[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1081-H1088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 800, EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 100
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility
partnerships. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the
bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule
for a period not to exceed 5 hours. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment printed
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it
to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as
read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:
(1) postpone until a time during further consideration in
the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on
any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 100 is a modified open rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act of 1999, better known as the Ed-Flex bill. The rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the amendment
in the nature of a substitute of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce now printed in the bill. The Ed-Flex bill is truly bipartisan
legislation which has the support of Republicans and Democrats alike in
the House and Senate, as well as the support of all 50 Governors.
Despite the popularity of Ed-Flex, we have witnessed some try to
undermine this bipartisan effort by diverting attention away from the
Ed-Flex bill to other issues which are clearly outside the scope of
this simple bill. For this reason, the Committee on Rules felt it was
reasonable to ask Members to preprint their amendments in the
Congressional Record. The chairman of the Committee on Rules announced
this preprinting requirement on Thursday, so all Members have been
properly notified of this policy.
In addition, the committee felt that placing a reasonable time limit
on the consideration of the Ed-Flex bill would encourage those who have
concerns about H.R. 800 to prioritize their amendments and focus on
constructive changes, rather than partisan tactics. Therefore, the rule
before us contains a 5-hour time limit on the amendment process, which
is considerably more generous than the 3-hour time limit requested by
the Committee on Education and the Workforce itself.
With the exception of these reasonable parameters designed to focus
the debate on the issue at hand, the rule is open, in the tradition of
every other rule reported by the Committee on Rules this year. Let me
be clear. Any member who has a concern about this legislation may offer
any amendment on the floor, as long as it is germane and has been
printed in the Record.
In addition to the amendment process, the rule provides a final
opportunity for the minority to make changes to the bill through a
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Further, in the interest of facilitating consideration of this
popular bill by the House, the rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII,
requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report. And, for the
convenience of Members, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes, as
long as the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans agree that the education of our Nation's
children must be a top priority. Education is the foundation on which
the future of our country rests. While many of our community schools
are shining examples of success, others are miserably failing in their
attempts to teach even the most basic skills to our young students.
Unfortunately, there is no magic pill that we can give our neediest
schools to bring them up to par, but the very least we can do is to
remove some of the obstructions which are blocking their path to
improvement.
The fact is that the Federal Government has a stranglehold on our
local schools, and the Ed-Flex bill loosens the government's grip. By
easing the burden of Federal regulation and clearing away the red tape,
Ed-Flex allows States to pursue effective school reform. The Ed-Flex
program is founded on the principle of trust, trust in our State and
local leaders, who we believe will make good choices for their
communities.
Currently, 12 States are participating in the existing Ed-Flex
demonstration program, including my own State of Ohio. The positive
results in Ohio and 11 other States strongly suggest that we extend
this program to all 50 States.
Through the Ed-Flex program, Ohio has been able to apply the good
intentions of Federal education policies to
[[Page H1082]]
more children. For example, Ohio has enabled more schools to use
Federal dollars to implement schoolwide programs. Schoolwide programs
go beyond helping at-risk children and utilize resources to improve the
scholastic skills of all students.
In addition, Ohio has used Ed-Flex to expand its use of Eisenhower
Professional Development Grants, which are designed for math and
science teacher training. In Ohio, if a school has met its math and
science training requirements, it can use unexpended Eisenhower funds
to provide training in other areas, such as reading.
These commonsense reforms have helped Ohio to realize tangible
improvements in the education of our children. Last year, Ohio exceeded
two benchmarks for student performance in both reading and writing.
Yet, while Ohio moves ahead, other States continue to be mired in
Federal rules and regulations that stunt forward progress. That is why
it is so important that we pass the Education Flexibility Partnership
Act, to give all 50 States the opportunity to maximize resources to
educate students.
Not only will Ed-Flex help our States in their efforts to improve
student performance, it will help Congress assess what Federal
education policies are burdening States and need to be revamped. This
information will be crucial as we work on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year.
I think some of my colleagues will speak to their concerns about
accountability during this debate, but it is not fair to give the
impression that we are handing out money and turning our heads the
other way. The Ed-Flex program does not simply dissolve Federal
education law. In fact, there are strings attached to the flexibility
we are offering to the States through this legislation.
To be eligible for Ed-Flex, States must develop and implement a Title
I plan, which includes education content standards, student performance
standards, and a means of assessing school progress. In addition,
States must have an accountability system in place to hold localities
and schools responsible for meeting their education goals.
We are asking for a credible education plan, and then trusting the
State and local officials to make good decisions for their communities.
