[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5856-H5919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 253

       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. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student 
     achievement through high-quality professional development for 
     teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the commmittee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. 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.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules, 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 253 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order, as an 
original bill, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute 
now printed in the bill.
  Under this fair and balanced rule, 12 amendments are made in order, 6 
offered by Democrats and 6 offered by Republicans. That means Members 
from both sides of the aisle will have equal opportunity to amend this 
bill.
  The rule makes in order a number of minor amendments as well as an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Goodling) which reflects bipartisan compromise on a number of issues 
and a substitute amendment offered by a Democrat member on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  All 12 amendments are printed in the Committee on Rules report and 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report.
  The amendments shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report. These amendments are not subject to 
amendment or a demand for a division of the question.

                              {time}  1215

  All points of order against the amendments are waived.
  In addition to the amendment process, the minority will have another 
opportunity to change the Teacher Empowerment Act through the customary 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Finally, the rule allows for orderly and timely consideration of the 
bill by allowing the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 
5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it follows a 15-minute 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all remember our favorite teacher who made school 
more interesting and learning more exciting. These special individuals 
had a lasting impact on us and contributed in a major way to our 
attitudes toward school and our development as young people.
  We cannot underestimate the value and influence of a good teacher, 
and our investment in teachers should reflect their worth.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes teachers as perhaps the most 
important determinant in our children's academic success, and the bill 
seeks to enhance student performance through funding programs to 
improve teachers' skills.
  Specifically, H.R. 1995 streamlines the Eisenhower Professional 
Development Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' 
program to give States and localities more flexibility in their use of 
these funds to advance teachers' professional development.
  Ninety-five percent of these funds will be distributed to local 
districts where those who are most familiar with the needs of their 
local schools will play a greater role in determining how the money is 
used to provide teachers with the tools to improve student learning.
  Some of my colleagues oppose the consolidation of government programs 
and may fear local control. But given the failure of a bloated 
education bureaucracy and the micromanagement of education by the 
Federal Government, it is hard to understand any aversion to the 
reasonable changes this legislation envisions. It is time to challenge 
the status quo and move our education dollars to the local level to 
give school boards, principals, and teachers some flexibility to use 
these dollars as they see fit.
  That does not mean we are giving away Federal dollars, turning our 
heads the other way and hoping for the best. The Teacher Empowerment 
Act actually increases accountability to parents and taxpayers by 
providing public access to information about the qualification of 
teachers and the average statewide class size. Additionally,

[[Page H5857]]

local districts and schools will be measured by performance indicators 
and goals set by their State and accepted by the Federal Government.
  The remaining 5 percent of funds available through the Teacher 
Empowerment Act may be used for a variety of purposes, including 
oversight of local programs and assistance for schools that are failing 
to raise student achievement.
  The funding flexibility this legislation provides will help local 
education agencies to recruit, reward, and retain the very best 
teachers.
  For example, the bill encourages States to develop innovative 
programs that promote tenure reform, teacher testing, alternative 
routes to teacher certification, merit-based teacher performance 
systems, and bonus pay for teachers in subject areas where there is a 
shortage of qualified candidates.
  One criticism of the bill that I would like to address is the 
administration's concern that this legislation undermines the 
President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program. In 
fact, the bill requires funds to be used to hire teachers to reduce 
class size.
  It is true that this requirement is not a Federal mandate, like the 
President's proposal. It may be waived, but only if it is in the best 
interest of the students to do so. For example, the requirement could 
be waived in cases where reducing class size would mean relying on 
underqualified teachers or inadequate classrooms. This is exactly the 
type of common sense flexibility we need to insert into our Federal 
education policies.
  In addition to teacher training and education class size, the Teacher 
Empowerment Act continues an emphasis on basic academic skills, 
including math and science programs. This is an area in which a lack of 
qualified teachers is evident in the poor performance of U.S. students, 
whose achievement is falling behind that of children in other developed 
countries.
  Under the bill, localities must continue to expend the same amount on 
math and science programs as they would under the existing Eisenhower 
program, with limited exceptions.
  Along those lines, I am pleased that the Teacher Empowerment Act will 
allow for continued funding of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse 
for Mathematics and Science Education, which is located at Ohio State 
University.
  The ENC serves as the Nation's repository of ``K'' through 12 
instructional materials in math and science education. Its collection 
of almost 15,000 curriculum resources is the most extensive in the 
Nation and provides a reliable resource for any teacher interested in 
professional or curriculum development.
  Since its creation in 1992, the ENC has distributed almost 4 million 
CD-ROMs and print publications, and its Web site received over 14 
million hits just last year.
  This program's success in collecting and disseminating information on 
the best practices in math and science education deserves our continued 
support.
  In addition to math and science, the Teacher Empowerment Act also 
places an emphasis on technology by encouraging school districts to 
train teachers in the use of technology and its application in the 
classroom.
  The legislation also promotes reading and writing skills by extending 
the authorization of the Reading Excellence Act and providing a 
separate authorization for the National Writing Project.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation promotes smaller classes, encourages 
innovation through local control, and emphasizes basic academic skills 
to improve student performance. But, most importantly, the Teacher 
Empowerment Act recognizes the value of the individuals who interact 
with and provide guidance to our children on a daily basis.
  The ability of teachers to connect with children and peak their 
interest in learning is a gift that some have, but more commonly it is 
skill that teachers must learn. This legislation invests in teachers by 
giving them access to the tools they need to make a positive impact on 
our students' success.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his 
great work, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced 
rule, which will allow the House to debate, improve upon, and pass the 
Teacher Empowerment Act. It is a good rule and an important bill, which 
takes another step forward in meeting our responsibility to ensure that 
every child has access to a quality education and the opportunity to 
learn and grow in a safe environment.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on both measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half 
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last year the Congress passed funding to help hire 100,000 new 
teachers across the entire country, and parents from Montana to 
Massachusetts cheered. Now my Republican colleagues are going back on 
that promise to American parents and making it open season on the 
funding of new teachers. Schools can now dip into the money for any 
program remotely related to education, and the only thing that we will 
lose is more teachers.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Boston 
public schools saying that, under this bill, it will lose 12 to 15 
percent of its current allocation. And we just cannot afford it, Mr. 
Speaker. I do not know about other parts of the country, but we in 
Massachusetts want our students to get every possible advantage we can 
give them, particularly smaller classes. But this bill does exactly the 
opposite. It will actually make our classes larger.
  The administration opposes this bill and for good reason. This bill 
fails to guaranty American students small class sizes of 18 students in 
the early grades, when they are particularly in need of a teacher's 
attention. We all know that once a class reaches about 35 to 45 
students, it really does not matter too much whether a teacher is 
qualified or not. No matter how good they are, they spend most of their 
time policing and not enough time teaching.
  Although the bill provides an enormous amount of money, it does not 
target that money towards the neediest areas where our children are 
suffering the most. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez), has a proposal that will help fund the new 
teachers for areas with big class sizes. It will also give the areas 
that cannot find certified teachers the funding to recruit and train 
new teachers. The amendment that the gentleman from California offers 
also provides almost twice the teachers as the other bill.
  But this rule will only allow 40 minutes of debate on the Martinez 
substitute instead of the traditional 60 minutes. And to make matters 
worse, well over half the amendments authored by the Democrats were not 
allowed under this rule, while nearly every single amendment authored 
by a Republican was allowed.
  Mr. Speaker, from what I hear, those Democratic amendments are very 
good, so good that they probably would have passed. And that is 
probably the reason they are not allowed anywhere near this House floor 
today. The base text of this bill needs as much help as it can get, and 
some of those Democratic amendments would have helped this bill a great 
deal. But, apparently, that is not what my Republican colleagues 
wanted.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule 
and to oppose the bill in its current form.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) corrects the superintendent, 
because, of course, in the manager's amendment, in the en bloc 
amendment, no public school loses any money. No public school loses any 
money.
  And I might also remind the gentleman that there was only one 
amendment offered in committee. Only one amendment. I do not know where 
all the others were, but there was only one offered in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

[[Page H5858]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to answer my dear friend.
  There was only one amendment. It was an en bloc amendment that 
contained all the amendments.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter of the 
Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools.

       Dear Mr. Moakley: I understand that the Teacher Empowerment 
     bill passed two weeks ago by the Education and the Workforce 
     Committee will be considered on the House floor as early as 
     Tuesday, July 20, 1999.
       I am urging you to oppose this bill unless the well-
     targeted Class Size Reduction program is removed from the 
     block grant and retained in its current form. I estimate that 
     Boston would lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocations 
     under the current bill.
       Sincerely,
       Thomas Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools.

  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, later today after the 
adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a 
historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I 
program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and 
never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use 
this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put 
a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the 
Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that.
  At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the 
intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to 
close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and 
others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap 
continues to widen all over the country.
  For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are 
asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for 
closing the gap between majority students and minority students and 
between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students 
can learn under our system.
  We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to 
learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we 
find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands 
of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters 
in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal 
money ought to be used for that.
  This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 
100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez 
substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the 
matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan 
bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size 
reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have 
the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until 
such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and 
training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over 
this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to 
make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their 
core subject.

                              {time}  1230

  It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the 
Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other 
than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that 
will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would 
focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for 
far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and 
we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we 
gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the 
students which the money is designed to help.
  I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, 
voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time 
and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing.
  As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a 
bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th 
Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. 
Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know 
that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb 
postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, 
we have some great school districts around the country and some great, 
great schools, but we also have some very serious problems.
  So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must 
do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school 
districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out 
there.
  Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. 
That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at 
school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply 
adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is 
it allows for that flexibility.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others 
who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan 
issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, 
in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the 
Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think 
that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in 
support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to 
admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. 
There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement 
in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in 
micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. 
The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since the American public in poll after poll 
has indicated that Federal assistance to education is a number one 
priority, every major education bill which comes to the floor should 
come with an open rule. The opportunity to discuss education policies 
and programs should not be constricted and oppressed as they are in 
this rule. The opportunity to let the voters hear a full debate must 
always be encouraged.
  What the Republican majority is doing is supporting this 
antidemocratic, piecemeal approach in the hope that they will 
accomplish the ultimate attempt of the Republican majority to move us 
to a situation where the role of the Federal Government in education is 
abolished. They are really still pursuing the goal of abolishing the 
role of the Federal Government, and a block grant is their desired 
result.
  This is the second beachhead for the block grant. Ed flex was the 
first one. This is the second one. By eliminating the President's 
initiative for a reduction in classroom size, it is one more step to 
move the Federal Government out of education and allow for a total 
block grant to go to the States with the Governors having an 
opportunity to use the money as they see fit.
  This rule is crafted to limit debate, maximize confusion and 
vigorously promote the perverted Robin Hood mentality which will take 
resources concentrated in our present Federal policy toward poor 
schools and spread it for other purposes while authorizing no 
significant new funding. Our committee does not demand new funding to 
take care of the education needs that have been identified by the 
American voters.

[[Page H5859]]

  Educationally, this is a Robin Hood operating in reverse. It is going 
to eliminate Federal priorities, throw away accountability, and it will 
pilfer the money from the poor. It will take from the poorest schools 
where education policy presently directs money and spread it out and 
not provide any new resources.
  We have a budget surplus now. Why do we not make a demand on some 
portion of that surplus for education instead of robbing from the poor 
to take care of needs that are definitely there? We need to modernize 
our schools, we need to secure our schools, we need money for school 
construction; across the board all of the efforts to improve education 
are honorable, but they need resources. You do not solve the problem by 
taking resources from the areas where you have the greatest need. The 
core of the festering problem in education is in the poorest schools in 
rural areas and in big cities.
  What we are doing with this bill is moving toward a maneuver which 
will rob those schools in favor of spreading the money and making it 
appear that we have done something for education here in Washington. 
This is not the appropriate move. It is going to lead to a block grant 
where we lose Federal involvement altogether.
  The Federal Government is only involved to the tune of 7 to 8 percent 
at this point. It is not injuring schools in any way. Let us keep the 
Federal Government involved by protecting the President's class size 
initiative in this bill.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my friend from New York 
that this does not touch title I which is a massive program which I and 
many others favor, because many States did not in fact pay enough 
attention to the lower income areas of this country. Some States 
deliberately wiped out their property tax so that minorities would not 
have sufficient schools and went to private schools, and because of 
that the Federal Government stepped in and said those who are in low-
income areas are going to need some help; just like as we had special-
needs kids around this country that led to the development of IDEA. 
There is no question that there is a role, some role, for the Federal 
Government in education. The question is, is fundamentally who do we 
trust the most?
  This rule gives us the flexibility to debate a number of the 
different options and to really highlight again today the differences 
as to how the bulk of education should be run in this country, not the 
exceptions. We are not abandoning what we are putting into low-income 
students or into IDEA. But what we are saying is that rather than say, 
we know best here on the floor of this House what the school districts 
in my district in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country should 
do, some of them work to lower their class size and some of them rather 
than getting it down to 18 might want to have 19 in the class size and 
have better teachers for effectiveness. Others may want and need more 
teachers in IDEA which is the biggest financial drain in the local 
school districts because they cannot take care of many of these 
students that the courts have ordered them and Congress has ordered 
them to take care of.
  Each school district has their own funding flexibilities, each State 
has their own funding flexibilities and priorities they have to work. 
Who are we to say that they have to go a certain direction?
  Once again, let me repeat, this bill, while there are nuances in the 
additional spending proposed in the 100,000 new teachers and other 
programs, does not touch the basic funding mechanisms of which we have 
tried to put into low-income students.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. The gentleman said who are we to emphasize one thing over 
another? Most of the experts agree on few things in education, but they 
do agree that small class sizes in the early grades are essential to 
promoting reading and other subjects.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, all of these things are a balance; 
that in fact research shows that teacher quality. Now, if the class 
size is 30 versus 18, but the class size differential, 19 or 20 
compared to the teacher quality; depending whether you have computer 
access in your schools, if the schools are falling down, if you have 
inadequate textbooks and the parents cannot afford the textbooks. 
Different schools have different problems. I agree that if there is a 
wide disparity, but at the margins, and what I have seen in my 
district, in foundations around our country and so on is that we have 
seen, compared to the past, an amazing advancement in the local school 
boards and in particular State education associations in trying to 
improve the quality of education. We need to give them more 
flexibility. And when they fail, we step in like we did with title I 
and IDEA.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the 
gentleman from New York did not give anybody the impression that 
somehow or other there is a magic pill out there that if you reduce 
class size, all of a sudden you are going to have better instruction 
and the child is going to do better. If I am a parent and I have a 
choice between 25 students in the classroom and a quality teacher or 17 
students in the classroom and what they have done in California and 
have people who are not capable of teaching, I want 25 in the classroom 
and a quality teacher.
  The most important thing that every researcher ever said is that next 
to the parent, the most important factor for learning is the quality of 
the teacher in the classroom. We do not want to ever lose sight of 
that.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because 
we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate 
space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the 
ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of 
this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the 
great things about the thing we have put together in this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the time here on this very important legislation today.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, and will support the Martinez amendment which 
will devote some more resources to education that we badly need. I also 
will support the underlying bipartisan bill that emphasizes a reduction 
in class size and an emphasis on the quality of the teacher standing in 
front of the classroom.
  Now, I applaud some on the Republican side for this bipartisan bill 
because I know that 3 or 4 years ago, there were some on that side that 
advocated reducing the Department of Education to rubble and now we are 
emphasizing in a bipartisan way reducing the class sizes in America and 
putting emphasis on the quality of the teacher that stands in front of 
those students.
  I think this is a bipartisan bill, a Democratic-Republican bill, for 
two reasons: It emphasizes the right goals that all American parents 
and teachers and students agree with, and, that is, generally, in the 
earliest grades, 1 through 3, that when we have smaller class sizes, 18 
or 20, we are more effective in making sure those children get off to 
the right start and get up to speed in their reading skills. Secondly, 
the delivery mechanism is right in this bipartisan bill. It does not 
loosely structure a block grant that you can spend money on anything. 
It tightly targets the spending for the State and the local school to 
choose between two things, a reduction in class size or quality 
teachers. I think that those are

[[Page H5860]]

both equally important goals and I would encourage my colleagues to 
support Martinez and support the underlying bipartisan bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act 
because it promotes teacher quality, reduces class size and sends 
dollars directly to the classroom. In light of the third annual math 
and science study scores, I am concerned that we are not focusing 
enough on math and science education. Therefore, I am especially 
pleased that this legislation promotes and strengthens math and science 
teacher training through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math 
and Science Education. Located at the Ohio State University, the 
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collects, catalogs and disseminates 
K-12 curriculum materials and resources in mathematics and science and 
provides teachers with a variety of services, including a technical 
help desk and reference service, print publications, and 12 
demonstration sites located throughout the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, the Eisenhower 
Clearinghouse is not a one-size- fits-all program. This program is 
available to teachers all across the country 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week. Furthermore, there are no forms to fill out, applications to file 
or enrollment fees to pay. Because of this flexibility, our Nation's 
math and science teachers made Eisenhower National Clearinghouse's 
website one of the most visited education sites, receiving over 14 
million hits.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whose work I very much 
admire for his response.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The Eisenhower National 
Clearinghouse is a valuable resource to all teachers nationwide, has 
done a great service with respect to providing our Nation's teachers 
with quality math and science resources. In fact, the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce intends to further highlight the mission 
and positive results of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse as it 
moves to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a 
program that deserves our strong support, and I thank the chairman very 
much for his time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to 
me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about 
values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history 
of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's 
history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was 
passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and 
watched the process go forward.
  In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face 
of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create 
equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the 
courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal 
involvement to end racial segregation.
  In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as 
poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we 
collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those 
struggling schools up in whatever way we could.
  Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as 
children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education 
process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special 
teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's 
priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to 
Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that 
created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the 
highest quality education in the least restrictive learning 
environment.
  Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with 
respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every 
setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take 
the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class 
sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's 
teaching corps.
  I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a 
Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The 
bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals 
the national commitment to reduction in class sizes.
  As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for 
that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds 
it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because 
I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist 
Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and 
carefully tailored in its means.
  Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman for whom the Committee on Rules 
made two amendments in order now finds himself opposing this fair rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of 
the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note 
for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the 
teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the 
Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to 
the floor to respond.
  We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of 
education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let 
me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education 
feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the 
Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 
5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, 
and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 
50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has 
that money.
  The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are 
located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the 
power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the 
total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, 
put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, 
not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and 
empower the classroom.
  That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask 
for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear that the intent of 
the Republican majority is to eliminate the Federal role in education. 
They do not question, however, the ability of the White House and the 
Office of Management and Budget to analyze the content of legislation. 
I want to read from the President's letter on this bill:


[[Page H5861]]


       H.R. 1995 abolishes a dedicated funding stream for class 
     size reduction and replaces it with a block grant that fails 
     to guarantee that any funding will be used for hiring new 
     teachers to reduce class size. Moreover, the block grant 
     could be used simply to replace State or local funding 
     instead of increasing overall investment in our public 
     schools. If the Congress sends me H.R. 1995 in its current 
     form, I will veto it in order to protect our Nation's 
     commitment to smaller classes and better schools.

  There are some speakers who keep insisting that there is nothing 
wrong with the bill in terms of protecting the reduction in the 
classroom size initially, but definitely this leaves it wide open. It 
pushes the Federal priority aside and leaves the decision open for 
local education officials.
  As my colleagues know, most local education officials will seize the 
opportunity to spend the money as they want to spend it.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a 
very serious and important debate about improving the quality of 
teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system 
across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later 
today.
  I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most 
enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to 
breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. 
I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all 
together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving 
teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing 
heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on 
accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious 
challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public 
schools across the country.
  But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher 
Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving 
teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. 
Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the 
course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the 
impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000-
teacher shortage over the next 10 years.
  This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later 
today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who 
are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their 
talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage 
problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer 
amendment.
  Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in 
regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the 
President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I 
believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern 
is misplaced.
  The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top 
priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that 
was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law 
which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply 
for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, 
such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an 
additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that 
could do more harm than good.
  Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size 
reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program 
back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We 
have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at 
Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in 
those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of 
Wisconsin under SAGE.
  We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the 
successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on 
class size reduction. There are other States across the country 
implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it 
would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class 
size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio.
  As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin 
goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified 
teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the 
gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is 
also contained in the chairman's amendment.
  This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. 
It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take 
credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United 
States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's 
amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am simply in awe of the collective 
wisdom that exists in Washington, D.C., especially in Congress, and I 
look at these things from a very maybe simple perspective of having, 
one, been one that was raised in an impoverished neighborhood and went 
to schools that were not quite as excellent or elegant as the schools 
on the other side of town. But the situation still remains today the 
same as it did then.
  The question is, and we get into this debate, and we get so focused 
that we sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest. We say class 
size reduction as if class size reduction is the most important part, 
or we say teacher quality as if teacher quality was the most important 
part. I come from a different perspective, that I believe that both 
are.
  I guess we do not all keep up with the studies, and I am not too sure 
that I rely on studies all the time, but more recently, in just the 
last couple of weeks, there was a study that came out that showed that 
class size reduction in and of itself does a great deal of good for 
students because there is that one-on-one ability.
  And remember this, that the target area is that K through 6 to begin 
with, and we would like to expand it beyond that, but K through 6.
  And as I remember when I went to school, the teachers that were 
certified to teach K through 6 were generally certified teachers that 
have been through the training that was necessary to become qualified 
teachers, and they taught all subjects.

                              {time}  1300

  We did not have, and we still do not have, by and large, in most 
places in the country in K through 6 a segregated class for math and a 
segregated class for science and a segregated class for this and that 
and the other.
  These teachers are teaching all subjects to the classes. But more 
importantly, they are developing cognitive ability for those students 
so that when they get into the grades when those classes are separated, 
and I think we ought to remember that when those instructional classes, 
math, science, and the rest are in individual classes, they are in the 
upper grades. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about 
those earlier grades with the certified teachers.
  More recently, a study showed that class size reduction and where 
those students were in that smaller class size, whether or not that 
teacher was qualified in any particular subject, that those students 
benefited as much as did the kids that were in small class sizes with 
teachers that were certified in specific subject matter.
  So really, it only amounts to the fact of who do we target in this 
bill? We target the more needy. In their bill, the way the funding 
formula would begin, before we were able to get concession from them 
for hold harmless, and then beyond the hold harmless, it still has the 
faulty funding formula that draws money away from those areas where the 
children really need it.

[[Page H5862]]

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, there is nothing in this 
bill that says that class size reduction cannot be a part for the 
schools that the gentleman is mentioning. My understanding is that a 
school district can decide that class size reduction is absolutely the 
most important.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond by 
saying that the bill is not a bad bill, but it is just a little bit 
lacking, and that is where we would like to improve the bill to the 
point that it really targets the most needy.
  Let me say, when they say in the bill that the highest priority is 
class size reduction and there is no separate funding for it, they 
really do not give it a priority. So it leaves it up to the locals to 
decide where they are going to spend the money, whether they determine 
that they need it for class size reduction or they need it for teacher 
training. And I have nothing against either, because I believe that 
both go hand in hand, one with the other. But we ought to at least do 
it in a way that says to them, do the class size reduction, get the 
qualified teachers, show us which way we really need to spend the money 
before we authorize it being spent, rather than leaving it.
  Now, I know we always say that locals know best. Well, I wonder, if 
the locals know best, then why did the Federal Government get involved 
in this at all? The Federal Government got involved in these programs 
because locals did not make the decisions that were necessary to take 
care of the children with disabilities, to take care of bilingual 
problems, to take care of disadvantaged students, and that is where the 
Federal programs came up with Title I and other programs.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the 
distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I 
appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact 
that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch 
along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that 
with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill.
  A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman 
mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K 
through 6 several times.
  In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in 
grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students.
  So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says 
nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students.
  And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, 
local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I 
do have great confidence in local control.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I referred to K through 6, I was 
referring to the fact of my own experience in grammar school that we 
had teachers that were qualified in all subjects and they taught all 
subjects, and K through 6 in most parts of the country today, not that 
our bill was inclusive of K through 6, but that is the situation that 
actually exists, and I think we ought to deal with the realities that 
are actually out there.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, I will remind my colleagues that this rule is fair and 
balanced. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules, 
6 are offered by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. This equal treatment 
is appropriate for consideration of a bill that has bipartisan support. 
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both the rule and the 
underlying Teacher Empowerment Act which relies on the principles of 
teacher quality, smaller class size, accountability, and local control 
to improve our children's education.
  But, teachers are central to today's debate, which is appropriate. 
Perhaps more than any other factor in education, teachers are key to 
academic achievement. By investing in our teachers through this 
legislation, we are strengthening our most valuable education resource. 
I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the Teacher 
Empowerment Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 227, 
nays 187, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     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
     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
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     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)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce

[[Page H5863]]


     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Berman
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Coble
     Cooksey
     Engel
     English
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Ortiz
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark
     Towns
     Watt (NC)

                              {time}  1334

  Mr. SHERMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 
253 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1995.

                              {time}  1334


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality 
professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading 
Excellence Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if someone is a parent and someone has an opportunity 
to have their child in a classroom with 25 other students with a 
quality teacher, or if someone is a parent and they have the 
opportunity to have their child in a classroom of 18 children with 
someone who is not qualified to teach, who would they choose?
  Well, it is very obvious. They would choose the quality teacher. All 
of the studies would indicate that next to the parent, and I repeat 
next to the parent, the determining factor as to whether a child does 
well or poorly in school has a great deal to do, more than anything 
else, with the quality of that classroom teacher.
  In California, and we are going to hear that well they moved too 
quickly. They went on a crusade to reduce class size, spent $3 billion 
to do it. What did they end up getting in return? Mediocrity in the 
classroom, where they needed the most in places like Los Angeles. Why? 
Because they did not have quality teachers to put there.
  Now we are going to hear, as I said, well, they moved too quickly. 
Let me say about moving too quickly. Just in the last 2 weeks, the 
President sent out the first grants on reducing class size. And guess 
what? No quality control whatsoever. I do not even know if they have to 
be able to add and subtract. He does not say they have to. There is no 
quality control whatsoever. So talk about moving too quickly, I will 
guarantee that is exactly what has happened.
  Quality teachers have to prepare if they are going to make a 
difference. Reducing the class size will not make one bit of difference 
if we cannot put a quality teacher there, and it will not make one bit 
of difference if we do not have anyplace to put the teacher.
  So what we are saying here is, we understand that. We understand that 
there has to be a quality teacher. We understand there has to be a 
place to put that quality teacher to teach those children. So we say, 
promote teacher quality. That should be the first and foremost thing as 
a Congress we should try to encourage.
  Secondly, we say, reduce class size. We do not say, reduce class size 
no matter who is stuck in that classroom. We say, maybe they are going 
to have to better prepare some that are in their own school at the 
present time rather than stick someone who is not qualified into that 
classroom.
  We say, get the money down to that classroom. We say, promote 
innovative teacher reforms; promote teacher tenure reform; teacher 
testing; merit-based teacher performance systems; alternative routes to 
teacher certification; differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-
need subject areas and areas where they are needed the most; provide 
teacher choice.
  If the local school district cannot provide decent retraining, with 
decent in-service programs, we say that the teacher can go and get it 
and we will make sure that it is covered. It ensures high-quality 
professional development and provides accountability to parents and 
taxpayers, and it promotes math and science.
  We are talking about quality, and for all of these years we should 
have been talking about quality rather than quantity. So let us get 
along with it and provide the local school district the opportunity to 
put quality people in every classroom so every child has an equal 
opportunity for a good education.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress passed the omnibus appropriations 
bill, making a $1.2 billion down payment on President Clinton's plan to 
hire 100,000 new classroom teachers. It was supported by Democrats and 
Republicans because overwhelming evidence demonstrates that students in 
smaller classes with qualified teachers have greater academic success, 
especially in the early grades.
  H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, threatens the future of this 
class size reduction program by allowing funds to be diverted to other 
uses without having to address the shame of overcrowded classrooms.
  Only on rare occasions have there been such unanimous opposition in 
the education community to a proposal such as this one. Every major 
education group has expressed strong opposition to abolishing the 
requirement to target funding for class size reduction.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the people who drafted this bill are all isolated 
here in Washington, D.C. and want everybody to think that they have the 
answers to the problems in public education, but a sampling of such 
comments from people who are out there in the trenches, who are out 
there every day dealing with the problems of education, is something 
that we ought to pay attention to.
  The Council of Chief State School Officers say that they support the 
Martinez Democratic substitute because, and I quote, ``H.R. 1995 fails 
to ensure a stable and growing funding stream of resources for both 
professional development and class size reduction. The Martinez 
substitute would target Federal resources to two distinct but companion 
Federal priorities without making them compete against each other for a 
fixed pot of funds,'' end of quote.
  The National Education Association writes, and I quote, ``NEA 
strongly opposes provisions of H.R. 1995 to combine the class size 
reduction program with Goals 2000 and professional development 
programs. Combining class size reduction with other programs will serve 
merely to undermine its effectiveness by failing to achieve the goal of 
hiring 100,000 qualified teachers,'' end of quote.
  The National School Boards Association, representing thousands of 
school

