[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1549-H1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 800, EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP 
                              ACT OF 1999

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education 
flexibility partnerships, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Clay

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Clay moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 800, an Act to 
     provide for education flexibility partnerships, be 
     instructed--
       (1) to disagree to sections 6(b), 7(b), 9(b), and 11(b) of 
     the Senate amendment, (adding new subsections to the end of 
     section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations Act 
     of 1999), which is necessary to ensure the first year of 
     funding to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in 
     the early grades; and
       (2) to agree that additional funding be authorized to be 
     appropriated under sections 8 and 10 of the Senate amendment 
     for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but not 
     by reducing funds for class size reduction as proposed in 
     sections 6(b), 7(b), 9(b), and 11(b) of the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct the conferees to oppose the 
Senate amendment offered by Senator Lott that reneges on last year's 
agreement to fund the Clinton-Clay class size reduction plan.
  Last year we made a $1.2 billion down payment on a plan to help 
communities hire 100,000 new, well- qualified teachers over the next 7 
years. All across this country, parents and students who are facing 
overcrowded classrooms are counting on Congress' commitment to reduce 
class sizes.
  The Lott amendment reneges on this commitment, and cynically pits one 
group of parents against another for money that Congress has already 
designated to be spent for class size reduction.
  All major education groups oppose this insidious attack on the class 
size reduction plan. The National Parents and Teachers Association, the 
American Federation of Teachers, the Chief States School Officers and 
the National Education Association, even Governor Ridge of 
Pennsylvania, according to press accounts, opposes the Lott amendment 
because it jeopardizes passage of the Ed-Flex bill.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe President Clinton would veto a bill 
that undermines funding for class size reduction. These new teachers 
are needed in the early grades, to reduce class size to no more than 18 
children. Achieving the goal of 100,000 new teachers will ensure that 
every child receives personal attention, gets a solid foundation for 
further learning, and is prepared to read by the end of the third 
grade.
  Department of Education data shows that students in smaller classes 
in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana and Tennessee outperformed their 
counterparts in larger classes. A study of Tennessee's Project Star 
found that students in smaller classes in Grades K through 3 earned 
much higher scores on basic skills tests. Based on this solid record of 
achievement, the Clinton-Clay class size reduction initiative should be 
granted a long-term authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion further instructs the conferees to insist 
that additional funding be appropriated for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Rather than forcing one vital program 
to compete for funds against another, we should instead pursue a 
greater overall investment in public education.

[[Page H1550]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion and, by doing so, 
give both the class size reduction initiative and IDEA the opportunity 
to be funded at an appropriate level.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). Does the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) have a point of order?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees 
to drop the Lott amendment.
  One does not usually go into a game showing how many aces they have 
and how many jokers they have. One usually does that when they get 
involved in the game or when they start their negotiating. One does not 
usually drop their amendments before they ever get there.
  I have to kind of laugh about all of the rhetoric about IDEA. They 
have heard that speech that was just given for 23 years, and they did 
not get anything until 3 years ago. They were promised that if we give 
them from the Federal level 100 percent mandate in special ed, they 
will get 40 percent of the excess money to fund it; just the excess 
money to fund it. When I became Chair, they were getting about 6 
percent. We will probably be up to about 12 percent; a long way from 40 
percent.
  Can we imagine what they could have done with class size reduction, 
what they could have done with refurbishing classrooms and building new 
classrooms, had they been getting millions and millions and millions of 
dollars extra year after year after year? They would not be looking to 
us.
  They are smart enough out there now. They got burned on IDEA and 
burned badly, and they realize that that is the thing that drives their 
property tax up, up, up. That is the thing that takes all of their 
money away from being able to do all the things they want to do in 
reducing class size or anything else that they want to do to improve 
education in their district.
  They are smart enough to know that they are not going to come here 
and say for one year we are going to give them 100,000 teachers. We are 
not going to pay for all the fringe benefits, et cetera; that is their 
responsibility. We will be gone in a year's time and then they are 
stuck. They would have put on those teachers.
  Just like the big deal we are going to have 100,000 new police. How 
many stepped up to the plate? About one-third. Why? Because they would 
have put them on themselves if they had had the money, but they knew we 
would be gone and then they are stuck with them, and in all probability 
in a negotiation where they cannot get rid of them, even though they 
cannot find a way to pay for them.