After all, they are the people who live in those communities, know the
citizens, and work in the local school systems every day. Let us not
take the ``flex'' out of Ed-Flex by erecting additional hoops and
hurdles under the guise of accountability.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this
fair and balanced resolution, as well as the underlying legislation
which will move us toward the shared goal of commonsense education
reform. All of our 50 Governors have asked us to pass this bill, and
our schools and children will be better for it.
Let us move forward together in the spirit of bipartisanship. I urge
all my colleagues to vote yes on both the rule and the Education
Flexibility Partnership Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the snow blanketing the ground outside is
enough to make us think fondly of baseball spring training which is
being conducted in summer climes over the South and West. The spring
training analogy seems appropriate for this rule which is governing the
consideration of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act.
We have been in session for about 2 months, and we have seen a
procession of open rules on legislation which, frankly, would have been
well received by the Suspension Calendar. Today the House ends its
legislative spring training and begins its regular season with a
significant initiative on education.
The first pitch from my friends on the other side of the aisle is a
fast ball under the chin, an unnecessarily restrictive rule severely
limiting amendments and debate. By clinging to its insistence on
preprinting amendments in the Congressional Record, the majority on the
committee is trying to pitch a shutout against Members who have had,
previously, precious little time to consider a bill which was reported
by the committee of jurisdiction only 2 days ago, and Members have had
to contend with that snowstorm that hardly let them into town.
As a result of a party line vote on the Committee on Rules, the rule
House Resolution 100 swings and misses by capping debate time at 5
hours, and including under that cap the time it takes to vote on
amendments. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about educating our children
and preparing them for the game of life. We should spend not 5 hours
but 5 days, if necessary, to ensure that we are doing right by them.
Last year, Congress took a significant step toward achieving the goal
of hiring 100,000 new teachers over the next 7 years to help local
districts reduce class size in the early grades. Thanks to the party
line vote by the majority, House Resolution 100 commits a crucial error
by refusing to make in order the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) that
would authorize the remainder of our commitment to hire 100,000 new
teachers, to reduce class size, and improve the learning environment.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Federal elementary and secondary education
programs are set to expire, and the reauthorization of these policies
is one of the most important tasks any Congress will face. Some Members
might argue the need to weigh statutory and regulatory provisions
before we even begin to define what those provisions should be.
Our side of the aisle will seek to advance amendments which address
our concerns that the underlying bill is weak on accountability and
strong on rhetoric.
It is imperative that any law that weighs the Federal Government's
long-standing commitment to our Nation's most disadvantaged students
contain a viable plan for how student achievement will be assessed.
Of particular concern are the students who benefit from the Title I
funding. This provision has been successful at ensuring that the Title
I funds are not spread too thin but go to the districts that really
need them.
By waiving this requirement, schools with small percentages of poor
children will be able to implement a schoolwide program, thereby
neglecting the special needs of the economically disadvantaged students
in that school.
Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which could be improved, and I urge
Members to vote against this rule so that we might do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this fair rule for
H.R. 800, the Ed-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. Current law authorizes
12 States under pilot programs to participate in the Education
Flexibility Partner Demonstration Program called Ed-Flex.
Ed-Flex States enjoy greater State and local flexibility in
determining how to use Federal education funds. H.R. 800 is a bill
which will expand the program to give all 50 States the option to apply
for Ed-Flex. In short, Ed-Flex increases local control, reduces
government red tape, and promotes flexibility with accountability.
My State, Texas, was one of the first States to win Ed-Flex status.
Since January of 1996, Texans have incorporated the flexibility granted
under Ed-Flex for statewide, comprehensive reform programs centered
around local control and accountability for results.
Governor George W. Bush eagerly sought Ed-Flex status and has worked
with local educators for the authority to design programs which meet
and address local need. Texas also has implemented a system which
ensures that there is accountability with concrete results in return
for this increased flexibility. As Governor Bush said, ``Texans can run
Texas.'' I believe that
[[Page H1083]]
each of my colleagues would feel the same way about their respective
States and their districts.
Although there is still room for improvement, tremendous gains in
performance can be documented for students in Texas. In a State with
students of diverse ethnicities and socio-economic statuses, the
across-the-board improvement in student performance is, indeed,
something that we should be proud of.
Yesterday, during testimony before the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), former Governor and now current
U.S. Congressman, indicated that all 50 Governors are in favor of
receiving this Ed-Flex status.
This simply is a bill that allows all 50 States to do what they
believe is necessary to run their own programs in their own States. I
believe it is an admission that the one-size-fits-all rulemaking
bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. is broken. Republicans trust local
school boards, not Washington bureaucrats.
What works in my home district in Dallas, Texas is not necessarily
the most effective program for a school district here in the
Washington, D.C. area, in Northern Virginia, or in Maryland.
The combination of Ed-Flex and an effective accountability program
allows all States to focus on a foundation, a curriculum that features
English language, mathematics, science, social studies, geography, and
government.
