars in this 
bill. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3248.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, when Europe needed to be rebuilt after 
World War II, we came forward with a massive Marshall Plan, $20 billion 
to start and much more afterwards. When we needed to educate our GIs 
coming home from World War II, we passed a massive GI Bill of Rights 
education program and it did the job. Now we need to retool our 
schools. We really need a massive investment in education. What we are 
doing is playing Republican Chinese checkers, trivializing the whole 
problem by shifting money around, abolishing the Department of 
Education's authority and playing games by promising more money when it 
is the same amount of money basically that we have always had. I think 
the seriousness of the situation is better reflected in the statement 
being prepared for the superintendents who will be convening here from 
some of the country's most challenged school districts on Saturday.
  They have prepared a statement which reads as follows: ``We believe 
that there is a great necessity for an immediate meaningful Federal 
increased investment in education. Funds for school construction, class 
size reduction, technology and communications services must be at the 
core of an expanded Federal appropriation for education. The E-rate 
must be preserved as a permanent vehicle to lessen telecommunications 
costs. Additional categories of increased Federal financial assistance 
are needed and welcome. However, there are no substitute programs for 
the priorities set forth above. The preservation of the public school 
as an institution requires a highly visible assault on the problems 
which serve as monstrous roadblocks to school reform progress. A safe 
physical environment conducive to study is an absolute necessity.''
  We cannot have reduced class size unless we have more classrooms. In 
my district, several schools have twice the number of students they 
were built for. All the schools are over capacity in my district. There 
are several schools that still have furnaces which burn coal so the 
children who sit in those classrooms are endangered by coal smoke. On 
and on it goes.
  We need a total package starting with the President's school 
construction package at the heart of a Federal investment in education 
which is adequate to meet today's needs.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
ranking member's amendment. One of the really fundamental ways in which 
we can really direct dollars to the classroom which will have a 
meaningful, long-term benefit for our children is to establish a policy 
that the Federal Government is going to commit a block of money for the 
reduction of class size. In my State, this would be an enormous boon to 
the establishment of better quality education for a wide spectrum of 
our classrooms where children are still suffering under very, very 
large ratios of sometimes 30 or 32 students per classroom. We could ask 
the question, ``Why don't you do something about the class size?'' 
Well, basically the biggest difficulty that districts have is in the 
school construction area. So fundamentally, there probably should be an 
additional amendment which would go to school construction, because in 
order to lower class size, we have to find the accommodations for the 
classes. But basically if we are able to add 100,000 additional 
teachers to our school population of teachers throughout the country, 
this will bring an enormous benefit directly to the classroom, directly 
to the children. If this is the purported purpose of the majority's 
support of Federal educational programs, here is an opportunity to 
really support a direct program that will have a direct beneficial 
impact on the education of our children. Individualization of education 
through smaller class size is probably the best way in which we can 
improve quality education for our children. This is not simply a way in 
which Federal moneys pour in. It requires school districts to 
contribute matching funds. I am in full support of this program, this 
amendment, and I urge this House to adopt it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
New York, I would merely say that there are several hundred thousand 
teachers presently working at other jobs because they cannot find 
teaching jobs where they want to teach. It would be amazing if we all 
of a sudden decided we ought to create 100,000 more since there is no 
study that indicates that there is any shortage now or will be in the 
near future. As I said, hundreds of thousands of teachers are now 
working at other jobs.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella) who like the other gentleman from New York who just spoke 
will receive in his State an additional $13 million going to the 
classrooms.
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the sponsor of this 
amendment to improve education for all children across this country. 
However, I believe that the Dollars to the Classroom legislation is 
quite simply better.

[[Page H8063]]

  In short, we believe that the State of New York and specifically the 
people of Staten Island and Brooklyn deserve the flexibility and the 
autonomy to spend their tax dollars as they see fit.
  The reality as we heard is that with the Dollars to the Classroom 
legislation, the State of New York or the State of Hawaii or the State 
of Indiana can spend the money as they see fit. If they want to go out 
and hire more teachers, they can do so.