                              {time}  1715

  So let us not use IDEA in this debate, because they know that that is 
a phony argument that we have heard before we became the majority for 
20 out of 23 years.
  What has the situation been in California? California said on their 
own, just as my Governor says on his own, we are going to reduce class 
size. They spent $1 billion last year, they are going to spend $1.5 
billion this year.
  What did they get? I will tell Members what they got. In the areas 
where they need the best teachers, they got mediocrity. That is all 
they got, and probably not very many with certifications; and even 
those with certifications, very little other than mediocrity, for $1 
billion last year and $1.5 this year.
  So let us not fall into the trap that somehow or other we will look 
out for IDEA down the line. That is the President's whole initiative. 
He cuts every program in his budget that works. Why? Because he has a 
feeling that, oh, the appropriators will come along and appropriate for 
that. He does not have to do that, he can get all these other silly 
ideas of what we do to improve education.
  So let us not fall for it. Vote against the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by my ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri.
  As Members know, the Senate version of the Ed-Flex bill includes a 
provision which allows school districts to take funds targeted in last 
year's appropriation bill for class size reduction and use it for 
special education. This provision should be struck by the conferees and 
we should send that message today.
  The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities has written to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) supporting this motion that we 
instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the Consortium.
  The letter referred to is as follows:
                                                    Consortium for


                                    Citizens With Disabilities

                                                   March 23, 1999.
     Hon. William Clay,
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Clay: On behalf of the members of the 
     Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities, we write to you today in support of your motion 
     to instruct conferees to strike the Lott Amendment to the Ed-
     Flex bill and to increase funding for the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
       CCD is gravely concerned that children with disabilities 
     are being used as pawns in a political game. The Clay Motion 
     to Instruct addresses this concern because it does not pit 
     the interests of children with disabilities against the 
     interests of their classmates.
       Over the past three years, IDEA funding has grown by 85 
     percent. Unfortunately, given the increase in students in 
     special education, the federal share accounts for only ten 
     percent of the additional costs associated with educating 
     students with disabilities. In the 1997 Amendments to IDEA, 
     Congress recognized the need for additional support for 
     general education. Now states can use twenty percent of new 
     IDEA funds for general education activities. CCD supports 
     this provision because it is designed to assist schools 
     better meet their obligations to all students.
       Every child in America benefits from increased education 
     funding. CCD applauds the efforts of members of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate on both sides of the aisle who 
     are committed both to securing additional funding for IDEA 
     and to protecting the rights of children with disabilities to 
     a free, appropriate public education. We urge members of the 
     House of Representatives to support the Clay Motion to 
     Instruct on the Ed-Flex bill.
       Thank you for considering our views.

     Paul Marchand,
       The Arc.
     Katherine Beh Neas,
       Easter Seals.

  Mr. Speaker, full funding of IDEA is a goal I have been committed to 
since I arrived in Congress. Do we need to provide 40 percent of the 
excess costs of educating a child with a disability? Absolutely. Should 
this be one of our priorities for Federal education funding? 
Absolutely.
  As my chairman knows, I have joined him and my other colleagues in 
demanding additional funding for special education. Supporting the 
needs of disabled children and providing them with the chance to become 
productive, participating members of society is extremely important. 
However, it should not be at the expense of other Federal education 
programs.
  Last year's appropriations bill created the class size reduction 
program, and recognized the commitment to hire 100,000 teachers over 
the next 7 years. That bill provided funding to hire the first 30,000 
teachers, and put us on the path to reducing class size in grades 1 
through 3 to an average of 18. This is an essential tool in the 
education reforms of States and localities. We should not jeopardize 
this funding only months before it is scheduled to go out.
  The issue of IDEA funding is not a Democratic or a Republic concern. 
There has been strong bipartisan support for the substantial increases 
in funding for IDEA in recent appropriation bills, and I believe this 
will continue. I hope that the motion to instruct conferees of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) attracts the same type of support 
today.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that every study that has 
ever been printed has indicated that the number one issue as to whether 
a