[[Page H5864]]

districts across the country, opposes the approach taken in this bill. 
They write, and I quote, Mr. Chairman, ``Much stronger legislation and 
far more targeted Federal dollars are needed if the Nation's public 
schools are to ensure that students, particularly those in poverty, 
have a real opportunity to improve student achievement. H.R. 1995 
implies that America's school board members must make the unfortunate 
choice between access to high-quality teachers and access to an 
effective learning environment with a teacher ratio that research has 
proven is effective,'' end of quote.
  Other groups, Mr. Chairman, including the American Federation of 
Teachers, the Council of Great City Schools, the National Parent and 
Teachers Association, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights all 
strongly support a separate stream of funding for class size reduction.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton on the recommendation of 
Secretary Riley has issued a veto threat on this bill. All across the 
country children, parents, and teachers are counting on us to finish 
the job of reducing class sizes. The Martinez substitute that will be 
offered later today makes good on this commitment by continuing a 
separate stream of support for the Clay-Clinton Class Size Reduction 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, too many of our students and teachers are now 
struggling in classrooms with as many as 35 children. We should not let 
them down. I urge support of the Martinez substitute and, if it fails, 
I urge rejection of H.R. 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I should have told the ranking member we 
were going to name the bill after him when it passes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), the subcommittee chair who was the chief honcho, making sure 
that the staff did a good job, which they certainly did.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act.
  I would like to open my remarks by thanking the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce for his leadership in bringing this important legislation 
to the House floor.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, 
other members of our committee, and certainly the Speaker of the House, 
the majority leader, and other Members of the House leadership for 
their hard work on this issue.
  This legislation will make a significant and positive impact on how 
we prepare our Nation's teaching force by providing States and local 
school districts with needed funding to train high quality teachers and 
to hire new teachers where necessary.
  In the development of the Teacher Empowerment Act, we have made every 
effort to put together a bill that is in the best interest of children, 
parents, and teachers. We have also tried to include the best elements 
of teacher training proposals from the governors, the administration, 
and different Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act was developed with three key principles 
in mind: teacher excellence, smaller classes, and local choices.
  The bill gives States and particularly local school districts the 
flexibility to focus on initiatives they believe will improve both 
teacher quality and student performance. In exchange for this 
flexibility, the bill holds local school districts accountable to 
parents and taxpayers for demonstrating results measured in improved 
student performance and higher quality teachers.
  This legislation encourages intensive long-term teacher training 
programs that are directly related to the subject matter taught by the 
teacher. We know that this works.
  If localities are unable to provide such professional development, 
teachers will be given the choice to select their own high quality 
teacher training programs through teacher opportunity payments. For the 
first time, we are giving teachers a choice in how they upgrade their 
skills. Our teacher opportunity payments will empower individual 
teachers or groups of teachers to choose the training methods that best 
meet their classroom needs.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains an important focus on math and 
science, as under current law, but the legislation expands teacher 
training beyond just the subjects of math and science.
  The legislation ensures that teachers will be provided training of 
the highest quality in all of the core academic subjects.
  By combining the funding of several current Federal education 
programs, the Teacher Empowerment Act provides over $2 billion annually 
over the next 5 years to give States and, more importantly, local 
school districts the flexibility they need to improve both teacher 
quality and student performance.
  The bill also encourages innovation on how schools improve the 
quality of their teachers. Some localities may choose to pursue tenure 
reform or merit-based performance plans. Others may want to try 
differential and bonus pay for teachers qualified to teach subjects in 
high demand. Still, others may want to explore alternative routes to 
certification.
  Further, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues to support local 
initiatives to reduce class size. In fact, schools would be required to 
use a portion of their funds for hiring teachers. However, unlike the 
President's program, we do not dictate to the schools how much they 
spend on new teachers. Instead, schools will be allowed to determine 
the right balance between quality teachers and class size reduction.
  Instead of paying for 100,000 new teachers 1 year at a time, we are 
providing local school districts with the resources to train over 
500,000 qualified teachers each year over a 5-year period.
  Finally, schools will also be allowed to hire special education 
teachers with these funds. All of these options are feasible in our 
legislation because we do not try to tell schools what their approach 
should be. We do not want to impose any one system that every school 
must follow in order to upgrade the quality of its teachers. That will 
not work, because one size does not fit all.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act is good, balanced legislation. It 
provides the flexibility that States and local school districts need to 
improve the quality of their teaching force with two goals in mind: 
increases in student achievement and increases in the knowledge of 
teachers in the subjects they teach.
  I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to support this 
important legislation as we work to improve our Nation's schools.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before 
us today. There is nothing that I would have liked more than to come to 
the House floor with real meaningful, bipartisan teacher quality 
legislation.
  When the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I first began the 
process of reauthorizing title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, I had high hopes of doing just that.
  The chairman and I held several of the most informative hearings I 
have attended since coming to Congress many years ago. We heard from 
witness after witness that teacher quality is one of the most important 
factors in student achievement.
  However, we were alarmed to learn that 10 percent of our Nation's 
public school teachers are currently uncertified and another 28 percent 
are teaching out-of-field or in subject areas in which they hold no 
degree.
  To address this serious problem, our members wanted legislation that 
would ensure that every child receives instruction from a highly 
qualified individual and an environment conducive to learning. As a 
result, we wrote in the Miller amendment to our bill, one that the 
other side did not have in their bill when they first introduced it in 
committee.
  I am pleased that several Democratic proposals, regarding 
recruitment, retention, and high quality professional

[[Page H5865]]

development for all school personnel are included in their bill.
  I am also pleased to see that the provisions of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) on accountability, which require that 
all teachers be qualified in areas in which they provide instructions 
by 2003, are included in the chairman's mark.
  However, what started out to be a bipartisan process turned into 
political posturing when the chairman was instructed by his leadership, 
as he just explained in his opening statement, to eliminate the Clinton 
class size reduction initiative as we know it by rolling it into a 
block grant to the States and, as a result, putting quality teacher and 
small class size against one another.
  Last year, this Congress promised teachers, students, and parents 
across the Nation that we would help them reduce class size with 
qualified teachers over the next 6 years. The first down payment on 
that promise was made to the States just a few weeks ago.
  Because H.R. 1995 reneges on that promise, it has elicited a veto 
threat from the President and letters of opposition from all the major 
education groups, including the National Education Association, the 
American Federation of Teachers, the National Parent-Teachers 
Association, the Council of Great City Schools, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, the Council of Chief States School 
Officers, the National School Board Association, and the National 
Governors Association.
  There is no reason that school districts should be forced to choose 
between quality and smaller classes, both of which are equally 
important to student achievement.
  We cannot accept less than our children deserve, which is quality 
teachers and smaller classes. If that means increasing the Federal 
investment in education, so be it. Is $3 billion out of a trillion-
dollar tax bill too much to ask for our Nation's children? I do not 
think so.
  In fact, shortly, I will be offering an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that encourages the States and districts to both improve 
teacher quality and reduce class size, and it provides them with 
adequate funding to accomplish both.
  If my colleagues are serious about improving public education, they 
should put their money where their mouths are and support the Martinez 
substitute and oppose H.R. 1995 in its current form, which is the 
status quo.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), one of the important veterans of the 
committee.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 1995. The Federal Government 
only supplies about 5 or 6 percent of the money to run our local 
schools but supplies most of the controls on how it is used. As such, 
much of the funding is lost in the State and Federal bureaucracies. If 
local officials want to use Federal dollars to train teachers, reduce 
class size, or retain good teachers, they must do it the Federal way, 
or they do not get the money.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act mandates that 92 percent of the funds 
must go to the local level, not to the bureaucracy, and may be spent at 
local discretion if positive results can be demonstrated. This proposal 
sounds almost too practical to be a Federal program.
  As we debate the Teacher Empowerment Act, much will probably be said 
by the other side in opposition to the bill which consolidates the 
President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' programs and other programs into a 
single funding source. I would like to address this issue briefly.
  The bill requires that funds be used to hire new teachers and reduce 
class size. However, unlike the President's program, this bill allows 
localities to determine the correct balance between teacher quality and 
class size.
  The President's proposal actually limits the funds available to 
teacher quality initiatives to 15 percent of total funds. With various 
studies showing that teacher quality has a far greater impact on 
student achievement than does class size, I find the President's cap on 
funds available for improving teacher quality shortsighted and 
detrimental to improving student performance.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said, a student can 
learn more in a class of 25 taught by a highly qualified teacher than 
in a class of 17 with a teacher who has few qualifications.
  Our children deserve to be taught by teachers who are qualified and 
prepared to offer their very best. By using Federal education dollars 
effectively as outlined in the Teacher Empowerment Act, we will move 
closer to that important goal. A school's strength comes, in part, from 
the quality of its teachers. Let us help our teachers be the best that 
they can be by passing this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri, the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important moment in the development of 
education policy by the Congress of the United States. If we enact H.R. 
1995 as it is presently presented to this body, we will be departing 
from one of the essential ingredients in the enactment of the first 
elementary and secondary education bill in 1965.
  That took 25 years to develop because of basic disagreements in how 
to structure Federal aid to education. It was finally enacted because 
there was a consensus agreement among all the elements that competed 
for attention with the understanding that it was the neediest in our 
society that was most deserving of the attention and targeting of the 
limited Federal funds.
  I think that is the issue today. Everyone recognizes the fact that we 
are only talking about 6, 7, perhaps 8 percent at the most of the total 
cost of public education coming from the Federal government.
  This is a minuscule amount of funding that the school systems can 
depend upon from the Congress. Because the amount is so limited, it is 
extremely important that we target it to the areas of the greatest 
need.
  In looking over this legislation, H.R. 1995, the National School 
Board Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the 
National PTA, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the 
American Federation of Teachers all make the same observation, that it 
sacrifices the essential element of comprehensive Federal approach to 
support of public education by its failure to continue to limit the 
targeting to the most needy elements of our society.
  When we broke this teacher education portion away from the ESEA, we 
sacrificed that essential ingredient. So I think, for all the reasons 
that I have stated, notwithstanding many compromises have been made in 
the teacher development sections, that the important departure that we 
must vote against is the failure of the targeting.
  The second is, in all these years that we have been giving their 
districts ESEA money and other kinds of money in which the local school 
district creates the plan, creates the funding, one of the great 
deficits is that, notwithstanding the fact that the local school 
agencies could determine how to spend the monies, not enough emphasis 
has been given to the reduction of class size.
  So, therefore, the second element that is missing is the President's 
initiative that says, of the small amount of money that we are 
dedicating to the improvement of the neediest in our society, and that 
is to have smaller classrooms, we cannot sacrifice that initiative.
  The bill, H.R. 1995, removes all separate funding for this 
initiative. So for those two major reasons, notwithstanding all the 
wonderful rhetoric and so forth about teacher development and the 
importance of the teacher in our society, without those two elements, 
we sacrifice the greatest impetus of moving forward and making sure 
that the least in our society has a greater opportunity to learn, to 
become a part, a contributing part of this society, and move towards 
their human and individual potential.
  So for those reasons, I urge that the Martinez substitute which 
contains all of these things that I have described be

[[Page H5866]]

adopted. If that fails, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1995.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), another subcommittee chair from our committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) for their extraordinary work on this 
particular piece of legislation which I have looked at.
  I have been in every public school in my State. By the way, I would 
not advise Members try that unless their State is the size of Delaware. 
I can tell my colleagues that I have spoken to many, many teachers 
there, and I have heard them worry about the Federal role as far as 
education is concerned, which is, as somebody said here, about 7 
percent of all of the funding.
  In Delaware we are already down to 17 pupils per teacher in our 
classes. We do not need help with the extra teachers. Why we are 
fighting so hard or why some people on this floor are fighting so hard 
to make sure we have this exclusive provision in the Martinez 
substitute for just 100,000 teachers, I do not know. I believe that the 
best way to do this is what this bill does. It allows the school 
districts to determine the correct balance between teacher, quality, 
and class size.
  This bill allows States like Delaware, school districts all over the 
United States of America which are in compliance with what has to be 
done with respect to class size, to improve the quality of the teachers 
which they have. It combines the best element of Goals 2000 and the 
Eisenhower program. These are extraordinary programs. This really gives 
us an opportunity to uplift the quality of teachers across the United 
States. But if a school district wants to reduce its class size, it can 
do it. If a State wants to reduce its class size, it can do it.
  So the legislation, in my judgment, does all that it should do to 
help with teacher quality, which is of overwhelming importance. It 
sends the dollars back to the classroom, back to the States, back to 
the local school districts. It actually promotes innovative teacher 
reforms, and we have needed this for years, which I think is 
exceptional.
  The bill also ensures high quality professional development. I think 
professional development has been left behind as far as teachers are 
concerned. It also promotes math and science in the Eisenhower program, 
which is of overwhelming importance in this country. And of course it 
consolidates our Federal programs.
  So this legislation has much to offer, and I would encourage 
everybody to support it. Hopefully, we will have a signing ceremony in 
the Rose Garden helping the teachers and the students of America 
someday.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1995. It is 
an okay bill, but it is not okay enough; and our children, their 
parents and our teachers deserve something better than okay.
  H.R. 1995 walks away from last year's bipartisan commitment to reduce 
class size in the early grades. H.R. 1995 combines the funds that would 
reduce class size with other funds, leaving school districts without 
the guaranties that they need to hire new teachers.
  H.R. 1995 creates a block grant for teacher training and includes 
class size reduction into that very same block grant. Yes, they permit 
reducing class size, but they do not guaranty smaller classes.
  Anyone who knows the history of Federal funding knows that once 
programs become part of a block grant, they lose their funding. It just 
happens that way, and it happens that way every time, particularly 
programs for the most needy.
  Our students and their parents are counting on us to reduce class 
size, and they are counting on us to bring qualified teachers to their 
schools. They need and they deserve no less. They need and they deserve 
both smaller classrooms and qualified teachers, not either/or.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Martinez 
substitute and against H.R. 1995.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), another outstanding member of our committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, there has been a little bit of confusion 
that I wanted to try to clear up. The Chairman's bill, and I 
congratulate him for his initiative, has a first-year authorization of 
a little bit over $2 billion. The substitute of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) has $3 billion.
  But we should not be confused here. We are not the Committee on 
Appropriations. These questions will be resolved in the appropriations 
debate later. For those who are concerned about the particular dollar 
amount, they ought to join the Committee on Appropriations. This is the 
policy committee. The authorizing committee sets the thrust of the 
policy of how we are going to approach.
  We had to come up with an initial number in order to have it be 
scored so we could go into the budget process without it distorting and 
becoming, in fact, a money debate. Right now the Republican dollar 
amount there is far greater than the Committee on Appropriations 
appropriates anyway. And, quite frankly, if at the end of the year, as 
we have many other years, a final number is determined, the Committee 
on Rules puts a waiver in to adjust the dollars.
  This is not a money debate, and efforts to confuse outside groups by 
getting endorsements and saying this is a money debate, and by coming 
to the floor and trying to make this a money debate distorts the issue 
at hand.
  The question is not whether we favor class size reduction, because in 
fact this bill allows all the dollars to be used in class size 
reduction. The question is do we trust our local school districts, our 
local teachers, our local principals to make decisions as to whether 
they need to improve the quality of the teacher or whether they have 
special-needs kids or whether they need to make other decisions similar 
to that within a very narrowly defined context in order to have some 
flexibility.
  Some Members have spoken almost with disdain about their local 
teachers and schools as far as their ability to make these decisions, 
whereas I have great confidence in my local schools and local school 
boards that, in fact, they know whether they need better teachers 
rather than reducing from 19 to 18 their class size, or whether they 
need a better qualified teacher, or maybe they have special-needs kids 
who are not being covered and that is where their money is and they 
decide that rather than diverting other funds rather than use these 
funds. I trust them to make that decision.
  This is not about money; this is about policy.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from 
Missouri for allowing me this time to speak on this legislation and 
talk about the need for the Martinez substitute.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have is the 
reauthorization of the Elementary Secondary Education Act. The majority 
side has split it up into a number of pieces of legislation, and my 
concern is one of those pieces may fall out. We have to educate and 
think about the whole child and the whole system and not just one part 
of it. I am concerned that by having different parts, we will not be 
able to see the whole picture at one time. This decision may sound 
good, but we need to make sure that the Elementary Secondary Education 
Act is whole and not just parts.
  I heard my colleague from Hawaii talk about Federal education funding 
is only 6 or 7 percent of some school budgets, and that is true. But in 
urban districts, poor districts, with at-risk children, sometimes the 
Federal money is as much as 10 to 12 percent. So 6 to 7 percent is a 
dramatic part, and I have some districts that need the Federal 
education money just to provide the education they need for those 
children.
  H.R. 1995 needs to be amended by the Martinez substitute to continue 
our Nation's commitment to our at-risk children. We need to provide the 
assistance to the States and the local communities and local school 
districts

[[Page H5867]]

where most of our education dollars originate. They do not originate 
here in Washington or even in Austin, Texas. They originate in the 
local districts.
  My wife is a public high school teacher in the Aldine district in 
Houston, and our two children went to public schools. In my experience 
both as a spouse and as a member of Congress, I hear it every weekend 
when I go home that class size is important. Whether it is kindergarten 
through 4th grade, like in Texas where we have 22-to-1, or through the 
12th grade, we need to have smaller class sizes.
  Teachers cannot teach if they are simply managing that classroom. 
They may be able to manage 35 children, but they cannot teach. Teachers 
have to impart knowledge, and that is what the Martinez amendment would 
do, and continue our efforts on that.
  So I encourage people to support the Martinez complete substitute.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a new Member and a breath of fresh air on the 
committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) on this piece of legislation, as well as the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). I 
commend as well the work of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my remarks specifically to the 
difference between this bill and the substitute that will soon be 
before us, and I want to use the context of the remarks of the 
gentleman from California when he introduced his substitute, or 
explained it.
  He accused this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, of choosing 
quality over quantity of teachers. And he is right. But we must 
understand if we reject this bill on that basis, we must accept his 
substitute in accepting quantity over quality.
  I want to submit some facts which every Member of this Congress must 
understand. First of all, there are not 100,000 certified teachers in 
the United States of America available to be hired. If there were, the 
State of Massachusetts would not be offering $20,000 bonuses to get 
teachers already employed in other States to come to theirs.
  If there were, the State of California would not have had the 
unfortunate circumstance it had when it reduced classroom size, but it 
did unfortunately with teachers teaching out of field and out of 
certification. And in my own State of Georgia there are public school 
systems where as much as 40 percent of content is taught by teachers 
out of field. Not because that is our desire, but, Mr. Chairman, 
because the fact is the talent is not there.
  Teacher empowerment means staff development. It means flexibility in 
funding to see to it that those who have already committed their life 
to teaching can be trained in field and in service to become better 
teachers.
  Those who want to fool us with the ruse of one number is better than 
the other, are putting their facts and their future in numbers, not in 
the quality of our teachers or, more importantly, the education of our 
children.
  When we choose to vote today, we should reject the substitute, 
because all it offers is quantity, with no quality. Instead, adopt the 
bill, which gives our local systems the flexibility to find the best 
teachers they can, improve the good teachers they have, and make the 
best decision for their children at the local level, not in Washington.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, may we have a time check?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 14\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, all of the other authorizing committees come 
to the floor with comprehensive bills dealing with the total problem. 
The reason we are victimized here by gross oversimplification and 
extreme claims for what one particular action is going to accomplish in 
the education area is that we do not have a comprehensive bill.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act has been 
balkanized, and for a reason. This is part of a guerrilla attack, 
strategically. When the Republicans took control of the Congress in 
1995, they wanted to abolish the Federal role in education, and they 
did a head-on invasion, a direct attack; and it failed miserably and 
the American people rejected it. Now we have a guerrilla operation. One 
beachhead was established with the Ed-Flex Act. Now this is a second 
beachhead whereby we are challenging the President's priorities; we are 
challenging the role of the Federal Government.
  They want to talk about flexibility, but flexibility means no 
accountability. As we reduce the size and the role of the Department of 
Education, there is nobody to monitor anything. We have a window of 
opportunity, a great door of opportunity open right now for some 
serious education reform and we have some funds to back it up. We do 
not have to keep robbing from the poor. This bill is designed to pilfer 
from the program's funds that have been targeted for the poor and 
spread the same resources thinner.
  We should stand up like the other committees, get in line and ask for 
more money. There is a surplus. Why do we not ask for part of that 
surplus to be devoted to investment in education? Not expenditures on 
tax cuts but investment in education.
  The best way to help Social Security is to invest in education. 
Instead of continuing to scramble money and rob from one part of the 
sector for another, let us move forward with a comprehensive bill. 
Bring the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act to the 
floor and let us discuss it as a comprehensive bill.
  Now is the time to let the common sense of the American voters come 
into this House and guide the confused leaders here. Their 
straightforward and hard-headed point of view has said that education 
is our number one priority. The voters want to see some action. Why can 
they not see some action in terms of us asking for more resources? Do 
not just keep playing around with issues.
  We should abandon this perverted Robin Hood mentality where we are 
robbing the poor in order to take care of the rest of the sectors. The 
wealth of today and the future will be measured in brainpower. We 
should make education a priority the way the American people have made 
it and have a brainpower production machine which is thoroughly funded. 
And this committee should lead that and not follow. This committee 
should take the initiative in demanding more resources for education 
and not in balkanizing and trimming what we have already.
  We need a streamlined structure, a streamlined approach to education 
reform, and we cannot get that without bringing the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Assistance Act to the floor and discussing it 
wholly. As members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce we 
are denied an opportunity to fully debate every part and see how each 
part melds with the other because we do not have a comprehensive bill 
before us. We have only this guerrilla attack, this perverted Robin 
Hood approach which is designed to rob the poor in favor of the rich. ]

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, the Teacher 
Empowerment Act, because in order for education to succeed, our 
teachers must first succeed.
  In spite of what some people want us to believe, there is no one 
student-to-teacher ratio and no magic number that guarantees academic 
success in our classrooms. As long as some teachers are hampered by red 
tape, ill-trained and ill-equipped, they will not be able to accomplish 
their objective, which is to educate.
  This bill backs local initiatives to meet class size reduction plans 
and give teachers more flexibility to choose their professional 
development programs. This bill shifts 95 percent of funds directly to 
the local level, sending the money to the people who need it most, the 
students. And this bill

[[Page H5868]]

maintains the focus on math and science without sacrificing 
accountability.
  I urge my colleagues to give students the resources they need to 
succeed. We owe it to them to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for his leadership on this issue. I stand today, 
Mr. Chairman, as the only Member who serves in this House on the 
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. I thought surely 
we were going to have a comprehensive bill that talks about teacher 
empowerment. Yet we have a bill that to some degree eliminates the 
funding that will provide the type of education that is needed for 
those students who are in inner cities, like my district of Watts.
  We are talking about taking Goals 2000 funding that speaks to 
standards that should be given to students who are in these inner 
cities, yet it is transferred to a new formula of 50-50. That is not 
what the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future wanted. 
We want preinduction, postinduction types of service. We want ongoing 
professional development. These are the things that teachers need if 
you are going to empower teachers. This is not an empowerment teachers 
act. This is just really a renegade of persons who want to take money 
where we will not have reduction in class sizes, we will not get the 
100,000 qualified teachers and therefore look at credentialing to 
ensure that we do empower teachers.
  I am really appalled at my colleagues on the other side who speak to 
empowerment of teachers, as I was a former teacher, that do not teach, 
that do not speak to the actual provisions that will help teachers, to 
empower teachers to teach to those students who will be coming to them 
from a myriad of backgrounds.
  I say to you, those who are listening to us, this is not the type of 
empowerment program that we must have if we are to empower teachers. As 
a former teacher, I want to see the 80-20 ratio that speaks to those 
kids that are in inner cities that really need the funding and the 
teachers that will empower them to reach the goals that they need.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to please, let us vote 
against H.R. 1995 and let us approve the Martinez amendments that will 
really bring about empowerment of teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act. 
This bill represents a piecemeal approach to addressing educational 
issues in America. Furthermore, the President has made his position 
clear--he will veto this legislation if it crosses his desk.
  As legislators, parents, and citizens we are well aware of the need 
to improve teacher quality and reduce classroom size to allow all 
children an equal opportunity to a quality education. I urge my 
colleagues to continue looking at comprehensive reforms to improving 
teacher quality, reducing classroom size, targeting resources to the 
neediest schools, and encouraging academic achievement.
  As a former educator, I have made strengthening our nation's 
educational system one of my top priorities. In the 105th Congress, I 
introduced the TEACH Act to better equip America's teachers to meet the 
needs of our children as we enter the 21st century. While drafting my 
TEACH Act, I worked with the National Commission on Teaching and 
America's Future and local boards of education because we need their 
input to ensure that we continue taking concrete steps toward 
innovation and reform in our schools.
  In today's schools, we have children that are being taught in 
trailers that do not have heat or air conditioning and teacher 
shortages in key areas like math, science, and special education. 
Improving teacher quality is something that we need to do, but it is 
not a silver elixir. We need to do more!
  H.R. 1995 has not reached out to the educators--most education groups 
do not support H.R. 1995--what does that tell us? What message are we 
sending to parents and children by passing H.R. 1995?
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1995 and support the 
Martinez substitute--H.R. 2390.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to make sure that the gentlewoman understands that 
there is no targeting whatsoever in Goals 2000 money. No targeting 
whatsoever. Her school districts are guaranteed the same amount of 
money they get now or more. I just want to make sure we understand 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Teacher 
Empowerment Act. I thank the chairman for including my bill, House 
Concurrent Resolution 151, in the manager's amendment. My bill directs 
Federal funding for training elementary and secondary school teachers 
in the areas of science, mathematics and engineering.
  Several recent assessments of the progress of student performance in 
the areas of science and mathematics have shown disturbing results. One 
test in particular, the Third International Mathematics and Science 
Study, showed that in science and mathematics, the United States is one 
of only a few countries whose scores, relative to the rest of the 
world, were actually lower after 12th grade than after the 8th grade. 
Further, in all five content areas of physics and in all three content 
areas of advanced mathematics, U.S. students' performance was among the 
lowest of the nations tested.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has within it a section that expresses 
the sense of this Congress that Federal funding for elementary and 
secondary teacher training be used first for activities to advance 
science, mathematics and engineering education for elementary and 
secondary teachers.
  I am proud to support such a step that would give educators the tools 
to instruct our students in these areas that it is obvious that we need 
to give extra attention to. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for the 
opportunity to comment on the measure before us.
  I would like very much to associate myself with the comments that 
were made earlier by the gentlewoman from Hawaii who spoke in terms of 
the role of Federal funding in education over the last 30 years, 
focusing as it does on areas of the greatest need. In those terms, I 
take a back seat to no one in terms of the goals of this bill. The work 
that I have done over 10 years on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, focusing on math and science, particularly the professional 
development of teachers, class size, teacher quality, teacher 
availability and funding accountability, I like to think is second to 
none following the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri and his 
predecessors in the leadership of that committee.
  But there is something that is critical to all of us that we need to 
understand, and that is a matter of simple arithmetic. Today we face 
the largest student population in the Nation's history. It is larger 
than it reached at its record levels during the baby boom whose school 
population attended in the 1960s. It will surpass those records and 
break the record every year for the next 12 to 15 years. That sets up 
one dynamic. At the same time, we are facing the retirement crisis that 
we will face in the general population 10 to 12 years from now in the 
immediate future in the teacher cohort. Virtually half of those who are 
currently teaching are probable retirees in the next 7 to 8 years. That 
means that the kind of targeting that the gentlewoman from Hawaii was 
talking about over the last 30 years becomes even more critical in the 
topic that brings us here today.
  I take no issue with the goals of those who have written this bill, 
but I do take issue with the way in which they have failed to 
articulate and direct dollars where they can do the most good in the 
immediate future. I oppose the bill in its current form and urge other 
Members to do likewise.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. This 
is a good bill. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing 
this bill to the floor and I thank him for yielding this time to me.
  This bill emphasizes local control and flexibility and will lead to 
many more improvements in education than if we stick with an old, 
outmoded, one-size-fits-all big government type of system. This bill 
would help ensure that

[[Page H5869]]

more Federal education funds get into the classroom rather than into 
the black holes of Federal and State bureaucracies.
  But because of the need as just pointed out by the gentleman from 
Ohio about hiring teachers in the next few years, I particularly rise 
to urge support for an amendment that strengthens efforts toward 
alternative certification programs. This amendment was introduced by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and myself.
  Under most State laws on certification, people like an Albert 
Einstein or a Winston Churchill would not be allowed to teach in our 
schools. People like Howard Baker and Alan Greenspan if they were 
willing and most Ph.D.'s could not teach in our public schools because 
they did not take a few education courses.
  It makes no sense, Mr. Chairman, to say that a college professor with 
many years of teaching experience and grade expertise in a field cannot 
teach in a public high school simply because he had not taken a few 
education courses.
  The Education Secretary of Pennsylvania, speaking of his own efforts 
to set up an alternative certification program said a few days ago:

       We also know there are talented, energetic Pennsylvanians 
     who didn't enroll in these programs, yet have the skills and 
     expertise to greatly enrich our classrooms. This program 
     gives us a way to tap into these people: World-class 
     scientists actually sharing their experience with 
     Pennsylvania students; engineers teaching physics; private-
     sector statisticians teaching advanced mathematics in high 
     school; retired executives teaching the fundamentals of 
     business or economics; experienced college professors 
     returning to the public school classroom.