                              {time}  1100

  If P.S. 4 in Staten Island decides they want to start a softball team 
they can do so. If P.S. 36 wants to expand the size of the classrooms 
or limit the size of the classrooms; that is, the number of students in 
that classroom, they can do so under this legislation.
  As my colleagues know, it is important to look at those who defend 
the status quo as opposed to those who really and truly want to seek 
ways to improve quality of education in this country. Yes, education is 
a national issue, but we believe it is a local responsibility, and 
getting the money from Washington, from Albany, down to Staten Island 
and Brooklyn is the right approach.
  Just look at the last couple of months. Education savings accounts 
where we wanted to provide parents the opportunity to set money aside 
tax free to spend on their child's education, passed this House 
narrowly, passed the Senate, vetoed by the President. Opportunity 
Scholarships, 2,000 to the poorest children in the Washington, D.C. 
school system to allow them to escape the horror of the public school 
system in Washington, D.C., passed this House narrowly in the Senate, 
threatened veto by the President and all the defenders of the status 
quo. Once again we see it here, people who are truly concerned about 
giving parents and teachers and local school boards the responsibility, 
the flexibility, the autonomy to make the decisions best for their 
children, we see the defenders of the status quo.
  Once again, I urge the adoption of Dollars to the Classroom.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise with harboring deep concerns about the 
utter absence of any accountability in H.R. 3248 which is why I am in 
support of the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). 
With 3248 I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) who is my 
good friend that my major concern, and I would agree with him that more 
money is going to local school districts that make those decisions, 
this is the right thing to do. But here in the Congress we passed the 
Welfare Reform Act that made it clear that we wanted accountability 
from welfare recipients. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle why would we stop or why that principle does not apply here. I 
have no problem giving money to local school districts. All I would 
like to see is that they demonstrate to us that indeed what they are 
getting, the moneys they are getting from the taxpayers, is actually 
resulting in improvement or increased through the performance, which is 
why the Clay amendment is so important. It provides money to reduce 
class size from 26 to 18, but the money will be taken away if the 
school districts cannot demonstrate that the reduced class sizes has 
resulted and increased student performance.
  3248: Gone would be technology for education, gone would be the 
Eisenhower Professional Development program. In the private sector we 
spend anywhere from 6 to 10 percent training and training and 
retraining workers. Why it is we do not see that it is important to 
spend that type of money to train and retrain teachers is beyond me. 
Gone would be the magnet schools programs. Gone would be charter 
schools. Gone would be the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. New 
ideas, new approaches; fresh ideas, fresh approaches.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clay amendment is the right way to go for this 
reason: accountability, accountability, accountability. On this side of 
the aisle we constantly praise, and I must admit sometimes I am at odds 
with the Reagan legacy. But Ronald Reagan said something I think that 
even my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), 
would have to agree with: Trust but verify. That is all we are asking 
for on this side. If we are going to give money to these local agencies 
which are huge sums of money to Kentuckians, to Pennsylvania, to 
Alabama and to Tennessee, let us at least hold these agencies 
accountable for the students, for these 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds cannot 
vote, we can, their parents can. Let us hold them accountable and do 
the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge us to do the right thing and support the 
amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that there is 1\1/2\ pages of 
accountability in this legislation, very, very important 
accountability. They have to show how they have used the money and how 
it has improved their school district.
  See, I wish we could get away from this business of saying that 
somehow or other the programs that we have had for the last 30 or 35 
years worked wonders. If those programs had worked wonders, why are 40 
percent of our children at the end of third grade not able to read at a 
third great level? If those programs worked so well where they 
accounted every penny, every penny that counters came in to do, if they 
worked so well, why would 50 percent of our students who graduate not 
do well in math and science?
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
that wonderful State of Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from the wonderful State of California for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dollars to the 
Classroom Act and in support of the Clay substitute. We should be 
working to ensure that a free quality education is available to all 
elementary and secondary education students in the United States and 
one that is as equal as possible so that everyone has as equal a chance 
as everyone else. That is not the way it is today, and the fact is that 
the Dollars to the Classroom Act I believe would undermine public 
education in this country because the basis of the bill is that not 
enough funding is going directly to the classroom, but the independent, 
very respected auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, would disagree. In an 
independent audit of elementary and secondary education programs 
administered by DOE Coopers & Lybrand found that the Department spends 
$87 million to administer more than $20 billion in grants to elementary 
and secondary education. That is four-tenths of 1 percent. These 
programs include Eisenhower Professional Development Grants for 
teachers, Goals 2000, et cetera, et cetera, and States can determine 
how to spend that money as easily as they could with a block grant.
  I do have concerns about the dissolution of the 31 programs 
consolidated into a block grant, but I am most disappointed at the lack 
of consideration for the school districts most in need of federal 
assistance who would lose title I assistance. The Federal share of 
funding is only a small percentage, as we know, of the overall dollars 
spent on public elementary and secondary education because most Federal 
education funding is raised at the local level through property taxes. 
High poverty areas are at an automatic disadvantage in funding for 
their public schools, and title I is their vital funding source to make 
up for that disparity in funding between public schools in high poverty 
areas and those in high income areas. Passage of this act would end 
this important program for those areas with the lowest tax bases. 
Rather than taking funding away from our public schools the substitute 
of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) would add additional funding 
to our classrooms. Under block grants, increases in the student body 
would be ignored despite the fact that school crowding is one of the 
most pressing problems. The Clay substitute would reduce class sizes, 
and it ought to be supported.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to make 
sure that people are not confused now that somehow or other title I 
money is going to be in this block grant. We made very, very sure other 
than some little tiny demonstration program, I made very sure that 
title I was not in,

[[Page H8064]]

I made very sure that individuals with disabilities education is not in 
because those are the two, only two, big programs that the Department 
has, and I made very sure that they are not part of it. Some little 
tiny demonstration program, yes, IDEA and title I. No, they are not 
part of the block grant.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
again just to address the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
before I would allow him to recognize someone because they have more 
time than we have. He said that yesterday in the Committee on Rules and 
I explained to him in the Committee on Rules he better read his own 
bill because in his bill there are two sections to title I that are 
excluded as repealed in this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for this, speak on 
behalf of Dollars to the Classroom and against this amendment, because 
of how it works for Kentucky. Kentucky has long been cited for their 
education reform bill that was passed in 1990, and I was proud to have 
supported that bill and to have been on the partnership for the 
implementation of it.
  The entire bill, the entire reform was based on the fact that schools 
know best what their talents are, what their obstacles are, what the 
challenges are, their unique children in that school face, and the 
ideal was to put the dollars in the hands of a cite-based decision-
making counsel made up of parents, made up of school employees, made up 
of teachers and the principal, and all together now they have the right 
to hire the teacher, hire the principals. They have the right to divide 
up their allocation of money. And the one thing I hear repeatedly from 
them is please stop telling us from Washington how we have to spend our 
money, how we have to comply with all these little incremental 
spendings instead of giving us the ability to really freely address the 
challenges that most confront our kids.
  I want to point out that Secretary Riley points to Kentucky very 
often when he speaks as the model of school-based reform, the model of 
what all schools should be after, and it is hard to believe that a 
Department of Education would support a program that would fly in the 
face of what he points to every day as a model of school reform.
  This bill is compatible with education in Kentucky with school 
reform. The substitute that has been proposed absolutely goes in the 
opposite direction of everything he talks about being good for schools. 
How we would possibly take a step like that when both sides agree that 
schools succeed one school at a time, one classroom at a time, one 
child at a time, and they have to be free and able to use their 
resources to do that.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I just want to comment on the 
fact they keep saying over and over again that only 6 or 7 percent of 
the total amount of money that is spent on elementary and secondary 
education in this country come from federal resources. So 93 or 94 
percent of the resources come from state and local governments, but 
when it comes time to talk about the condition of our schools which 
people want to say could be much better and are not all that they 
should be, 94 percent of the blame gets laid at the feet of the Federal 
Government and 7 or 6 percent of the blame gets laid at the local and 
State government.
  The fact of the matter is every level of government has 
responsibility to step forward and participate in making sure that we 
have the best educational system we can possibly have. People in my 
district in Massachusetts understand that this is a responsibility that 
is shared. They do not want to place the blame, they want to get moving 
on doing some things that are going to help the educational system.
  Block granting, it is never on the charts when we ask people how they 
want to help improve their schools. They do not want to combine 
programs, do away with accountability, let States shift money from 
programs that are national priorities to other areas and then 
eventually defund. They state very clearly what they want in 
Massachusetts is for the Federal Government to step forward and play a 
role to help them modernize their schools because locally they do not 
have the resource, they have been unable to do that. So they have 
asked, because it is a national issue and a national infrastructure 
question, that the Federal Government step forward and provide funds, 
that when it comes time to making the classrooms the appropriate size, 
when instruction can best be done, they have not got the resources. 
They have looked to the Federal Government to target that particular 
area, and they have said give us some resources, and that is what this 
amendment does, and that is the way this system should function.
  We have seen time and time again through examples in Tennessee, in 
Indiana, in North Carolina and Wisconsin smaller classroom sizes, a 
smaller ratio of teachers to students, has a positive effect on the 
ability of those students to learn, maintain their grade level 
throughout, and do a better job eventually and lead to a better life 
and a better community.
  Let us stop with the politicking, let us stop with the slogans. As my 
colleagues know, Dollars to the Classroom is something everybody wants. 
It is not going to be done by defunding education through this system 
or anything else, it is going to be done by an effective approach.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard speakers from Kentucky, 
Tennessee; I see one from Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record letters which are unsolicited, 
expressing enthusiastic support from professional educators from 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas and several others.
  The letters referred to are as follows:
                                           Kentucky Association of