I am proud of the improvements which have come about as a result of
Ed-Flex; flexibility with accountability. This program is good for
everyone who has an opportunity to participate.
Today, we are talking about this rule that would allow the
opportunity to debate how States are going to utilize their own
education programs. I will tell my colleagues that there are others on
the other side who want to debate about putting more rules and
regulations and dollars to this equation.
But the bottom line is that what we have got to do is to give local
school districts, local States those controls, not tell them how to do
things, and not put dollars out there which would drive them to the
decision making that Washington would like to make instead of what they
would like to make locally. I stand in support of this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, during our appearance before the Committee on
Rules yesterday, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and I asked that
our class size reduction amendment be made in order. Unfortunately, the
committee failed to do so.
This restrictive rule that was reported now makes it necessary to
defeat the previous question in order for our class size reduction
amendment to even be considered.
Our amendment would establish a 6-year authorization for the Clinton-
Clay-Wu class size reduction initiative. This would build on the 1-
year, $1.2 billion down payment on the initiative that was included in
last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act. That funding, however, will
only support the hiring of 30,000 teachers for the 1999-2000 school
year.
Now it is time, Mr. Speaker, to lock in the remainder of the funding
so that school districts across America can count on receiving the full
complement of 100,000 teachers needed to achieve the initiatives goal.
Mr. Speaker, some critics, without evidence or documentation,
continue to boisterously shout that the 30,000 teachers will be
unqualified to teach. This is a sad commentary for those who prefer to
build prisons than to build schools and to hire guards than to hire
teachers.
Mr. Speaker, the goal of the Clinton-Clay-Wu class size reduction
initiative is to help schools improve student achievement by adding
additional highly qualified teachers to the work force to ensure that
class size is reduced to not more than 18 children per class in the
early grades.
Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that every child receives a teacher's
personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further learning, and
is prepared to read independently by the end of the third grade.
Ample research demonstrates that reducing class size boosts student
achievement considerably. The Department the Education data shows that
students in smaller classes in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana, and
Tennessee outperform their counterparts in larger classes. A study in
Tennessee's project STAR found that students in smaller classes in
grades K through 3 earn much higher scores on basic skill tests.
Based on this solid record of achievement, the Clinton-Clay-Wu class
size reduction initiative should be expanded by granting it a full 7-
year authorization to ensure class size reduction in grades K through 3
to an average of just 18 students.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this effort, to defeat the
previous question, and allow a vote on the Clinton-Clay-Wu class size
reduction amendment.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my good friend, the
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out some interesting
statistics. There are 16,000 school districts in the United States. If
we say there are seven schools to each one of those school districts,
that gives us about 112,000 schools. That gives us less than one
teacher per school.
Of course highly qualified was mentioned. California's great
experience has been they spent $1 billion last year. They are going to
spend $1.2 billion this year for their 23,000 teachers.
Now what happened with those 23,000 teachers? Of course they could
not get a lot of qualified teachers. So the poorer school districts who
need the best teachers, what did they get? Totally unqualified people
in the classroom.
So I just wanted to point out that what we are talking about here
when we talk about 100,000 for 16,000 school districts and 112,000
schools minimum, it is less than one per school.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the
time. The Ed-Flex bill certainly has many features in it. The issue is
not whether we are for that or against it, but it is that there are
other important issues to make it better.
Last week, all of the school systems were reporting out how their
schools fared in the fourth grade and whether it went up. Indeed, as
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) indicated,
California did not do so well. But I suspect their investment in
teachers is not to be pooh-poohed to suggest that we should not do it.
Certainly we need that 100,000 teachers more that the President has
indicated and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has indicated and
that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) has tried to put before the
Committee on Rules, and they ruled that it would be a nongermane
amendment. It is not nongermane to education. Good teachers indeed are
essential just as good doctors are good for health, just as good
engineers are for constructing buildings.
I cannot conceive that one would think that putting 100,000 teachers,
although that is not sufficient to speak to all the schools, would not
be an appropriate action, and we would not embrace it where the
American people want it.
So voting for Ed-Flex is indeed a good thing. But this amendment,
however, this rule that does not allow germane amendments is the wrong
thing.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule because we can go
back to the Committee on Rules, make that amendment in order, so indeed
we can have more teachers, more qualified teachers. The assumption that
we want to have anything other than qualified teachers again escapes me
as any rational approach to improve the education system.
So having 100,000 teachers is germane to reducing the classes.
Reducing the classes is germane indeed to having quality education.
Quality education is indeed what all America wants for their families.
To suggest that every Governor wants this Ed-Flex, I mean, I do not
understand why they would not want
[[Page H1084]]
it. But also to suggest that they would not want 100,000 teachers again
is absurd. They want more teachers, qualified teachers, because they
understand that teachers are essential, qualified teachers are
essential in the mix if indeed we are to have quality education.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, Representatives Clay
and Wu in opposing this rule--a rule that does not permit an amendment
I have filed to be considered.