  Local school boards, Mr. Chairman, should be allowed to consider a 
degree in education as a plus or positive factor in hiring teachers but 
they should not be prohibited from hiring people who have great 
knowledge, experience and success in a field just because they have not 
taken a few education courses.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing the bill to the floor, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and all who have worked so 
hard on this.
  Never have I ever heard of a prison in America that suffers from 
overcrowding that we did not take appropriate steps to alleviate those 
pressures. Yet we are all fully aware that many of our teachers and 
many of our schools and superintendents and parents throughout the 
Nation confront a great problem day in and day out. Oftentimes they are 
in rural districts and urban districts. Sometimes they are African 
American kids, sometimes they are Hispanic kids, sometimes they are 
white kids. But they are children, trying to learn and trying to have 
knowledge imparted to them.
  What we are faced with today is an opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I have 
not made my mind up on final passage, but I will vote ``yes'' on the 
Democratic substitute and urge all of my colleagues to do that. We have 
an opportunity to maintain or honor the commitment that we here in this 
Congress made last year to help fund 100,000 new teachers. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has worked closely with 
those on the other side to include some accountability provisions to 
ensure that we get qualified teachers. It has been shown that a 
qualified teacher in the early years has an incredible impact on the 
lasting ability of a young person to learn and to absorb knowledge. Yet 
in H.R. 1995, the underlying bill, we consolidate the authorization. We 
do not maintain two separate funding tracks to ensure that we have 
money for class size and money for teacher quality.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Democratic substitute. 
Let us see what happens there before we go rushing to judgment on H.R. 
1995.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am grateful to him and to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for bringing this bill to the floor. I am also grateful to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for the great work he has done on 
this committee for so many years, and I am pleased to have had the 
opportunity to serve from our State with him and appreciate his 
commitment to this debate and his commitment to better education. I 
think that is what this debate is about. I think this bill, the base 
bill, provides that. Certainly the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) 
just mentioned appropriately the importance of quality teachers in the 
early grades. But I think quality teachers are important throughout the 
process.
  What this legislation does is allow ways to enhance the quality of 
teachers. It really decides where that decision is going to be made, 
whether that decision is going to be made in Washington, whether the 
decision as to what a local school district needs is made here on the 
floor of the Congress and here in the Halls of the bureaucracy in 
Washington or whether it is made in the school district, whether it is 
made in the principal's office in conjunction with the teacher and the 
school board and parents. I think they can best make those decisions. 
This bill is another step in that direction. Certainly reducing class 
size is an option here. But so is better education and special 
education. More funding for special education teachers, more mentoring, 
more teacher quality, all of those things have the potential to have 
great impact in different situations in different districts. We do not 
know here.
  The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) mentioned earlier that in 
Delaware they are already down to 17 students as the maximum in a class 
in elementary. But there are certainly things I am confident in 
Delaware that they need, that they have not done all they need to do. 
Simply because they have made the steps already to reduce class size 
does not mean we should penalize people in that State from being able 
to do other things that enhance quality of education. I believe this 
bill does that. I am grateful that it is on the floor today. I intend 
to vote for it and encourage my colleagues not to be for the 
substitute.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding the time; and, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this block grant bill and urge my colleagues to vote for the Martinez 
substitute against H.R. 1995.
  I do not need to remind my colleagues that I have spent a number of 
years working in the public schools, certainly in my State for 8 years 
as State superintendent of schools; and I know firsthand what 
challenges our teachers face, and I commend both sides of the aisle for 
the work on this bill. I just wish they had gone farther to make it 
right.
  If America is going to make the most of the opportunities in the 21st 
century, we must improve academic performance for all of our children, 
all of our children, not just a few. Quality instruction is absolutely 
critical in this effort.
  The three proven keys to improving education are, 1, reduce class 
sizes; 2, improving the quality of instruction; 3, a rich curriculum 
with assessment and accountability so that continued progress can be 
made. And this bill, 1995, does not do that.
  Federal support is critically necessary in achieving effective 
professional development in class size reduction. We cannot put it 
together. H.R. 1995 fails to live with that needed support, and for me 
it really creates a problem when they fail to reauthorize the Board for 
Professional Teachers Standards that has made a difference in this 
country, and my State has an awful lot of teachers certified under 
that.
  If we do not reduce class size and we lump it together in the block 
grant, I know what will happen; my colleagues know what will happen. 
The Committee on Appropriations will start cutting the money, and we 
will not see it again; it will be gone.
  Reducing class size and expanding professional development will be 
doubled under the Martinez substitute

[[Page H5870]]

over the next 5 years. That is how to improve the opportunity for 
education for all children. Do not flat-line the appropriation and lump 
it together; that is how to make a difference. Mr. Chairman, that is 
how to improve education. The substitute does that.
  H.R. 1995 greatly reduces the targeting of Federal resources to the 
neediest districts in America, for the highest poverty areas, for the 
largest class sizes and the greatest shortage of qualified teachers. We 
are going to improve the number of teachers in this country when they 
truly believe there is a commitment at every level to make sure that we 
are going to be there year in and year out; and if we pass a 5-year 
bill and block grant it, I can assure my colleagues of one thing: they 
will send a message across America that reducing class sizes are not 
important once again. That is a mistake; I hope we do not do it.
  Finally, let me say to my colleagues that this bill says that an 
education authority is the State. Do my colleagues know what the State 
is? It is the governor or whomever has designed it. Every bill that I 
have ever seen says the State education agency. This bill works subtly, 
moves it to governors who serve 4-year terms, and it takes it out of 
the education department, and, Mr. Chairman, that will be the biggest 
mistake we have made beyond block granting. We will rue the day if that 
should pass.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding this time to me, and let me say I think what I believe at 
least is we should all accept what the common bond is here, and I think 
every Member of this body, Republican, Democrat, Independent, are 
committed to improving education for all American schoolchildren.
  But I think where the differences are is how best to improve 
education. Do we want to raise academic standards? Do we want to 
provide flexibility to the local communities? Do we want to ensure that 
the best and brightest teachers get rewarded with merit pay? Do we want 
to ensure that the teachers in the classrooms are the best for our 
children? I think this bill does all that and more, and when we talk 
about things like local control, let me state a fact that I believe to 
be true.
  I do not know what is best for the schoolchildren in Santa Clara, 
California, but I think we can work with the teachers and parents and 
administrators in Staten Island and Brooklyn where I live to determine 
what is best, whether it is reading and math skills, whether they need 
improvement, or smaller class sizes, or special education.
  I think when we bring control back to our local communities, whether 
it is Staten Island, Brooklyn, or all across the country, the average 
and ordinary common sense American will tell us, give us the ability to 
control what is best for our children and our local schools, and they 
will say that is the right way to go.
  And again, whether it is reducing class size or merit pay or 
increasing standards in math and reading and writing, this is the right 
approach. I urge adoption of the final passage. It is right for 
education, it is right for the children who are going to school every 
single day, and it is the right message to send to the teachers of 
America that we are with them and we want them to see nothing but the 
best for themselves and the kids in their classrooms.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, 
the Teacher Empowerment Act, which provides States and local school 
districts with the support and flexibility to improve the quality of 
teacher force and to reduce class size.
  Now what we see here is an important educational, philosophical 
debate at stake. Do we trust parents, teachers, local school board 
members to reform education, to address the needs of our children in 
our schools and our unique communities, or do we want to continue to go 
down the road of having Washington fix these problems, having a 
Washington that knows the best solution?
  Now there is an area that I have particular concern about which is in 
disabilities education. The IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, is a good act. We need to provide disability education 
for our children. However, the Federal Government imposes an unfunded 
mandate on our local school districts, as do most State governments. In 
Wisconsin we have a revenue-cap State, so every amount of unfunded 
mandate that comes from Washington on our local school districts comes 
right out of a local school district budget.
  I have met with so many district administrators, school board 
members, parents and teachers in the first district of Wisconsin, and 
they tell me, Give us regulatory relief, fund your unfunded mandates, 
give us local control. We know what works; we need to find solutions 
for our schools.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill goes so far down that road of freeing up the 
genius within our local school districts, getting those who are on the 
front line of the fight to improve our schools by getting teachers, 
parents, school boards, and administrators involved in fixing quality 
teacher improvement and teacher education.
  It also helps us hire special-education teachers to get at that 
unfunded disability education mandate which is crippling so many local 
school districts. By giving them the money they can use to hire those 
special education teachers, they can help cover that unfunded mandate, 
because in Janesville, Wisconsin, we promised the Federal Government we 
would fund 40 percent of disabilities education, but we are only 
funding 7 percent.
  This goes a long ways toward covering unfunded Federal mandates. A 
vote for the Martinez substitute is a vote for Washington knows best, 
one-size-fits-all. A vote for final passage is a vote to let local 
control rule.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member, for 
yielding this time to me.
  I rise in joining with the spokesman for the Parent Teachers 
Association of America, the organizations of teachers throughout 
America, and the organization of school board leaders throughout 
America in opposing the bill that is before us.
  The bill that is before us makes seductive claims but fails to 
deliver on them when we read the bill. There is probably no one in this 
body that would not want to vote for legislation that provides a 
significant source of funding for local school decision-makers to do 
good things to improve public education in their communities. That is a 
very seductive claim, but, Mr. Chairman, read the bill, because that is 
not what the bill accomplishes.
  Support for this bill rests on two claims. The first is, as one of my 
friends on the other side said, we can have our cake and eat it too. 
With all due respect, I think his claim is more like Marie Antoinette. 
It is let them eat cake, because this bill does not say that any 
significant amount will be guaranteed for class size reduction. It says 
a portion of the funds will be dedicated to class size reduction. One 
percent, that qualifies. Five percent, that qualifies. How large the 
portion is is not spelled out in this legislation.
  They also make the seductive claim that this will improve teacher 
quality, and we are all for that; and they talk about reducing the 
power of bureaucrats, and we are all for that. But, Mr. Chairman, there 
is some bureaucrats in State education departments too, and there are 
some bureaucrats in local school districts too, and when they get ahold 
of the language that is in this bill, there is the chance for them to 
drive a truck through the loophole.
  This bill says that they can use the money to establish programs that 
recruit professionals from other fields and provide such professionals 
with alternative routes to teacher certification. I assume they can 
hire a head-hunting firm under a consulting contract to hire new 
teachers. This bill says they can use the money to create innovative 
professional development programs including programs that train 
teachers to utilize technology. I

[[Page H5871]]

guess that means they can hire 5 or 10 new administrators that could 
design a program to teach technology and attend conferences.
  It says they can use the money for development and utilization of 
proven cost-effective strategies for the delivery of professional 
development activities such as technology. I guess that means if the 
board of education wanted to attend a conference at Disney World to 
learn about technology, they could use Federal money to do so.
  We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of man's landing on the Moon 
from the Nixon administration. This bill reminds me of the Nixon 
administration. It is revenue sharing for public education. It is 
wrong, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that lowering class size is a 
bipartisan issue. We feel just as strongly on either side that that 
comes about third. Parents first, and then a qualified teacher in the 
classroom, and then class size. What is the difference whether there 
are 19 or 20 or 21 or 22, if as a matter of fact there is no quality in 
front of that classroom?
  So reducing class size, of course, is a bipartisan effort.
  We discovered in California they could not do it; they could not put 
quality in the classroom, and that is a tragedy because now we have 
reduced the class size, but what we have given them instead of the 
teacher they had who had some quality to provide education to 20, 21, 
22, 23 children, they now have someone providing anything but quality.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have heard over and over again on both sides of 
the aisle, what have we gotten for $120 billion in Title I? The way it 
has been phrased each time I have heard it is, what have the taxpayers 
gotten for $120 billion in Title I? I always change that by saying: 
What did the child get? Because that is the important issue. Both are 
important issues, but the child is very important.
  So, as we reauthorize for the first time in the history of these 
programs, we are looking to see what did the children get for the 
taxpayers' dollars that were spent. And then we hear people say: Well, 
what did the taxpayer get for $177 billion spent on the Elementary 
Secondary Education Act? I again say: What did the children get?
  And we are looking at every issue making sure that the children are 
number one, and we want to make sure that they are quality programs; 
and in order to do that there has to be a quality teacher in the 
classroom.

                              {time}  1445

  We give them that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, we just read where they are laying off, firing, 250 
teachers in Baltimore City. They say they want to get excellence, and 
so they are firing them. One of my major concerns is, and I went 
through this when the baby boomers came and the teachers I had to 
employ were not those that I would have liked to have employed, but 
they probably could have taken some of this money and at least taken 
100 of those teachers that they are going to fire and made them far 
better classroom teachers than they are ever going to get if they go 
out now and try to replace them.
  So I would ask everyone to support the legislation after I offer the 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 
of H.R. 1995.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodling, Representative Buck McKeon 
and the other members of the House Education and Workforce Committee 
who worked very hard on this wonderful piece of legislation.
  I am please that the language from my H.Res. 153 was included in the 
Manager's Amendment. The Resolution expresses the sense of the Congress 
that Federal funding for elementary and secondary teacher training be 
used first for science scholarships for elementary and secondary 
teachers.
  As noted recently by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the 
growth of our national economy is driven by continuous technical 
innovation. In order to sustain this trend, we must promote the ability 
of our students especially in the subjects of math and science.
  Unfortunately, the lack of academic foundation is profound among high 
school mathematics and science teachers. More that 30 percent do not 
even have a college minor in math or science. Many elementary school 
teachers admit that they feel uncomfortable teaching science due to the 
lack of knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts.
  Without confidence in the subject, or the depth of knowledge 
necessary to explain new concepts well and answer students' questions, 
it is not surprising that teachers are having difficulty igniting 
students' interest in math and science.
  It is also not surprising that a large percentage of good teachers 
are becoming frustrated and leaving the teaching profession.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act will solve this problem.
  This bill sends money directly to states and localities, allowing 
them the flexibility to spend the money on what they need most--
additional, and better trained, teachers.
  H.R. 1995 focuses on the need for improved math and science education 
and promotes the professional development of all teachers.
  The bill allows teachers (especially ones who teach math and science) 
to choose from among high quality professional development programs in 
cases where school districts fail to provide such training.
  All of the professional development programs must demonstrate that 
(1) they increase teacher knowledge and (2) improve student academic 
achievement. This ensures that the programs teachers, and the students 
are held to high standards.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1995. It is our duty to 
equip our children with the education and technological skills needed 
to compete successfully in the new global economy.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to express my opposition 
to the Teacher Empowerment Act (H.R. 1995). Although H.R. 1995 does 
provide more flexibility to states than the current system or the 
Administration's proposal, it comes at the expense of increasing 
federal spending on education. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
estimates that if Congress appropriates the full amount authorized in 
the bill, additional outlays would be $83 million in Fiscal Year 2000 
and $6.9 billion over five years.
  H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The most important feature 
of the bill is the provision forbidding the use of federal funds for 
mandatory national teacher testing or teacher certification. National 
teacher testing or national teacher certification will inevitably lead 
to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the 
federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in 
order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will 
revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to 
receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their 
lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their 
Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, all 
those who oppose a national curriculum should oppose national teacher 
testing. I commend Chairman Goodling and Chairman McKeon for their 
continued commitment to fighting a national curriculum.
  Furthermore, this bill provides increased ability for state and local 
governments to determine how best to use federal funds. However, no one 
should confuse this with true federalism or even a repudiation of the 
modern view of state and local governments as administrative agencies 
of the Federal Government. After all, the very existence of a federal 
program designed to ``help'' states train teachers limits a state's 
ability to set education priorities since every dollar taken in federal 
taxes to fund federal teacher training programs is a dollar a state 
cannot use to purchase new textbooks or computers for students. This 
bill also dictates how much money the states may keep versus how much 
must be sent to the local level and limits the state government's use 
of the funds to activities approved by Congress.
  In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further 
entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of 
Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds 
in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while 
describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher 
quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities 
with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of 
``proven, innovative strategies'' to improve professional development--
I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their ``innovative 
strategy'' did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I 
have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and 
individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support 
teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide 
by its constitutional limits.
  Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the 
federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a 
portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless

[[Page H5872]]

it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the 
money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this 
bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education 
practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best 
determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, 
teachers, closest to the students--not by state or federal bureaucrats. 
Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the 
decisions of local education officials.
  Furthermore, this bill requires localities to use a certain 
percentage of their funds to meet the professional development needs of 
math and science teachers. As an OB-GYN, I certainly understand the 
need for quality math and science teachers, however, for Congress to 
require local education agencies to devote a disproportionate share of 
resources to one particular group of teachers is a form of central 
planning--directing resources into those areas valued by the central 
planners, regardless of the diverse needs of the people. Not every 
school district in the country has the same demand for math and science 
teachers. There may be some local school districts that want to devote 
more resources to English teachers or foreign language instructors. 
Some local schools districts may even want to devote their resources to 
provide quality history and civics teachers so they will not produce 
another generation of constitutionally-illiterate politicians!
  In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide 
certain guarantees that the state's use of the money will result in 
improvement in the quality of the state's education system. Requiring 
such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government 
is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they 
provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in 
this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States 
Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any 
control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate 
authority to take money from the American people and use that money in 
order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the 
federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in 
the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal 
education programs that ``allow the states flexibility!''
  In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable 
in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-
productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal 
control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, 
decentralized education systems are much more effective then 
centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a 
quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based 
bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and 
students.
  In order to put the American people back in charge of education, I 
have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935) which 
provides parents with a $3,000 tax credit for K-12 education expenses 
and the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides 
all citizens with a $3,000 tax credit for contributions to K-12 
scholarships and for cash or in-kind donations to schools. I have also 
introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act, which encourages good people to 
enter and remain in the teaching profession by providing teachers with 
a $1,000 tax credit. By returning control of the education dollar to 
parents and concerned citizens, my education package does more to 
improve education quality than any other proposal in Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the 
federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound 
education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and 
instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education 
bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to 
America's parents, teachers, and students.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I have several concerns about the Teacher 
Empowerment Act, most notably the manner in which funds may be diverted 
from class size reduction programs. I also have concerns that the bill 
does not permit the use of funds to help the development of other 
education professionals, including school counselors. Having witnesses 
the recent spate of violence in our schools, Congress must recognize 
the necessity for the continued development of these professionals and 
I am disappointed this legislation does not address this need.
  I am mostly concerned, however, with what is not included in this 
legislation--professional development for our early childhood 
educators. I agree that we need to continue addressing the professional 
development needs of our elementary and secondary school teachers. I 
believe, however, that we also need to focus a great deal of our 
attention on the ever increasing needs of our child care workforce.
  We have all seen the studies which illustrate the need to promote 
healthy development of the brain in the earliest of years--from zero to 
six. Researchers at the University of Chicago have demonstrated that a 
child's intelligence develops equally as much during the first four 
years of his or her life as it does between the ages of four and 
eighteen.
  In order to ensure quality in child care in these crucial early 
years, we need dedicated and well-educated child care workers. 
Unfortunately, the field has historically had a significant problem 
attracting and retaining these quality workers. Nationally, child care 
teaching staffs earn an average of $6.89 per hour or $12,058 per year, 
only 18 percent of child care centers offer fully paid health coverage 
for teaching staff and one-third of all child care teachers leave their 
centers each year. According to the Center for the Child Care 
Workforce, preschool teachers in my state of Rhode Island earn a little 
over $10 per hour and child care workers earn approximately $7.25 per 
hour. Professional child care employees care for our nation's most 
precious resource--our children. Yet, in many instances, child care 
workers earn little and have one of the highest turnover rates of any 
profession.
  I have introduced legislation, the Child Care Worker Incentive Act, 
which seeks to improve the quality and compensation of our early 
childhood education professionals through the use of scholarships. This 
legislation, included in the Democratic Child Care package, is modeled 
after a successful program begun in North Carolina and replicated in 
several other states. I firmly believe that we can improve the quality 
of early childhood education with scholarships and increased 
educational opportunities for our children's early childhood education 
professionals.
  When casting your vote today, I ask you to keep in mind the work we 
must still do to increase quality education for all of our children.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act. By combining and streamlining existing federal 
education programs, this legislation will provide states and localities 
with the flexibility they need to improve our children's education. I 
was pleased to be able to include in the manager's amendment, with the 
gracious support of Chairman Goodling and Mr. McKeon, a provision that 
will allow states to use federal money to conduct background checks on 
teachers.
  Cases of teachers who rape, molest, and even murder their students 
have been occurring with frightening regularity. Even more frightening 
is the fact that many of these predators who find their way into our 
children's classrooms are previously convicted sex offenders. They are 
able to conceal their criminal records because some schools cannot 
afford to pay for a background check on every prospective teacher. As a 
result, thousands of children every day, in schools across America, 
enter the classroom with no protection. My provision simply would allow 
schools to use federal money to conduct background checks to insure 
that criminals who target children are not allowed into the classroom.
  Teachers are some of our most revered role models. We entrust them 
with the greatest responsibility; to care for our children when we are 
gone. Not only do they teach our children to read, write and do 
arithmetic, but they shape and influence the attitudes and values our 
children carry into adulthood. When that trust is violated, innocent 
children and families pay the price.
  Obviously, the overwhelming majority of teachers are caring, law-
abiding citizens. Nevertheless, we should spare no expense to insure 
that every child who enters the classroom is protected from those who 
prey upon the innocence of youth.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, as we begin examining education 
initiatives to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, there are a few things to consider: How can we best help our 
local schools? What legislation will give local schools the most 
flexibility to improve education? What programs will authorize local 
schools to make important decisions that will effect their future?
  The Teacher Empowerment Act (H.R. 1995) is designed to improve 
teacher quality and reduce class size by giving local school systems 
the management authority to make the necessary improvements. The bill 
gives local education agencies the freedom to decide which programs 
will help them achieve the best results.
  Teachers are charged with the responsibility of making sure that our 
children are prepared for the future. How can we expect them to 
instruct our children if they are not knowledgeable themselves? Beyond 
blanket certification testing, this bill gives teachers the funds to 
actually continue their own learning. As we enter the 21st century, 
educators will continue to face constant challenges. Technology will 
change, and teachers must be able to maintain their proficiency and 
keep up a high level of instruction quality.

[[Page H5873]]

  Beyond professional development, the bill also authorizes local 
school districts to reduce class size. It is impossible and impractical 
for us, here in Washington, to mandate exactly how these goals will be 
attained. One school may already have enough funds for teacher 
training, while another may not need to reduce class size. Each school 
district varies according to need, and by authorizing funds to be used 
at the discretion of the school districts, we will provide more 
meaningful improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm a firm believer that local schools should be 
afforded the flexibility to use federal funds to address their most 
pressing needs. This bill would provide general guidelines to achieve 
similar goals, but it would still allow local schools to decide exactly 
where to place the most emphasis to achieve superior education results 
for our children.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the United States has long been proud of 
its public schools. Our schools, locally supported and run, have 
increased our country's prosperity, raised our quality of life, and 
been the source of tremendous community pride. Supporting our public 
schools has been, and always must be, a duty we perform in full.
  Our public schools face a variety of problems today that make it 
difficult for them to perform their mission of providing a world-class 
education to all children, regardless of race, gender, religion, or 
economic status. The people of our country, from coast to coast, 
realize that we must invest in public schools now. At this time, with 
our schools crowded, outdated, understaffed, and underfunded, we must 
pull together to provide educators the tools they need to guarantee 
that our country's future will be bright.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are well aware of the 
seriousness of the problems faced by our schools. We are concerned 
about soaring student enrollment, the shortage of qualified teachers, 
and acute school construction needs. In Dearborn, Michigan, and in 
other school districts in my district, students must learn in temporary 
classrooms. These cheaply constructed buildings, often just trailers, 
are hardly long-term solutions to crowded classrooms. While many 
schools lack enough classrooms, many others have insufficient roofing, 
heating, and plumbing.
  As public schools--where 90% of our nation's children are enrolled--
face these daunting challenges, politicians have rushed to reform 
education. Reform is needed, but hastily passed and poorly written 
legislation fails to provide accountability or guarantee positive 
results. We must not, for reform's sake, endorse education measures 
offering vague objectives. Doing so is gambling with our future.
  Remember what a great idea charter schools were? They were going to 
save schools here in DC, in Michigan, and everywhere. Have charter 
schools proven their worth? The answer is a loud NO. Studies in 
Michigan have shown little, if any, educational benefit. At the same 
time, they have sucked public monies from public schools that 
desperately need additional funding. Today's Washington Post chronicles 
the mismanagement and poor achievements of one of the District's 
charter schools; this school--opened in 1996 without accountability--
robbed taxpayers of their money and jeopardized the future of many 
young people.
  Today we debate the Teacher Empowerment Act. This bill promises more 
local control, increased support for teachers, and class-size 
reduction, but does none of these things. It offers only vague 
accountability. It does not address class-size reduction. While giving 
more power to state governments, it does not give more control to local 
schools. Nor does this bill provide ongoing professional development.
  Ideally, giving states education block grants with no strings 
attached would allow education-friendly governors to work with 
educators to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, and improve our 
schools. We do not live in an ideal world. Many governors, by their 
words and deeds, are not friends of public schools. They have used 
teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their own 
political agenda. More seriously, they have implemented education 
policies that abandon public schools by subsidizing private schools 
with public tax dollars. I am opposed to giving these ``reform-minded'' 
governors more control.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, this bill will not solve the many problems 
public schools face. These problems demand answers far and beyond block 
grants and waivers to rules in quality federal education programs. I am 
hopeful that we can all work together, write quality legislation, help 
our schools, and protect our nation's future.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act. By combining several current Federal education 
programs, including Goals 2000, the President's ``100,000 New 
Teachers'' program and the Eisenhower Professional Development program, 
this initiative will provide States and localities with the support and 
flexibility they need to provide quality training for teachers and 
reduce class size.
  Recently, the Clinton Administration unveiled its proposal to improve 
teacher quality and student achievement. Not surprisingly, the 
Administration wants to impose a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to 
education by mandating that schools use $1.2 billion of the funds under 
the Teacher Empowerment Act to reduce class size.
  Its proposal goes even further by mandating that local schools use 
their own funds to reduce class size to 18 or less in the early grades. 
H.R. 1995 provides an alternative.
  It allows schools both to improve teacher quality and reduce class 
size--but unlike the President's proposal, it allows school districts 
to determine the correct balance between these two strategies.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act gives States and localities flexibility 
to focus on initiatives they believe will improve both teacher quality 
and student performance, such as programs to promote tenure reform, 
teacher testing, merit-based teacher performance systems, alternative 
routes to teacher certification, differential and bonus pay for 
teachers in ``high need'' subject areas, mentoring, and in-service 
teacher academies.
  Furthermore, it holds them accountable to parents and taxpayers for 
demonstrating results measured in improved student performance and 
higher quality teachers.
  The President's current ``100,000 New Teachers Program'' lacks any 
requirement that schools reducing their class size demonstrate that 
such reduction is in fact improving student achievement.
  The accountability provisions in the TEA legislation help to end more 
than 30 years of funding Federal professional development programs 
without any accountability for how they help students learn. It brings 
into focus the purpose of the federal investment in teachers and 
professional development--helping children reach their fullest 
potential.
  The TEA bill ensures that states and school districts receiving these 
funds use effective ways of raising teacher quality that improve 
student performance and narrow the achievement gap between high and low 
performing students.
  H.R. 1995 is a well-balanced piece of legislation that allows States 
and local school districts to use funds to meet their individual 
professional needs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1995, 
the so-called Teacher Empowerment Act, and in support of the Martinez 
substitute. In its current form, this legislation does not empower 
teachers. Instead, it pits valuable programs--class size reduction, 
Goals 2000, and other professional development programs--against each 
other.
  Teacher quality and professional development are among the most 
important things we can provide our teachers to ensure they are able to 
properly do their jobs. We entrust teachers with our most important 
resource--our children. We should be doing everything within our power 
to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. Instead, H.R. 1995 
would force schools to choose between reducing class size and providing 
high quality professional development.
  The class size reduction program we enacted just last year was an 
important step in the right direction. One of the biggest problems 
facing our schools is overcrowded classrooms. In many of our 
classrooms, there are 35 students for every teacher. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 1995 would threaten the future of last year's effort by allowing 
funds to be diverted to other uses without requiring that our class 
sizes be reduced.
  In my home state of Texas, class-size limits were enacted in the mid-
1980s. Those limits have clearly shown that reducing class size 
improves student achievement as teachers are better able to deal with 
individual students' needs. Because of the Texas experience, I know how 
important it is to reduce class size. We should expand upon the program 
we initiated in the last Congress, not dilute it.
  The Martinez substitute does expand that program. It authorizes $1 
billion more than H.R. 1995 for teacher recruitment and training, and 
$500 million more for training special education teachers. It does not 
pit important programs against one another.
  Mr. Chairman, let's finish what we started. Support the Martinez 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of H.R. 1995 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1995

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Teacher Empowerment Act''.

[[Page H5874]]

     SEC. 2. TEACHER EMPOWERMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading for title II and inserting the 
     following:

                     ``TITLE II--TEACHER QUALITY'';

       (2) by repealing sections 2001 through 2003; and
       (3) by amending part A to read as follows:

                     ``PART A--TEACHER EMPOWERMENT

     ``SEC. 2001. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to provide grants to States 
     and local educational agencies in order to assist their 
     efforts to increase student academic achievement through such 
     strategies as improving teacher quality.

                     ``Subpart 1--Grants to States

     ``SEC. 2011. FORMULA GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of each State that in 
     accordance with section 2013 submits to the Secretary an 
     application for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make a 
     grant for the year to the State for the uses specified in 
     section 2012. The grant shall consist of the allotment 
     determined for the State under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Determination of Amount of Allotment.--
       ``(1) Reservation of funds.--From the amount made available 
     to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall reserve--
       ``(A) \1/2\ of 1 percent for allotments for the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, to be distributed among these 
     outlying areas on the basis of their relative need, as 
     determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purpose of 
     this part; and
       ``(B) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior 
     for programs under this part for professional development 
     activities for teachers, other staff, and administrators in 
     schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       ``(2) State allotments.--
       ``(A) Hold harmless.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), from the 
     total amount made available to carry out this subpart for any 
     fiscal year and not reserved under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall allot to each of the 50 States, the District 
     of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an amount 
     equal to the total amount that such State received for fiscal 
     year 1999 under--

       ``(I) section 2202(b) of this Act (as in effect on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of the Teacher Empowerment 
     Act);
       ``(II) section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1999; and
       ``(III) section 304(b) of the Goals 2000: Educate America 
     Act.

       ``(ii) Ratable reduction.--If the total amount made 
     available to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year and 
     not reserved under paragraph (1) is insufficient to pay the 
     full amounts that all States are eligible to receive under 
     clause (i) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall ratably 
     reduce such amounts for such fiscal year.
       ``(B) Allotment of additional funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for any fiscal 
     year for which the total amount made available to carry out 
     this subpart and not reserved under paragraph (1) exceeds the 
     total amount made available to the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for fiscal year 
     1999 under the authorities described in subparagraph (A)(i), 
     the Secretary shall allot such excess amount as follows:

       ``(I) 50 percent of such excess amount shall be allotted 
     among such States on the basis of their relative populations 
     of individuals aged 5 through 17, as determined by the 
     Secretary on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data.
       ``(II) 50 percent of such excess amount shall be allotted 
     among such States in proportion to the number of children, 
     aged 5 to 17, who reside within the State 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 
     are available, compared to the number of such individuals who 
     reside in all such States for that fiscal year.

       ``(ii) Exception.--No State receiving an allotment under 
     clause (i) may receive less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the 
     total excess amount allotted under clause (i).
       ``(3) Reallotment.--If any State does not apply for an 
     allotment under this subsection for any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reallot such amount to the remaining States 
     in accordance with this subsection.