[[Page H1551]]

child does well or not is the quality of the teacher in the classroom; 
not the numbers, but the quality of the teacher.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce for yielding time to me. I am pleased to be 
able to speak to this briefly.
  I do rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. We as 
House Members have, I think, done the right thing. I think we passed a 
good piece of legislation. Yes, I know there were some amendments from 
the other side that they would like to have had put in which were not 
put in, but essentially I think we have passed a good bill.
  Let us remember what it was we passed, it was education flexibility. 
It really had nothing to do with IDEA per se. It had nothing to do with 
the 100,000 teachers per se. Over in the Senate, they have taken the 
whole provisions with the $1.2 billion for the reduction of class size, 
which is really the hiring of more teachers, and they have added a 
provision to allow IDEA to get involved with that.
  That may or may not be a good thing to do. It is something which I 
think should be discussed at the conference. But I do not think we 
should have this motion to instruct conferees as part of that. I think 
it may upset the equilibrium enough so we might not even get to the 
conference on what is a good piece of legislation. I would hope we 
would remember that.
  I think this is an instructive discussion we should have in terms of 
what we should do with respect to the conference. The bottom line is, 
we have a piece of legislation which was highly popular. We have a 
piece of legislation reported out of our committee with 33 yes votes 
and only 9 no votes. We have a piece of legislation which passed the 
House of Representatives just a week later which received 330 yes votes 
and only 90 votes against it. We have a piece of legislation which has 
been approved by each and every Governor of every State in the United 
States of America. We have a piece of legislation which the Secretary 
of Education and the President of the United States has said is a good 
piece of legislation.
  There are differences between the House version and the Senate 
version, some of which are not touched in this motion to instruct 
conferees, which we are going to have to address as well.
  This is a bipartisan bill. We have a very strong House position with 
respect to the bill. Quite frankly, I do not think getting involved in 
a technical motion to instruct conferees, to undermine what they have 
done in the Senate before we get there, that we can negotiate fairly as 
a House team, is the way to go.
  I would encourage each and every one of us, Republicans and 
Democrats, to stand united in opposition to the motion to instruct 
conferees so we can go into that conference, get this bill done, and 
have a real achievement for the greater good of education in the United 
States of America.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Clay motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 800, to preserve our commitment to the class 
size initiative agreed to in last year's budget.
  No one here disagrees with the need to provide additional funding for 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program. However, we 
should not take away from other programs, like the class size 
initiative, in order to fund idea.
  Our public schools have many critical needs, but we should not rob 
Peter to pay Paul. The Lott amendment as adopted by the Senate to their 
version of Ed-Flex allows localities to shift funds from the class size 
initiative to fund special education. We have seen continual efforts 
like this to shift funding from other educational accounts to IDEA 
without changing our bottom line investment in education.
  Opponents of this educational funding shell game miss the point. The 
needs of students and schools are such that we cannot afford to back 
away from our commitment at the Federal level to properly fund public 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, all students benefit where there is an appropriate 
student-to-teacher ratio. Discipline problems are minimized, the 
students receive the individual attention they need, students with 
special needs who are mainstreamed are able to participate in a more 
meaningful way because the teacher is able to give them the additional 
assistance they need.
  I urge my colleagues to support the class size initiative and support 
the Clay motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) introduced for 
the Record the letter from the Consortium of Citizens with 
Disabilities. I think it would be instructive to read the letter to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) on their behalf:
  On behalf of the members of the Educational Task Force of the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, we write to you today in 
support of your motion to instruct conferees to strike the Lott 
amendment to the Ed-Flex bill and to increase funding for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act.
  CCD is gravely concerned that children with disabilities are being 
used as pawns in a political game. The Clay motion to instruct 
addresses this concern because it does not pit the interests of 
children with disabilities against the interests of their classmates.
  Over the past three years, IDEA funding has grown by 85 percent. 
Unfortunately, given the increase in students in special education, the 
federal share accounts for only ten percent of the additional costs 
associated with educating students with disabilities. In the 1997 
amendments to IDEA, Congress recognized the need for additional support 
for general education. Now States can use twenty percent of new IDEA 
funds for general education activities. CCD supports this provision 
because it is designed to assist schools to better meet their 
obligations to all students.
  Every child in America benefits from increased education funding. CCD 
applauds the efforts of the Members of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle who are committed both to 
securing additional funding for IDEA and to protecting the rights of 
children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education.
  We urge Members of the House of Representatives to support the Clay 
motion to instruct on the Ed-Flex bill.
  Thank you for considering our views.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I rise to speak in opposition to the motion to instruct the 
conferees.
  If we take a look at simply what the Lott amendment does, it allows 
local schools and local administrators to make a very basic decision. 
It provides local school districts with a choice. It says, if you want 
to focus on reducing class size, you can use the money to reduce class 
size. But perhaps if you have already done that and your class sizes 
are small and you have a pressing need in special education, you can 
make that choice.
  So it is a very simple process of saying, we are committed to 
providing additional resources, additional funding for education, but 
we believe that the decision needs to be made at the local level. That 
is what Ed-Flex is about. Ed-Flex is about moving decision-making to 
the local level, and it is about reducing red tape and bureaucracy so 
that we can actually move more dollars from the Washington bureaucracy 
into the classroom, and as we do that, we can address class size, we 
can address special ed, we can address teacher training, we can address 
technology, and a whole other range of problems and opportunities that 
local school districts face today.
  Let us keep moving in the direction of enabling local administrators 
and local parents and local teachers to do what they believe is best 
for education in their school districts. Let us not hamper and hinder 
an education bill that is moving in the right direction by coming right 
back with the same old Washington model, which is more rules and 
regulations and directions.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a very strong supporter and coauthor of the 
education flexibility bill. The gentleman