My amendment would have given States the flexibility to hire more
teachers to help reduce class sizes.
While we passed class size reduction legislation in the last
Congress, the appropriation was only for one year, and not the full
seven year program we had proposed.
Consequently, school districts across the country are unable to plan
long-term for class size reduction because they do not know whether
there will be funding for the new teachers beyond the one year.
My amendment would have made clear that the funding for these
teachers was for the full seven years.
Mr. Speaker, schools across the Nation are struggling because student
enrollments are dramatically increasing.
Evidence demonstrates that there is a direct correlation between
class size and learning ability.
Students in smaller classes, especially in early grades, make greater
educational gains.
More importantly, they maintain those gains over time.
Smaller classes are most advantageous for poor, minority, and rural
community children.
However, all children will benefit from smaller classes.
Class size reduction funds for seven years will help States and local
school districts recruit, train, and hire 100,000 additional, well-
prepared teachers in order to reduce the average class size to 18 in
grades 1 through 3.
We need more teachers.
It is so critical to maintaining and improving our education system.
Education is the key to the future.
In some parts of the country and in my State, classroom sizes are as
high as 36 students--much too large for a teacher to provide
individualized attention.
This is especially troubling when the students are in their early
developmental stages--grades one through three.
Because 90 percent of our children attend public schools, we must
strengthen and improve those schools.
Across the Nation, we have an all-time record school enrollment of
52.2 million students today.
The strain on school systems and the impact on learning will be felt
for years to come.
I urge defeat of this rule and support for a rule that would allow an
amendment to continue our commitment to reducing class sizes.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield as much time
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) and the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) who made a
very eloquent statement earlier about this issue.
This is a bipartisan goal that we have. As the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) said, all 50 Governors want to have this kind of
flexibility. We have Democrats and Republicans alike supporting this.
We have the President saying that he wants to sign this measure. Yet,
based on what we have witnessed over the last several days, our
distinguished colleagues in the other body on the other side of the
aisle have decided to totally politicize this and claim that we are not
in fact doing the things that the American people want us to do.
Unfortunately, we are seeing this same sort of issue come to the
forefront here. This is a modified open rule. No matter what my
colleagues try to call it, it is a modified open rule. It is modified
so that we do not get to the point where we see complete politicization
of a bipartisan issue.
{time} 1145
Now, every germane amendment is in order, and we have, in fact, had
over 20 amendments that have been filed. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is very ably going to deal with those
amendments, and I think that this is clearly the right thing for us to
do.
As we look at the kinds of constraints that Washington has heretofore
imposed on States, it is amazing that there are 14,000 Federal
administrators in State agencies that are creating 50 million hours of
work. The bipartisan goal here, again, is to try to provide at least a
modicum of relief.
All of us like the idea of increasing the number of teachers in
schools. No one is opposed to that. And the funding for that has
already been provided in the omnibus appropriations bill that was put
into place and passed last year. But the authorization of that will be
handled during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
consideration. And, again, the Committee on Education and the Workforce
will deal with that. This is not the place to do it, and that is why we
did not provide waivers to make a nongermane amendment in order.
Now, some have also raised questions, I know, about the 5-hour cap on
the time. The request of the committee was that we have a 3-hour
outside time limit, and we expanded that to 5 hours. It seems to me
that that is the right thing to do.
My very good friend from South Boston, in conversations we have had,
raised concerns about the snowstorm. I realize that that has created a
challenge for more than a few Members on both sides of the aisle. But
as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said in her opening statement,
I announced last Thursday that we would quite possibly have a
preprinting requirement in this measure. And we do have amazing
technology today. It is known as the web. We communicate through e-
mail. And a ``Dear Colleague'' letter went out informing Members of the
fact that we were most likely going to be doing this. And so we had a
litany of amendments that were filed, and every single germane
amendment is, in fact, in order.
So this does continue our pattern of very fair rules, and I believe
it does give every Member the opportunity to participate in debate. I
am proud of the rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to correct a statement made by the chairman of the full
committee. There are not 112,000 public elementary schools in this
country. There are only 61,000. And the money from this bill will be
targeted for grades K through 3.
So we are not talking about 112,000 schools that this money will go
to.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to first of
all thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my Republican
colleague who joined with me in crafting this legislation 8 months ago.
The gentleman from Delaware and I have worked very hard in a bipartisan
Democrat-Republican way of trying to get this legislation brought
before this body, and I am honored that we have it here before the
entire 435 Members here this morning.