                                       Professional Educators,

                                      Lexington, KY, July 6, 1998.
     Hon. Joseph Pitts,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and 
     board of directors of the Kentucky Association of 
     Professional Educators (KAPE), I want to express enthusiastic 
     support for H.R. 3248--Dollars to the Classroom Act.
       It is time that: a shift in how federal education dollars 
     can be delivered to our nation's schools; dollars go directly 
     to the classroom while giving states and local educators more 
     funding options; teachers' hands not be tied with heavy 
     regulations and tightly restricted grant programs; educators 
     have greater flexibility to receive money for any of the 
     authorized uses of the existing 31 programs; school districts 
     are able to choose how federal money will be put into 
     priority initiatives such as school safety, school 
     technology, teacher improvement, and school reform.
       It is our hope that Republicans will be ready to counter 
     the accusations that are sure to come, such as cutting 
     education programs, gutting the U.S. Department of Education 
     and hurting children. We hope you and the Republicans are 
     prepared to aggressively prepare to respond with arguments 
     outlining the real value and benefits of this act.
       We encourage your continued efforts in seeing this piece of 
     legislation passed.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ruth Green,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            Professional Educators


                                                 of Tennessee,

                                       Columbia TN, July 28, 1998.
       Dear Representative Pitts: The Board of Directors of 
     Professional Educators of Tennessee register their support 
     for the principles of: (1) using more of the money returned 
     to the states from the federal government in the classroom 
     instead of in bureaucratic offices, (2) allowing the states 
     greater discretion in the use of dollars returned to the 
     states by the federal government and (3) giving those closer 
     to the child a greater voice in how education funds are 
     spend; and finding these principles in the Dollars to the 
     Classroom Act (H.R. 3248) by Representative Joseph Pitts of 
     Pennsylvania and Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas; we do 
     endorse the Dollars to the Classroom Act; and encourage our 
     Tennessee Representatives and Senators to support and vote 
     for the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
       Professional Educators of Tennessee is an organization of 
     two thousand Tennesseans employed in education or preparing 
     for a career in education. Sixteen percent of our members are 
     education students in the universities of Tennessee. Of the 
     remaining members, ninety-seven percent are teachers and 
     administrators in the public schools of

[[Page H8065]]

     Tennessee. Professional Educators of Tennessee has a presence 
     in 89 public school systems in Tennessee.
           Sincerely
                                                    Walter Jewell,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            Professional Educators


                                                      of Iowa,

                                     Oskaloosa, IA, July 21, 1998.
     Hon. Joseph Pitts,
    Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and 
     board of directors of Professional Educators of Iowa (PEI), I 
     am expressing our support for H.R. 3248--Dollars to the 
     Classroom Act.
       PEI was formed in 1981 by a group of educators that were 
     concerned about the direction that the Iowa State Education 
     Association, a subsidiary of the National Education 
     Association, was leading teachers in Iowa with their 
     philosophies and methods. These brave educators felt the need 
     for a professional alternative that keeps the best interest 
     of children first.
       PEI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan; professional alternative 
     to the labor union mentality that we believe is not good for 
     public teachers and their students. We believe that educators 
     should have the freedom to choose the organizations to which 
     they want to belong. We also believe that local control of 
     our schools is essential for the children of their respective 
     districts. This allows parental involvement in educational 
     programs, systems, curriculums and policies. Systemic change 
     must occur before there can be any significant improvement in 
     the public systems. Funding streams can be a key to positive 
     change.
       In our spring survey, one of the questions we asked our 
     membership was if block-grant federal education dollars 
     should be given back to the state government to spend as they 
     see fit. The response is as follows: 50%--yes; 7%--no; 26%--
     need more information; 17%--no response. Another question we 
     posed was that if block-grant funding passed, should it have 
     provision to eliminate the Federal Department of Education 
     within a specified time. The response is as follows: 44%--
     yes; 9%--no; 31%--need more information; 16%--no response.
       We believe that the overwhelming majority of Professional 
     Educators of Iowa members will support the Dollars to the 
     Classroom Act when they have an understanding of the 
     consolidation of other money streams and the return to local 
     control.
       The growth of Professional Educators of Iowa (over 600% 
     since 1994) should help in your courageous battle to loosen 
     government control, and resist the giant union lobby to do 
     what is right and best for our children. Representative 
     Pitts, we applaud your efforts and encourage you to 
     persevere.
       Thank you for your mission to improve America's schools.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jim Hawkins,
     State Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Missouri State


                                         Teachers Association,

                                    Columbia, MO, August 20, 1998.
     Hon. Joseph Pitts,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts: The Missouri State Teachers 
     Association (MSTA) has long been an advocate for state and 
     local control of public education. Founded in 1856, our 
     41,000 members have made local control a major tenet of our 
     platform. Your legislation, H.R. 3248, the Dollars to 
     Classroom Act, provides for a flexible grant program to 
     distribute current federal aid to states and their respective 
     community schools.
       The history of federal programs has been one of bureaucracy 
     and red tape that restricts the educational community's 
     ability to prioritize federal funds to best assist 
     improvement in student achievement. The application of a 
     common sense approach to assist the needs of a local 
     community's public schools have been handcuffed by federal 
     rules, regulations and excessive administrative oversight.
       MSTA has traditionally opposed federal intervention and 
     intrusion into state and local control of public education, 
     especially in the area of assessment and curriculum. MSTA's 
     adopted resolutions also state that should funding for 
     federal programs be distributed through block grants, then 
     the Missouri State Board of Education, through Missouri's 
     Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, should be 
     given the authority to distribute those funds. In addition, 
     local school districts could also benefit from having direct 
     access to these funds under your proposal as more money could 
     be spent on children in the classroom, not on federal 
     bureaucracy and the administrators that run it. School 
     districts that want to continue with the 31 grant programs 
     that are being consolidated still have the opportunity to 
     continue those individual programs. That decision is an 
     exercise in freedom of choice and allows them to redirect the 
     funds as they choose.
       A letter will be sent to the Missouri congressional 
     delegation to indicate our support of H.R. 3248 and 
     encouraging them to vote for its passage. Your legislation 
     allows the ``public'' in public education to have a larger 
     say in how their tax dollars are spent.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Kent King,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           Associated Professional