[[Page H1552]]

from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I have worked for 8 months on this 
legislation that all 50 Governors want, that the President of the 
United States supports, that passed out of our committee in a 
bipartisan way 33 to 9, that passed the House Floor 330 to 90, and that 
passed the United States Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. This is very 
sound, innovative, bold educational reform that helps move public 
education forward in an innovative way.
  As a strong supporter of this education flexibility bill, I also rise 
in support of the motion to instruct, and do so for two reasons.
  One reason is because I want to have a clean bill, a simple bill that 
addresses education flexibility, which is about an old value and a new 
idea, pure and simple. It is about the old value of local control, 
local parents making decisions, and the new idea of added flexibility 
and accountability to students for student performance, and will remove 
the handcuffs of regulations and paperwork from the Federal and State 
levels if we see student performance increase.
  Let us keep it to Ed-Flex, and not add on superfluous amendments to 
this very clean, very bipartisan, and very widely supported bill.

                              {time}  1730

  The second reason is, we should have a clean debate on the two issues 
included in the Lott amendment that we are debating and we are 
advocating that that be dropped in conference. One is IDEA funding, 
which I strongly support; and the second is more teachers, more quality 
teachers in our schools, which I strongly support.
  We in Congress are not saying let us pick between fixing Medicare and 
fixing Social Security. We are saying let us fix both of them.
  We should also be saying in education, the number one domestic issue 
in America today, let us address IDEA, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, and let us add more quality and certified 
teachers for what they should be teaching in our schools and insist on 
quality.
  We should not pit these two programs against each other, Mr. Speaker. 
We should not play politics with those two programs when we have a 
clean and widely supported and hugely creative Ed-Flex bill.
  Let us pass this Ed-Flex bill. Let us be bipartisan. Let us get this 
to the President's desk and then month by month and day by day let us 
debate these two worthy programs on their own merits.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  In response to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer), there is a difference between claiming this would be a 
clean bill and actually making it so that it does in real dollars what 
this hypothetically does.
  The goal of Ed-Flex was to give flexibility to local school systems 
and States to have flexibility with their money. Senator Lott's 
amendment in the Senate actually allowed flexibility in the money.
  The Democratic motion to instruct conferees in article 2 says that 
additional funding be authorized. That is not real money. That is much 
like a sense of Congress that we should give more money. It deletes the 
part that actually gives the flexibility to the State and locals to 
choose.
  The gentleman from Indiana said that Congress should not be dictating 
what the local school districts are doing between teachers and IDEA. 
Yet, at the same time, that is exactly, if this motion to instruct 
conferees would pass, what we are doing, because Congress should not 
dictate whether or not they should hire teachers. Congress should not 
dictate whether they should use it for IDEA. Congress should not 
dictate whether it is if computers. The point of Ed-Flex is to let the 
districts choose.
  The Lott amendment gave flexibility so that, in last year's 
appropriations bills, not that they have to use it for IDEA, but that 
they can use it for IDEA in real dollars. This is real flexibility. How 
can my colleagues claim to be for this bill and yet instruct conferees 
before we even start that they cannot have flexibility with the 
appropriations.
  The point of this bill is to give that local flexibility, especially 
since, on March 4, there was a Supreme Court decision regarding the 
health care related to school performance of Garrett Frey in Iowa. That 
health care is going to cost that school district $30,000 to $40,000 a 
year just for the nurse.
  The party that was in control of this Congress for 40 years and 
during the whole period of IDEA did not put necessary funding in. We 
are only funding it at 12 percent. With this court decision, they 
needed even more. Here we have the opportunity to put the money in, and 
they are against allowing the schools the flexibility.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Clay 
motion to instruct conferees. I am on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, and I certainly have been working with both sides of the 
aisle to make sure that we had a good Ed-Flex bill go out. It troubles 
me greatly that now we are adding something else on that was not there 
in the beginning.
  No more than an hour ago, I met with 25 students from New York Tech. 
These were students that certainly did very well because of IDEA. IDEA 
is something that helped my son get through high school and now 
college. So I can say that I am certainly a supporter of IDEA. I am 
certainly a supporter of bringing the funding up to 40 percent.
  What scares me is that we are pitting this bill against another bill, 
IDEA and Ed-Flex. We should be working on all levels to give our 
children the best education that we can. We should not be fighting 
about this. Our children are at stake.
  I do believe that we should be dealing with IDEA on a separate issue. 
We should be dealing with our teachers on a separate issue. Let IDEA 
go. Let it go forward to the schools and to the States with the 
intention of what Congress passed and also what the Senate passed.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us on our committee care very much about the 
children. All of us on the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
want to do the right thing. Let us not start fighting about this, 
because the ones that are going to get hurt in the end are going to be 
our children. Let us not let politics get in the way of this. We just 
came back from Hershey, hopefully to get along with each other, and 
this is not the right way to start it.
  I support Ed-Flex as it is. I certainly will support IDEA for full 
funding, and I support 100,000 new teachers. Most of us here will do 
that. Let us not tear it apart.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Clay motion, and let us deal with 
all the other issues on a separate basis.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today about the issue 
of flexibility. We have heard speakers who oppose allowing the 
localities to make the choice as to whether to spend money on hiring 
new teachers or for IDEA, that this is somehow a superfluous amendment. 
Nothing could be less superfluous than this amendment. This is a very 
important issue for every school board in this country.
  We have heard discussion about the issue of let us pick or we should 
not be picking. We are not making the choices here in Congress, nor 
should we be making the choices. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we 
should give local school boards the right to decide whether they need 
to reduce class size or whether they need to provide more funding for 
IDEA.
  I support full funding of IDEA, but I am willing, if you will, to put 
my money where my mouth is and to say in this forum here that we should 
give local school boards every opportunity they possibly can to put 
scarce resources into IDEA. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a vote for this motion 
is a vote to deny local school boards that option.
  It does not pit one group against another. What it does is it gives 
the local school boards the opportunity to do what is best for their 
own constituencies. If class size is not the top priority for a local 
school board, then it