     ``SEC. 2012. WITHIN-STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       ``(a) Use of Funds.--Each State receiving a grant under 
     this subpart shall use the funds provided under the grant in 
     accordance with this section to carry out activities for the 
     improvement of teaching and learning.
       ``(b) Required and Authorized Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Required expenditures.--The Secretary may make a 
     grant to a State under this subpart only if the State agrees 
     to expend at least--
       ``(A) 95 percent of the amount of the funds provided under 
     the grant for the purpose of making subgrants to local 
     educational agencies under subpart 3; and
       ``(B) 2 percent of the amount of the funds provided under 
     the grant for the purpose of making subgrants to eligible 
     partnerships under subpart 2 (of which percent, up to 5 
     percent may be used for planning and administration related 
     to carrying out such purpose).
       ``(2) Authorized expenditures.--A State that receives a 
     grant under this subpart may expend not more than 3 percent 
     of the amount of the funds provided under the grant for one 
     or more of the authorized State activities described in 
     subsection (d) (of which percent, the State may use up to 5 
     percent for planning and administration related to carrying 
     out such activities and making subgrants to local educational 
     agencies under subpart 3).
       ``(c) Distribution of Subgrants to Local Educational 
     Agencies.--
       ``(1) Formula for 80 percent of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a State receiving a grant under this subpart shall distribute 
     80 percent of the amount described in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     through a formula under which--
       ``(i) 50 percent is allocated to local educational agencies 
     in accordance with the relative enrollment in public and 
     private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the 
     boundaries of such agencies; and
       ``(ii) 50 percent is allocated to local educational 
     agencies in proportion to the number of children, aged 5 to 
     17, who reside within the geographic area served by such 
     agency 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 are available, compared to the 
     number of such individuals who reside in the geographic areas 
     served by all the local educational agencies in the State for 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Alternative formula.--A State may increase the 
     percentage described in subparagraph (A)(ii) (and 
     commensurately decrease the percentage described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i)).
       ``(2) Distribution of 20 percent of funds.--
       ``(A) Competitive process.--A State receiving a grant under 
     this subpart shall distribute 20 percent of the amount 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A) through a competitive 
     process that results in an equitable distribution by 
     geographic area within the State.
       ``(B) Participants.--The competitive process under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be open to local educational agencies 
     and eligible partnerships (as defined in section 2021(d)), 
     except that a State shall give priority to high-need local 
     educational agencies that focus on math, science, or reading 
     professional development programs.
       ``(d) Authorized State Activities.--The authorized State 
     activities referred to in subsection (b)(2) are the 
     following:
       ``(1) Reforming teacher certification, recertification, or 
     licensure requirements to ensure that--
       ``(A) teachers have the necessary teaching skills and 
     academic content knowledge in the subject areas in which they 
     are assigned to teach;
       ``(B) they are aligned with the State's challenging State 
     content standards; and
       ``(C) teachers have the knowledge and skills necessary to 
     help students meet challenging State student performance 
     standards.
       ``(2) Carrying out programs that--
       ``(A) include support during the initial teaching 
     experience; and
       ``(B) establish, expand, or improve alternative routes to 
     State certification of teachers for highly qualified 
     individuals with a baccalaureate degree, including mid-career 
     professionals from other occupations, paraprofessionals, 
     former military personnel, and recent college or university 
     graduates with records of academic distinction who 
     demonstrate the potential to become highly effective 
     teachers.
       ``(3) Developing and implementing effective mechanisms to 
     assist local educational agencies and schools in effectively 
     recruiting and retaining highly qualified and effective 
     teachers and principals.
       ``(4) Reforming tenure systems and implementing teacher 
     testing and other procedures to expeditiously remove 
     incompetent and ineffective teachers from the classroom.
       ``(5) Developing enhanced performance systems to measure 
     the effectiveness of specific professional development 
     programs and strategies.
       ``(6) Providing technical assistance to local educational 
     agencies consistent with this part.
       ``(7) Funding projects to promote reciprocity of teacher 
     certification or licensure between or among States, except 
     that no reciprocity agreement developed under this paragraph 
     or developed using funds provided under this part may lead to 
     the weakening of any State teaching certification or 
     licensing requirement.
       ``(8) Developing or assisting local educational agencies or 
     eligible partnerships (as defined in section 2021(d)) in the 
     development and utilization of proven, innovative strategies 
     to deliver intensive professional development programs that 
     are both cost-effective and easily accessible, such as 
     through the use of technology and distance learning.
       ``(e) Coordination.--States receiving grants under section 
     202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 shall coordinate the 
     use of such funds with activities carried out under this 
     section.
       ``(f) Public Accountability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     subpart--
       ``(A) in the event the State provides public State report 
     cards on education, shall include in such report cards--
       ``(i) the percentage of classes in core academic subject 
     areas that are taught by out-of-field teachers;
       ``(ii) the percentage of classes in core academic subject 
     areas that are taught by teachers teaching under emergency or 
     other provisional status through which State qualifications 
     or licensing criteria have been waived; and
       ``(iii) the average statewide class size; or
       ``(B) in the event the State provides no such report card, 
     shall disseminate to the public the information described in 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) through other means.

[[Page H5875]]

       ``(2) Public availability.--Such information shall be made 
     widely available to the public, including parents and 
     students, through major print and broadcast media outlets 
     throughout the State.

     ``SEC. 2013. APPLICATIONS BY STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subpart, a State shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each application under this section shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) A description of how the State will ensure that a 
     local educational agency receiving a subgrant under subpart 3 
     will comply with the requirements of such subpart, including 
     the required use of funds for mathematics and science 
     programs, professional development, and hiring teachers to 
     reduce class size.
       ``(2) A description of the specific performance indicators 
     the State will use (including an identification of how such 
     performance indicators will be measured and reported) for 
     each local educational agency to measure the annual progress 
     of activities funded under subpart 3 in increasing--
       ``(A) student academic achievement; and
       ``(B) teacher quality, as demonstrated through a reduction 
     in the number of out-of-field teachers in the classroom.
       ``(3) A description of the bonus incentives, if any, that 
     will be provided to local educational agencies that exceed a 
     level of improvement established by the State based on such 
     performance indicators, and actions the State will take in 
     the event a local educational agency fails to meet or make 
     progress toward such level of improvement.
       ``(4) A description of how the State will coordinate 
     professional development activities authorized under this 
     part with professional development activities provided under 
     other Federal, State, and local programs, including those 
     authorized under title I, title III, title IV, part A of 
     title VII, and (where applicable) the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Technical Education Act. The application shall also 
     describe the comprehensive strategy that the State will take 
     as part of such coordination effort, to ensure that teachers 
     are trained in the utilization of technology so that 
     technology and its applications are effectively used in the 
     classroom to improve teaching and learning in all curriculum 
     and content areas, as appropriate.
       ``(5) A description of how the State will encourage the 
     development of proven, innovative strategies to deliver 
     intensive professional development programs that are both 
     cost-effective and easily accessible, such as through the use 
     of technology and distance learning.
       ``(c) Application Submission.--A State application 
     submitted to the Secretary under this section shall be 
     approved by the Secretary unless the Secretary makes a 
     written determination, within 90 days after receiving the 
     application, that the application is in violation of the 
     provisions of this Act.

            ``Subpart 2--Subgrants to Eligible Partnerships

     ``SEC. 2021. PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amount described in section 
     2012(b)(1)(B), the State agency for higher education, working 
     in conjunction with the State educational agency (if such 
     agencies are separate), shall award grants on a competitive 
     basis to eligible partnerships to enable such partnerships to 
     carry out activities described in subsection (b). Such grants 
     shall be equitably distributed by geographic area within the 
     State.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A recipient of funds under this 
     section shall use the funds for--
       ``(1) professional development activities in core academic 
     subjects to ensure that teachers have content knowledge in 
     the subjects they teach; and
       ``(2) developing and providing assistance to local 
     educational agencies and the teachers, principals, and 
     administrators, of public and private schools in each such 
     agency, for sustained, high-quality professional development 
     activities which--
       ``(A) ensure they are able to use State content standards, 
     performance standards, and assessments to improve 
     instructional practices and improve student achievement; and
       ``(B) may include intensive programs designed to prepare 
     teachers who will return to their school to provide such 
     instruction to other teachers within such school.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--No single participant in an eligible 
     partnership may retain more than 50 percent of the funds made 
     available to the partnership under this section.
       ``(d) Eligible Partnerships.--As used in this section, the 
     term `eligible partnerships' means an entity that--
       ``(1) shall include--
       ``(A) a high-need local educational agency;
       ``(B) a school of arts and sciences; and
       ``(C) an institution that prepares teachers; and
       ``(2) may include other local educational agencies, a 
     public charter school, a public or private elementary or 
     secondary school, an educational service agency, a public or 
     private nonprofit educational organization, or a business.
       ``(e) Coordination.--Partnerships receiving grants under 
     section 203 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 shall 
     coordinate the use of such funds with any related activities 
     carried out by such partnership with funds made available 
     under this section.

          ``Subpart 3--Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies

     ``SEC. 2031. LOCAL USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Required Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives a subgrant under this subpart shall use the subgrant 
     to carry out the activities described in this subsection.
       ``(2) Mathematics and science.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amount made available to each 
     local educational agency under this subpart for a fiscal 
     year, the agency shall use not less than the amount provided 
     to the agency under section 2206(b) of this Act (as in effect 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of the Teacher 
     Empowerment Act) for the fiscal year preceding such enactment 
     for professional development activities in mathematics and 
     science in accordance with section 2033.
       ``(B) Waiver.--
       ``(i) Application.--A local educational agency, in 
     consultation with teachers and principals, may seek a waiver 
     of the requirement in subparagraph (A) from a State in order 
     to allow the local educational agency to use such funds for 
     professional development in academic subjects other than 
     mathematics and science.
       ``(ii) Standard for granting.--A State may not approve such 
     a waiver unless the local educational agency is able to 
     demonstrate that--

       ``(I) the professional development needs of mathematics and 
     science teachers, including elementary teachers responsible 
     for teaching mathematics and science, have been adequately 
     served and will continue to be adequately served if the 
     waiver is approved;
       ``(II) State assessments in mathematics and science 
     demonstrate that each school within the local educational 
     agency has made and will continue to make progress toward 
     meeting the challenging State or local content standards and 
     student performance standards in these areas; and
       ``(III) State assessments in other academic subjects 
     demonstrate a need to focus on subjects other than 
     mathematics and science.

       ``(iii) Grandfather of old waivers.--A waiver provided to a 
     local educational agency under part D of title XIV prior to 
     the date of the enactment of the Teacher Empowerment Act 
     shall be deemed effective until such time as it otherwise 
     would have ceased to be effective.
       ``(3) Professional development activities.--Each local 
     educational agency that receives a subgrant under this 
     subpart shall use a portion of such funds for professional 
     development activities that give teachers, principals, and 
     administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students 
     with the opportunity to meet challenging State or local 
     content standards and student performance standards. 
     Such activities shall be consistent with sections 2033 and 
     2034.
       ``(4) Hiring and retaining well-qualified and effective 
     teachers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives a subgrant under this subpart shall use a portion of 
     such funds for recruiting, hiring, and training certified 
     teachers, including teachers certified through State and 
     local alternative routes, in order to reduce class size.
       ``(B) Special rule for special education teachers.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local educational agency 
     may use some or all of the funds described in such 
     subparagraph to hire special education teachers regardless of 
     whether such action reduces class size.
       ``(C) Waiver.--
       ``(i) Application.--A local educational agency may seek a 
     waiver of the requirement in subparagraph (A) from a State in 
     order to allow the local educational agency to use such funds 
     for purposes other than hiring teachers in order to reduce 
     class size.
       ``(ii) Standard for granting.--A State may not approve such 
     a waiver unless the local educational agency is able to 
     demonstrate that--

       ``(I) such funds will be used to ensure that all 
     instructional staff have the subject matter knowledge, 
     teaching knowledge, and teaching skills necessary to teach 
     effectively in the content area or areas in which they 
     provide instruction; or
       ``(II) an initiative to reduce class size would result in 
     having to rely on underqualified teachers, inadequate 
     classroom space, or would have any other negative consequence 
     affecting the efforts of the local educational agency to 
     improve student academic achievement.

       ``(b) Allowable Activities.--Each local educational agency 
     that receives a subgrant under this subpart may use the 
     subgrant to carry out the following activities:
       ``(1) Initiatives to assist recruitment of highly qualified 
     teachers who will be assigned teaching positions within their 
     field, including--
       ``(A) providing signing bonuses or other financial 
     incentives, such as differential pay, for teachers to teach 
     in academic subject areas in which there exists a shortage of 
     such teachers within a school or the local educational 
     agency;
       ``(B) establishing programs that--
       ``(i) recruit professionals from other fields and provide 
     such professionals with alternative routes to teacher 
     certification; and
       ``(ii) provide increased opportunities for minorities, 
     individuals with disabilities, and other individuals 
     underrepresented in the teaching profession; and
       ``(C) implementing hiring policies that ensure 
     comprehensive recruitment efforts as a way to expand the 
     applicant pool, such as through identifying teachers 
     certified through alternative routes, coupled with a system 
     of intensive screening designed to hire the most qualified 
     applicant.
       ``(2) Initiatives to promote retention of highly qualified 
     teachers and principals including--
       ``(A) programs that provide mentoring to newly hired 
     teachers, such as from master teachers, and to newly hired 
     principals; or
       ``(B) programs that provide other incentives, including 
     financial incentives, to retain teachers who have a record of 
     success in helping low-achieving students improve their 
     academic success.
       ``(3) Programs and activities that are designed to improve 
     the quality of the teacher force, such as--

[[Page H5876]]

       ``(A) innovative professional development programs (which 
     may be through partnerships including institutions of higher 
     education), including programs that train teachers to utilize 
     technology to improve teaching and learning, that are 
     consistent with the requirements of section 2033;
       ``(B) development and utilization of proven, cost-effective 
     strategies for the implementation of professional development 
     activities, such as through the utilization of technology and 
     distance learning;
       ``(C) tenure reform;
       ``(D) merit pay;
       ``(E) testing of elementary and secondary school teachers 
     in the subject areas taught by such teachers;
       ``(F) professional development programs that provide 
     instruction in how to teach children with different learning 
     styles, particularly children with disabilities and children 
     with special learning needs (including those who are gifted 
     and talented); and
       ``(G) professional development programs that provide 
     instruction in how best to discipline children in the 
     classroom and identify early and appropriate interventions to 
     help children described in subparagraph (F) learn.
       ``(4) Teacher opportunity payments, consistent with section 
     2034.

     ``SEC. 2032. LOCAL APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--A local educational agency seeking to 
     receive a subgrant from a State under this subpart shall 
     submit an application to the State--
       ``(1) at such time as the State shall require; and
       ``(2) which is coordinated with other programs under this 
     Act, or other Acts, as appropriate.
       ``(b) Local Application Contents.--The local application 
     described in subsection (a), shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(1) A description of how the local educational agency 
     intends to use funds provided under this subpart, including 
     an assurance that the local educational agency will meet the 
     requirements for the use of funds for mathematics and science 
     programs, professional development, and hiring teachers to 
     reduce class size, under section 2031.
       ``(2) An assurance that the local educational agency will 
     target funds to schools within the jurisdiction of the local 
     educational agency that--
       ``(A) have the highest proportion of out-of-field teachers;
       ``(B) have the largest average class size; or
       ``(C) are identified for school improvement under section 
     1116(c).
       ``(3) A description of how the local educational agency 
     will coordinate professional development activities 
     authorized under this subpart with professional development 
     activities provided through other Federal, State, and local 
     programs, including those authorized under title I, title 
     III, title IV, part A of title VII, and (where applicable) 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Carl 
     D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act.
       ``(4) A description of how the local educational agency 
     will integrate funds under this subpart with funds received 
     under title III that are used for professional development to 
     train teachers in how to use technology to improve learning 
     and teaching.
       ``(c) Parents' Right-To-Know.--A local educational agency 
     that receives funds under this subpart shall provide, upon 
     request and in an understandable and uniform format, to any 
     parent of a student attending any school receiving funds 
     under this subpart, information regarding the professional 
     qualifications of the student's classroom teachers, 
     including, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(1) Whether the teacher has met State qualification and 
     licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in 
     which the teacher provides instruction.
       ``(2) Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or 
     other provisional status through which State qualification or 
     licensing criteria have been waived.
       ``(3) The baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any 
     other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, 
     and the field or discipline of the certification or degree.

     ``SEC. 2033. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Limitation Relating to Curriculum and Content 
     Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     professional development funds under this subpart may not be 
     provided for a teacher and an activity if the activity is 
     not--
       ``(A) directly related to the curriculum and content areas 
     in which the teacher provides instruction; or
       ``(B) designed to enhance the ability of the teacher to 
     understand and use the State's standards for the subject area 
     in which the teacher provides instruction.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to funds for 
     professional development activities that instruct in methods 
     of disciplining children.
       ``(b) Other Requirements.--Professional development 
     activities funded under this subpart--
       ``(1) shall be measured, in terms of progress, using the 
     specific performance indicators established by the State in 
     accordance with section 2013(b)(2);
       ``(2) shall be tied to challenging State or local content 
     standards and student performance standards;
       ``(3) shall be tied to scientifically based research 
     demonstrating the effectiveness of such program in increasing 
     student achievement or substantially increasing the knowledge 
     and teaching skills of such teachers;
       ``(4) shall be of sufficient intensity and duration (such 
     as not to include 1-day or short-term workshops and 
     conferences) to have a positive and lasting impact on the 
     teacher's performance in the classroom, except that this 
     paragraph shall not apply to an activity if such activity is 
     one component of a long-term comprehensive professional 
     development plan established by the teacher and the teacher's 
     supervisor based upon an assessment of their needs, their 
     students' needs, and the needs of the local educational 
     agency; and
       ``(5) shall be developed with extensive participation of 
     teachers, principals, and administrators of schools to be 
     served under this part.
       ``(c) Accountability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State shall notify a local educational 
     agency that the agency is on notice of the possibility that 
     the agency may be subject to the requirement in paragraph (3) 
     if, after any fiscal year, the State determines that the 
     programs or activities funded by the agency fail to meet the 
     requirements of subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--A local educational agency 
     that has been put on notice pursuant to paragraph (1) may 
     request technical assistance from the State in order to 
     provide the opportunity for such local educational agency 
     to comply with the requirements of subsections (a) and 
     (b).
       ``(3) Requirement to provide teacher opportunity 
     payments.--A local educational agency that has been put on 
     notice by the State pursuant to paragraph (1) during any 2 
     consecutive fiscal years shall expend under section 2034 for 
     the succeeding fiscal year a proportion of the amount made 
     available to the agency under this subpart equal to the 
     proportion of such amount expended by the agency on 
     professional development for the second fiscal year in which 
     it was put on notice.

     ``SEC. 2034. TEACHER OPPORTUNITY PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A local educational agency receiving 
     funds under this subpart may (or, in the case of a local 
     educational agency described in section 2033(c)(3), shall) 
     provide funds directly to a teacher or a group of teachers 
     seeking opportunities to participate in a professional 
     development activity of their choice.
       ``(b) Notice to Teachers.--Local educational agencies 
     distributing funds under this section shall establish and 
     implement a timely process through which proper notice of 
     availability of funds will be given to all teachers within 
     schools identified by the agency and shall develop a process 
     whereby teachers will be specifically recommended by 
     principals to participate in such program by virtue of--
       ``(1) their lack of full certification to teach in the 
     subject or subjects in which they teach; or
       ``(2) their need for additional assistance to ensure that 
     their students make progress toward meeting challenging State 
     content standards and student performance standards.
       ``(c) Selection of Teachers.--In the event adequate funding 
     is not available to provide payments under this section to 
     all teachers seeking such assistance, or identified as 
     needing such assistance pursuant to subsection (b), a local 
     educational agency shall establish procedures for selecting 
     teachers which provide a priority for those teachers 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b).
       ``(d) Eligible Program.--Teachers receiving a payment under 
     this section shall have the choice of attending any 
     professional development program that meets the criteria set 
     forth in subsection (a) or (b) of section 2033.

                    ``Subpart 4--National Activities

     ``SEC. 2041. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO TEACHING.

       ``(a) Teacher Excellence Academies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants on a 
     competitive basis to eligible consortia to carry out 
     activities described in this subsection.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible consortium receiving funds 
     under this subsection shall use the funds to pay the costs 
     associated with the establishment or expansion of a teacher 
     academy in an elementary or secondary school facility that 
     carries out the activities promoting alternative routes to 
     State teacher certification specified in subparagraph (B), 
     the model professional development activities specified in 
     subparagraph (C), or all such activities.
       ``(B) Promoting alternative routes to teacher 
     certification.--The activities promoting alternative routes 
     to State teacher certification specified in this subparagraph 
     are the design and implementation of a course of study and 
     activities providing an alternative route to State teacher 
     certification that--
       ``(i) provide opportunities to highly qualified individuals 
     with a baccalaureate degree, including mid-career 
     professionals from other occupations, paraprofessionals, 
     former military personnel, and recent college or university 
     graduates with records of academic distinction;
       ``(ii) provide stipends, for not more than 2 years, to 
     permit individuals described in clause (i) to participate as 
     student teachers able to fill teaching needs in academic 
     subjects in which there is a demonstrated shortage of 
     teachers;
       ``(iii) provide for the recruitment and hiring of master 
     teachers to mentor and train student teachers within such 
     academies; and
       ``(iv) include a reasonable service requirement for 
     individuals completing the alternative certification program 
     established by the consortium.
       ``(C) Model professional development.--The model 
     professional development activities specified in this 
     subparagraph are activities providing ongoing professional 
     development opportunities for teachers, such as--
       ``(i) innovative programs and model curricula in the area 
     of professional development which may serve as models to be 
     disseminated to other schools and local educational agencies; 
     and
       ``(ii) developing innovative techniques for evaluating the 
     effectiveness of professional development programs.

[[Page H5877]]

       ``(3) Priority.--The Secretary shall award not less than 1 
     grant to a consortium that--
       ``(A) includes a high-need local educational agency located 
     in a rural area; and
       ``(B) proposes the extensive use of distance learning in 
     order to provide the applicable course work to student 
     teachers.
       ``(4) Special rule.--No single participant in an eligible 
     consortium may retain more than 50 percent of the funds made 
     available to the consortium under this subsection.
       ``(5) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection, an eligible consortium shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       ``(6) Eligible consortium.--In this subsection, the term 
     `eligible consortium' means a consortium for a State that--
       ``(A) shall include--
       ``(i) the State agency responsible for certifying teachers;
       ``(ii) not less than 1 high-need local educational agency;
       ``(iii) a school of arts and sciences; and
       ``(iv) an institution that prepares teachers; and
       ``(B) may include local educational agencies, public 
     charter schools, public or private elementary or secondary 
     schools, educational service agencies, public or private 
     nonprofit educational organizations, museums, or businesses.
       ``(b) Continuation of Troops-to-Teachers Program.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subsection to 
     authorize the continuation after September 30, 1999, of the 
     teachers and teachers' aide placement program known as the 
     `troops-to-teachers program', which was established by the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation 
     with respect to the Coast Guard, under section 1151 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       ``(2) Transfer of funds to continue program.--Subject to 
     the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of 
     Education may provide a transfer of funds to the Defense 
     Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support of the 
     Department of Defense to permit the Defense Activity to carry 
     out the troops-to-teachers program under section 1151 of 
     title 10, United States Code, notwithstanding the termination 
     date specified in subsection (c)(1)(A) of such section.
       ``(3) Defense and coast guard contribution.--The Secretary 
     of Education may not make a transfer of funds under paragraph 
     (2) unless the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of 
     Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard, agree to 
     cover not less than 25 percent of the costs associated with 
     the activities conducted under the troops-to-teachers 
     program. The contributions may be in the form of in-kind 
     contributions or cash expenditures, which may include the use 
     of private contributions made for purposes of the program.
       ``(4) Eligible members.--After September 30, 1999, the 
     troops-to-teachers program shall have a primary focus of 
     recruiting members of the Armed Forces who are retiring after 
     not less than 20 years of active duty.
       ``(5) Placement priority.--The Defense Activity for Non-
     Traditional Education Support shall cooperate with the 
     Department of Education in efforts to notify high-need local 
     educational agencies of the services available to them under 
     the troops-to-teachers program.

     ``SEC. 2042. EISENHOWER NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 
                   MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION.

       ``The Secretary may award a grant or contract, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, to continue the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse 
     for Mathematics and Science Education.

                          ``Subpart 5--Funding

     ``SEC. 2051. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--For the purpose of carrying out 
     this part, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $2,019,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which $15,000,000 are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out subpart 4.
       ``(b) Other Fiscal Years.--For the purpose of carrying out 
     this part, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

                    ``Subpart 6--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 2061. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Arts and sciences.--The term `arts and sciences' 
     means--
       ``(A) when referring to an organizational unit of an 
     institution of higher education, any academic unit that 
     offers 1 or more academic majors in disciplines or content 
     areas corresponding to the academic subject matter areas in 
     which teachers provide instruction; and
       ``(B) when referring to a specific academic subject matter 
     area, the disciplines or content areas in which academic 
     majors are offered by the arts and sciences organizational 
     unit.
       ``(2) High-need local educational agency.--The term `high-
     need local educational agency' means a local educational 
     agency that serves an elementary school or secondary school 
     located in an area in which there is--
       ``(A) a high percentage of individuals 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)));
       ``(B) a high percentage of secondary school teachers not 
     teaching in the content area in which the teachers were 
     trained to teach; or
       ``(C) a high teacher turnover rate.
       ``(3) Out-of-field teacher.--The term `out-of-field 
     teacher' means a teacher--
       ``(A) teaching a subject for which he or she is not fully 
     qualified, as determined by the State; or
       ``(B) who did not receive a degree from an institution of 
     higher education with a major or minor in the field in which 
     he or she teaches.
       ``(4) Scientifically based research.--The term 
     `scientifically based research'--
       ``(A) means the application of rigorous, systematic, and 
     objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to 
     professional development of teachers; and
       ``(B) shall include research that--
       ``(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on 
     observation or experiment;
       ``(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to 
     test the stated hypotheses and justify the general 
     conclusions drawn;
       ``(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods 
     that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and 
     across multiple measurements and observations; and
       ``(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or 
     approved by a panel of independent experts through a 
     comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) National writing project.--Section 10992(i) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8332(i)) is amended by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``such sums as may be necessary''.
       (2) Reference to national clearinghouse for mathematics and 
     science education.--Section 13302(1) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8672(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``2102(b)'' and inserting ``2042''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO READING EXCELLENCE ACT.

       (a) Repeal of Part B.--Part B of title II of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641-6651) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Reading Excellence Act.--
       (1) Part heading.--Part C of title II of such Act is 
     redesignated as part B and the heading for such part B is 
     amended to read as follows:

                  ``PART B--READING EXCELLENCE ACT''.

       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 2260(a) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6661i) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Fiscal years 2001 to 2004.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out this part $260,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2004.''.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by repealing part D;
       (2) by redesignating part E as part C; and
       (3) by striking sections 2401 and 2402 and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2401. PROHIBITION ON MANDATORY NATIONAL CERTIFICATION 
                   OF TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Prohibition on Mandatory Testing or Certification.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary is 
     prohibited from using Federal funds to plan, develop, 
     implement, or administer any mandatory national teacher test 
     or certification.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Withholding Funds.--The Secretary is 
     prohibited from withholding funds from any State or local 
     educational agency if such State or local educational agency 
     fails to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.

     ``SEC. 2402. PROVISIONS RELATED TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

       ``The provisions of sections 14503 through 14506 apply to 
     programs under this title.

     ``SEC. 2403. HOME SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to permit, 
     allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any 
     aspect of any private, religious, or home school, whether or 
     not a home school is treated as a private school or home 
     school under State law. This section shall not be construed 
     to bar private, religious, or home schools from participation 
     in programs or services under this title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Definition of covered program.--Section 14101(10)(C) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801(10)(C)) is amended by striking ``(other than section 
     2103 and part D)''.
       (2) Private school participation.--Section 14503(b)(1)(B) 
     (20 U.S.C. 8893(b)(1)(B)) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``(other than section 2103 and part D of such title)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in House report 106-240. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in the House 
report 106-240.