                                       Educators of Louisiana,

                                 Baton Rouge, LA, August 13, 1998.
     Hon. Joseph Pitts,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pitts: It is with much enthusiasm that I 
     submit the enclosed resolution adopted by the Board of 
     Directors of the Associated Professional Educators of 
     Louisiana in support of H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom 
     Act. Our enthusiasm is generated by your common sense 
     approach to the generation of additional funding for 
     classrooms through the reduction of senseless and burdensome 
     paperwork and the return of financial decision-making to 
     those closest to the educational needs of our children.
       Resourceful educators leave few stones unturned in their 
     search for additional funding, and as a result, they spend 
     countless hours in researching, applying, and then 
     documenting the application of grant funds. It is bad enough 
     that so much time is required of education department 
     personnel (at both the state and federal level) in 
     administering these funds, but the time spent by the teacher 
     in pursuit of these funds is robbing the classroom of 
     preparation time that might result in greater learning.
       A number of studies have been made to determine how much of 
     our education dollars actually reach the classroom--with 
     varied results. Time and again, it has been reported that 
     from four to six times as much paperwork is required to 
     administer funding from the federal level as from the local 
     level. Because there is general agreement that no more than 
     84% of federal funding reaches the classroom, a tremendous 
     financial advantage would be gained through the passage of 
     your bill which guarantees 95% of funding would be provided 
     for classroom activities.
       The purpose of education is to impart knowledge to students 
     not to increase payrolls and size of the staff. Every worker 
     spending time on burdensome paperwork--much of which could be 
     eliminated by the passage of H.R. 3248--is siphoning dollars 
     away from the necessities of education in the classroom. 
     Thousands of non-productive workers could be eliminated in 
     virtually every state under the concept you are proposing.
       As noted in the resolution, we support H.R. 3248 and we are 
     encouraging the entire Louisiana Congressional Delegation to 
     support your measure, as well. We wish you the best of luck.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Marcia Koopmann,
                                                  State President.

                               Resolution

       Whereas, this independent organization of professional 
     educators was founded on the premise that educators deserved 
     an independent local voice that represented the consensus of 
     its members and that teaching methods, styles, and direction 
     should be compatible with the student population in schools 
     and the goals of the school district as determined at the 
     local level, and
       Whereas, sufficient funding is one of the most critical 
     issues confronting successful education, the shortage of 
     which drives resourceful educators to devote much of their 
     precious time to the preparation of grant applications to 
     fund perceived needs not being met with regular funding 
     sources, and
       Whereas, the administrative costs at the state and federal 
     level of processing, monitoring, and reviewing these grant 
     programs significantly reduces funding that is provided for 
     the true purposes under which the grant program was 
     established and the paperwork burden greatly increases the 
     personnel requirements, and therefore the financial 
     requirements at the state level, thus further reducing the 
     effective use of available funds, and
       Whereas, legislation is currently pending before Congress 
     in the form of H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom Act, by 
     Rep. Joseph Pitts, that would shift power and funding for 
     local schools from Washington to the states and would 
     guarantee that at least 95 percent of existing federal funds 
     reach the classroom. While not preventing the continued 
     participation in existing federal programs, this major policy 
     change would shift decision-making to the states and would 
     allow no more than 5 percent of this money to be used for 
     paperwork and administration. A `hold-harmless' provision 
     would guarantee that states receiving formula-based grants 
     could not receive less than the amount they would have 
     received to carry out those programs under existing statutes. 
     Instead of funneling billions of tax dollars through a 
     bloated bureaucratic system, the bill would ensure that money 
     reaches teachers, students, and principals who make local 
     decision that allow schools to succeed. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Associated 
     Professional Educators of Louisiana (A+PEL) does hereby 
     completely and enthusiastically support and urge the passage 
     of H.R. 3248--Dollars to the Classroom Act--and we strongly 
     encourage the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, by copy of 
     this resolution, to provide support as well. Be it further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be distributed to:
       Representative Robert Livingston, Representative William 
     Jefferson, Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, 
     Representative James M. McCrery, Representative Richard H. 
     Baker, and Representative John Cooksey.
       Official Action taken this 13th day of August, 1998.

[[Page H8066]]

       Witness:
                                                  Doris F. Butler,
                                                        Mary Hall.
       Attest:
                                                  Marcia Koopmann,
     Polly Broussard.
                                  ____