[[Page H1553]]

should be something else. I think IDEA should be the highest funding 
priority for this Congress.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the motion to instruct. I 
support very strongly the Lott amendment. It provides local school 
districts with an additional $1.2 billion, yes, to hire more teachers 
if they choose, and, yes, to provide more money for IDEA.
  Please oppose this motion to instruct and send this bill to 
conference so that we can include the Lott amendment in the final of 
the version of the bill which we send to the President.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Missouri for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct, and 
I appreciate what people have said on the other side. But the fact of 
the matter is that the program to provide for 100,000 teachers over the 
next several years in the classrooms of this country is a program that 
was passed by this Congress. It is a high priority for the President of 
the United States. Now what we see is an attempt in the Senate to try 
and renege on that promise, to torpedo that program because the other 
side does not like the idea of using this money to reduce class sizes.
  Now what they have decided to do is they are going to pit disabled 
children's education against the reduction in class sizes. This is a 
program for the purposes of reducing class sizes. Already one of the 
criticisms is that there is not enough money to do it properly.
  So if some States do not want to use it for that purpose, then the 
money can be reallocated to the States who have a crying need to lower 
their class sizes, and they can get about that business. This is not a 
mandatory program. It is not required that one takes money from the 
Federal Government.
  The notion that somehow that this is really about helping with IDEA, 
it is interesting that, in the budget resolution that the Republicans 
are going to bring to the floor, there was an attempt there to fully 
fund IDEA, and all of the Republicans voted against it.
  So they say they are all upset that we have only funded 10 percent or 
12 percent since we made the promise to fully fund the excess cost, and 
yet when they had the chance in the budget resolution to vote it for 
it, they voted against it.
  So let us understand what is going on here. There is an attempt here 
to derail and deny a President a program that is very popular among 
parents, among school administrators and others to try and reduce class 
size, because reduced class size does appear to be having an impact.
  I appreciate what the gentleman said, it is about the quality of 
teacher. Nobody has fought harder for the quality of teacher. But I 
have met an awful lot of good teachers, an awful lot of very good 
teachers who will tell my colleagues that it is very difficult to do 
their job when they are teaching 35 and 40 students at different grade 
levels.
  The point is this, that the Senate can try and derail that 
presidential program, or we can deal with Ed-Flex straight up, which we 
ought to do.
  So let us just understand that that is what is taking place here. 
This is not about IDEA other than to use it as a battering ram against 
the presidential program that many, many school districts are waiting 
to be able to take advantage of. Schools do not want to do it, then do 
not do it.
  But the fact of the matter is that we should do full funding of IDEA. 
But when my colleagues had their opportunity to do it, they did not do 
it. We could have it in the budget resolution on the floor this week, 
but the choice was not to do that. The choice was to go off and fund 
star wars or whatever else they are doing with the money that they 
have.
  So let us keep the two things separate and understand that this is 
about Ed-Flex. We ought to pass an Ed-Flex bill. We ought to send that 
Ed-Flex bill to the President of the United States, and we can come 
back, and we can keep our promise on the 100,000 teachers. Then we can 
deal with IDEA when the time comes for us to deal with that in the 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) who just preceded me. For 40 years, the 
Democrats controlled this House. The most they ever gave IDEA was 7 
percent.
  We came in. I was chairman of the committee that sat literally the 
school groups and the parent groups together with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), locked them in the room and said no 
bread or water until they come out.
  My colleagues want to help IDEA? Listen to Alan Burson, San Diego 
city schools, a former Clinton appointee. The unions and the trial 
lawyers are ripping off IDEA. My colleagues give them more money, and 
the local trial lawyers are going to come in and rip them off. Talk to 
our new Governor, Gray Davis. Ask him what the problem is with IDEA. It 
is his number one problem.
  We have a problem of losing good teachers. Carolyn Nunes just happens 
to be my sister-in-law. She is in charge and the director for all 
special education of all San Diego city schools. She is losing good 
teachers because the trial lawyers are forcing these teachers, who just 
want to help children, they want to help children, they are not trial 
lawyers, they are being forced into the courts, and they are leaving 
because they are getting battered by the damn trial lawyers. Help us. 
Help us combat that.
  My colleagues talk about 100,000 teachers. My colleagues wanted 
100,000 teachers in the President's bill, a big political move, but 
they wanted to raise taxes $139 billion. They wanted government to 
control it. We said no. No new taxes of $139 billion. We are going to 
send the money directly to the schools, and it is going to be under the 
caps. If my colleagues want to break the budget, be my guest. We feel 
that a balanced budget is necessary and to handle that.
  Ed-Flex. It is amazing how difficult it is to pass a bipartisan bill 
that the President supports, that Republicans support. But yet there is 
those who still want government control, government control.
  Look up www.dsausa.org. That is the Democrat socialist party. Look 
under the progressive caucus and their 12-point agenda: government 
control of health care, government control of education, government 
control of private property, to raise taxes the highest level ever, and 
cut defense by 50 percent. That is what we are fighting on here. We are 
trying to give flexibility, not bigger government.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.
  We hear quite often these days that Americans are disenchanted with 
politics, disgusted with politicians, and feel disconnected from 
Washington, D.C. Is it any wonder, when the Senate leadership makes a 
commitment to reduce class size and tells schools to plan for those 
funds and then reneges on that promise? Is it any wonder that Americans 
do not trust politicians in Washington, D.C.?
  Oregonians and Americans want class size reduction, not Senate 
amendments that take this historic measure away from our children. Nor 
do Americans want to pit a good public education for all children 
against a good education for special needs children. We can do both. We 
are a country that can afford to do both. We need to do both and we can 
afford to do no less.
  Studies show that when we reduce class size in the early grades and 
give students the attention they deserve, the learning gains last a 
lifetime. Only 2 nights ago I was having dinner with two 
schoolteachers, and they were planning for next year. School districts 
right now are making their plans for next year. Right now. And they 
were uncertain whether they were going to get the funds for class size 
reduction. Now, they do not understand parliamentary procedure, but 
they are deeply concerned.
  Each school year comes only one time in a child's life. Johnny will 
have