[[Page H5878]]

                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(ii) Nonparticipating states.--In the case of a State 
     that did not receive any funds for fiscal year 1999 under one 
     or more of the provisions referred to in subclauses (I) 
     through (III) of clause (i), the amount allotted to the State 
     under such clause shall be the total amount that the State 
     would have received for fiscal year 1999 if it had elected to 
     participate in all of the programs for which it was eligible 
     under each of the provisions referred to in such subclauses.
       Page 5, line 1, strike ```(ii)'' and insert ```(iii)''.
       Page 7, strike lines 11 through 21 and insert the 
     following:
     if the State agrees to expend at least 95 percent of the 
     amount of the funds provided under the grant for the purpose 
     of making, in accordance with this part, subgrants to local 
     educational agencies under subpart 3 and subgrants to 
     eligible partnerships under subpart 2.
       Page 7, line 24, strike ``3'' and insert ``5''.
       Page 8, beginning on line 6, strike ``Subgrants'' and all 
     that follows through the end of line 7 and insert 
     ``Subgrants.--''.
       Page 8, beginning on line 9, strike ``Except'' and all that 
     follows through ``a'' on line 10 and insert ``A''.
       Page 8, line 12, strike ``(b)(1)(A)'' and insert 
     ``(b)(1)''.
       Page 9, strike lines 10 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) Minimum amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--For any fiscal year for which a local 
     educational agency would receive under subparagraph (A) an 
     amount that is less than the total amount that the agency 
     received for fiscal year 1999 under--

       ``(I) section 2203(1)(B) of this Act (as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of the Teacher 
     Empowerment Act); and
       ``(II) section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1999;

     a State receiving a grant under this subpart shall ensure 
     that the local educational agency receives under this 
     paragraph an amount equal to such total amount.
       ``(ii) Source of funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a 
     State shall use such portion of the funds described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) as may be necessary to pay to a local 
     educational agency the difference between the agency's 
     allotment under subparagraph (A) and the allotment to the 
     agency required under clause (i).
       Page 9, line 15, strike ``A State'' and insert ``Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), a State''.
       Page 9, line 18, strike ``(b)(1)(A)'' and insert ``(b)(1) 
     (or such portion of such amount as remains after satisfaction 
     of the requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of 
     paragraph (1))''.
       Page 9, line 25, strike ``high-need''.
       Page 10, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(C) Subgrants to eligible partnerships.--A State 
     receiving a grant under this subpart shall expend at least 3 
     percent of the amount described in subparagraph (A) for the 
     purpose of making subgrants to eligible partnerships under 
     subpart 2.
       Page 10, line 20, strike ``teachers'' and insert 
     ``teachers, especially in the areas of mathematics and 
     science,''.
       Beginning on page 12, strike line 9 through page 13, line 
     8, and insert the following:
       ``(f) Public Accountability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     subpart--
       ``(A) in the event the State provides public State report 
     cards on education, shall include in such report cards 
     information on the State's progress with respect to--
       ``(i) subject to paragraph (2), improving student academic 
     achievement, as defined by the State;
       ``(ii) closing academic achievement gaps, as defined by the 
     State, between the groups described in paragraph (2)(A)(i);
       ``(iii) increasing the percentage of classes in core 
     academic areas taught by fully qualified teachers; and
       ``(iv) reducing class size; or
       ``(B) in the event the State provides no such report card, 
     shall publicly report the information described in 
     subparagraph (A) through other means.
       ``(2) Disaggregated data.--The information described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) and section 2013(b)(3)((A) shall be--
       ``(A) disaggregated--
       ``(i) by minority and non-minority status and by low-income 
     and non-low-income status; and
       ``(ii) using assessments consistent with section 
     1111(b)(3); and
       ``(B) publicly reported in the form of disaggregated data 
     only when such data are statistically sound.
       Beginning on page 13, strike line 22 through page 14, line 
     13, and insert the following:
       ``(2) A plan to ensure all teachers within the State are 
     fully qualified not later than December 31, 2003.
       ``(3) An assurance that the State will require each local 
     educational agency and school receiving funds under this 
     title to publicly report their annual progress on the 
     agency's and the school's performance indicators in the 
     following:
       ``(A) Subject to section 2012(f)(2), improving student 
     academic achievement, as defined by the State.
       ``(B) Closing academic achievement gaps, as defined by the 
     State, between the groups described in section 
     2012(f)(2)(A)(i).
       ``(C) Increasing the percentage of classes in core academic 
     areas taught by fully qualified teachers.
       ``(4) A description of how the State will hold local 
     educational agencies and schools accountable for making 
     annual gains in meeting the performance indicators described 
     in paragraph (3).
       Page 14, line 14, strike ```(4)'' and insert ```(5)''.
       Page 15, line 5, strike ```(5)'' and insert ```(6)''.
       Page 15, line 20, strike ``2012(b)(1)(B),'' and insert 
     ``2012(c)(2)(C),''.
       Page 16, line 2, strike ``State.'' and insert ``State. Not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount made available to an agency 
     to carry out this subpart may be used for planning and 
     administration.''.
       Page 18, line 4, strike ``provided to'' and insert 
     ``expended by''.
       Page 20, line 16, strike ``certified'' and insert ``fully 
     qualified''.
       Page 20, line 17, strike ``certified'' and insert ``fully 
     qualified''.
       Page 22, line 12, before ``teachers'' insert ``fully 
     qualified''.
       Page 22, line 17, strike ``certification;'' and insert 
     ``certification, especially in the areas of mathematics and 
     science;''.
       Page 25, beginning on line 16, strike ``highest proportion 
     of out-of-field teachers;'' and insert ``lowest proportion of 
     fully qualified teachers;''.
       Page 27, line 24, strike ``2013(b)(2);'' and insert 
     ``2013(b)(3);''.
       Page 28, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``and, with respect to any professional development program 
     described in subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section 2031(b)(3), 
     shall, if appropriate, be developed with extensive 
     coordination with, and participation of, professionals with 
     expertise in such types of professional development.''.
       Page 30, line 10, strike ``lack of full certification'' and 
     insert ``not being fully qualified''.
       Page 34, line 23, strike ``1999,'' and insert ``2000,''.
       Beginning on page 35, strike line 24 through page 36, line 
     9.
       Page 36, after line 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2043. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRINCIPALS AS 
                   LEADERS OF SCHOOL REFORM.

       ``(a) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     on a competitive basis to eligible partnerships--
       ``(1) consisting of--
       ``(A) one or more institutions of higher education that 
     provide professional development for principals and other 
     school administrators; and
       ``(B) one or more local educational agencies; and
       ``(2) that may include other entities, agencies, or 
     organizations, such as a State educational agency, a State 
     agency for higher education, educational service agencies, or 
     professional organizations of principals and teachers.
       ``(b) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any eligible partnership that desires to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each such application shall include a 
     description of--
       ``(A) the activities the partnership will carry out to 
     achieve the purpose of this section;
       ``(B) how those activities will build on, and be 
     coordinated with, other professional development programs and 
     activities, including activities under title I of this Act 
     and title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
       ``(C) how principals, teachers, and other interested 
     individuals were involved in developing the application and 
     will be involved in planning and carrying out activities 
     under this section.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership that receives 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to 
     provide professional development to principals and other 
     school administrators to enable them to be effective school 
     leaders and prepare all students to achieve to challenging 
     State content and student performance standards, including 
     professional development relating to--
       ``(1) leadership skills;
       ``(2) recruitment, assignment, retention, and evaluation of 
     teachers and other staff;
       ``(3) effective instructional practices, including the use 
     of technology;
       ``(4) using smaller classes effectively; and
       ``(5) parental and community involvement.
       Page 37, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(2) Fully qualified.--The term `fully qualified'--
       ``(A) when used with respect to a public elementary or 
     secondary school teacher (other than a teacher teaching in a 
     public charter school), means that the teacher has obtained 
     State certification as a teacher (including certification 
     obtained through alternative routes to certification) or 
     passed the State teacher licensing exam and holds a license 
     to teach in such State; and
       ``(B) when used with respect to --
       ``(i) an elementary school teacher, means that the teacher 
     holds a bachelor's degree and demonstrates knowledge and 
     teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, science, 
     and other areas of the elementary school curriculum; or

[[Page H5879]]

       ``(ii) a middle or secondary school teacher, means that the 
     teacher holds a bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high 
     level of competency in all subject areas in which he or she 
     teaches through--

       ``(I) a high level of performance on a rigorous State or 
     local academic subject areas test; or
       ``(II) completion of an academic major in each of the 
     subject areas in which he or she provides instruction.

       Page 37, line 16, strike ```(2)'' and insert ```(3)''.
       Page 38, strike lines 5 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) Publicly report.--The term `publicly report', when 
     used with respect to the dissemination of information, means 
     that the information is made widely available to the public, 
     including parents and students, through such means as the 
     Internet and major print and broadcast media outlets.
       Page 38, line 13, strike ```(4)'' and insert ```(5)''.
       Page 39, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) National writing project.--Section 10992(i) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8332(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the grant to the National 
     Writing Project, such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to carry out the provisions of 
     this section.''.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act will provide a major boost 
to schools in their efforts to establish and support a high quality 
teaching force, and that should be the whole emphasis of the debate. 
How do we get a high-quality teaching force? The amendment strengthens 
the bipartisan committee-passed version, and I believe will only 
further our ability to pass this today in an overwhelming bipartisan 
fashion.
  First, we have addressed the important issue of funding at the local 
level. We have heard people say over and over again, we are going to 
lose money, we are going to lose money; no one loses money. In my 
manager's amendment, they have the opportunity of taking existing 
amounts that they receive, or going to the 50-50 formula. So no one 
loses.
  So we can stop that argument right away. No one loses. We do not lose 
any from poverty schools, we do not lose any from inner city, we do not 
lose any anywhere, unless for some reason or other we pass some kind of 
budget that reduces spending and then, of course, on these programs, 
then we would lose. Specifically, the amendment includes provisions 
which will enable each local educational agency to receive the higher 
of the funds they received in fiscal year 1999 or under the new 
formula. No one loses money. The additional funds to make up the 
difference come from the competitive grants from the State.
  In addition, we have strengthened the accountability provisions, and 
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for that. We did a 
good job initially, and his efforts have only made it even better.
  Now, contrast that to what is happening today. Every grant that has 
gone out has no quality attached to it whatsoever. And, of course, the 
end result is one does not have to be certified or qualified, one just 
has to be breathing. I have not heard the President say that, but I 
suppose one does in order to qualify for one of these new jobs.
  In ours, with the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), 
all teachers are qualified by the year 2003. Again, I would say that we 
have to concentrate primarily on how do we provide a quality teacher in 
every classroom for every child throughout this country. That should be 
our number one goal, and when we complete this legislation, we will be 
on the right path to make sure that that happens, and do not keep 
arguing that we know it all here. I have been in both places. There is 
room for improvement in both places. But I will guarantee my 
colleagues, most of what I got when I was there did not make sense in 
relationship to the local district that I was trying to supervise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this Goodling amendment because it corrects some of the 
major flaws contained in the reported bill. But to fix the rest of this 
flawed bill we must vote to support the Martinez substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I will insert my remarks in support of my 
position into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this Goodling amendment because it corrects 
some of the major flaws contained in the reported bill, to fix the rest 
of this flawed bill, we must vote to support this Martinez substitute.
  This amendment contains the Miller accountability provisions 
contained in the Martinez Democratic substitute. These provisions 
ensure there will be a qualified teacher in every classroom--and that 
the Congress receive comprehensive information about teacher quality 
and student achievement. The reported bill amounted to a black check to 
States to spend for teacher related purposes, with virtually no 
accountability.
  The Miller amendment is designed to hold States and school districts 
accountable for Federal funds.
  This amendment also makes some short term improvements in the 
targeting of funds to the poorest school districts. Currently, funds 
for class size reduction are distributed by formula, targeted at areas 
of greatest need. The reported bill slashed millions of dollars in 
funding to poor urban and rural areas in order to benefit wealthy 
suburbs. This amendment adopts a ``hold harmless'' to school districts 
for this year, so that no school district will lose funds next year. 
Unfortunately, this amendment does not target new funding to needy 
areas; The Martinez substitute continues targeting, and also makes 
substantial new investment for class size reduction and teacher 
training.
  Finally, this amendment includes another Democratic amendment 
proposed by Representative Kind creating a new grant program for 
improving professional development for principals. This too is included 
in the Martinez substitute.
  While I support the half measures contained in this amendment--to do 
the job right we must support the Martinez amendment later that not 
only includes all these provisions, but restores the Clinton Clay class 
size reduction program, and makes substantial new investments in 
teacher training.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), the ranking member, for yielding to me.
  I rise today in support of the Goodling amendment. I think many of 
the provisions that are included in this amendment make a good bill 
even better. Many of the provisions that are in the manager's amendment 
were actually contained in the Martinez substitute during committee 
debate, one that I was happy to support and I will support again today. 
I especially like those provisions that deal with the hold harmless 
with funding for the States, the public accountability which requires a 
report to the community and to the parents in regards to the progress 
of educational improvement contained in the bill, and the quality 
language that is now contained in the manager's mark, something that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has been striving and 
pushing for for many, many months during the course of the evolution of 
this bill.
  I want to just take a moment to thank both the ranking member on the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) as well as 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for the full cooperation and the support 
that I have received in regards to a provision that I feel is 
incredibly important to the overall integrity of this bill. That is the 
recognition that not only should this legislation be striving to 
improve the quality of teacher training and the quality of teachers in 
the classroom, but also recognizes the particular importance that 
principals, administrators and superintendents have in improving the 
quality of education for our children.

[[Page H5880]]

  We all recognize that it is tough for a football team to make it to 
the Super Bowl without a good quarterback--the same is true in the 
public school system. If we do not have quality principals, quality 
administrators or superintendents of the school districts who recognize 
the need for reform in the school district and can provide the crucial 
leadership, it is going to be very hard to get the teachers and the 
parents in the community to buy into the programs that are vitally 
necessary to make those changes.
  That is why I have worked on drafting an amendment at the committee 
level that has now been accepted in the chair's amendment that 
recognizes the particular challenge that we face in regards to 
principals and administrators across the country.
  The language that I have drafted is designed to specifically identify 
the needs of principals and administrators and superintendents as 
leaders in the education at schools, and recognize that these people as 
individual leaders of the school do not have a peer network, so 
professional development programs should create such networks. It also 
provides a competitive grant to the partnership to provide professional 
development to principals and other school administrators to enable 
them to be effective school leaders and prepare students to achieve 
challenging performance standards.
  The partnerships are to be made of an institution of higher education 
which provides professional development to principals and 
administrators, along with one or more school districts or schools, and 
any other entity, agency or organization such as the State Department 
of Education and professional associations.
  Mr. Chairman, this came out of recognition and feedback that I 
received from people back in my congressional district in western 
Wisconsin. I have witnessed that some school districts go through 2 or 
3 different interviewing rounds just to find a good, qualified 
principal for a vacancy, or a good, qualified superintendent. As I 
spoke to many of the superintendents and principals around the school 
districts, they felt the need for this amendment.
  I want to again express my appreciation to the chair of the 
subcommittee and to the chair of the full committee as well as the 
leadership on the democratic side for the recognition of this provision 
contained in the bill.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses a very real and 
serious issue. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I 
have been struck by the sincere concern expressed by education 
professionals and leaders nationwide regarding a pending crisis in the 
quality of education in America.
  A common theme we heard during committee hearings is that the nation 
is on the verge of a serious shortage of teachers--a shortage already 
experienced in some areas--generally due to baby-boomer retirements. 
Further, many states have been hiring teachers on an emergency basis, 
so that while classrooms may have new instructors, the level of quality 
may differ dramatically school-to-school and district-to-district.
  The Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, have worked hard to 
address this problem by encouraging professional development and high 
standards in hiring, training, and retaining well-qualified teachers. 
Witnesses and studies testify to the fact that teachers are far more 
confident in the classroom when they receive good, ongoing professional 
development opportunities.
  I must admit, I have not been enthusiastic about the Chairman's 
decision to split the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, 
into it's component titles for separate votes on the House floor. I am 
encouraged, however, by the commitment Mr. McKeon has made to 
professional development through his work in drafting this title. 
Congress must be willing to support all aspects of education, including 
professional development, if we all are as serious as we say we are 
about the issue. The bill goes a long way to assist states and school 
districts to hire and train high quality teachers and administrators, 
with a focus on standards and achievement.


                               Class Size

  I'm pleased to see that Mr. McKeon recognizes the success that class 
size reduction programs have had nationwide, and decided to include 
class size reduction as a priority in this bill. In my home state of 
Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, or 
SAGE, has been very effective in improving scores for students in high-
need schools. The program focuses on class size reduction, but also 
incorporates challenging curriculum, extended hours, staff development, 
and professional accountability into its package. This targeted yet 
comprehensive approach works in Wisconsin, and will likely be expanded 
in scope in the coming years.
  Wisconsin is not alone in working to reduce class size in order to 
improve student scores. In Tennessee, the STAR and Challenge projects 
have produced good data indicating a general educational advantage for 
students in smaller classes. Similar programs in North Carolina, 
Indiana, Texas, Nevada and Virginia, as well as initiatives either 
started or planned in at least 20 other states offer a great deal of 
optimism that a focus on reducing class size will help students, 
particularly those in areas of higher need, achieve greater performance 
goals and standards.


                  principal and administrator training

  As part of the goal of comprehensive education reform, I found an 
element of traditional professional development to be particularly 
lacking and on which I have already spoken. While we all have come to 
recognize the need for better professional development opportunities 
for teachers in order to recruit them, retain them, and keep them 
effective in the classroom, we were overlooking key players in the 
school environment--the principal, the superintendent, and other 
administrators having an impact on the instruction of our children.
  Principals and administrators take a vital leadership role in 
educating our children. I have been told time and again from teachers, 
administrators, school boards and parents, that if a principal or 
superintendent is not up to speed on current and successful educational 
trends, the local educational system will weaken. Likewise, a well 
prepared and highly trained principal or superintendent will engage and 
challenge his or her staff and inspire greatness throughout the school 
and the surrounding community.
  But, like the teaching profession, there are not enough qualified 
principals and administrators in the field, and the situation will 
worsen as these folks retire in the coming years. A telling sign of 
danger is the fact that the average tenure for a district 
superintendent is now three years or less.
  It is obvious to me that we need to address this issue now, in this 
bill, as part of a comprehensive approach to professional development 
and training for educational professionals, regardless of their 
position in the school. Mr. Goodling's amendment does just that, 
through the creation of a competitive grant specifically designed to 
address the professional development of principals and other school 
administrators.
  I submitted this section because while current law and the chairman's 
mark may allow states and local districts to consider principal and 
administrator training programs, neither actually identifies these 
educational leaders as having specialized, significant needs in order 
to maintain ``building-wide'' professionalism.
  By addressing the special needs of these professionals, and providing 
a setting where principals and administrator--who have no direct peer-
group surrounding them daily--can meet other professionals, learn 
together and from each other, and then go back to their schools to work 
with their teachers and other staff to provide quality educational 
services.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill does go a long way in helping our 
schools attract and retain quality teachers, principals and 
administrators. This amendment takes the measure a big step further by 
focusing on quality and accountability. I support this amendment and 
the bill, and am glad to see that Congress can help our schools 
strengthen their educational systems by hiring and maintaining the 
highest-quality instructional force possible.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) who has been very helpful in trying to 
get us answers to the question: what have the taxpayers, what have the 
children got for the money we have spent.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting on 
the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House ought to support the Goodling 
amendment, because it does, in fact, dramatically strengthen the 
legislation that we had in committee. It does provide for increases in 
accountability and improvements in teacher quality items within the 
legislation. I think it is a very important amendment, because it 
embodies what all of us have been saying on both sides of the aisle, 
that questions of simple class size are not enough; that it is not 
enough that students spend either more hours with or there is fewer 
students with an unqualified teacher. What we must put in the front of 
the classroom are qualified teachers.

[[Page H5881]]

  This legislation with the Goodling amendments, for the first time, 
demands that local school districts put qualified teachers into the 
classroom. It demands, for the first time, that we hold school 
districts accountable, which is the basic purpose of this legislation, 
and EFCA and that is, in fact, that we close the gap between rich and 
poor, between minority and majority in this country, and that we hold 
districts accountable for doing that.
  Up until the time that this amendment is offered and up until the 
time that this legislation is passed, we have put $120 billion into 
this program. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 
reminded us time and time again, that money has been sent out, and we 
never asked, we never asked that the teachers in the classroom be 
qualified. We said one of the purposes was to close the gap between 
majority and minority students, but nobody was ever held accountable 
for it.
  What we now know and what we have witnessed now over many, many years 
is that poor and the minorities continue to be held back in this 
educational system because they do not have qualified teachers and the 
majority races ahead. We also know from years of research and 
understanding of how children learn that all of those poor children and 
all of those minority children can, in fact, learn at the same rate and 
with the same degree as children in suburban schools, middle class 
schools, or upper income schools if we do two things.
  If we reduce class sizes, and we put well-qualified teachers and a 
first class curriculum in front of those children, they will learn and 
they will learn at the same rate. We need not accept those losses.
  The Goodling amendment is the first step to doing this, and every 
Member of this House ought to support this amendment. I will be 
supporting the Martinez substitute because of the targeting provisions, 
but we will talk about that later.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1995, 
the Teacher Empowerment Act, because even though it is titled that, it 
is really not a bill for teachers and it is not a good bill for 
students and it is not a good bill for our schools. The bill cuts the 
class size reduction program. This House voted for class size reduction 
last year; we supported it from both sides of the aisle and we funded 
it. And we made a promise to our schools, to our children, to our 
parents, to our communities that we would make sure that they had small 
classes where they could learn. If we pass this bill, we will take back 
that promise.
  Now, some have mentioned, my good chairman of the committee, the 
California experience. Well, I have a California experience. It is 
called Orange County, California where I represent. After having gone 
to over 90 different schools, the reality is that the one comment I get 
most often from teachers in the first or second or third grade where we 
have reduced class size is what a difference this class size is making.

                              {time}  1500

  Their children are learning, and we begin to see it now in the scores 
as they begin to appear in California. We need to continue our class 
size reduction, and we should allow it to go nationwide.
  The PTA does not like the Republicans' bill, our national teacher 
organizations do not like the bill, the school boards do not like the 
Republican bill, Governors do not even like this bill. About the only 
people who do like the bill are the Republicans.
  We do have a choice. We can vote for the Democratic bill. Our version 
supports class size reduction and professional development, so that we 
make sure that we have smaller classes and qualified professionals in 
the classroom. Our version lets States and school districts decide how 
to spend classes and teacher training money. It puts the funding in the 
hands of the people who know what local schools need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1995 without the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), an important member of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  I would say to the gentleman from California, it is my understanding 
that the en bloc amendment being offered today makes modifications to 
the committee-reported bill in which local educational agencies would 
have been required to expend the same amount of funds on math and 
science as they were required to spend under the consolidated 
Eisenhower Special Development Program.
  Under the Eisenhower program, localities had to spend their portion 
of the first $250 million of funds appropriated under this program for 
math and science. I understand the gentleman's amendment increases this 
amount.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who was placed on this committee 
by the last Speaker and the current Speaker by special assignment 
because of his background in the area of science, that he would really 
do all he could to see that we improved education in math and science, 
and he has done a great job to that end. I want to commend him for that 
at this time.
  In response to concerns raised by both the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), who has worked with the gentleman to this end, a Member from the 
other side, a provision was added to the en bloc amendment to ensure 
that local schools will continue to expend the same amount of funds as 
they actually spent on math and science, as opposed to what they were 
required to spend under the Eisenhower program.
  It was understood, based on initial information from the Department 
of Education, that this amount of funds represents roughly $300 to $335 
million appropriated for this program. However, the flexibility under 
the committee-reported version of TEA, Teacher Empowerment Act, has 
been maintained, providing local educational agencies the ability to 
seek a waiver from their State if they are able to demonstrate that 
their math and science needs are being met.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleagues from Michigan and California, and 
recognizing the difficulty that we have had in obtaining good data that 
the local educational agencies are in fact spending the $300 million 
that we had understood is being spent, we want to make sure that this 
legislation results in maintaining an approximate level of effort equal 
to that understood level.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the important jobs in our society, nothing makes 
more of an impact on our children than a well-trained, caring and 
dedicated teacher. No job ultimately is more important to our society.
  Teachers across our Nation are doing an outstanding job. As I travel 
around my central New Jersey district, I have met with hundreds of 
teachers who are working hard every day to prepare students to succeed 
in this ``new'' economy and it is not often easy.
  I am proud that this Congress has come together in a bipartisan way 
to produce a bill which provides new opportunities and resources both 
for training teachers who are already in the classroom and to hire new 
teachers for our growing schools.
  This is a strong bipartisan bill that will improve teacher quality 
and reduce class sizes across the country.
  Across the nation, schools will have to hire more than 2 million new 
teachers over the next ten years simply to keep up with the retirement 
and departures of existing teachers. We must in addition hire 
additional teachers to reduce class sizes, especially in the early 
years. We have learned that class-size reduction, especially in the 
early years, is a significant factor for increased student achievement.

[[Page H5882]]

  The Teacher Empowerment Act gives schools the flexibility to both 
improve teacher quality and reduce class-size.
  My district in central New Jersey is undergoing unprecedented growth. 
Young families are moving into new houses, and school principals get 
phone calls daily from parents who are moving into the area.
  In Montgomery Township, in 1990 their school enrollment was about 
1,500 students. When they open for classes in September, Montgomery 
will have to provide seats for 3,500 students. This is an increase of 
134% in 10 years. And enrollment is expected to rise another 1,500 
students over the next five years.
  As these areas construct new schools, they need to hire qualified new 
teachers. The Teacher Empowerment Act provides resources to help these 
growing school districts hire new teachers.
  In addition, most of these 2 million new teachers to be hired in the 
next decade will have to teach math and science. All elementary school 
teachers teach math and science and often do not feel prepared to do 
so.
  Math and science are classes which serve as gateways for our children 
to the opportunities of tomorrow. Yet schools are finding difficulty 
finding enough qualified teachers in these critical subjects.
  I am pleased that we were able to work together to strengthen teacher 
training for math and science. This bill maintains funding that was 
provided under the Eisenhower Professional Development Program for math 
and science teacher training. It also says that if school districts 
want to use the math and science money for other uses, they must ensure 
that the training needs of all of their math and science teachers, 
including elementary school teachers, are met.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act continues the priority previous 
Congresses have established to support teachers in the critical fields 
of math and science.
  Teachers often perform miracles in the classrooms which too many of 
us take for granted. This bill provides the support and the smaller 
classes these teachers need to help our children perform miracles.
  Mr. McKEON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
information recently provided to us by the Department of Education 
indicates that their incomplete records show the total amount actually 
expended by local school districts on math and science is less than 
$300 million.
  Mr. EHLERS. In light of this information, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman from California agree to explore ways in which to ensure that 
local districts maintain a strong focus on the needs of math and 
science programs, and continue to expend the approximately $300 million 
they were reported to have expended on these programs last year?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, I would be pleased to work with both gentlemen on this as this 
legislation moves forward.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1995 is a step forward, though far from perfect. 
We have come a long way since 1994, when colleagues here in the 
majority sought to eliminate the Department of Education and to 
seriously cut back on very important education programs, including such 
programs that were successful, like Head Start.
  We have come a long way even since the beginning of the discussions 
and debates on this particular piece of legislation. Everybody agrees, 
Mr. Chairman, that we should be improving education for all children, 
whether they are wealthy or not, minority as well as nonminority 
children. Many of us have long complained for flexibility, but not 
flexibility that would leave out the aspect of accountability. Instead, 
we have insisted on just that, accountability.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in 
fact puts that back in, an accounting of the performance and the 
results showing that the Federal money expended results in student 
achievement across the board for minority and nonminority, for rich as 
well as for poor.
  The Congress in Ed-Flex failed to add that suitable accountability. 
In this bill we have achieved that, and we have included the provisions 
that are necessary for professional development. We are going to have a 
requirement that there would be a plan to ensure that all teachers 
within the State are fully qualified no later than December 31 of 2003. 
For the first time we have that in education language; that the use of 
the funds must improve student academic achievement, must close those 
achievement gaps, must use disaggregated material.
  In other words, we must see that every group of children succeed, 
poor as well as rich, minority as well as nonminority, and we must have 
reports on that data.
  Mr. Chairman, this is important progress, and of course we would 
prefer the Martinez bill because it has a separate stream of funding. 
But here there is accountability even without the separate stream of 
funding. In order to show the kind of progress that is necessary, we 
believe that the smaller class sizes are necessary, and that money is 
going to have to go to that end in order to reach accountability 
aspects and get the kind of improvement in achievement that is 
necessary.
  We would like to see it tighter, but this is a significant move, and 
we congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for 
moving this in that direction.
  We have in this bill professional development. We have a way to help 
teachers, not punish them or threaten them, but to help them and give 
them the support in their development. We have more teachers here, and 
it is going to be up to the appropriators to make sure a significant 
amount of funds are available so we can do the hiring of all the 
necessary teachers to decrease the size of classes, particularly in 
grades 1 through 3, as well as get the professional development there.
  But first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we have in this bill the 
accountability that is going to trigger and lead to smaller classroom 
sizes and good professional development. That is the way we are going 
to get better education for all children in this country.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the other 
members of the committee for their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members know, I have been very 
interested in the Troops to Teachers program. I appreciate the chairman 
including that in the bill.
  I would like to carry on a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon). It is my understanding that language has 
been included as part of the Teacher Empowerment Act which will provide 
for the continuation of the Troops to Teachers program.
  As Members know, I have been a supporter of this program, which was 
originally established to provide certain military personnel affected 
by the military drawdown with the opportunity to pursue a new career in 
public education.
  Evaluations of this program have highlighted the quality of teachers 
provided through the program, the satisfaction of schools hiring these 
teachers, and the above average retention rates of these new teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand today to offer my support for H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act. In particular, I am very pleased that the bill 
calls for the reauthorization of the Troops to Teachers program. My 
thanks for allowing the Troops to Teachers program to be included in 
this bill.
  The Troops to Teachers program was created in 1994 to assist military 
personnel who were affected by military downsizing find second careers 
in which they could utilize their knowledge, professional skills and 
expertise in our nation's schools. The program offers counseling and 
assistance to help participants identify teacher certification programs 
and employment opportunities. As we all know, our schools and students 
are in desperate need of more high-quality teachers. The Troops to 
Teachers program helps provide those teachers.
  Since its authorization, Troops to Teachers has helped over 3,000 
active duty soldiers enter our nation's classrooms and make significant 
contributions to the lives of our students. These military personnel-
turned-teachers have established a solid reputation as educators who 
bring unique real-world experiences to the classroom. They are 
dedicated, mature, and experienced individuals who have proven to be 
effective teachers, as well as excellent role models.
  They are also helping fill a void felt in many public school 
districts. Over three-quarters of the Troops to Teachers participants 
are male, compared with about 25 percent in the overall