                            Association of American Educators,

                                 Mission Viejo, CA, July 28, 1998.
     Hon. Joseph Pitts,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and 
     board of directors of the Association of American Educators 
     (AAE), and our state affiliates (see the undersigned), I 
     write to express enthusiastic support for H.R. 3248--Dollars 
     to the Classroom Act.
       The AAE was formed just a little over four years ago by a 
     group of concerned educators, many of whom are nationally 
     known and respected for their contributions to public 
     education (including 5 national educators of the year) who 
     were not happy with the direction that the nation's most 
     visible and vocal teacher organizations were leading us in. 
     We felt there was a critical need for a member organization 
     that was more concerned about our children's right to a good 
     education than they were with just their own benefits.
       The AAE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional 
     alternative to the labor union mentality that we feel is not 
     a good fit for public school teachers. We are educators by 
     calling but professionals by choice. We adhere to a few basic 
     principles and beliefs, one of which is that public education 
     will be improved if our schools, their administration, 
     instructional services, and curriculum are under the control 
     of and accountable to the citizens and taxpayers of the local 
     communities they serve. We also believe that systemic changes 
     must occur before there can be any real improvement in our 
     educational system--especially in terms of education funding.
       In that regard, an overwhelming majority of the members of 
     the AAE would endorse your ``Dollars to the Classroom'' 
     legislation. In evidence, I offer the results of our third 
     annual survey of members of the AAE representing classroom 
     teachers from all 50 states. When asked if they would favor 
     legislation that would essentially block--grant federal 
     education dollars back to the state and local governments to 
     spend the money as they see fit--82% favored the idea, 13% 
     had reservations, and 5% weren't sure.
       Representative Pitts, I applaud your timely and sensible 
     legislation and hope it passes. You will undoubtedly receive 
     opposition from the protectors of the status quo--most 
     particularly the teachers unions. For the sake of America's 
     children, I urge you to stay the course. There is ample 
     evidence, even from the teacher union's own internal surveys, 
     that the union leadership does not represent the opinions of 
     hundreds of thousands of teachers in America. In fact, there 
     are now over 250,000 teachers who have chosen to join 
     nonunion professional alternatives, like the AAE, in states 
     where independent organizations have formed across the 
     nation. These groups are growing dramatically, proving the 
     big unions don't represent all teachers' beliefs!
       Thank you for your vision for improving America's schools.
           Sincerely,
         Gary Beckner, Executive Director, Association of American 
           Educators; Polly Broussard, Executive Director, 
           Association Professional Educators of Louisiana; Ginger 
           Tinney, Executive Director, Association of Professional 
           Oklahoma Educators; Doug Barnett, President, Kansas 
           Association of American Educators; Ruth Green, 
           President, Kentucky Association of Professional 
           Educators; Randy Hoffman, President, Keystone (PA) 
           Teachers Association; Jim Hawkins, Executive Director, 
           Professional Educators of Iowa; Walter Jewell, 
           Executive Director, Professional Educators of 
           Tennessee.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my friend from 
Pennsylvania yielding me this time.
  This is really a very simple, straightforward policy decision. If my 
colleagues think the most effective way to help education is to have 31 
different Washington bureaucracies with 31 different sets of 
regulations, 31 different auditors, 31 different sets of red tape, 
reports and forms, so that school districts back home fill out forms 
and have to keep track that they spend this dollar only in this box and 
this dollar only in this box, and they actually have to spend time 
recording everything they are doing, writing and filing reports; if my 
colleagues think that Washington is the center of America's education 
future and that bureaucracy is the answer to learning, then you should 
note ``no.''
  What this bill does is very daring.
  This bill says, real learning occurs when the local teacher, the 
local student, the local parent, and the local school board, and the 
local classroom make a decision. This bill, block grants $2,700,000,000 
to the States to allow the local teacher to have a decisive impact and 
the local parents to have a decisive impact.
  Now, today when people in Washington get up and say oh, we are really 
helping education, here is $100 for education. What they do not tell us 
is $65 gets to the classroom, $35 go to the bureaucrats, and that 
understates what is really happening, because, of course, if one goes 
to any teacher in America, particularly an older teacher who taught 25 
or 30 years ago, and we say to them, do you fill out more paperwork 
now? Are there more people in your school's front office handling 
paper? Are there more people at the county office handling paper? We 
will suddenly discover that there is a hidden additional cost. Not only 
does 35 cents out of every Federal education dollar end up in the 
bureaucracy, but it distorts the time of the teacher away from 
education.
  I used to teach both in college and high school. Education is a 
missionary experience. It is reaching out with love and energy and 
ingraining in students the interest in learning. When we make teachers 
into bureaucrats, we kill the missionary spirit, we kill the emotional 
investment. So what this bill does is it liberates teachers, parents 
and students to once again focus on learning, not on reports, not on 
regulations, not on bureaucracy, not on red tape.
  Now, it also is very practical. If we are trying to balance the 
budget as we are, and we have succeeded, if we are trying to make sure 
we control spending in Washington, the question gets to be, so how do 
we get more per dollar. Well, we move, with this bill, and I commend 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for his tremendous 
initiative in developing and pushing this forward.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) used to be the 
appropriations chairman of the State of Pennsylvania's legislature. He 
knows at the State level what the Federal Government does in red tape 
and bureaucracy and that is why he was able, with such passion, to work 
with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) to get this money back home.
  Here is what we are doing. Without raising taxes, without increasing 
Federal spending, we are getting $800 million more to local classrooms. 
Instead of 65 cents out of every Federal dollar getting to the 
classroom, this bill moves it up to 95 cents, and I think that 
understates the effect, because there are so many fewer reports, so 
many fewer audits, so much less time spent on clerical bureaucratic 
work.
  Now, that is $425 a classroom, in the classroom. If we go up to the 
average teacher and say, if you had 425 extra dollars this year, 
whether it was for computers, whether it was for audiovisual, whether 
it was for instructional material or for a field trip, and you knew 
that you would have the ability with the local parents, the local 
school board and your students to actually make the decision, not fill 
out a form in 31 copies, send it to Washington, wait 6 months and maybe 
get picked. There was a school district in Texas that spent $35,000 for 
a $1,300 grant that actually used the entire grant to pay for the buses 
to go and pay parking at an art museum. They lost almost $30,000 in the 
transaction. That is eliminated by this bill, because this bill says, 
the money will be back home, the teachers and parents will have it.
  So I would just say to my friends on the left who are busy propping 
up Washington bureaucracy, if they are comfortable going home and 
saying, 65 cents on the dollar is all you are worth; I needed that 
extra 35 cents for my bureaucratic allies. And saying, no, we do not 
trust you, we are going to have 31 different auditors with 31 different 
sets of rules on 31 different sets of records, vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think for most Americans, people like the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) who was a teacher, like the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) who was a teacher, I was a teacher, many 
of us who were teachers, we believe as teachers that getting that money 
back home to the local teacher, the local parent and the local student 
to make the decisions, that is the right way to strengthen education in 
America, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H8067]]