[[Page H1554]]

only one pass at first grade. Sally will have only one pass at second 
grade. There will be only one pass at third grade for each child.
  Decades ago we issued a promissory note to educate Americans with 
disabilities. Last year we issued a promissory note to America's 
children to reduce class size and to improve public education. To 
borrow a phrase, Mr. Speaker, when these children come back to this 
Congress to redeem those promissory notes, will we stamp them 
``insufficient funds''? We cannot do that. We cannot afford to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we can afford to educate all children and special needs 
children. Let us not put partisanship and political battles in front of 
real progress for America's schoolchildren. Let us honor the commitment 
we have already made to our schools. That way we start the effort to 
reduce class size and we keep a crucial promise we have made to our 
children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, what is the division of time at the 
present time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), our newest member on the committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct, and as I listen to the debate from both sides, I think both 
sides would really agree with voting against instructing for the 
following reason.
  For whatever its intention, this particular amendment forces us to 
take a choice between a direction of spending money on teachers or on 
IDEA, when in fact it was this House, when it passed the Educational 
Flexibility Act, which passed an act that in seven Federal programs, 
including Title I, gave waivers of local and State rules to local 
systems to spend money for the betterment of children. It did not deal 
with 100,000 teachers, nor did it deal with the funding of IDEA.
  I think both sides understand that whether or not we continue the 
commitment on teachers will be dealt with later in authorization; 
whether or not we rise to fund IDEA will be dealt with later. But today 
this House has the chance to stand firm behind a bill that it passed 
which in fact caused the Senate to take action.
  Notwithstanding whatever our opinion of the amendment may have been, 
we should leave here united behind the House message, which was 
flexibility to local schools, waivers of rules to allow them to be able 
to do what they think is best. Let us debate later, and at the 
appropriate time, how many more teachers we fund for the classroom or 
where the IDEA money comes from.
  And just so it is clear, it is really not appropriate on an 
instruction to all of a sudden hire 100,000 teachers, spend $3.6 
billion, which I understand is the cost, and not even consider the 
mandate of additional benefits and supplements to local systems, plus 
whether or not there will even be an ongoing commitment in the future.
  I would submit that for us to continue what this House began, we 
should send back the message that we are for educational flexibility, 
we should have our conferees stand firm for that which we passed, and 
we should not place ourselves or anyone else in the position of picking 
over children or teachers, all for the sake of politics.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  It was interesting listening to this discussion today on a bill that 
is geared to give schools more flexibility. The first argument against 
was we should not rob Peter to pay Paul.
  Now, as I looked at this bill or this language from Senator Lott, it 
says ``you may''. It does not say ``you shall''. Now, if we are robbing 
Peter, that means we are taking it from him and we are giving it to 
Paul. That is not happening.
  It is interesting who is doing the robbing. The language we are now 
being asked to include is robbing our communities of their wisdom, it 
is robbing our schools of fixing their priorities if they choose to.
  Then we have the argument that we are trying to deny the President 
his program. I fault all governors and Presidents from adequately 
funding existing programs or fixing them. They are always wanting new 