[[Page H5883]]

public school system, and over 30 percent of these teachers belong to a 
minority racial ethnic group. In addition, a large portion of these 
teachers are trained in math, science, and engineering, and about half 
elect to teach in inner city or rural schools. Overall, the retention 
of these teachers is much higher than the national average.
  Not surprisingly, Troops to Teachers is winning glowing reviews from 
educational administrators, teachers and legislators. Education 
Secretary Richard Riley praised the program as a new model for 
recruiting high quality teachers. School principals and superintendents 
who have employed Troops to Teachers participants are overwhelmingly 
supportive of the program.
  The authorization of this successful program is set to expire at the 
end of this year. However, the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act 
will ensure that this successful program continues. I hope my House 
colleagues will join me in preserving this education success story by 
supporting the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Under TEA, the Secretary 
of Education is authorized to use a portion of funds reserved at the 
national level to continue the Troops to Teachers program, which was 
originally established under the Department of Defense in January, 
1994, as part of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 as 
a result of the gentleman's efforts.
  Mr. HEFLEY. We have been working on this also through the Defense 
Department and the defense bill. It is my understanding that the 
language under TEA is consistent with language currently being 
considered as part of the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill. 
I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is also correct. The defense authorization bill includes language 
which, in addition to making minor changes to the current program, will 
continue the Troops to Teachers within the Department of Defense during 
the fiscal year 2000 while providing for the orderly transition of this 
program to the Department of Education beginning in fiscal year 2001.
  The provisions under TEA reference back to the modifications of the 
program made under the defense bill, and will ensure that this program 
continues as part of the TEA program, beginning in fiscal year 2001.
  I commend the gentleman from Colorado for his efforts in this area. 
He serves as its subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Armed 
Services, and has done an outstanding job in this area. I look forward 
to working with him as we move forward under this important program.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I am pleased to see the Goodling amendment because it does in fact 
correct some of the flaws in this bill, but not enough. Therefore, I 
remain in opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act and in support of 
the Martinez substitute.
  We need to change our attitudes towards educating children, because 
children are indeed the future of this Nation. This bill kills the 
efforts to provide qualified teachers to classrooms, and gives it to 
States to do whatever they choose. Even a State like mine, where the 
funding for districts is uneven, there are districts in my State that 
receive less than one-third of what other districts receive for local 
funding. Therefore, I am afraid to trust them with these additional 
resources.
  Reducing class size is probably the most effective thing we could 
ever do to provide a high quality education for all of our children, no 
matter where they are.
  So, Mr. Chairman, while the Goodling amendment in and of itself does 
move us in the direction, I remain committed to the Martinez 
substitute, and urge that we vote for the Martinez substitute to this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I remain in opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act 
and in support of the Martinez substitute. We must change our attitude 
towards educating our children. Over 95 percent of our Nation's 
children go to public schools. These children are our future Doctors, 
Lawyers, Senators and Presidents.
  This bill kills the effort to provide qualified teachers to our 
children's classrooms and gives it to the states to do what ever they 
choose. Qualified teachers are far more effective in smaller classes 
than in larger ones. One of the bill's most serious defects is that it 
undermines the federal commitment to helping local communities reduce 
class size to 18 students by failing to ensure a separate, dedicated 
stream of funding, targeted to high-poverty communities.
  Unlike the other side I understand the need for reduced class sizes. 
This is probably the most important thing that you have in the 
classroom. Having a teacher that is eager to teach, one that is eager 
to help students, one that makes you feel at ease is needed in order to 
make that light bulb go on and for a student to say, I want to learn.
  The Martinez substitute gives back to the students their best 
opportunity to learn, therefore, I urge all Members to support of this 
substitute.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chair who has worked so hard 
to put this legislation together.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting process. We started this 
as a purely bipartisan bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) and I and members of the subcommittee held hearings. We 
really tried to learn what was really important.
  We went out to schools. We heard from experts on the subject. They 
said it was very important to have class size reduction, but it is also 
very important to have qualified teachers. So what we have tried to do 
with this bill is establish a balance.
  We were accused by some on the other side of making deals. I have to 
admit that we did. Whenever we found somebody on the other side that 
had something that made the bill better, we accepted it. I think that 
is what bipartisanship is. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be 
accused of making deals, and that is a bad thing, and then at the same 
time if we do not make deals, we are partisan.
  I think what we have done is something that we do not always have the 
opportunity of doing here. Once in a while we have the opportunity of 
doing what is right, and I think in this bill we have done what is 
right. Please support this bill, H.R. 1995.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, Chairmen Goodling and McKeon have made 
several improvements in this legislation that have addressed a number 
of concerns. Unfortunately, I will not be able to cast my vote for it 
today and instead will support the substitute being offered by my 
colleague from California, Mr. Martinez, for several reasons.
  First, despite the likely passage of Chairman Goodling's managers 
amendment, which includes a school district holdharmless for fiscal 
year 1999, the bill will not target future funding to disadvantaged 
school districts. Some of the most pressing needs of disadvantaged 
areas in the areas of teacher quality, recruitment and retention are 
not reflected by the funding formula in this legislation.
  Without distributing the resources provided by this legislation to 
the areas of most need, we are ignoring the true problems in our 
existing teacher training systems.
  The lack of any direction in this legislation to continue the 
development of State standards and assessments is also a critical 
shortcoming. Since this program is intended to be the successor to 
Goals 2000, it should allow States to continue its mission to improve 
and reform State accountability systems.
  In fact, a November 1998 GAO report on the Goals 2000 Program 
documented that its focus and direction on systemic reform has produced 
positive returns on its Federal investments and is widely supported by 
many of the local level.
  Lastly, this bill does not recognize the need to identify class-size 
reduction as a national priority in our educational system.
  Instead of authorizing the program we created in last year's 
appropriation's process, this bill removes the separate stream of 
funding for class-size reduction and makes it one of several strategies 
to be employed by school districts. Speaking from experience in my 
congressional district, both class size reduction in the early grades 
and a focus on teacher quality were necessary to improve student 
achievement in Flint, Michigan. This was accomplished with coordinated, 
but separate funding focuses on both class size and quality aspects.

[[Page H5884]]

  The Federal legislation which we pass should reflect this winning 
combination.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Goodling 
amendment. The Goodling amendment, which was the Democratic substitute 
in committee, which was not allowed to go through, but I am pleased at 
the wisdom of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to revise 
this, so for that reason I do support the Goodling amendment.
  Having said that, the Republican Teacher Empowerment Act of 1995 is 
simply another Republican attempt to pull the wool over America's eyes 
by giving a grossly inadequate piece of legislation a very deceiving 
title, as we have seen in many of the labor laws, such as the FAIR Act, 
the Act to have in working laws more time for people to have off, but 
it ends up with doing away with overtime.

                              {time}  1515

  So we have seen these wonderful titles to bills, but what this act 
really does is that the Republican Teacher Empowerment Act threatens 
the future of the Clinton-Clay classroom reduction program by allowing 
funds to be diverted to other uses, even without even having to address 
the shameful overcrowding in classrooms.
  I recall several books written by Jonathan Kocar, a person who talked 
about the inadequacy of education. He talked in one book of savage 
inequalities. In a second book called Children in Trouble: A National 
Tragedy, Jonathan Kocar talked about the inequity in funding and talked 
about the oversized classes in rural and urban areas and talked about 
the fact that property tax is the base for most education.
  So, of course, if one is fortunate enough to be affluent, to live in 
an affluent city, to live in an affluent community, much more money 
goes towards education; but if one happens to live in a poor city that 
has no economic base, a city where industry has moved out, a city where 
it is difficult to attract in new businesses, then the young people in 
those communities lack an adequate education.
  So the Federal Government has stepped in from time to time and said, 
let us make up for these inequities. As a result, we have large class 
sizes in urban areas because there is not the economic base to have 
equal class size and President Clinton said that each classroom, from 
kindergarten to grade 3, should have no more than 18 students in its 
classroom.
  Well, this bill prevents the President Clinton-Clay class reduction 
program from going in, and I think it is wrong. H.R. 1995, if it 
passes, has targeted funding and districts that need most of the money 
will not get it. This includes not only urban districts but rural 
districts. This also fails to provide separate funding for professional 
school development, including school counselors, an amendment that I 
had introduced but failed to get through committee to have school 
counselors in elementary schools, where we need to start with 
counseling.
  It eliminates funding that the States and local districts use for 
standard-based reforms. This fails to provide a separate stream of 
money for funding the class size reductions. I think that the Martinez 
substitute is the only way to go. It preserves funding to reduce class 
size, and it does not convert this funding into a block grant. As we 
have seen in previous funding and school flexibility acts, we have seen 
Title I practically eliminated where it does not matter the poverty of 
children, as Title I, which first started with an 80/20 match has now 
been eliminated down to 50/50.
  Until now, Title I eligibility is not even a factor in many 
instances. The substitute of Martinez also adds $1 billion more to H.R. 
1995 for teacher recruitment and training and adds $500 million more 
for training special education teachers. The substitute guarantees that 
no school will receive less than their current funding.
  I think that when we come to vote, although as I have indicated the 
provision dealing with the Goodling amendment is positive, I believe 
that we should strongly support the Martinez substitute. I think that 
we should vote against 1995.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 5 
minutes remaining. The time of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
has expired.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close the debate on what I consider to be 
probably the most important legislation that will come before the 
Congress perhaps this year. Let me make a couple of observations before 
I do that.
  First of all, Title I and the Education Flexibility Act are not 
married in any way, shape, or form. The Flexibility Act had nothing to 
do with Title I, so I do not know what we just heard was all about; but 
there was nothing in the Flexibility Act that deals with Title I or 
hurts Title I in any way.
  Secondly, let us make sure everybody understands, we do not undercut 
class size reduction. This is not a Democrat or a Republican 
initiative. Everybody, if they can do it, would like to get class-size 
down to where the researchers say it shows any improvement, and that is 
at 15 students per classroom or below. So we can talk about 19, we can 
talk about 18, we can talk about 17.
  The research says if we cannot get down to 15, we are probably not 
going to do very much; but even if we get down to 15 students and we do 
not have a quality teacher in the classroom, we have destroyed the 
opportunity for every child to learn.
  Now, the important thing, I think, about this manager's amendment is 
we are trying to make sure that every teacher out there at the present 
time is also qualified, properly qualified, to teach. We end the short-
term, one-shot workshops. I wish this would have happened years ago. 
Then I would not have to have heard from my mate with 43 years of 
teaching experience ``they took me out of that classroom today, away 
from my children, for some nonsense.''
  Well, we eliminate that. We say none of this one-shot business, none 
of this pseudo-improvement of teachers. There has to be a quality 
program. We insist on intensive, proven programs.
  Then we go beyond that. We empower the teachers, the parents, and the 
principals to develop these programs. Who would know better than those 
three groups as to what constitutes a good program to improve the 
teachers' ability to teach in that classroom?
  It is the parents, the teachers, and the principals who develop these 
programs.
  Now, another beauty of the program is that if the local school 
district cannot provide a quality program of teacher improvement, the 
teachers can participate in a proven professional development program 
of their choice.
  Then finally, we do something, as we heard the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) say we should have done back in 1965.
  Finally, we say, it has to be shown that teachers have improved in 
relationship to quality, and it has to be proven that all of the 
students, all of the students, no matter who they are, where they are, 
all of them have to improve in their academic skills. What more could 
we provide to local districts, to parents, to children, to 
administrators, than the opportunity to get a quality teacher in every 
classroom?
  Let me again emphasize, I do not care whether we authorize 200,000; 
600,000; 800,000 teachers. Unless we can find a way to get a quality 
teacher in that classroom, we are just destroying any hope of 
particularly disadvantaged students ever improving their academic 
skills. It is in those areas with large numbers of disadvantaged 
students where, more often than not, quality teachers are missing; and 
it is in those areas where that reduction comes first. They already do 
not have quality teachers, and now we are going to add to that problem 
by increasing the numbers of unqualified teachers in the classroom.
  Let us take a dual approach. Let us reduce class size; but while we 
are doing it, let us make very, very sure that those children are going 
to have

[[Page H5885]]

the benefit of a quality teacher in that classroom. I do not know how 
anyone can argue against a quality teacher in the classroom. I ask 
everyone to support this very important manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following:

                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1999.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, June 30, 
     1999, the Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered 
     favorably reported H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
     which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce and, in addition, the Committee on Armed Services. 
     I further understand that those provisions which would modify 
     the ``Troops to Teachers Program'' which is also within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services were retained 
     in the version of the bill ordered to be reported.
       Recognizing your Committee's desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House expeditiously, I will not seek 
     additional time for referral of the bill. By agreeing not to 
     seek additional referral time, the Committee on Armed 
     Services does not waive its jurisdictional interest in H.R. 
     1995 or any related legislation, nor should my decision not 
     to mark up H.R. 1995 be construed in any manner that would 
     negatively impact on the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. Furthermore, I would appreciate your support 
     for my efforts to seek appropriate representation for the 
     Committee on Armed Services on any conference with the Senate 
     that may be convened on this legislation.
       Thank you again for your attention to our jurisdictional 
     interests in H.R. 1995. I would appreciate your 
     acknowledgment of this letter and request that our exchange 
     of letters be inserted into the Congressional Record during 
     floor consideration of H.R. 1995.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Floyd D. Spence,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                        Committee on Education and


                                                the Workforce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1999.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, which was ordered 
     favorably reported by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce on Wednesday, June 30, 1999. As you have correctly 
     noted, the bill includes provisions that are in the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services and the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, specifically those 
     that would create a new Section 2041(b), the ``Troops to 
     Teachers Program''.
       I thank you for your willingness to facilitate expediting 
     consideration of H.R. 1995 and to forego a markup by the 
     Committee on Armed Services on this bill. I agree that this 
     procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the 
     Committee on Armed Services' jurisdictional interest and 
     prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation 
     and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of 
     matters of jurisdictional interest to your Committee in the 
     future.
       I very sincerely appreciate and thank you for working with 
     me regarding this matter. Your letter and this response will 
     be included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 1995.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bill Goodling,
                                                         Chairman.

  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of 
the chairman in strong support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Teacher Empowerment 
Act.


                    Previous Experience As A Teacher

  As a former teacher and school board member in my home community, I 
have always been active in the local school system. I believe that our 
schools are best prepared to meet the educational needs of our youth 
when decisions about the needs of our children are made by the local 
community.


                             Local Control

  I am proud to stand as a cosponsor of this legislation, because I 
stand by the principle that establishing priorities and setting 
decisions about our children's education are best made at the local 
level by local educators--not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.


                              State Level

  Under the TEA bill, money that States receive 95% goes directly to 
schools.


    States Must Spend Money on Hiring Teachers to Reduce Class Size

  A portion of each grant received by the district must be spent on 
hiring teachers; however, TEA gives the option of waiving this 
requirement if using this would result in relying on under-qualified 
teachers, inadequate classroom space of any negative consequences which 
would have a negative impact on student achievement.
  Yes, we give priority to more teachers and reducing class size but 
gives the local community the right to set priorities based on their 
assessment of community needs.
  Currently, too many States are relying heavily on uncertified and 
unqualified teachers in order to reduce class size.
  Without, this bill's common-sense flexibility, this problem will only 
be exacerbated.
  Being a former teacher myself, I have first-hand knowledge that a 
well qualified teacher can have a significant impact on the lives of 
his/her students; an impression which can have a favorable impact on 
the rest of their lives.


                             accountability

                              state level

  In order to receive this money a State must identify performance 
indicators and goals the State will use to hold local districts and 
schools accountable for the use of these funds.


                              local level

  TEA requires that local school districts to establish local 
performance standards related to the State goals to increase student 
achievement and increase the content knowledge of teachers.


             president's proposal lacks any accountability

  The President's current ``100,000 New Teachers Program'' lacks any 
accountability that schools reducing their class size must prove that 
the reduction is actually improving student achievement.
  After all, aren't we all trying to improve student achievement?
  The Tea bill accomplishes this with its accountability provisions.


                         secretary's activities

  A small portion of these funds would be reserved for the Secretary to 
carry out grants to the National Writing Project, Teacher Excellence 
Academies, the Troops-to-Teachers program; and the Math and Science 
Clearinghouse.
  These are effective programs that provide great returns on the 
investment.
  My home state of New Jersey is a leading state in alternative teacher 
certification, so I am pleased that the Secretary may continue to fund 
Teacher Excellence Academies.


                               conclusion

  This legislation gives authority over decisions concerning our 
children's education to teachers, parents, and local communities--where 
these decisions belong!
  The Teacher Empowerment Act will prove to be a valuable tool enabling 
states and localities to empower students to be the best that they can 
be.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in the House report 106-240.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lazio

  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Lazio:
       Page 10, strike lines 17 and 18 and insert the following:
       ``(A) include support during the initial teaching 
     experience, such as mentoring programs that--
       ``(i) provide mentoring to beginning teachers from veteran 
     teachers with expertise in the same subject matter that the 
     beginning teachers will be teaching; and
       ``(ii) provide mentors time for activities such as 
     coaching, observing, and assisting the teachers who are 
     mentored; and
       ``(iii) use standards or assessments for guiding beginning 
     teachers that are consistent with the State's student 
     performance standards and with the requirements for 
     professional development activities under section 2033.''.
       Page 12, after line 4, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent provisions accordingly):
       ``(e) Components of Alternative Routes to State 
     Certification Programs.--To the extent appropriate, programs 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B) shall--
       ``(1) include strong academic and teaching-related course 
     work that provides teachers with the subject matter and 
     teaching knowledge needed to help students reach the States 
     content standards;
       ``(2) provide intensive field experience in the form of an 
     internship, or student teaching, under the direct daily 
     supervision of an expert, veteran teacher; and

[[Page H5886]]

       ``(3) provide that, before entry into teaching, candidates 
     must be fully qualified.''.
       Page 37, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(2) Beginning teacher.--The term ``beginning teacher'' 
     means an educator in a public school who has not yet been 
     teaching 3 full school years.''.
       Page 37, line 16, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 38, after line 4, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent provisions accordingly):
       ``(4) Mentoring program.--The term ``mentoring program'' 
     means to provide professional support and development, 
     instruction, and guidance to beginning teachers, but does not 
     include a teacher or individual who begins to work in a 
     supervisory position.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Lazio), and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
and I want to begin by complimenting the committee and particularly the 
chairman on his leadership in pushing forward an educational agenda 
that strives for improving teacher quality, sends dollars directly to 
the classroom, and encourages parental involvement.
  As the father of two little ones that are just beginning their 
careers in school, I want to say that I am personally indebted to the 
chairman for his work here.
  I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) for their work on this amendment. The gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) in particular is establishing herself as a leader 
in education and has a true passion for issues affecting children.
  Mr. Chairman, the recruitment and retention of good teachers is 
paramount to improving our national education system. Like doctors in 
their medical residency and lawyers as associates, teachers supported 
by senior colleagues are provided with skills that will improve over 
time, and they will achieve a proficiency that will come more quickly. 
Hence, they are more likely to remain in the profession because of 
their success.
  A voluntary mentor program was in place in my home State of New York 
from 1987 to 1992 and again from 1997 to 1998. This program provided 
assistance for beginning teachers by assigning them to a veteran 
teacher, other than their supervisor, to provide guidance. This 
program's success has led to many school districts to seek funding from 
other sources to continue the program.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment strengthens the bill outlining the 
essential components of mentoring programs that will improve the 
experience of new teachers and cut down on the high turnover currently 
seen among beginning teachers. My amendment also ensures program 
quality and accountability by requiring that teachers mentor their 
peers who teach the same subject in compliance with State standards.
  A second concern addressed by my amendment is teacher recruitment. 
Many talented professionals demonstrate a high level of subject area 
competence outside the education profession and wish to become 
teachers. Unfortunately, they are discouraged from entering the 
teaching profession because they have not fulfilled the traditional 
education certification requirements. Many teachers and leading 
academic analysts believe that this needs to change.
  States should be provided with incentives and given maximum 
flexibility to create alternative teacher certification and licensure 
programs to recruit well-educated and talented people into teaching our 
children. This amendment gives the States this flexibility.
  Alternative certification will increase the supply of skilled 
teachers by allowing recruiting from outside the traditional process. 
The amendment also improves the quality of our teachers by ensuring 
that individuals who participate in alternative certification programs 
are fully knowledgeable in their subject matter and meet State 
standards.
  Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support the Lazio-Wilson-
Duncan amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
the great State of Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and compliment him for his 
great work.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time. I certainly rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their support.
  As I said during general debate, it makes no sense whatsoever to tell 
a person like an Alan Greenspan or a Howard Baker or some Ph.D. 
scientist or somebody who had achieved great success in some field that 
they could not teach in one of our schools if they were willing to do 
so at the culmination of their career just because they had not taken 
education courses.
  It makes no sense to tell a college professor who, maybe, had taught 
in some college for 20 years, because he wanted to move to a different 
area or because a small college had gone under that he could not teach 
in a public school because he had not had education courses when he had 
such great experience.
  An article a few days ago in the Washington Post had the headline, 
quote, Effectiveness of Teacher Certification Question. It said that a 
new study has shown that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the words it 
used, students do just as well in science under teachers with emergency 
or temporary certificates. The study found that students score 
significantly higher in math if taught by someone with a degree in math 
rather than one who specialized in education.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  There was another article in the paper a few days ago that said 
Orange County, Virginia was having a hard time filling 12 teaching 
openings. Less than 7 weeks away from the opening of schools, they have 
not yet hired all the teachers they will need. David Baker, the Orange 
County Assistant Superintendent of Schools, noted that the problem was 
not a lack of applicants. He has received more resumes and applications 
than ever before. The problem is that over one-half of the applicants 
do not have teaching certificates. This is a nationwide problem, and 
one that is going to grow worse as more and more teachers retire in the 
next 7 or 8 years.
  Local school boards, Mr. Chairman, should be allowed to consider a 
degree in education as a plus or a positive factor in hiring teachers. 
But they should not be prohibited by some Federal mandate or State 
mandate from hiring people who have great knowledge, experience, and 
success in a field just because they have not taken a few education 
courses.
  Let us put the best teachers we possibly can in our classrooms, and 
let us pass this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for his kindness in yielding me this time. I also thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his leadership on this issue 
and leadership on public education issues more generally in this House.
  We all know there is going to be a shortage of teachers in America in 
the next decade. There will be a shortage of teachers in my own home 
State in New Mexico. It is up to all of us to start thinking outside 
the box on how we can recruit and retain more great teachers in the 
classroom.
  This amendment strengthens this bill in two critical areas which, 
when I talk to teachers and administrators and people who work in 
colleges of education have told me are the most important ones.

[[Page H5887]]

  The first is mentoring of beginning teachers. In New Mexico, up to 40 
percent of our new teachers leave the profession within the first 5 
years of starting out as teachers. Now some of them leave for very good 
reasons. It just does not work for them. It is not the right career for 
them. They do not feel comfortable in the classroom. But we have also 
learned that, if we pair an experienced teacher with a new teacher, we 
are more likely to retain great teachers who need that professional 
support early in their careers.
  The other area that this amendment strengthens and that I am very 
interested in is the issue of alternative certification. Some folks 
know when they are teenagers or in their early twenties that they 
really want to be teachers. Some folks come to that realization later 
in life when they look at a second career after serving in the military 
or being a professional scientist.
  The reality is that that is much harder to do than it should be. 
People should be able to use their life's experience and bring it back 
to young people. If we do not make it easier for people to teach in a 
second career, we will continue to have the current situation where 
Georgia O'Keefe could not have taught high school art, Tony Hillerman 
could not teach creative writing in high schools, Bill Gates could not 
teach computer science, or Dennis Chavez, the great former Senator from 
the State of New Mexico, could not have taught American government.
  It does not make any sense, and we should change it. But we are not 
just talking about great people, the Einsteins of the world. We are 
talking about good people who have a feeling for children and what they 
need to do to inspire them and educate them. It should be easier for 
second-career professionals to enter the classroom.
  I commend the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this 
issue and for working with all of us on this fine amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of the 
Lazio amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say at the conclusion, I want to thank 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for his courtesy in allowing our 
speakers to articulate their points of view, and there is camaraderie 
in making sure that these themes are adopted. I thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) for his great work in education, and again 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the full 
committee.
  This gives us an opportunity to give our children a chance at quality 
education, something that we all embrace. We need the best possible 
education for children, for all our children, because education is 
about the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment No. 2 offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Castle:
       Page 12, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(9) Providing assistance to local educational agencies 
     and eligible partnerships (as defined in section 2021(d)) for 
     the development and implementation of innovative professional 
     development programs that train teachers to use technology to 
     improve teaching and learning and are consistent with the 
     requirements of section 2033.
       Page 28, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 28, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 28, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(6) shall, to the extent appropriate, provide training 
     for teachers in the use of technology so that technology and 
     its applications are effectively used in the classroom to 
     improve teaching and learning in the curriculum and academic 
     content areas in which those teachers provide instruction.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago, the Delaware State legislature, in 
cooperation with Governor Carper, created a plan to establish a modern 
educational technology infrastructure in Delaware public schools to 
help students develop the skills our world-class work force requires. 
As a result, Delaware was the first State in the Nation to have network 
access in every public school classroom.
  Like Delaware, our Nation's school districts are increasingly 
investing in technology to improve education, communication, and the 
flow of information. Between school years 1983 to 1984 and 1995 to 
1996, the ratio of students per computer has fallen from 125 to as low 
as 8 nationally. Yet, at a time when 78 percent of public schools have 
access to the Internet, only 20 percent of teachers report feeling well 
prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom 
instruction.
  Educational technology can significantly improve student achievement, 
but we need to do more than simply place the computer in the classroom. 
We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to 
incorporate educational technology into their lesson plans.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the importance of educational 
technology in our classrooms by encouraging States in school districts 
to develop and implement professional development programs that train 
teachers in the use of technology in the classroom.
  It also encourages the coordination of activities and the integration 
of funding with programs under title III, ESEA's education technology 
programs, to provide comprehensive development programs that focus on 
technology.
  The Castle-Fletcher amendment simply strengthens the technology 
language that already exists in the Teacher Empowerment Act. It allows 
States to provide assistance to local educational agencies and eligible 
partnerships to develop innovative professional development programs 
that train teachers to use technology. And it requires, to the extent 
appropriate, that professional development activities provide training 
for teachers so that technology and its applications are effectively 
used in classroom learning.
  Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology 
if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to 
compete in their high-tech workplace. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I urge 
that we consider some future request for additional funding to 
accomplish this. I think that we are all aware of the fact that there 
is a great deal of shortages in the area of information technology 
workers. The estimate now is that there are about 300,000 positions 
that are going unfilled, and that within 2 or 3 years, that number will 
pass a million because the number of young people who are in college 
now majoring in computer science is so small that it will never fill 
the gap.
  There is a need to broaden the base of the pool. Many more youngsters 
need to be going into computer science or pursuing an education which 
will place them in the information technology world somewhere. Maybe 
they will be placed as mechanics, maybe as technologists. Maybe they 
will go on to computer programming at some other level.
  So our teachers have to supply that pool from which we draw our 
future computer programmers and computer technologists and people in 
the schools who are teaching others how to use technology to the best 
effect for education.

[[Page H5888]]

  But it cannot be done unless we have some more funding. We cannot 
talk about it alone because the necessity to purchase the computers, 
the necessity to make certain that our schools are wired so they can 
make use of technology; all these items, we cannot ignore and expect 
this to happen. It costs money.
  We had, fortunately, a policy from the Federal Communications 
Commission which created the E-Rate. The E-Rate pays for the ongoing 
cost of using technology. It also helps to wire the poorest schools. It 
provides up to 90 percent of the cost for wiring the poorest schools.
  But they still do not supply the computers, and they cannot supply 
the salaries for the teachers. So we need to, again, return to the 
consideration of the fact that nowhere are we proposing additional 
funds. We are not attacking the problems of education in a 21st Century 
manner by understanding that they require more resources.
  Again, I cannot stress too much, we have a golden opportunity; the 
door of opportunity is open, because of the fact that there is a 
surplus. Other committees are talking about making demands on that 
surplus. We have to make demands on that surplus and say that education 
is an investment that ought to be made. Some portion of that surplus 
ought to be devoted to areas where it is expensive to operate like the 
area of technology.
  The digital divide is great. Recently a report was released by the 
Department of Commerce which showed that sinking further and further 
behind are the children in the poorest areas, because they do not have 
access to computers at home.
  The only other place we are going to be able to close the gap of the 
digital divide is at school. We cannot close it at school unless they 
have the money to buy the computers and to pay for the salaries of 
teachers. We need more funding to make this a reality. I think the 
gentleman has brought attention to the matter, and he deserves support 
for that reason.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a strong supporter of education 
and member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate and thank the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work, and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his work, and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, for his continued work in 
improving education in this country.
  Let me talk and tell my colleagues a little bit about a lady by the 
name of Pat Michau. She is the principal of Johnson Elementary School 
in Lexington, Kentucky. She recently told me, ``It is vital for 
teachers in the 21st Century to be technology literate. All of the 
future textbooks and plans for teaching will be on the computer, many 
of our textbooks are already available on CD ROM, and that number is 
only going to increase.''
  Now Johnson Elementary is an inner-city school that serves primarily 
low-income and minority students; not what comes to mind when most 
people think of a high-tech school. However, Principal Michau at 
Johnson has been effective in integrating technology into every aspect 
of the curriculum.
  The 3- and 4-year-olds in pre-kindergarten are on the computer every 
day; and by the time the students reach the third and fourth grade, 
they are able to do PowerPoint presentations for their classmates.
  The use of computers is not limited to science and math. Johnson has 
purchased two digital cameras which teachers take with them on field 
trips. Then, when they return to the classrooms, students can download 
pictures from the trip and write about their experiences.