North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the cochair of the Democratic Education 
Task Force and former chief State school officer of the State of North 
Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in support of this amendment and in 
strong opposition to this bill. Let me tell my colleagues why. Dollars 
for the classroom is nothing more than a hollow sound and it is a joke, 
because what we are talking about is cutting the allocation to where 
every single district in my State would lose $12 million of money they 
badly need, and every other State loses money. These are the statistics 
I have read and have come from the department.
  I served at the State level. I know what it takes. I hear this talk 
about paperwork, and it is true. But the truth is, usually it is not 
Federal paperwork, it is either State or local. People want to point to 
and use that as a reason not to send money.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happens with block grants. I have been 
out there where block grants come from. But before I was the State 
superintendent of schools, I chaired the Committee on Appropriations of 
my State for 4 years, so I know how to use block grants. We send them 
out, and that is the best way I know; the next time comes there is a 
nice fat cut and we say oh, by the way, we are going to cut you this 
much and it is your job to reduce the administrative cost in it. And 
then pretty soon if you cannot get any more, you say well, you know, 
the problem with this program, we do not have enough accountability or 
enough money, so we are just going to cut out the program.
  Well, I am here to tell my colleagues, we are here at the point where 
children are coming out of our schools at a greater number than at any 
other time in our history. As a matter of fact, over the next 5 years 
we will have more people showing up in this country than ever in the 
history of America, and in my State, we will be the fifth fastest 
growing State in the Nation.
  Do not tell me we need to cut education money. We ought to be about 
finding a way to put additional money in it and reduce class sizes, 
because statistics prove when we reduce class sizes, educational 
opportunities for children increase and learning improves. There is 
abundant data available on that. Tennessee did the first study, and in 
North Carolina today we are reducing class sizes in kindergarten 
through third grade and we are doing it with State money.
  Do not tell me we cannot blend these dollars at the State level and 
make it available to the local level without cutting and reducing the 
paperwork. It can be done, it is being done. This is just another way 
to cut the money for the public schools, and I oppose it and I think 
every Member of this body ought to vote against the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 7 and one-quarter minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker scheduled at this 
time who has not arrived yet, so I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to proceed with his speakers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I should preface this introduction by 
saying Gordon would have been proud of the former State superintendent 
defending the bureaucracy of the State superintendents. Gordon, of 
course, everybody knows who that is.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and for his work on this bill.
  We have heard a number of things in this debate today. We have heard 
that IDEA was going to be ended. It is not. We have heard that Title I 
was going to end. It is not. In fact, Title I is one of the programs 
that already comes pretty close to the standard. I think it is well 
over 90 percent of the money that we appropriate federally in Title I 
gets to districts.
  We have heard from our friend from Massachusetts a moment ago that if 
we ask people in his district whose fault it is that education is not 
producing the right result, they say, the Federal Government, even 
though right before that, he said that only about 6 percent of the 
money comes from the Federal Government.
  Well, maybe this House ought to be more clear with the people we 
represent and explain to them that only about 6 percent of this money 
is Federal money, that local responsibility is paramount here, that we 
cannot continue to confuse Americans by letting them think the solution 
is going to come from somewhere where the solution is not going to come 
from.
  Local and State decision-making on programs like classroom size, 
local and State decision-making on how and where we ought to add 
teachers is possible under this bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Two things. The previous speaker said that mentioned IDEA. Nobody on 
this side mentioned that IDEA was in this bill. We know that IDEA is 
not in the bill, that it is a separate bill.
  Number 2, again he referred to the fact that Title I was not affected 
by this. Title I is affected by it. If my colleagues will read their 
own bill, in the section 107, repeals, as I said before, and you go to 
item number 5, it is section 502 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, 1965, which is part of Title I, and section 1503 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 is another part of it, so 
Title I is affected by this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody 
understands that Title I is not part of this, other than a little 
demonstration project. We have to make sure that everybody understands 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham), a former coach, a former teacher, a former dean of a 
college.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why is the left against this bill? 
Because they want big government control for education and they will 
fight to keep it. They will do anything to keep those 760 Federal 
education programs which strangle the dollars going to the classroom.
  Let us take a look at the D.C. bill. We could have waived Davis-Bacon 
for construction and saved $26 million, but did the left choose 
children and schools? No, they chose their union. We had 8 witnesses in 
a program, and the gentleman from North Carolina talked about block 
grants, all different programs, all good programs. The gentleman, when 
we asked which one of those that the other 7 had, they had none. The 
whole idea of a block grant is where parents and teachers in the 
community can make the decision, instead of a bureaucrat here in 
Washington D.C. that does not know your children. The left would fund 
all 8 programs, have bureaucracies here in Washington D.C. which take 
money away from the classroom.
  Let us take a look at 100,000 teachers. Well, I do not guess my 
colleagues wanted the money, the surplus money for Social Security, 
because that is where the 100,000 teachers would pay for. The left said 
they want all the money for Social Security, but yet to pay for the 
100,000 teachers, under the balanced budget agreement that the 
President signed and many of the Members signed is not there.
  Mr. Chairman, $3 billion in literacy that the President wanted. There 
is 14 literacy programs. What is wrong with taking 1 or 2 and not just 
fully funding it, but increase the funding of those that work and get 
rid of the building, get rid of the bureaucrats that we have to pay 
their paycheck and their retirement which takes away from the 
classroom.
  That is why the left does not want this bill. They want the big 
bureaucracy, not for children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise as one of the 
members of the minority in this body, and that is that I am a classroom 
teacher. I spent 7 years in the public schools in Pennsylvania, and in 
fact, besides being a teacher and a head teacher in an impoverished 
district, I also for 3

[[Page H8068]]