ones because they can put their names on them. If we are in the 
business of legacies, then we are not in the business of helping 
schools.
  The more flexibility we give to schools, I want to tell my 
colleagues, I have faith that education will improve. We are 7 percent 
of the money and 70 percent of the paperwork, teachers and 
administrators tell me. Are we the savior? No, we are the problem. So 
the more flexibility we give them, the more we allow local decision-
making progress, the better the quality of education will be.
  Nobody is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This language robs local 
districts to choose if their wisdom tells them they should.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleagues have put the conferees on 
this side in a very difficult position, because what basically they 
have done is opened up a debate and a discussion that should not have 
been opened up. And I would imagine that these conferees from this side 
will be told quite a few things by the conference which otherwise would 
not have happened. Unfortunate. Poor judgment. Nevertheless, that is 
what has happened.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote ``no'' on the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In regards to that last statement, let me say that we on this side 
did not open this debate. It was Senator Lott who opened the debate. 
And this motion to instruct will correct the debate that Senator Lott 
opened.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read something from the Secretary of Education, 
Richard Riley, in regards to this particular problem that we are 
dealing with. Secretary Riley says, ``I am deeply disappointed that 
Congress took steps in the wrong direction over the last 2 days as it 
failed to make a long-term commitment to reduce class size. Both the 
House and the Senate had opportunities to let local school districts 
know that funds will continue to be available, so that over 7 years 
100,000 teachers can be hired to reduce class sizes in grades 1 to 3 to 
18 students per teacher. However, they did not only fail to do that but 
instead, in the case of the Senate, retreated from the bipartisan 
agreement reached last year. There is nothing more timely or important 
than giving parents and teachers the reassurance that their children 
will be able to learn in smaller classes.''
  And Secretary Riley says, ``I urge Congress to drop the amendments 
that undermine last year's bipartisan agreement to reduce class size 
and reach agreement on the Ed-Flex bill with strong, responsible 
accountability provisions. It is unfortunate that the first education 
debate of this Congress ended in partisan efforts instead of addressing 
the serious issues confronting our Nation's schools. Our students, 
parents and teachers want, need and deserve better.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the switch in the Republican 
position on 100,000 new teachers to reduce classroom sizes. Last year 
the Republican leadership, including Speaker Newt Gingrich; the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey); and 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bill Goodling) gave glowing praise to the 
concept of 100,000 new teachers and voted to start on the 100,000 new 
teachers; voted for $1.2 billion to start funding the 100,000 new 
teachers.
  On October 15 of 1998, President Clinton and congressional budget 
negotiators reached agreement on a bill for 1999. Among the programs 
included in that agreement was $1.2 billion invested to hire 100,000 
teachers to reduce class sizes across America. Here is how the 
Republican leaders described the 100,000 teachers legislation at the 
time.
  Former Speaker Newt Gingrich. ``We said the local school board would 
make the decision. No new Federal bureaucracy, no new State 
bureaucracy, not a penny in the bill that was passed goes to pay for 
bureaucracy. All of it goes to the local school districts.'' Then House 
Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, called it ``A victory for 
the