                              {time}  1545

  The children also have access to on-line collections of museums 
around the world. Besides learning about the artists behind these 
works, children have been painting their own art modeled after what 
they have seen on the Internet.
  Miss Michau is quick to point out that none of this would be possible 
if the teachers had not been willing to put in hours of training in 
order to bring this technology to their students.
  She said, ``School is the only place where some of these children 
will be exposed to computers, and it is vital to their future success 
that their teachers are effective teachers of technology.''
  The demands of teaching in this country are growing more and more 
complicated every day, and we owe it to our children, especially our 
low-income and minority students, to provide them with every possible 
tool in order to meet the challenges of an increasingly technological 
society.
  An investment in professional development for our teachers is an 
investment in our future, and I hope that my colleagues will join the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and myself in opening the door to 
the world of technology for children across this country.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Larson).
  (Mr. LARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. 
Clearly and fundamentally I believe our public education system, and 
especially our teachers, need all the support that they can get to 
assist themselves in integrating voice, video and data in their 
instruction to make sure that our students are equipped to compete in 
the 21st century.
  I have proposed a series of bills myself that focus on this subject 
matter and concur with the authors of this fine amendment, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Fletcher), and agree that moving forward and providing teachers 
with the opportunity to provide enhanced technological education within 
our classrooms is the best way for us to compete in a global economy in 
the future.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Delaware. One of the worst things we have done to 
teachers over the years is every time some new curriculum or some new 
method of instruction or some new technology arrived on the scene, we 
stuck it in front of them but did nothing to prepare them to use it. It 
was totally unfair to the teachers and, of course, not helpful to the 
students.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. McIntosh:
       Page 15, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(6) A description of how the State will ensure that local 
     educational agencies will comply with the requirement under 
     section 2033(b)(5), especially with respect to ensuring the 
     participation of teachers and parents.
       Page 26, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(5) A description of how the local educational agency has 
     collaborated with teachers, principals, parents, and 
     administrators in the preparation of the application.
       Page 28, line 20, after ``principles,'' insert 
     ``parents,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in support of the bill and to offer this amendment 
which strengthens the Teacher Empowerment Act's accountability by 
providing for parental and teacher involvement in

[[Page H5889]]

Teacher Empowerment Act activities. It accomplishes this goal in two 
ways:
  One, it ensures that the local education authority show that they 
have included parents and teachers in their applications for funding. 
Second, the amendment asks States to ensure that the local education 
agencies work to get parent and teacher participation in the building 
of professional development programs for teachers.
  The reason I am offering this amendment is simple: greater parental 
involvement means greater accountability and, more importantly, a 
better education for our children. Schools should not just be 
accountable to Washington. They must also be accountable to the parents 
of our children. By giving parents a greater role in deciding how 
schools will meet the TEA requirements, we ensure a better use of 
funds.
  The bill also ensures that teachers are involved in the developing of 
these plans. In many cases, professional development programs have been 
implemented without any teacher input. The problem with this should be 
obvious to everyone. With the increased oversight this provision will 
bring, it is far more likely that these programs will be highly 
qualified and will add to a high quality of enhanced professional 
development and will be based on improving teachers' ability to teach 
in the core academic subjects as opposed to simply providing for the 
type of professional development in bulletin board management.
  Everyone knows that parental involvement in their children's 
education makes a critical difference in their child's level of 
educational achievement. In the same way, parental involvement in the 
needs assessment and direction setting at schools can make an important 
contribution to how well these schools meet the needs of their 
students.
  Parents are in the best position to help assess the needs of their 
children. Children who come from different populations have different 
educational challenges. Parents are in a strong position to help the 
schools set goals and their directions. They are in the best position 
to help the schools succeed in meeting these educational goals.
  Now, my amendment is not a radical new proposal. The Eisenhower Math 
and Science program already requires this type of parental involvement, 
and this amendment simply extends this provision to all of the 
activities funded under the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  In my hometown of Muncie, Indiana, the parental involvement component 
of the Eisenhower provision is being met in various ways. Parents are 
invited to take part in the needs assessment and surveys which help our 
schools to know where they are succeeding and, frankly, where they are 
failing. Parents are invited to form school-level committees to help 
the schools decide how best to make use of the new grant money from the 
Federal Government.
  Now, often parents are also invited by the schools to participate in 
the training program that is funded through the Eisenhower grant. This 
is taking place especially under the program's technology and science 
grants. Often schools invite any parent who is interested in learning a 
certain computer or science skill that is being taught to participate 
in the program. In many cases, the parents' involvement in Muncie with 
the learning, from the planning stage to the classroom application, has 
the result of improving their parenting skills, especially with respect 
to children and their homework.
  In short, the Muncie community schools realize that parent 
involvement is important, support is necessary for success, and join us 
in achieving this goal in this legislation.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I just wanted to clarify 
regarding the way the gentleman measures parental involvement. Under 
present law, there is a requirement in Title I that 1 percent of the 
funds must be available to the parents for parental involvement 
purposes. Does the gentleman have any way to measure or monitor any 
requirement that they carry out the parent involvement part of the 
bill?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me 
address the gentleman's question. This provision does not touch Title I 
at all, so it leaves it exactly as it is under current law.
  And let me also address a concern that we have heard from some other 
Members. It is not a mandate in the sense of how schools must have 
parental involvement. It is simply an acknowledgment that it is 
important and a requirement that they tell us what they are doing to 
include parental involvement. How they do it we are leaving very much 
up to the local school, recognizing that each school will have 
different needs and different approaches that work better in their 
population.
  Finally, I want to make one thing very clear. I think this amendment, 
and in the case of the Muncie school program, indicates that there are 
multiple ways of including parental involvement in programs. And I 
firmly believe our school districts and not Congress are in the best 
position of how to implement that goal. But this amendment strives to 
put squarely into the law the goal of achieving more parental 
involvement in our school system and in our professional development.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment 
and the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Fletcher

  Mr. FLETCHER. Pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Fletcher:
       Page 24, after line 13, strike ``and'' at the end;
       Page 24, after line 18, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``; and''.
       Page 24, after line 18, insert the following:
       ``(H) professional development programs that provide 
     instruction in how to teach character education in a manner 
     that--
       ``(i) reflects the values of parents, teachers, and local 
     communities; and
       ``(ii) incorporates elements of good character, including 
     honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, respect, personal 
     responsibility, and trustworthiness.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to commend the committee 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for his work 
on this Teacher Empowerment Act.
  No one can argue that parents have the primary responsibility for 
raising their children, and there is no substitute for a strong family 
that prays together, reads together, and spends time together. 
Unfortunately, many of our children are not receiving the attention 
from parents that they need. The average American child spends almost 
20 hours a week watching television and less than an hour in meaningful 
conversation with a parent.
  Next to parents, the most important factor in whether or not a child 
succeeds academically is the quality of the teachers in the classroom. 
Children spend 6 hours a day in the classroom, at least 30 hours a 
week, more than the time they spend watching TV and talking with their 
parents combined.
  Every parent should be confident that the person standing in front of 
his or her child's classroom is both knowledgeable and qualified. 
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The Teacher Empowerment Act 
gives States the

[[Page H5890]]

flexibility to use Federal education dollars to promote innovative 
reforms to improve teacher quality, reduce class size, and ensure 
quality professional development.
  Too often the lessons our children learn in school fail to emphasize 
the importance of citizenship and respect. The first step towards 
fixing this problem is giving teachers the training necessary to convey 
these ideas to our children in an effective and positive manner.
  History and literature are full of lessons on character that we 
should share with our youth. American history, from the creation of the 
Constitution to the Civil War and up through the Civil Rights Movement, 
is replete with examples of the importance of character in our society. 
Teachers must build upon this historical foundation accordingly. 
Unfortunately, character education is often absent in teacher training.
  A constituent from my district recent contacted me saying that they 
were interested in introducing character education but really were not 
sure where to start. My amendment answers that question. It allows the 
use of professional development dollars to instruct teachers on 
teaching character education that reflects the values of parents and 
the local community.
  This amendment accompanies and augments the amendment I offered to 
the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act earlier this summer, which 
received overwhelming support. This amendment states that character 
education should incorporate elements such as honesty, citizenship, 
courage, justice, personal responsibility, and trustworthiness.
  These virtues are the hallmark of a civilized society, and I do not 
believe that anyone could argue with their inclusion in a child's 
education.
  Today's students are tomorrow's leaders, and I ask my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this amendment to help our teachers equip our 
students for the moral and academic challenges of the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Fletcher 
amendment. As parents of two young boys approaching school age, my wife 
and I share some serious concerns. During their 12 years in elementary, 
middle and high school my sons will end up nearly spending as much time 
directly or indirectly with their teachers as they will with us.
  As all other parents, we want to do everything possible to give our 
children a quality education. Not only do we want them to learn the 
academic basics, but we want them to make sure that schools are 
contemplating what we are teaching our children at home about character 
and values.
  The Fletcher amendment supplements the underlying bill by permitting 
the use of funds for character education. It will let local school 
systems train teachers how to more effectively communicate the values 
of our local communities.
  The character traits of honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, 
respect, personal responsibility, and trustworthiness are as important 
to a child's success in life as reading and math, and I urge its 
approval.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle/Fletcher 
amendment that will provide teachers with the technology training they 
need to meet the classroom challenges of the 21st century.
  I am the sponsor and author of the Teacher Technology Training Act of 
1999 (H.R. 645) that would include technology in teacher training and 
professional development programs authorized under the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Castle/Fletcher Amendment is very 
similar to the Teacher Technology Training Act of 1999. Under both the 
Amendment and the Training Act, school districts and local education 
agencies that receive federal funding would have to provide training 
for teachers in the sue of education technology.
  Technology is changing our world. It is the engine that is driving 
our economy as we turn the corner into a new century. It affects the 
way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and the way our 
children learn in school. Our students are in the midst of a technology 
revolution that has paved the way for limitless possibilities in the 
classroom.
  However, with all of its possibilities, technology alone cannot 
improve our system of education. Technology can provide little 
educational benefit, without the help of the classroom teacher. The 
classroom teacher is the key to success in bringing technology into our 
schools in a meaningful way.
  All too often, however, teachers are expected to incorporate 
technology into their instruction without being given the training to 
do so. A recent study by the Education Department's National Center for 
Education Statistics shows that only one in five teachers nationwide 
feel that they are prepared to use modern technology in the classroom.
  That is why I introduced the Teacher Training in Technology Act, and 
that is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Castle-Fletcher 
amendment.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Castle-
Fletcher amendment to the Teacher Empowerment Act to increase teachers 
knowledge of classroom technology. It is vitally important, as we 
approach the 21st century, that in order to remain competitive in the 
global economy, we adapt and, indeed, stay ahead of the revolutionary 
technological advances that are changing our lives on a daily basis.
  Once a mere concept, the knowledge based economy is now a reality. I 
have often heard mentioned that the leap technology has taken is 
analogous to going from the dark ages to the renaissance, from 
cloistered monks scrolling information for the scholarly few to 
Gutenberg inventing movable type, and exposing the masses to the 
knowledge contained in books. It is indeed a momentous change. But to 
maintain our position in the global stage, we must make sure that we 
integrate technology into our society at the most important stage of 
our children's development. We must integrate technology into our 
children's classrooms.
  To help our children maintain their competitive advantage in the 
Information Age, we must give our teachers the tools they need to 
integrate technology in the classroom. With this amendment we take a 
positive step in this direction. This amendment would allow 
professional development programs funded under the Act to provide 
training for teachers in the uses of technology and its uses in the 
classroom to improve teaching and learning. It would also provide state 
funds to Local Education Agencies and Higher Education Partnerships for 
development of programs that train teachers how to use technology in 
the classroom.
  The amendment is important because integrating technology into the 
classrooms is not just about wiring schools to the Internet. It is also 
about making sure that we integrate all aspects of technology, 
including voice, video, data and distance learning, into the curriculum 
and that we do so effectively. Our teachers should be trained to 
develop innovative ways to include technology in teaching our children. 
Not just to teach our children to surf the Web--although I suspect that 
it is not the children who need help in this area--but also to develop 
ways to use technology in actual subject matter.
  As a former teacher and father of three children, it is quite evident 
to me that a comprehensive approach should be developed to place our 
children in a position to excel in this new economy. To that effect, I 
recently introduced a bill that will develop a strategic plan to create 
a national technological infrastructure to connect public schools to 
the information superhighway. It is only the first step in a three-
pronged strategy that will include infrastructure support, teacher 
enhancement, and child development. In the meantime, I will continue to 
be a strong supporter of efforts that move our classrooms into the 21st 
century.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlemen from 
Delaware, Mr. Castle and the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Fletcher for 
their vision in offering this amendment to improve the efficiency of 
our teachers and to prepare our children for the challenges they will 
face in the coming century. I urge all my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Fletcher's 
amendment. As my colleagues know I was a cosponsor on this amendment to 
H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice legislation several weeks ago.
  Over the Fourth of July recess, I held a forum in my home town of 
Concord, North Carolina to discuss the influence of entertainment and 
the media on the growing problem of youth violence. I invited teachers, 
parents, school administrators, students and concerned citizens to join 
me in a community discussion to raise awareness of our citizens that we 
must all work together to support our children.
  There was a consensus that we must restore some much needed balance 
to legislation that impacts our nation's culture. Local educators 
expressed the need to teach character education in our schools. Parents 
agreed that the values and morals that are taught at

[[Page H5891]]

home should be reinforced at school. And Administrators asked for the 
tools and support to work with parents and community organizations to 
provide substantive after school programs.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and support our 
teachers and school administrators by making character education 
development programs available so teachers and parents can work 
together to craft a curriculum that reflects the values of their 
community.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 24, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(5) Professional activities designed to improve the 
     quality of principals.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I 
ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I believe we can briefly and expeditiously move through this amendment. 
There is a strong bipartisan consensus in the committee and I believe 
in this House for the proposition that well-trained, well-prepared 
educators should interact with our children on a regular basis. There 
has been much good work done here today on the issue of training 
teachers. We may disagree over some of the particulars, but we all 
agree on the proposition that well-motivated and trained teachers are a 
real asset to our education system. I believe that that same principle 
should extend to the principals of our schools around the country.
  One of the key differences between a succeeding school and a failing 
school is the presence or absence of an empowered, motivated leader 
serving in the principal's office. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind) has contributed some significant work to this bill for which I 
applaud him, and I am trying to supplement what he has already done by 
suggesting in this amendment that one of the criteria which ought to be 
evaluated with respect to the professional development plans submitted 
by school districts under this bill is their plan for and preparations 
for a comprehensive program of principal development and training. The 
principal really is both the chief executive officer and the chief 
operating officer of the school. He or she is financial planner, 
medical adviser, social worker, business manager, mentor, referee, 
community liaison, ambassador and many, many other things. It is a job 
that requires updating and recharging of one's batteries.
  So the purpose of this amendment is to be sure that those 
considerations are taken into account when the professional development 
plans are offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on this amendment as it ties into the 
previous amendment with regard to ethics. So often the only quality 
time that a child spends today with both parents working, with the TV 
blaring at home, is the time spent with teachers, with the principals 
of the schools, those people who set the agenda in life.
  I think it is vitally important that we do teach values and that 
these things become part of the curriculum and that the teachers are 
properly instructed in ways of such teaching. It is not just automatic, 
the teaching of ethics and values in today's world. I think when we see 
that the children and the teachers that we have put so much 
responsibility in, I think it is only right that they become part of 
the overall scheme of building not only the education but also the 
character of the young people today.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time. I also want to commend him for this very 
important amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  This amendment recognizes the important role that principals play in 
school districts throughout the country. You ask any teacher, you ask 
any parent who is at all involved with their schools, and they will 
tell you the important role that principals play. They establish the 
theme, the spirit, the energy, the leadership that is crucial to making 
the vitally important educational reforms that are necessary in order 
to improve the quality of education for our kids.
  It was based on that recognition that I worked with the leadership on 
both sides of the aisle in order to get a special provision included in 
the bill addressing the importance of training and professional 
development programs geared towards principals but also for 
administrators and superintendents, so that they have the ability to 
upgrade and improve their skills. School districts, when they are out 
trying to find qualified people to fill these roles, will, hopefully, 
have an easier and better time in finding the right people to perform 
this important role. There is nothing more frustrating than for a 
school board to have to go through multiple interviewing rounds to fill 
a principal position or a superintendent position because they cannot 
find the right fit or a qualified person to do the job. That is why I 
think this amendment is particularly important.
  There is one principal in my district who I would like to commend and 
specifically recognize right now. Her name is Heather Grant, and she is 
the principal of Lincoln Elementary School in Eau Claire, WI. I had the 
opportunity to visit that school and meet with her, her staff and 
teachers and discuss at length with them their program for change and 
the reforms they were implementing to improve the quality of teaching 
and improve the reading skills of their pupils. Ms. Grant, through her 
own initiative and energy, went out and obtained a comprehensive school 
reform grant, an Obey-Porter grant. They are now implementing Success 
for All at the elementary school with the funds from that grant.
  I can't describe how much fun it was to walk into those classes and 
see the sparkle and the energy in the students' eyes, meeting the 
teachers, listening to how they and the parents have bought into the 
school reform problem under the leadership of Principal Grant, and 
witnessing the superintendent and the community working together. That 
is why I think this is an important amendment. It's meant to benefit 
the Heather Grants and all future principals across the country. Again, 
I would encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I support strongly the Andrews amendment. I 
appreciate his putting the hard work into this. We just had a hearing 
in Concord about a week ago now. I was amazed at the number of 
principals and teachers that came and talked about the kind of 
assistance that they would like to have. This amendment helps them.
  On the Fourth of July, I held a forum, as I said, to discuss the 
influence of entertainment in the media on the growing problem of youth 
violence. I invited the teachers and parents to come. Many citizens did 
just that. They discussed the awareness of citizens, that we must all 
work together to support our children. There is a consensus that we 
must restore much-needed balance to legislation that impacts our 
culture. Local educators expressed the need to reach out and teach 
character education in our schools.

[[Page H5892]]

  Parents agree that the values and morals that are taught at home 
should be reinforced at school. Administrators ask for the tools and 
support to work with parents and community organizations to provide 
substantive programs for after school.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and support our 
teachers and school administrators by making character education 
development programs available to teachers and parents so that they can 
work together to craft a curriculum that reflects the values of their 
community.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey again for this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
In conclusion, I appreciate the kind words my colleagues have said. I 
learned well from my late father-in-law, Dr. Alan Emerson Wolf, a 
career educator in the Pennsylvania public schools, as is the chairman 
of this committee, that well-empowered, well-trained principals are a 
key to quality public education. That is the idea behind this 
amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Thanks to the help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), TEA 
currently includes many of the provisions related to the needs of 
principals. Perhaps no one in the Congress knows those needs better 
than I, since I spent 10 years in that capacity.
  Specifically under the legislation, it provides for developing and 
implementing an effective mechanism to assist local educational 
agencies and schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly 
qualified and effective teachers and principals.
  In addition, language was added as part of the en bloc amendment 
which will allow the Secretary to fund projects to provide professional 
development for principals as leaders of school reform.
  The bill also includes language to ensure that principals are 
involved in extensive participation in professional development 
programs. This amendment just adds to making sure that principals are 
given great consideration because they will pretty well determine what 
happens within a school building.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 7 printed in House Report 106-240.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 35, after line 7, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2043. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR TEACHER 
                   ENTREPRENEURSHIP.

       ``The Secretary may award a grant or contract to an 
     organization or institution with substantial experience in 
     entrepreneurship education to establish and operate a 
     National Clearinghouse for Teacher Entrepreneurship to 
     coordinate professional development opportunities for 
     teachers, collect and disseminate curricular materials, and 
     undertake other activities to encourage teacher interest and 
     involvement in entrepreneurship education, particularly for 
     teachers of grades 7 through 12.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I 
ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I first of all want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
encouragement of this idea. Our long running discussion about this has 
been very productive.
  I come before my colleagues today, Mr. Chairman, with an amendment, 
working with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), to create a 
national clearinghouse for teaching entrepreneurship. The purpose is to 
establish a network for the efficient distribution of Federal resources 
in schools and having those resources distributed to schools and local 
educational agencies to teach entrepreneurship skills to junior high 
and high school students. The clearinghouse would coordinate 
professional development opportunities, collect and distribute 
materials and support activities which encourage teachers' interest in 
entrepreneurship education.
  The latest research shows there are about 4 million new businesses 
created in the U.S. each year, creating new jobs and new opportunities 
for new business activity for existing businesses. As a former small 
businessperson, I have experienced the challenges of starting and 
successfully operating a new enterprise. I believe that education and 
training in entrepreneurship skills will give junior high and high 
school students the basic knowledge of our economy, self-esteem and 
sense of individual opportunity that they need to excel in our modern 
high-tech economy. The multiple dimensions of entrepreneurship 
education will help to nurture an ethic of personal responsibility in 
our young people and expand the career opportunities available to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my coauthor of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for their cooperation in this.
  I think there is broad consensus that no child should have to sit at 
the back of the bus educationally or economically. This amendment is 
making sure that every child if he or she is willing to work for it and 
has the ability not only does not have to sit at the back of the bus 
but can own the bus company someday. This is an idea about introducing 
very young people to the idea that they can take their creative 
energies, pour them into the founding and growth of a business and 
accomplish, many, many things. This is an idea that marries the best 
impulses of both political traditions. It recognizes the importance of 
government acting affirmatively to provide opportunities to young 
people who may not have that opportunity through the public education 
system, and it recognizes the provocative power of the private sector 
in developing new products, creating jobs and expanding this country's 
great technological lead around the world.
  I know that the gentleman from Ohio has seen in Ohio and around the 
country as I have seen in New Jersey the great promise and enthusiasm 
that young people have when they are enlightened at an early age to the 
power of entrepreneurial work. Educating our teachers to enlighten 
children and young people as to that is a very worthy goal.

                              {time}  1615

  So I was proud to work with him on this amendment. I appreciate very 
much the considerations being given by both the majority and minority 
on the committee, and I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Obviously the word ``entrepreneurship'' is a Republican word; there 
is no question about that. So we are very happy to accept the amendment 
the gentleman from Ohio has offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) for his assistance on this. I also want to thank especially 
our leader on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay). As my colleagues know, he was the one who encouraged me to join 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I am very grateful 
for that

[[Page H5893]]

because it gave me a chance to work with some of the finest Members of 
this Congress, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for the 
opportunity to come forward with an amendment like this which has the 
support of both sides of the aisle. I really appreciate the help that 
he has given me to be able to take this the distance.
  So I want to again thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hilleary

  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hilleary:
       Page 36, after line 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2043. RURAL TEACHERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants on a 
     competitive basis to rural eligible local educational 
     agencies to carry out activities described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A rural eligible local educational 
     agency that receives a grant under this section may use such 
     funds to develop incentive programs--
       ``(1) to recruit and retain qualified teachers; and
       ``(2) to provide high-quality professional development to 
     teachers.
       ``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a rural eligible local educational agency shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Metropolitan statistical area.--The term 
     `metropolitan statistical area' has the meaning given such 
     term by the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(2) Rural eligible local educational agency.--The term 
     `rural eligible local educational agency' means a local 
     educational agency--
       ``(A) that is not located in a metropolitan statistical 
     area; and
       ``(B) in which there is a high percentage of individuals 
     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))).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask to control the time, although I am 
not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Clayton) will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Hilleary).
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for their work on this legislation. As a fairly junior Member 
on this committee, I have been ecstatic with the work all my colleagues 
put in on this act, and I am confident this legislation is going to 
provide our teachers with a great tool to excel.
  I also feel strongly that benefits of this legislation must reach all 
our communities across the country, and that is the reason for this 
amendment. This amendment will allow the Secretary of Education to 
direct a portion of the general funds in this act to rural impoverished 
areas. Often these areas find it hard to attract and retain teachers. 
As a result, teacher shortages and high turnover are commonplace in 
regions like Appalachia in my home State as well as other rural 
communities in almost every other State across the country.
  Under this amendment, a needy rural school district can prevent a 
mass exodus of qualified teachers by first creating incentive programs 
to retain teachers; second, improving the quality of the teachers 
through enhanced professional development; and, third, by hiring new 
teachers.
  While larger school districts often have professional grant writers 
who fill out applications for Federal outlays, poor rural communities 
are sometimes overlooked not on purpose but simply because they do not 
have the resources to fill out the mountain of Federal paperwork 
required to obtain these funds. This reality comes at the expense of 
children who desparately need these funds.
  I want to stress that this amendment is structured to provide the 
Secretary of Education with an allowable use of funds. Thus this 
amendment in no way mandates the creation of a new program which will 
take away one penny from urban or other areas that would not qualify.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support our schools in need 
and support the Hilleary amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 29, 1999, I introduced a bill entitled the 
Rural Teacher Recruitment Act of 1999. I support this amendment because 
it is very similar to the bill that I introduced. I congratulate the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) for his leadership and his 
sensitivity to the rural community. The Rural Teachers Amendment Act is 
a much needed measure designed to address teacher shortage, recruitment 
and retention, especially in rural communities. Recruiting and 
retaining quality teachers is so important yet very difficult in 
schools across the Nation.
  Our accomplishing this goal in rural areas is even a greater task. 
That is because there is little or no motivation for teachers to teach 
and remain in rural districts. This amendment offers an incentive that 
encourages teachers to teach in these unrepresentative areas. The 
amendment allows rural local education agencies to submit an 
application to the Secretary of the Department of Education for a grant 
to develop incentive programs for the recruitment of new teachers to 
provide instruction in those areas.
  As we move into the 21st century, it is time to ensure that we have 
talented, dedicated and qualified teachers. We must, however, give new 
teachers a reason to favor providing structure in rural districts. We 
must reduce the shortage of quality teachers in areas where they are 
needed the most. Without these teachers, our communities, our children 
are the ones who suffer. This amendment will help make sure that every 
community and most of all the rural communities would be represented 
and with quality teachers.
  I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her comments, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would hate to oppose this amendment 
because not only would I have to deal with the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Hilleary), but can my colleagues imagine getting in the elevator 
alone with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), and the 
door goes shut, what would happen if I would oppose this amendment?
  So I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to support the amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an endorsement from the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding this time to me. I also thank her for her work on 
identifying rural America as having unusually important needs in the 
area of recruitment and retention of teachers, for legislation she 
introduced which I cosponsored is very, very similar to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and I commend 
him for his amendment.

[[Page H5894]]

  North Dakota, just for an example, reported recently that nearly one-
third of its public school teachers are over the age of 50, and we have 
so many parts of the State that are depopulating, becoming even more 
difficult to recruit and retain State teachers. Our classroom 
performance of our students is at or near the top on so many important 
benchmarks, and clearly quality classroom teachers has been a 
cornerstone of the success of North Dakota public education.
  But we need help; we need the kind of help that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) offers, and I appreciate very 
much the support my colleagues are giving to those rural areas 
struggling to maintain quality public schools.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me, and Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise 
in support of the Hilleary amendment to H.R. 1995. I know from 
experience that small rural schools do a very good job of educating 
students. Rural school students benefit from small classes and 
personalized learning experiences and opportunities to participate in 
extracurricular activities, personal relationships with teachers and 
administrators and certainly strong parental and community involvement.
  In fact, about 20 percent of the students in this country actually 
attend rural schools, and many of those schools are in my congressional 
district. Despite all of the benefits of rural school environment, too 
often rural schools are faced with serious problems, developing, 
attracting and retaining good teachers, highly qualified teachers. 
There are a lot of reasons for these problems ranging from lifestyle 
issues and isolated communities to a successful economy that attracts 
highly qualified potential teachers into other career fields.
  The amendment would not in any way increase the authorization level 
of the bill. It simply recognizes some of the unique challenges faced 
by rural school districts and allows them the option of addressing 
these challenges through the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  I certainly wholeheartedly support the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), one of the greatest educators of this 
Nation who was a former State superintendant of education in North 
Carolina.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee for rural education. This amendment is 
essentially the Clayton bill for rural needy schools, which I strongly 
support and which I am an original cosponsor. I commend my home State 
colleague for her leadership in this important area.
  Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a farm in rural Johnston County, and I 
know that we have some wonderful teachers in our rural schools. But as 
a former State superintendent, I also know that rural schools often 
face the most daunting challenges for quality education. Rural schools 
often lack the tax base to support investments in strong schools. They 
also lack the population base needed to gain many of the formulas for 
government assistance.
  That is why this amendment is so important and we must pass this 
vital assistance for rural schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say though that I oppose this underlying bill 
because, as I have said before, block granting needed investments, 
cutting funding and disenfranchising State education agencies and 
shifting the government structure over to governors is the wrong way to 
improve our schools. But, as this bill moves forward, I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment for rural schools so that the 
final legislation can produce the best possible bill for our children.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Clayton) for yielding this time to me.
  Many parts of rural America have had a difficult time in sharing the 
prosperous economic times that we have all enjoyed due to declining 
farm prices and farm income and the natural disasters. And to make 
matters worse, many of our rural schools have been struggling with 
limited tax bases, and some simply do not have the resources available 
to compete competitively with other school districts that have more 
students and more resources.
  I think that it is time that this gentleman bring this amendment in 
front of us today because it is important for our rural schools. I look 
forward to working with him to address the problems of limit shrinking 
and disappearing tax bases, hiring and retention of qualified teachers 
which is so very important, high transportation costs, crumbling 
buildings and limited course offerings and limited resource.
  I have introduced in Congress the Rural Education Development 
Initiative, a bill very similar to what has been talked about here, a 
bill that shoots right at the heart of what I think is very important 
for our educating of rural schools, to help our needy students that 
live in the rural impoverished schools across America. I want to thank 
the gentleman also from Tennessee for bringing this issue to the floor 
today, and I think that it makes great strides in addressing some of 
the most important issues, I believe, that can be, and that is 
addressing educating our rural schools.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed 
in House Report 106-240.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 36, after line 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2043. TRANSITION TO TEACHING.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to address 
     the need of high-need local educational agencies for highly 
     qualified teachers in particular subject areas, such as 
     mathematics, science, foreign languages, bilingual education, 
     and special education, needed by those agencies, following 
     the model of the successful teachers placement program known 
     as the `Troops-to-Teachers program', by recruiting, 
     preparing, placing, and supporting career-changing 
     professionals who have knowledge and experience that will 
     help them become such teachers.
       ``(b) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to use funds 
     appropriated under paragraph (2) for each fiscal year to 
     award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 
     institutions of higher education and public and private 
     nonprofit agencies or organizations to carry out programs 
     authorized by this section.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
       ``(c) Application.--Each applicant that desires an award 
     under subsection (b)(1) shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary containing such information as the Secretary 
     requires, including--
       ``(1) a description of the target group of career-changing 
     professionals upon which the applicant will focus its 
     recruitment efforts in carrying out its program under this 
     section, including a description of the characteristics of 
     that target group that shows how the knowledge and experience 
     of its members are relevant to meeting the purpose of this 
     section;
       ``(2) a description of the training that program 
     participants will receive and how that training will relate 
     to their certification as teachers;
       ``(3) a description of how the applicant will collaborate, 
     as needed, with other institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations to recruit, train, place, support, and provide 
     teacher induction programs to program participants under this 
     section, including evidence of the commitment of those 
     institutions, agencies, or organizations to the applicant's 
     program;
       ``(4) a description of how the applicant will evaluate the 
     progress and effectiveness of its program, including--
       ``(A) the program's goals and objectives;
       ``(B) the performance indicators the applicant will use to 
     measure the program's progress; and
       ``(C) the outcome measures that will be used to determine 
     the program's effectiveness; and
       ``(5) such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary may require.