years was assistant director of a Title I program, and for 1 year 
served in a program funded by Title III. I understand the need to get 
money to classroom teachers so that they can better motivate children. 
I also served in my capacity as vice president of my local education 
association.
  I rise with unequivocal support for this bill. I praise my colleague 
and the leader of our committee who have done an outstanding job 
because this bill does I think what all of us in America want to do: It 
puts the dollars into the hands of those people who have the most 
responsibility to motivate young people, and that is our teachers. It 
is not the bureaucrats, it is not the pencil pushers in our regional 
offices, it is the men and women who serve in the classroom every day. 
And as one of them, I rise in strong support of this legislation and 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to this bill, and I can explain why. It is not bureaucracy 
protection, it is people protection. Most of us know that a very large 
percentage of the students in public schools are from poor families.
  There is a reason why we are against repeal of Davis-Bacon, and that 
is because we are trying to make sure that these children's parents do 
not remain in such poverty that they remain the ones at risk, they 
remain the people who are least educated.
  All of us know that the labor unions in this country brought about 
the quality of salaries, brought about the middle income population of 
this Nation, the population that has the largest tax share of 
responsibility for the whole Nation.
  We have to give attention to children in poverty.
  There are many of us who are very skeptical of our own States and the 
way they handle things. We look at California to see how they are 
against bilingual education when they have a very large number of 
children that need it. That is the reason why we have some concern 
about block granting the dollars back.
  States rights have never been so good to the minorities of this 
country. That is one of the reasons why we want to make sure that we 
maintain some quality, accountability, and consistency in programs.
  We also understand that well-qualified teachers with a smaller number 
of students is more successful. We know that from experience. That is 
the reason why we support reduction of class size and support more 
quality educational opportunities for our teachers and better pay for 
our teachers so we can maintain good teachers in the classroom.
  It is clear that all young children need a good education. We say 
that all the time. There are no jobs available without a good education 
and without good preparation. We simply want to make sure that, as far 
as we can be accountable, we can ensure that that happens in these 
classrooms.
  It is not just a sense of trying to protect bureaucracy. It is a 
sense of attempting to protect people and especially poor people of 
this Nation who work long hours for little pay, last hired and first 
fired. That is what we are trying to protect. We are trying to make 
sure that all young people are prepared to take on the future and be 
ready for it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Martinez) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, reducing class size, boosting academic standards, 
modernizing schools, these are real issues that affect our communities, 
our children, and the people that we care about.
  But instead of dealing with these challenges, instead of focusing 
resources where they are most needed, this bill will take American 
schools backwards.
  Worse yet, it kills off educational programs that have proven 
successful all across the country, programs like the School-to-Work 
programs that train high school students for good jobs with good pay 
with a mentor, programs like the Eisenhower grant that pays for more 
teacher training, like the Goals 2000 programs that help schools boost 
their academic standards.
  These educational programs made sure that Federal dollars were spent 
wisely and responsibly. The emphasis of this emphasis was on learning 
and was on results.
  Under this block grant program, funding will inevitably decrease. 
Under this block grant program, funding is shifted out of the 
classroom, out of the schools that most need it.
  What we need here is accountability in our schools, and this bill 
undermines that. It does nothing to reduce class size, to improve 
academic performance, modernize our schools, or provide school safety. 
These are the issues that we need to be focusing on.
  Democrats have proposed hiring 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class 
size in schools all across the country. Smaller class sizes have been 
proven to increase discipline, boost academic performance. These are 
the kinds of educational programs we should be supporting, not 
shuffling funds around through block grants and calling it progress.
  I oppose this block grant program. I must say to my colleagues this 
afternoon that it is not coincidental that this attack on education and 
the attack next week on Social Security comes at a time when some of my 
colleagues think that the country is distracted from the issues that 
they care about.
  All of us who have been to our district understand how important 
education is, how strong and important it is to support our education 
and public education system.
  They understand the need to preserve and strengthen Social Security, 
not to raid it, not to raid the trust fund or rob the trust fund for 
some kind of a tax program that my colleagues think is in the best 
interest of their constituencies at the cost of taking it away from 
literally millions of seniors in our country. They are watching this 
Congress and how we act.
  If we act responsibly in this very difficult time this country faces 
or whether or not we are going to seek relief, invade educational 
opportunities that have been set up for the people of this country, 
whether we are going to invade the Social Security Trust Fund, whether 
or not we are going to deal with the question of Health Maintenance 
Organizations that the people of this country are crying out for some 
reform.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
block grant program. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is not in 
the best interest of education. It diminishes the things that we have 
built on. It takes away in an unresponsible manner, I believe, the 
opportunities to move forward in our public educational system.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, aside from the fact that the other side keeps saying 
that States are going to get more money, in lieu of the fact that we 
know that the appropriators have cut the funds to all of these programs 
and that they will not simply by that fact, but according to CRS, these 
States will lose money: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of 
Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia and 
Wyoming.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Members who represent those States and those 
constituencies want to go back to their State and explain after the 
fact that reality sets in that they have lost money and answer to those 
school directors and school board members and superintendents and even 
the teachers and especially the students, then let them do that and let 
this fall on their head.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H8069]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, this is just an amazing debate and a simple 
question that everybody has to ask themselves. The question is, do we 
trust the people at home, the elected school board members and the 
community, to try to decide what they want to spend their money on or 
do we in fact think that they are not very capable and so a handful of 
us here in Washington ought to figure out what the heck the priorities 
ought to be?
  Now, I have to say, I think the country is coming over to our side. I 
do not think they want all this red tape. I do not think they want all 
these strings. What they want least of all is a bunch of people in the 
city, who do not even know what area code it is we live in, to try to 
tell us how to run our schools.
  What the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has proposed in this 
legislation is one simple thing, gather up as much of the money as you 
can, cut the strings, the red tape, send it back to the school 
districts and get the money in the classroom and let the schools decide 
how to spend the money.
  I have to say that this concept of local control is not about local 
control. It is about faith and normal people who live and work in a 
community.
  I would rather put my trust into the hands of us who live locally 
than to pass it off to some bureaucrats or some politicians in a far 
away place. Support the bill offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
  (Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored this bill because I think it just makes 
sense. In my home state of New Jersey, this means that we would receive 
roughly an extra 50 percent additional funding. That is $25 million 
more for New Jersey, which translates into $425 more for each 
classroom.
  In my district, in central New Jersey, I have spoken and listened to 
numerous teachers, school board members and school administrators. I 
have heard about teachers carefully using their limited resources, yet 
still coming up short. They have expressed to me their frustrations in 
wasting limited time and funds with filling out paperwork to meet 
requirements of these well intended programs.
  We have been blessed with wonderful teachers but it is unfair that 
their hands are tied from doing what they do best and what they were 
trained and hired to do. That is why I support Dollars to the Classroom 
Act. We should pass this legislation because it makes sense and will 
make a difference for the children of America.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, if we go back to the early 
eighties, we had a whole series of categorical grant programs. We, the 
dictators here in Washington, said if you spend the money the way we 
tell you to, you can have the money. We, Republicans and Democrats, 
joined together. We eliminated most of those categorical grant 
programs. We turned it into a block grant, we gave it to the States, 
mandated that 80 percent of those block grant funds go on to the local 
school districts so that their local autonomy could say what is best. 
In Glens Falls, Queensbury, Clifton Park, Hyde Park, New York, they 
know better than we do.
  This is a great bill. It is an especially good bill for New York 
State. I would ask the New Yorkers to come over here and vote for it. 
Do not go yelling for more money.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody understands that 
those names of States that were being read have nothing to do with 
reality and have nothing to do with this legislation. Those States that 
were being read deal with, as a matter of fact, nonprofits and 
nonschool districts. We are interested in getting the money to school 
districts. We are interested in getting the money down to the children.
  What we are admitting is that the well-intended programs of the last 
30 some years did not work. Let us admit it. Let us try something 
different. That is why we have 40 percent of the children at the end of 
third grade that do not read at third grade level. That is why we have 
50 percent of our students that do not do well in math and science when 
they graduate.
  Let me remind my colleagues, on this amendment that is being offered, 
they are talking about $20 billion over a 5-year period. They did not 
say where it is going to come from. In all probability, it is going to 
come from the very programs that they have been standing up here all 
morning defending. It has to come from somewhere, folks. There is no 
tree up there that is going to yield it.
  I include the following for the Record:

    TABLE 15.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS SPECIFICALLY TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER H.R. 3248    
   COMPARED TO ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LEAs UNDER CURRENT PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total           Total                 
                                                                        estimated       estimated               
                               State                                 grants to LEAs  grants to LEAs   Percentage
                                                                       under H.R.     under current     change  
                                                                      3248 (at 96%)     programs                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................     $32,480,640     $28,726,394         13.1
Alaska.............................................................       8,574,720       9,973,798        -14.0
Arizona............................................................      31,996,800      27,196,850         17.6
Arkansas...........................................................      19,791,360      14,926,986         32.6
California.........................................................     237,103,680     212,174,852         11.7
Colorado...........................................................      23,698,560      18,948,065         25.1
Connecticut........................................................      20,659,200      18,744,802         10.2
Delaware...........................................................       6,339,520       7,893,343          5.7
District of Columbia...............................................       6,355,840       7,431,557         12.4
Florida............................................................      94,823,040      91,729,340          3.4
Georgia............................................................      54,471,360      42,934,372         26.9
Hawaii.............................................................       8,868,480       8,996,313         26.8
Idaho..............................................................       9,253,440       8,516,600          8.7
Illinois...........................................................      88,815,360      72,854,420         21.9
Indiana............................................................      36,406,080      30,973,512         17.5
Iowa...............................................................      17,131,200      12,779,617         34.1
Kansas.............................................................      17,618,880      15,544,068         13.3
Kentucky...........................................................      31,801,920      24,600,251         29.3
Louisiana..........................................................      44,208,960      34,665,652         27.5
Maine..............................................................       9,648,000       8,159,272         18.2
Maryland...........................................................      31,515,840      25,493,567         23.6
Massachusetts......................................................      40,377,600      38,492,132          4.9
Michigan...........................................................      82,742,400      65,986,110         25.4
Minnesota..........................................................      30,007,680      23,832,451         25.9
Mississippi........................................................      28,125,120      21,427,695         31.3
Missouri...........................................................      37,344,960      29,020,065         28.7
Montana............................................................       9,038,400       7,169,578         26.1
Nebraska...........................................................      11,083,200      11,733,360         -5.5
Nevada.............................................................       9,667,200       8,894,488          8.7
New Hampshire......................................................       8,675,520       7,389,104         17.4
New Jersey.........................................................      49,601,280      37,348,162         32.8
New Mexico.........................................................      16,026,240      13,700,687         17.0
New York...........................................................     159,475,200     146,444,545          8.9
North Carolina.....................................................      44,436,320      40,496,357         10.0
North Dakota.......................................................       8,333,760       7,915,178          5.3
Ohio...............................................................      82,574,400      85,323,229         26.4
Oklahoma...........................................................      24,687,360      20,223,570         22.1
Oregon.............................................................      21,254,400      17,502,102         21.4
Pennsylvania.......................................................      87,925,440      71,081,085         23.7
Rhode Island.......................................................       9,001,920       7,181,696         25.3
South Carolina.....................................................      26,136,000      23,189,775         12.7
South Dakota.......................................................       8,543,040       7,702,811         10.9
Tennessee..........................................................      36,509,760      29,345,406         24.4
Texas..............................................................     165,546,240     134,012,463         23.5
Utah...............................................................      14,062,080      11,304,868         24.4
Vermont............................................................       8,186,880       7,350,078         11.4
Virginia...........................................................      37,687,680      30,384,386         24.0
Washington.........................................................      35,669,760      34,440,440          3.6
West Virginia......................................................      16,408,320      13,455,322         21.9
Wisconsin..........................................................      36,780,480      27,695,883         32.8
Wyoming............................................................       8,081,280       6,853,872         17.9
Puerto Rico........................................................      53,332,800      40,548,467         31.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I strongly support this 
amendment because it seeks to alleviate a real problem that affects our 
Nation's schools by reducing class sizes in grades 1st through 3rd. It 
is clear that the ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' cannot provide the 
necessary support for our education system. Without this amendment, 
H.R. 3248 is simply a politically-motivated measure that simply ignores 
the actual needs of the schools.
  This amendment would reduce the class size in grades 1st through 3rd 
to an average of 18 students per class. The measure implements this 
program by authorizing $1.1 billion in FY 1999 and $7.34 billion over a 
five year period.
  More importantly, this amendment would alleviate the concerns 
surrounding overburdened teachers by enabling schools to hire over 
100,000 by the year 2005.
  Funding proposed by this amendment would allow schools to recruit, 
train, and pay these additional teachers. Moreover, the funds would 
ensure that the teachers are equipped with the most current and 
effective instructional techniques.
  The amendment also requires the school districts to demonstrate how 
reduced class sizes are resulting in increased student achievement.
  I firmly believe that this amendment will serve the educational 
community well. Unlike H.R. 3248, this amendment serves the needs of 
our schools.

[[Page H8070]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Martinez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, further 
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 1 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) amendment in the 
nature of a substitute No. 2 offered by the gentleman California (Mr. 
Martinez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 207, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 450]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--207

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Blagojevich
     Burton
     Clay
     Cox
     DeFazio
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hilliard
     Hutchinson
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Manton
     McCollum
     McDade
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Parker
     Pease
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Sanchez
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Torres
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1205

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Manton for, with Mr. Mica against.

  Messrs. BATEMAN, GALLEGLY, CHABOT, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mrs. KELLY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LOFGREN, and Messrs. SCOTT, WHITFIELD, SHERMAN, FOX of 
Pennsylvania, and OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
subsitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a subsitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded voted was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 215, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No 451]

                               AYES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge

[[Page H8071]]


     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Becerra
     Blagojevich
     Burton
     Clay
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     DeFazio
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Manton
     McDade
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Parker
     Pease
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Sanchez
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Torres

                              {time}  1213

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut for, with Mr. Mica against.

  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
3248) to provide dollars to the classroom, pursuant to House Resolution 
543, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 452]

                               AYES--212

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     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
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page H8072]]


     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Blagojevich
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Clay
     DeFazio
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Manton
     McDade
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Parker
     Pease
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Sanchez
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Torres

                              {time}  1233

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Mica for, with Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut against.

  Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________