[[Page H1555]]

American people. There will be more teachers, and that is good for all 
Americans.''
  The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey), when 
asked what he would say are the key Republican achievements of this 
bill, responded, ``Well, I think quite frankly I am very proud of what 
we did and the timeliness of it. We were very pleased to receive the 
President's request for more teachers, especially since he offered to 
provide a way to pay for them. And when the President's people are 
willing to work with us, so that we can let the State and local 
communities take this money, make these decisions, manage that money, 
spend the money on teachers as they saw the need, whether it be for 
special education or for regular teaching, with the freedom of choice 
and management and control at the local level, we thought this was good 
for America and good for the schoolchildren. We were very excited about 
the move toward that end.''
  That is the end of the quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick 
Armey). They were excited about hiring 100,000 new teachers last 
October.
  And the chairman of this committee, of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bill Goodling). Let 
us see he said about it. He said, ``It is a huge win for local 
educators and parents who are fed up with the Washington mandates, red 
tape and regulation.'' He is talking about the mandating of 100,000 new 
teachers. That is his quote.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, if they are for reducing 
classes, if they are for giving children more individualized attention, 
if they are for improving student achievement, they must support the 
Clay motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1800

  We should never pit one group of parents against each other to score 
political points. The disability community and the Chief States School 
Officers and the National PTA support this motion.
  We have promised America's schoolchildren 100,000 new, well-qualified 
teachers. This motion demonstrates that we intend to keep that promise, 
and I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
30 seconds since my name was used.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object. He had his time. I object to the 
request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). Objection is heard.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. 
Mr. Lott's amendment that was included in the Senate passed version of 
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act would gut the ability of 
schools to hire more teachers for our classrooms.
  The Republicans would like you to believe that this amendment will 
help our schools more because funds would be reallocated toward special 
education. Pitting one education priority against the other is bad 
public policy and bad politics. This is an attempt by the Republicans 
to have American people believe that education is a priority in the 
GOP.
  But if you look closely at the Budget they have come up with, it is 
obviously not the truth. While they may have increased education 
funding by $500 million above the 1999 level for elementary and 
secondary programs, they have decreased funds by cutting funds for the 
Pell Grants, Work Study and other programs for low-income college 
students.
  Democrats and true education advocates know that the key to improving 
education in this country cannot be achieved by picking and choosing 
programs to adequately fund. We must ensure that the entire funding 
level for education programs is funded at an adequate level and only 
then will we see true improvements in achieving among our students. 
Americans must realize that we truly value all education initiatives 
and we do not pit one against the other.
  I urge members to vote for this motion to instruct.
  The Speaker pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 222, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 64]

                               YEAS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     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
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     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

                               NAYS--222

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     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
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     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
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood

[[Page H1556]]


     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barr
     Gekas
     Hooley
     Myrick
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Stupak

                              {time}  1820

  Messrs. CANNON, GARY MILLER of California, POMEROY, KNOLLENBERG and 
RYAN of Wisconsin changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). The Chair will announce 
the appointment of conferees later today.

                          ____________________