I also want to say that this is bipartisan legislation not only in
that a Democrat and Republican have drafted it, but that the President
of the United States has indicated to the National Governors'
Association that he strongly supports it; that 50 governors, many
Democrats and Republicans and independents, all support this
legislation.
I do want to reflect on the debate about this rule and the 5 hours on
this rule. I think what our ranking member the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) said, using the baseball analogy, is absolutely
accurate. We are in the first inning on education here, and I think
that the gentlewoman's statement to the Republicans who run the
Committee on Rules is a fair one.
If we are going to debate Ed-Flex, and I have worked very hard on it
for 8 months, I would hope that the Committee on Rules would come
forward with five more bills over the next 5 and 6 and 7 months to
adequately discuss the quality of teachers in this country;
[[Page H1085]]
to adequately discuss, with floor time, school construction and the
bonding issue and the safety in our schools, of ceilings falling down
on children; to adequately discuss after-school programs; to adequately
discuss the role that the Chicago public schools in reform is playing
as a role model for other public schools.
We could discuss and work in a bipartisan way, and I hope we do. I
worry that we might not, but I hope we do. I hope we do not emulate
what the Senate is mired down in. I hope we will work together in a
host of these different areas over the ensuing 20 months.
Now, what brings us to this legislation today? Abraham Lincoln, I
think, said it very, very well 130 years ago. He said, ``Every American
son and daughter, to the best that the rules and the laws can avail it,
is entitled to a fair start in the race of life.'' A fair start in the
race of life for every American son and daughter.
When we look at our public school system, we have some great schools
and great teachers, and we have some schools that are not performing
well enough for so many of our children. This Congress needs to come
together, with Democrats and Republicans working together on fair rules
and new legislation, to address the number one issue in America today:
reforming and boldly improving public education.
This Ed-Flex bill is an old value and a new idea. The old value is
local control. It is embracing the concept of teachers and parents and
local communities controlling what goes on in our schools. And the new
idea is flexibility. The status quo has not worked, so we are not
giving out reams of paperwork and all kinds of data that the schools
have to send back to Washington, D.C. We will not handcuff the schools
with new regulations, but we have a rope, not a string of
accountability, but a rope of accountability tied to student
performance. And that is a strong rope.
How did we get here? Well, we looked at 12 States, 12 States that
have had this program, this flexibility, for 4\1/2\ years. States like
Texas and Maryland and Ohio are doing a very good job with this
program, and we will talk more about their success. If the other 38
States can live up to the eligibility and assessment requirements that
we outline in this bill, that are tougher than current law for
eligibility and assessment, tougher than current law, then the other
States will be eligible.
Finally, there is a very, very sensitive nexus coming together here,
a sensitive synergy between sensibility and between accountability. We
think we have worked hard for the last 8 months for an old value, a new
idea, a third way of coming together to change the status quo and to
boldly and creatively reform our public education system. I hope that
my colleagues will support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me
such a generous amount of time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Sanibel Island, Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from
Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I rise in
support of this fair, modified open rule. This is a very targeted
bipartisan bill, and this rule provides ample opportunity for debate
and amendment. It is not all there is to be said on the subject of
education, but it is a very excellent place to start on a targeted
basis.
The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, or Ed-Flex as we
call it, is a step towards local control, away from the dictates of
Washington. We all know education is a priority interest in our Nation
today. It needs to be. We are not doing as well as we need to be. But
education is not about what Washington does. It is about teaching
students. It is about students learning. Ed-Flex will empower our
school districts with the ability to undertake more effective and
innovative reform measures and do what works best for them in their
schools.
For too long schools districts have had to operate within the
confines of Federal programs, which often act as an obstruction,
despite our best intentions here, but an obstruction rather than an
aid. While I would prefer to remove these restrictions all together,
providing a waiver process for all States is at least an incremental
step in the right direction. Ed-Flex will extend to all 50 States the
option to waive certain Federal and State regulations in exchange for
increased accountability and results. Accountability. That is what
Americans are asking for.
It seems to me that the best people to determine what our kids need
are not Federal bureaucrats but the folks down at the district level
who are directly accountable to parents and involved at the front
lines. During the past 3 decades, Washington has attempted to
micromanage our schools, without very much success, it seems.
There is a role for the Federal Government to play in public
education, I agree, but it must be very balanced and it must be very
careful. Ed-Flex will give our local districts the opportunity to make
the most of Federal and State resources by giving them the freedom to
tailor existing Federal programs to the specific needs of their
students.
At the same time, we do not have to exchange flexibility for
accountability. States that wish to participate will have to provide
clear achievement objectives and then produce solid academic outcomes.
We remove the red tape, not the accountability in this piece of
legislation.
I am encouraged by the results of the States that are already
participating in Ed-Flex, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged
students. Something is working here. It is my hope that we will agree
to extend this opportunity for success to all our schools and to all
Americans. They deserve it.
There is a wide variety of opinion and debate on education, and there
will certainly be times when Republicans and Democrats, liberals and
conservatives have legitimate disagreements. This should not be one of
those times.
We have a good rule today to get this issue on the floor and to get
this matter underway so it is available to our students sooner rather
than later. Other issues, that obviously we wish to address, we have
assurances from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that he
will be bringing them forward, and we look forward to those as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
As my colleagues know, I am a cosponsor of Ed-Flex. I support Ed-Flex
because it provides local school districts with flexibility and freedom
from unnecessary Federal regulation.
I also believe in assisting schools and school districts so that they
have the resources to exercise that flexibility. Real flexibility, not
the illusion of flexibility. That is why the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Clay) and I are offering our amendment to the Ed-Flex bill.
Basically, to put more education into Ed-Flex.
Our amendment will establish an additional 6-year authorization to
reduce class size by hiring 100,000 qualified teachers. Last year
Congress made a downpayment on the administration's plan to hire
100,000 new teachers over a period of 7 years in order to reduce
average class size to 18 students in grades 1 through 3. But that was
only a downpayment.
Unfortunately, the leadership of this House, when it comes time to
provide for the remaining 6 years of class size reduction, is leaving
school districts and education boards across America in budgetary
limbo. They engage in the politics of parliamentary maneuver rather
than passing this urgent priority. They employ the tactics of
obstruction rather than the healing of true bipartisanship.
To borrow a phrase from Martin Luther King, Jr., ``When the children
of America come back to this House to redeem our promissory note for a
good education,' the House leadership would stamp it 'insufficient
funds'.'' Smaller classes improve classroom discipline and order.
Smaller classes promote quality learning time. Smaller classes
improve student performance. We all know that. But as we debate,
schools across America are drawing up budgets for next year. They are
determining the quality of education that our children will have for
that year. These young
[[Page H1086]]
children will have only one pass at getting a first-rate education.
They will have only one chance to go through first grade. They will
only have one chance to go through second grade. They will have only
one chance to go through third grade. A year lost in a child's life is
a year lost forever. While we are debating parliamentary procedure,
they are losing their chance for a better education.
{time} 1200
So when America's schoolchildren come to redeem our promise, let us
make good on it. I urge my colleagues to vote now for smaller class
size, before we spend any more of our children's precious and
irreplaceable time. I urge my colleagues to vote no against the
leadership's parliamentary blockade. I urge my colleagues to vote yes
in favor of our children. Let us have a full and fair debate on class
size reduction today.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the
subcommittee and coauthor of this bill along with the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. CASTLE. Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentlewoman
from Ohio for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to debate
this bill. I would also like to thank all the staff that has worked
very hard on this bill. We have done it under a fairly intense
schedule. We are pleased to have it to the floor today. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has eased the way to this in so many
ways, and we are very appreciative of that. Of course my fellow
cosponsor, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) whose words I
listened to very carefully and with which I agree. I am sure the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) probably feels this way, too, but
if we debated education every week, I would be happy here and if we
cannot bring these issues up today, perhaps we could bring them up some
other time. The bottom line is that it is very important to all of us.
I have never been one of those who believes that Republicans are
totally right in education and Democrats are totally wrong on
education. It is my belief that virtually everybody in this Chamber
would like to improve the education of our young people in this
country. My view is that this piece of legislation, which I think has
been a little bit overemphasized as being more complex than it is, this
bill of education flexibility, is a relatively simple measure by which
we are giving to the States and the local districts the ability to work
together so that when some Federal programs come up which have
complexities or have administrative problems or paperwork problems,
they can step in and make decisions as to how to manage it differently.
That is what it is really all about. That is why all 50 governors,
remember, two of them are Independents, the rest are Democrats and
Republicans, that is why all 50 governors in this country support it as
it is. And it is why most of the education groups in this country
support it as it is.
Now, we have heard discussions today about more teachers. That is a
legitimate discussion. We already, by the way, supply a lot of teachers
under title I at the Federal level which some people do not realize,
but in terms of more teachers, yes, that is a discussion that we should
have. I frankly do not think it should be on this bill. It truly is not
germane to this simple bill that everybody wants to get passed that
really has nothing to do with this in particular. It has something to
do with education, sure, and we will do that on an appropriation bill
or on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The same thing with title I, to help disadvantaged students,
particularly lower income students. Again, I have a tremendous amount
of sympathy for that. The reason I like the ed flex bill is it has
probably been the first measure in the 12 States which have done this
as a pilot project in which we have seen true measurable improvement in
title I outcomes. That has happened in Texas and Maryland. That is a
wonderful bottom line that I think that we need to focus on and to make
part of the ed flex package as we send it on to the President of the
United States.
There is an amendment for after-school programs. I am one who is
advocating after-school programs, but unfortunately this is not the
place for that. So we are dealing with a relatively simple bill.
I cannot tell you what happened in the Senate. I mean, it is all
tangled up there. It is too bad that it is. We are dealing with a bill
which helps the people we want to help, the children of our country,
and gives them a greater opportunity in terms of their education. It is
and should be a clean, stand-alone education flexibility bill.
I was just on a conference call with some governors. They repeated
that. They want maximum flexibility. We have 23 amendments. We are
going to work out two or three or four of them. But frankly a lot of
the others are restrictive in their nature. Instead of introducing
flexibility, they are trying to remove areas from flexibility and
trying to remove from the local school districts and the States the
ability to carry out educating kids as best they can. My view is that
while these in some instances are perfectly good, in most cases they do
not apply here. I hope we would all pay attention to that.
I think the rule is fair. It did give 5 hours to debate all of these
amendments, some of which are duplicative, anyhow, and they had to be
published in advance. That is fine. We know what they are. I think it
is a rule which we should all be able to support. But I do not want
this day to be divisive. I want us to go out of here with this bill
passed at 6 o'clock tonight or whatever the heck it is going to be,
having said together that we did something good for the children of
America. That is what this bill is all about. Yes, we will debate all
these amendments, but I hope when it is all said and done we will
continue to pull together as Republicans and Democrats for the children
of the country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that will make in order an amendment offered in the Committee on
Rules by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu). This amendment will provide funding to schools to help
hire new teachers and reduce classroom size for grades one through
three.
Virtually all experts in the field of education agree that one of the
single most important things that we can do to improve the education of
our children is to reduce classroom size. This amendment will help
schools do just that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we
can consider this worthy legislative initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment and extraneous
materials for the Record.
Previous Questions for Rules on H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act of 1999
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider the following amendment by
Representative Clay of Missouri or Representative Wu of
Oregon. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a
demand for a division of the question. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the amendments.''
____
At the end of the bill (H.R. 800, as reported) add the
following:
SEC. 5. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.
Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``PART E--CLASS SIZE REDUCTION
``SEC. 6601. SHORT TITLE.
``This part may be cited as the `Class Size Reduction Act
of 1999'.
``SEC. 6602. FINDINGS.
``Congress finds as follows:
``(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 \3/4\ of a school year ahead of their
counterparts in larger-than-average classes.
[[Page H1087]]
``(3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with
more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction
and less on other tasks, 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--
``(A) well-prepared teachers are hired and appropriately
assigned to fill additional classroom positions; and
``(B) 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 1
through 3, and by helping to ensure that the new teachers
brought into the classroom are well prepared.
``SEC. 6603. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this part is to help States and local
educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000
additional teachers over a 7-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. 6604. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this part, there are authorized to be
appropriated, $1,400,000,000 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
fiscal year 2005.
``(b) Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year the Secretary--
``(A) shall make a total of 1 percent available to the
Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) and the outlying areas for activities that meet the
purpose of this part; and
``(B) shall allot to each State the same percentage of the
remaining funds as the percentage it received of funds
allocated to States for the previous fiscal year under
section 1122 or section 2202(b), whichever percentage is
greater, except that such allotments shall be ratably
decreased as necessary.
``(2) Definition of state.--In this part the term `State'
means each of the several States of the United States, the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(c) Within State Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment
under this section shall distribute the amount of the
allotted funds to local educational agencies in the State, of
which--
``(A) 80 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
local educational agencies in proportion to the number of
children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district
served by such local educational agency and are from families
with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by the Office
of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance
with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size
involved) for the most recent fiscal year for which
satisfactory data is available compared to the number of such
individuals who reside in the school districts served by all
the local educational agencies in the State for that fiscal
year; and
``(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
local educational agencies in accordance with the relative
enrollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and private
nonprofit elementary schools and secondary schools in the
school districts within the boundaries of such agencies.
``(2) Award rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the
award to a local educational agency under this section is
less than the starting salary for a new teacher in that
agency, the State shall not make the award unless the local
educational agency agrees to form a consortium with not less
than 1 other local educational agency for the purpose of
reducing class size.
``SEC. 6605. USE OF FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency that
receives funds under this part shall use such funds to carry
out effective approaches to reducing class size with highly
qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for
both regular and special-needs children, with particular
consideration given to reducing class size in the early
elementary grades for which research has shown class size
reduction is most effective.
``(b) Class Reduction.--
``(1) In general.--Each such local educational agency may
pursue the goal of reducing class size through--
``(A) recruiting, hiring, and training certified regular
and special education teachers and teachers of special-needs
children, including teachers certified through State and
local alternative routes;
``(B) testing new teachers for academic content knowledge,
and to meet State certification requirements that are
consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
and
``(C) providing professional development to teachers,
including special education teachers and teachers of special-
needs children, consistent with title II of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
``(2) Restriction.--A local educational agency may use not
more than a total of 15 percent of the funds received under
this part for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to
carry out activities described in subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of paragraph (1), and may not use any funds received under
this part for fiscal year 2004 or 2005 for those activities.
``(3) Special rule.--A local educational agency that has
already reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer
children may use funds received under this part--
``(A) to make further class-size reductions in grades 1
through 3;
``(B) to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades;
or
``(C) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality,
including professional development activities.
``(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--A local educational agency
shall use funds under this part only to supplement, and not
to supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of
such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under
this part.
``(d) Prohibition.--No funds made available under this part
may be used to increase the salaries of or provide benefits
to (other than participation in professional development and
enrichment programs) teachers who are, or have been, employed
by the local educational agency.
``(e) Professional Development.--If a local educational
agency uses funds made available under this part for
professional development activities, the agency shall ensure
the equitable participation of private nonprofit elementary
and secondary schools in such activities. Section 6402 shall
not apply to other activities under this section.
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency
that receives funds under this part may use not more than 3
percent of such funds for local administrative expenses.
``SEC. 6606. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this part--
``(1) may be up to 100 percent in local educational
agencies with child-poverty levels of 50 percent or greater;
and
``(2) shall be no more than 65 percent for local
educational agencies with child-poverty rates of less than 50
percent.
``(b) Local Share.--A local educational agency shall
provide the non-Federal share of a project under this part
through cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, except
that if an agency has allocated funds under section 1113(c)
to one or more schoolwide programs under section 1114, 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) and notwithstanding
section 1114(a)(3)(B).
``SEC. 6607. REQUEST FOR FUNDS.
``Each local educational agency that desires to receive
funds under this part shall include in the application
submitted under section 6303 a description of the agency's
program under this part to reduce class size by hiring
additional highly qualified teachers.
``SEC. 6608. REPORTS.
``(a) State.--Each State receiving funds under this part
shall report on activities in the State under this section,
consistent with section 6202(a)(2).
``(b) School.--Each school receiving assistance under this
part, or the local educational agency serving that school,
shall produce an annual report to parents, the general
public, and the State educational agency, in easily
understandable language, regarding student achievement that
is a result of hiring additional highly qualified teachers
and reducing class size.''.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that defeating the previous question for the
purpose of adding the 100,000 teachers amendment would be futile. It is
not germane. And the rule amendment is not allowed under the rules of
the House.
I urge my colleagues to focus on the issue at hand, which is the ed
flex bill and the rule governing its consideration. All Members should
vote ``yes'' on the previous question.
I would like to remind my colleagues of the strong bipartisan support
of the ed flex bill. H.R. 800 has the support of, in addition to many
Members on the other side of the aisle, the National School Board
Association, the Association of School Administrators, the
[[Page H1088]]
Chamber of Commerce, the National Education Association, and once again
all 50 governors.
I urge my colleagues to set politics aside and think of the kids who
need us to open the doors to a better future through education. Let us
move forward together to respond to the needs of our States, our local
communities, but most importantly our children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable rule so
we can move expeditiously toward passage of the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
modified closed rule for H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act. I believe that this rule prevents the introduction of
an important amendment, the Clay-Wu amendment for class size reduction.
Last year by making a $1.2 billion appropriation, Congress made a
commitment to our schools to reduce class size over the next 7 years.
We also committed ourselves to hiring 100,000 more teachers to make
that goal of smaller classes a reality. By not allowing this amendment
to be considered in this modified rule, we are not keeping our promise.
This amendment resolves that Congress should set aside the necessary
funds to continue on our quest to hire 100,000 new teachers. This was
an important aspect of the Unified Democratic Agenda that was
introduced last week. We cannot renege on our promise to our children.
The Ed Flex Bill purports to boost the academic achievement of our
children. By removing certain federal programs, state and local
agencies would be able to reform and improve education. However,
without an initiative to decrease class sizes and to hire more teachers
through this amendment, no amount of local reform will ensure effective
learning.
This amendment would allow us to continue our commitment to the
education of our children by setting aside at least $1.2 billion again
to hire more teachers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this modified
closed rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 198, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No 36]
YEAS--217
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--19
Archer
Becerra
Bilbray
Capps
Coble
Conyers
Dooley
Frost
Hinchey
Jefferson
Kaptur
McCrery
Minge
Ney
Owens
Reyes
Roukema
Sherman
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1230
Messrs. GORDON, BISHOP, and ROTHMAN, and Ms. BERKLEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 36, I was
unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to weather
constraints. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this
vote to pass H. Res. 100.
Stated against:
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 36, on ordering the
previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 800, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________