[[Page H5895]]

       ``(d) Uses of Funds and Period of Service.--
       ``(1) Authorized activities.--Funds under this section may 
     be used for--
       ``(A) recruiting program participants, including informing 
     them of opportunities under the program and putting them in 
     contact with other institutions, agencies, or organizations 
     that would train, place, and support them;
       ``(B) training stipends and other financial incentives for 
     program participants, not to exceed $5,000 per participant;
       ``(C) assisting institutions of higher education or other 
     providers of teacher training to tailor their training to 
     meet the particular needs of professionals who are changing 
     their careers to teaching;
       ``(D) placement activities, including identifying high-need 
     local educational agencies with a need for the particular 
     skills and characteristics of the newly trained program 
     participants and assisting those participants to obtain 
     employment in those local educational agencies; and
       ``(E) post-placement induction or support activities for 
     program participants.
       ``(2) Period of service.--A program participant in a 
     program under this section who completes his or her training 
     shall serve in a high-need local educational agency for at 
     least 3 years.
       ``(3) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such 
     requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate to 
     ensure that program participants who receive a training 
     stipend or other financial incentive under paragraph (1)(B), 
     but fail to complete their service obligation under paragraph 
     (2), repay all or a portion of such stipend or other 
     incentive.
       ``(e) Equitable Distribution.--To the extent practicable, 
     the Secretary shall make awards under this section that 
     support programs in different geographic regions of the 
     Nation.
       ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `high-need local educational agency' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 2061.
       ``(2) The term `program participants' means career-changing 
     professionals who--
       ``(A) hold at least a baccalaureate degree;
       ``(B) demonstrate interest in, and commitment to, becoming 
     a teacher; and
       ``(C) have knowledge and experience that are relevant to 
     teaching a high-need subject area in a high-need local 
     educational agency.''.
       Page 36, line 19, strike ``part,'' and insert ``part (other 
     than section 2043),''.
       Page 36, line 21, strike ``4.'' and insert ``4 (other than 
     section 2043).''.
       Page 36, line 23, strike ``part,'' and insert ``part (other 
     than section 2043),''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Mr. GOODLING. I am not opposed to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I 
ask to control the 5 minutes of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we now have, 
due to the generosity of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), 3 additional minutes, so that we now have 8 minutes on our 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chairman for the clarification, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my leader on this 
amendment and cosponsor of this amendment and somebody who has been a 
tenacious and tireless advocate and very eloquent in his remarks, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who has worked together with me to 
put this legislation together, and I want to thank him for his hard 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment tries to be creative and bold and to 
address the two issues that are crucial to this bill: How do we reduce 
class size? How do we improve the quality of teaching in America, with 
the challenge of bringing in 2 million new teachers over the next 10 
years?
  Our bill expands on the very successful Troops to Teachers idea that 
was done with our military several years ago where we brought people 
out of the military in mid-career with technical skills and math and 
science skills, and taught them, through an alternative and rigorous 
method, how to get their teaching certificates. They are now in inner-
city schools teaching math and science and doing extremely well.
  The bill that I put together along with the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis) expands on this idea of Troops to Teachers and expands this 
into the private sector where we want to work with universities, where 
we want to work with businesses and not-for-profits, and we want to 
expand on people's dreams of becoming a teacher, and bringing real-life 
experiences as a doctor, as a retired police officer, as an accountant, 
a scientist, a researcher, from that real-life experience into the 
classroom.
  Our bill is a competitive grant process. Our bill would allow up to 
$5,000 as a stipend to help train that individual to bring them into 
teaching, and our bill would also try to direct many of these people 
into high-need schools for at least 3 years. So we need 2 million 
teachers, it expands on the Troops to Teacher idea; it is up to a 
$5,000 stipend, and the recipients agree to teach in high-need areas.
  So I am very excited to have this bill considered by the full House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
hard-working gentleman from Tampa Bay, Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Roemer-Davis amendment to the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  We are approaching an education crisis in our country. Over the next 
decade, school districts across the country will have to hire an 
additional 2 million teachers. In my home, Hillsborough County in 
Tampa, we need to hire 600 teachers alone before school starts in about 
3 weeks and 7,000 teachers over the next decade. To meet this need, 
talented Americans of all ages and all backgrounds need to be recruited 
to be successful, qualified teachers.
  Several years ago, Congress authorized the Troops to Teachers program 
at the Department of Defense. This program has been successful in 
recruiting and training over 3,000 men and women who have retired from 
the military and gone on to serve as math, science and technology 
teachers. The graduates of this program that I have met have 
demonstrated a deep commitment to their students and to their 
profession and have used their life experiences to relate to the young 
people whom they are teaching.
  Due to the downsizing of our military and a shrinking pool of 
military retirees, we need to find other ways to address this shortage 
that is developing of teachers. Together with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and 25 Democratic and Republican 
cosponsors, we have introduced the Transition to Teaching Act and offer 
an amendment today very similar to the bill.
  The amendment, which is modeled after the Troops to Teachers Act, 
will target mid-career professionals who are looking for a career 
change and want to be teachers. This new program does not replace the 
existing Troops to Teachers program, it simply builds on its success.
  We encourage professional associations, business and trade groups, 
unions and other organizations to follow the military's example and 
encourage their retiree employees to become teachers. Our amendment is 
intended to make sure that these men and women get the training they 
need to become teachers.
  The Roemer-Davis amendment will help move people from the board room 
to the classroom, from the firehouse to the schoolhouse, from the 
police station on main street to the classroom on main street. Since we 
introduced the Transition to Teachers Act last month, I have heard from 
a number of people throughout Florida who have expressed support and 
excitement for this proposal. I heard from a woman from Tampa who spent 
more than 20 years as a pharmacist who is considering a career change 
and would like to be a teacher and sees this bill as a way to help her 
do that.
  Mr. Chairman, the time is now for us to begin dealing with this 
crisis that is developing. We need to replenish the ranks of our 
teachers. We need our best and brightest there. We need people

[[Page H5896]]

whose maturity and life experience can help them reach out to the young 
people in our classrooms today, and I would urge adoption of the 
Roemer-Davis amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment builds on current language that we have 
in this legislation which intends to expand the pool of highly 
qualified teachers through programs designed to offer alternative 
routes to teacher certification.
  Specifically, it will assist in helping schools that are in need of 
highly qualified teachers in particular subject areas such as math and 
science by establishing networks to recruit, prepare, place and support 
career-changing professionals who have knowledge and experience that 
will help them become such teachers. In return for this assistance, 
these individuals would teach in high-need, local educational agencies, 
and as I have said over and over again all day long, the important 
thing is that we get well-qualified teachers, particularly in these 
areas of high need. I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a talented member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
for yielding me this time.
  I want to commend both him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) 
for offering this amendment. I rise as a strong supporter of the 
Transition to Teaching initiative that is being offered. I think this 
amendment can only improve the bill that we have been working on all 
day.
  Mr. Chairman, schools across this country will need to hire roughly 2 
million additional teachers over the next 10 years because of the 
impending baby boom retirement trend. Currently, over 25 percent of 
teachers do not have degrees in the subject areas in which they teach. 
To address these issues, it is imperative that we attract motivated, 
qualified, well-educated persons to the teaching profession.
  This country has an endless pool of diverse talent that can be tapped 
for teaching and help fill the gap that will be created in these future 
years. More and more individuals in America, from a wide range of 
fields and with a wide range of ages are looking for ways to contribute 
to society in positive, meaningful ways. This amendment will help those 
individuals get started in a career that can give them the personal 
satisfaction that they seek. Regardless of the career they may be in, 
we should encourage individuals with real world experience to share 
their knowledge with our children through actual classroom instruction. 
This amendment will provide funding to help these people move into a 
new, challenging and incredibly rewarding career in the teaching 
profession.
  Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for the work and 
leadership that they have shown on this issue, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time to 
conclude by again thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) for 
his hard work, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for his words of 
support, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their support as well.
  I would just encourage my colleagues to support this innovative and 
bold new idea to try to bring real-life experience and dreams of people 
that have always wanted to teach into the classrooms. I would also 
encourage in that process that we continue to look for bolder and more 
creative ways to work together across the aisle to bring Democratic and 
Republican bipartisanship to these bills.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
especially take interest in the Troops to Teachers program. I am proud 
to be a sponsor of Congressman Joel Hefley's bill that would 
reauthorize and strengthen Troops to Teachers. So often we question 
whether government-designed programs produce the desired effect and 
benefit our constituents. This program does. I read a letter printed in 
the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer-Times in which a constituent of mine 
wrote in asking for more information about Troops to Teachers. I am 
submitting for the record a letter I wrote to the newspaper praising 
this program. Mr. Chairman, this program works and I cannot think of a 
better way for the men and women in uniform to continue their service 
to our country after they have completed their active duty.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 1999.
     The Editorial Page Editor,
     The Fayetteville Observer-Times,
     Fayetteville, NC.
       Dear Editor: I am writing in response to a letter on the 
     Live Wire, Thursday, July 15 regarding the Department of 
     Defense Troops to Teacher Program. I was happy to see there 
     is interest in such a valuable program.
       One of the most pressing challenges facing our country is 
     recruiting, training and retaining high quality teachers for 
     our public schools. While many proposals have been suggested 
     to help attract new teachers, this program in particular has 
     been highly successful in bringing qualified teachers into 
     the classrooms. Troops to Teachers assists our men and women 
     in uniform in identifying teaching certification programs and 
     employment opportunities after they have fulfilled their 
     serve to their country.
       Troops to Teachers has helped over 3,000 active duty 
     soldiers enter our nation's classrooms and make significant 
     contributions to our schools. There military personnel-turned 
     teachers have established a solid reputation as dedicated and 
     effective educators, who bring unique, real-world experiences 
     to the classroom.
       I am a proud cosponsor of the Troops to Teachers 
     Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by Congressman Joel 
     Hefley (R-CO). This bill will re-authorize and strengthen its 
     successful program through 2004. I cannot think of a better 
     way for these qualified and well trained men and women to 
     continue serving their country after they have left the 
     military.
       Please feel free to contact our office with any comment or 
     concerns that you may have on Troops to Teachers (or any 
     other issue). You can contact our Washington office at 202/
     225-3715, and our office here in the 8th district can be 
     reached toll-free at 888/207-1311.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Robin Hayes,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed 
in House report 106-240.


            Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       Page 40, line 24, before the semicolon insert ``and 
     redesignating part E as part D''.
       Page 40, strike line 25 and insert the following:
       (2) by inserting after section 2260 the following:

     ``PART C--USE OF SABBATICAL LEAVE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 2301. GRANTS FOR SALARY DURING SABBATICAL LEAVE.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     State educational agencies and local educational agencies to 
     pay such agencies for one-half of the amount of the salary 
     that otherwise would be earned by an eligible teacher 
     described in subsection (b), if, in lieu of fulfilling the 
     teacher's ordinary teaching assignment, the teacher completes 
     a course of study described in subsection (c) during a 
     sabbatical term described in subsection (d).
       ``(b) Eligible Teachers.--An eligible teacher described in 
     this subsection is a teacher who--
       ``(1) is employed by an agency receiving a grant under this 
     section to provide classroom instruction to children at an 
     elementary or secondary school that provides free public 
     education;
       ``(2) has secured from such agency, and any other person or 
     agency whose approval is required under State law, approval 
     to take sabbatical leave for a sabbatical term described in 
     subsection (d);
       ``(3) has submitted to the agency an application for a 
     subgrant at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the agency may require, including--
       ``(A) written proof--
       ``(i) of the approval described in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) of the teacher's having been accepted for enrollment 
     in a course of study described in subsection (c); and

[[Page H5897]]

       ``(B) assurances that the teacher--
       ``(i) will notify the agency in writing within a reasonable 
     time if the teacher terminates enrollment in the course of 
     study described in subsection (c) for any reason;
       ``(ii) in the discretion of the agency, will reimburse to 
     the agency some or all of the amount of the subgrant if the 
     teacher fails to complete the course of study; and
       ``(iii) otherwise will provide the agency with proof of 
     having completed such course of study not later than 60 days 
     after such completion; and
       ``(4) has been selected by the agency to receive a subgrant 
     based on the agency's plan for meeting its classroom needs.
       ``(c) Course of Study.--A course of study described in this 
     subsection is a course of study at an institution of higher 
     education that--
       ``(1) requires not less than one academic semester and not 
     more than one academic year to complete;
       ``(2) is open for enrollment for professional development 
     purposes to an eligible teacher described in subsection (b); 
     and
       ``(3) is designed to improve the classroom teaching of such 
     teachers through academic and child development studies.
       ``(d) Sabbatical Term.--A sabbatical term described in this 
     subsection is a leave of absence from teaching duties granted 
     to an eligible teacher for not less than one academic 
     semester and not more than one academic year, during which 
     period the teacher receives--
       ``(1) one-half of the amount of the salary that otherwise 
     would be earned by the teacher, if the teacher had not been 
     granted a leave of absence, from State or local funds made 
     available by a State educational agency or a local 
     educational agency; and
       ``(2) one-half of such amount from Federal funds received 
     by such agency through a grant under this section.
       ``(e) Payments.--
       ``(1) To eligible teachers.--In making a subgrant to an 
     eligible teacher under this section, a State educational 
     agency or a local educational agency shall agree to pay the 
     teacher, for tax and administrative purposes, as if the 
     teacher's regular employment and teaching duties had not been 
     suspended.
       ``(2) Repayment of secretary.--A State educational agency 
     or a local educational agency receiving a grant under this 
     section shall agree to pay over to the Secretary the Federal 
     share of any amount recovered by the agency pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii).
       ``(f) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''; and

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal today about the importance 
of quality in terms of our teachers. The need for their education, for 
their upgrading, for their continuing education and development in 
order to make sure that our children benefit from the highest quality 
education that this Nation can afford, I do not think anyone disputes.
  But if we read this legislation and we listen to the debate, what 
they are talking about is the need to find new teachers to meet the 2 
million teacher demand that everyone talks about. In this bill have 
mentoring programs, we have alternative teaching projects. We have new 
ways of implementing the licensing process. But there is no real 
concrete method by which we can address the specific problem of 25 
percent of our incumbent teachers not being qualified in the subject 
matter area which they find themselves teaching.
  What are we going to do about this 25 percent of our incumbent 
teachers, and the 2 million teachers that we need to attract into the 
profession and those that we need to retain?
  My amendment goes to the very heart of that issue. It is not a 
mandate; it is an option to States that have a serious problem with a 
lack of qualified teachers. We need to enable our teachers with the 
opportunity to enroll in full time academic training.
  The bill that the majority has brought forth says that they are not 
for short-term workshops or conferences or 1-day exhibits. The 
testimony of teachers will tell us that those are not adequate; and 
therefore, if we are really serious about quality education, we need to 
make sure that teachers have the opportunity to go to the academies, to 
the institutions of higher learning and get the qualifying education 
they need.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my 
Teacher Sabbatical amendment to H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  My amendment will give teachers the opportunity to receive intensive 
professional development training. This amendment creates a program to 
provide grants for public school teachers who take sabbatical leave to 
pursue a course of study for professional development. The grant covers 
one-half of the salary the teacher would have earned if the teacher had 
not been granted a leave of absence; the state must provide the other 
half of the salary. Teachers are eligible if they have been approved 
for sabbatical leave and if they have enrolled in a course of study at 
an institution of higher education designed to improve classroom 
teaching.
  By providing teachers with financial resources, they will be free to 
pursue an intensive course of study that can greatly improve their 
teaching skills. Professional development is essential to improve 
teacher quality. However, our teachers will never get the development 
training they need to stay on top of their field from a one-day 
workshop.
  This need for intensive professional development training is not 
foreign to the bill. H.R. 1995 contains language that requires 
professional development programs ``be of sufficient intensity and 
duration (such as not to include 1-day or short term workshops and 
conferences) to have a positive and lasting impact on the teacher's 
performance in the classroom.''
  This language is wonderful. But we must do more than talk about the 
need for intensive development programs; we must create programs that 
ensure our teachers can participate in these programs.
  My amendment does this. It gives teachers the opportunity to improve 
and grow. By creating a grant program that will cover a teacher's 
salary on sabbatical leave, teachers will have the chance to pursue a 
course of study that can greatly improve their teaching skills.
  All teachers want to be on top of their field. However, only a few 
can give up their salary as they pursue this.
  Recent findings also show the need for intensive professional 
development. Although 99% of our teachers have participated in at least 
one professional development activity in the past year, only 12% of 
teachers who spent only 1-8 hours in professional development said it 
improved their teaching a lot.
  That is a dismal figure. It proves that we will never be able to 
improve teacher quality if we continue to provide only one-day 
workshops for teachers. We must do more. We must work to provide 
teachers with intensive professional development, so all of our 
teachers feel professional development improves their teaching.
  Teacher quality is essential. Studies have shown that the more 
qualified a teacher is, the better the students' performance will be.
  For instance, in Boston, students assigned to the most effective 
teachers for a year showed 18 times greater gains in reading and nearly 
16 time greater gains in math than those students who were assigned to 
the least effective teachers.
  In Tennessee, similar students with 3 very effective teachers in a 
row scored 50 percentile points better than students who were assigned 
3 very ineffective teachers in a row.
  All of our students deserve to achieve these same gains.
  By providing teachers with the opportunity to receive intensive 
professional development, my amendment will help put more effective, 
qualified teachers in the classroom.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, oh, it is so much more pleasant when I can be on the 
same side as the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we 
have been on a number of occasions, and I hope that this will be 
another.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in this particular case, I would plead 
with my colleagues not to go down this very, very slippery slope.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about sabbaticals, in case we 
are not familiar with sabbaticals. In the State of Pennsylvania, for 
instance, after one teaches 10 years, one can request a sabbatical. 
Now, they have given up fighting sabbaticals and they just give them to 
them and they do anything under the sun, not necessarily to improve 
their classroom teaching. But let me tell my colleagues about the cost.
  We are giving a $40,000 teacher a sabbatical. In the State of 
Pennsylvania,

[[Page H5898]]

the school district must pay half of that salary while they are on 
sabbatical. That is $20,000. The school district must pay full fringe 
benefits to that teacher on sabbatical. So let us say another $4,000. 
Now we are up to $24,000.

                              {time}  1645

  Now the school district must replace that teacher, and let us say 
that is another $30,000, so now we are up to $70,000. And then they 
must provide full fringe benefits to that replacement teacher for that 
period of time, so now we are up to $73,000 or $74,000. That is just 
for one teacher.
  Make sure that Members understand, in this legislation if a district 
believes that that is the best way to use their money, to improve the 
quality of the teacher, that is what they can do. That is what it 
allows. That is why we are trying to tell Members, do not just get 
hooked on the $100,000, get hooked on quality. If this is what they 
want to do, that is exactly what they can do.
  But do not get us involved in trying to do this. When it starts out 
it is not a mandate, it is just an encouragement, and Members know how 
all of those go, eventually.
  I would surely hope that all of my colleagues would not go down this 
slippery slope. We have already taken care of it in the legislation, if 
that is what the local district wants to do to improve the quality of 
their teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of the 
problem of trying to get quality teachers. We have had a series of 
motherhood and apple pie amendments that we all agree on. They would be 
good, but here is one that costs money, and the very fact that it costs 
money gets opposition.
  For every other profession, the legal profession, the medical 
profession, airline pilots, tremendous amounts of money are spent to 
train and retrain people in these professions.
  Lawyers make enough money, the law firms make enough money, they pay 
for their own training, but there is ongoing training. Doctors make 
enough money to pay for their training, but they are always being 
trained and retrained, and tremendous amounts of money go into it.
  Once every 10 years to give a sabbatical and pay those costs that 
were quoted by the chairman of the committee; that is not too much, if 
we are serious about achieving a pool of people where we can maintain 
quality.
  The quality problem is a problem not only of attracting new people 
into the teaching field, but the problem is to hold those that are 
already there. A person with educational credentials teaches a few 
years; other professions and other entrepreneurial enterprises are 
seeking their experiences, and large numbers of people are leaving.
  We are addressing the working conditions when we talk about the 
President's initiative on small class sizes. If we had smaller classes, 
a large number of the young people who have gone into teaching; at the 
elementary school level would not have left. Everybody knows people who 
have gone into teaching, elementary schoolteachers who confront a 
classroom full of children, 25 to 30, and in a year or so they are 
gone. They cannot take it anymore. There are options and they take 
those options.
  So we are addressing a serious working condition. This is an 
incentive. A part of the package ought to be an incentive that after 7 
years, 10 years, whatever, they should be able to get the kind of 
training they need to keep up with some of the educational technology 
we talked about before, and many other changes are happening. This 
incentive is needed. If we want quality teachers, we should support 
this. We need to pay for the continuing education of quality teachers 
if we want them.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  In opposing this amendment, I think he is absolutely correct. We 
allow school districts who believe that sabbaticals are important and 
want to supplement their existing funds to do so. But it is really 
important to remember, and we cannot repeat this enough, this is not an 
appropriations bill, this is an authorizing bill. This is where we set 
policy. To say we are setting aside new money for this is in fact not 
true. It sets a cap for it, but the Committee on Appropriations will 
have to then subdivide.
  All afternoon we have been listening to people come to the floor from 
the other side who oppose the bill that say, oh, we are taking things 
from class size reduction. We have been arguing that local school 
districts ought to have the flexibility, between class size reduction, 
special ed teachers, and teacher quality, and let them make that 
decision.
  The other side has been arguing, at least up until now, that this 
money should be used for class size reduction, but this amendment would 
in fact take money, as a practical matter, because this is an 
authorizing bill, not an appropriations bill.
  When the appropriators say, oh, it is new grant money, a grant 
program, the money would have to come out from somewhere. Presumably it 
is going to come from the class size reduction and the teacher 
training, because we do not have the ability in this bill to spend new 
money. That is an appropriations decision. So I am kind of confused as 
to what the priorities are here, because that is the net impact.
  The plain truth of the matter is that, as the chairman so eloquently 
said, any school district who wants to use this money for teacher 
training during a period of sabbatical can do so. The only fundamental 
debate here is, are we going to say that Washington says they must use 
it for a sabbatical out of limited funds, rather than that they may use 
it for sabbatical.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, last year 99 percent of our teachers 
participated in at least one professional development activity. But Mr. 
Chairman, too many of those activities are piecemeal, a day here, a 
couple of hours there. In fact, only 12 percent of the teachers who 
participated in limited professional development activities said that 
they improved their teaching. What a shame. What a shame for those 
teachers and what a shame for their students.
  The Mink amendment treats teachers as the professionals they are by 
providing enough time to become great teachers, having time off to 
learn more, to upgrade their skills, to come back to the classroom 
ready to teach with more than they knew before they left in the first 
place.
  I urge my colleagues to support teacher sabbaticals. Support the Mink 
amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House 
Report 106-240.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 42, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that high quality teachers 
     are an important part of the development of our children and 
     it is essential that Congress work to ensure that the 
     teachers who instruct our children are of the highest quality 
     possible.


[[Page H5899]]


  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I ask unanimous 
consent that 5 minutes be controlled by myself.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will control the 5 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1995 that 
supports and lauds our Nation's teachers. While I have deep 
reservations over the underlying bill, I recognize the important role 
of Congress in helping our teachers. Teachers touch the lives of every 
single American child and help shape their future.
  My amendment is quite simple. It expresses the sense of this Congress 
that high quality teachers are an important part of the development of 
our children, and that it is essential that Congress work to ensure 
that the teachers who instruct our children are of the highest quality 
possible.
  I support recruitment and retention of the best and brightest of 
teachers, especially for our neediest children. In my district in New 
York City, we have a very high turnover rate for our teachers, as well 
as some of the most overcrowded conditions in the country. In fact, a 
recent survey by my Office of Public Schools shows that the average 
class size ranges between 29 and 35 students.
  Mr. Chairman, I have one school in my district that has 50 
kindergarten children in one classroom, in a normal sized classroom, 
with two teachers. Imagine that, the strain on those teachers. We can 
only imagine the lack of quality education those children are 
receiving.
  Additionally, in the 1996-1997 school year the Board of Education 
hired approximately 6,200 teachers. However, the same year, listen to 
this, 5,415 teachers left the system. Of those, only 515 actually 
retired. The New York City public school system, a system that educates 
over 1 million children, lost nearly as many teachers as it hired in 
the same year. I am sure many communities around the country face 
similar situations.
  The teachers who I have met touring schools in my district are the 
most dedicated and passionate individuals I have encountered in my 
life, despite the overcrowded classrooms, the low pay, and sometimes 
unsafe conditions that they have to co-exist in within their schools.
  It is my desire to recognize these teachers with this amendment, and 
laud their efforts, and the impact on our children's lives.
  Mr. Chairman, as it pertains to the bill as a whole, although my 
amendment and other amendments improve the overall bill, it still 
leaves it far short of the needs of my constituents. But Mr. Chairman, 
it is important to me, as I am sure it is important to the chairman, to 
recognize the effort and high quality of our teachers. I ask the 
support of all my colleagues in doing so. I hope they will join me in 
praising our teachers, recognizing their importance, and pledging to 
assist in the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers.
  I would also thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for 
offering my amendment before the Committee on Rules, as well as the 
Committee on Rules for reporting the Crowley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously, I strongly support the amendment, since it 
is what I have said over and over and over and over again 100 times 
today. This amendment shows that Congress supports high quality 
teachers. This amendment shows that high quality teachers are the most 
important influence over our children, second only to parents.
  The amendment says the teachers instructing our children must be of 
the highest quality possible. Amen, amen, and amen.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I fully support the quality amendment. It is a very, very important 
amendment. I applaud the gentleman for it.
  But I am also in support of another amendment. Today's debate on the 
House floor echoes with the concepts of empowerment and mobilization. 
However, I charge that the definitions of these terms as they appear in 
H.R. 1995 are heavily misguided. Empowering teachers means allocating 
$1 billion more than H.R. 1995, investing in thousands of new teachers, 
and shrinking the size of our Nation's classrooms. Empowering teachers 
means providing teachers with the resources, conditions, and training 
which will enable them to do the best job educating our Nation's youth.
  Empowering teachers does not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. We can 
provide funding for new teachers and special education training. This 
definition of empowerment does not change from one school district to 
another, but remains universal in all of our local school systems. We 
must move forward and mobilize all of our schools so we create an even 
educational playing field for all of our children in this country.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 106-240.


 Amendment No. 12 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez

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

       Amendment No. 12 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Martinez:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Smart Classrooms Act''.

     SEC. 2. SMART CLASSROOMS.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading for title II and inserting the 
     following:
                    ``TITLE II--SMART CLASSROOMS'';
       (2) by striking sections 2001 through 2003;
       (3) by striking parts A, B, and D;
       (3) by redesignating part C as part D; and
       (4) by inserting after the title heading the following:

            ``PART A--QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN EVERY CLASSROOM

    ``Subpart 1--Findings; Purpose; Authorization of Appropriations

     ``SEC. 2001. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds as follows:
       ``(1) All students can learn and achieve to high standards.
       ``(2) States that have shown the most success in improving 
     student achievement are those that have developed challenging 
     content and student performance standards, have aligned 
     curricula and assessments with those standards, have prepared 
     educators to teach to those standards, and have held schools 
     accountable for the achievement of all students against those 
     standards.
       ``(3) Increased teachers' knowledge of academic content and 
     effective teaching skills is associated with increases in 
     student achievement. While other factors also influence 
     learning, teacher quality makes a critical difference in how 
     well students learn, across all categories of students. For 
     example, recent research has found that teachers'

[[Page H5900]]

     expertise has a greater impact on students' achievement in 
     reading than any other in-school factor.
       ``(4) A crucial component of an effective strategy for 
     achieving high standards is ensuring, through professional 
     development, that all teachers provide their students with 
     challenging learning experiences in the core academic 
     subjects.
       ``(5) Recent research has found that teachers who 
     participate in sustained curriculum-centered professional 
     development are much more likely to report that their 
     teaching is aligned with high standards than are teachers who 
     have not received such training.
       ``(6) Research has found that high-quality professional 
     development is--
       ``(A) linked to high standards: professional development 
     activities should improve the ability of teachers to help all 
     students, including females, minorities, children with 
     disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and 
     economically disadvantaged children, reach high State 
     academic standards;
       ``(B) focused on content: professional development 
     activities should advance teacher understanding of 1 or more 
     of the core academic subject areas and effective 
     instructional strategies for improving student achievement in 
     those areas;
       ``(C) collaborative: professional development activities 
     should involve collaborative groups of teachers, principals, 
     administrators, and other school staff from the same school 
     or district;
       ``(D) sustained: professional development activities should 
     be of sufficient duration to have a positive and lasting 
     impact on classroom instruction and, to the greatest extent 
     possible, should include follow-up and school-based support 
     such as coaching or study groups;
       ``(E) embedded in a plan: professional development 
     activities should be embedded in school and district-wide 
     plans designed to raise student achievement to State academic 
     standards; and
       ``(F) informed by research: professional development 
     activities should be based on the best available research on 
     teaching and learning.
       ``(7) Students who attend schools with large numbers of 
     poor children are less likely to be taught by teachers who 
     have met all State requirements for certification or 
     licensure or who have a solid academic background in the 
     subject matter they are teaching.
       ``(8) Despite the fact that every year the Nation's 
     colleges and universities produce many more teachers than are 
     hired and that over 2,000,000 individuals who possess 
     education degrees are currently engaged in activities other 
     than teaching, many school districts experience difficulty 
     recruiting and hiring enough fully qualified teachers. Among 
     the reasons researchers have found for districts hiring less 
     than fully qualified teachers are--
       ``(A) cumbersome and poorly coordinated State licensing 
     procedures and local hiring practices;
       ``(B) the lack of reciprocity of teacher credentials, 
     pensions, and credited years of experience across State and 
     school district lines;
       ``(C) a lack of support for new teachers, such as high-
     quality mentoring programs, that can help reduce the 
     attrition rate and the number of new teachers that school 
     districts must hire every year; and
       ``(D) compensation systems that do not adequately reward 
     teachers for improving their knowledge and skills.

     ``SEC. 2002. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to support the improvement of 
     classroom instruction, so that all students are able to 
     achieve to challenging State content and student performance 
     standards in the core academic subjects, by providing 
     assistance to State and local educational agencies in their 
     efforts to recruit and retain a fully qualified instructional 
     staff by--
       ``(1) supporting States and local educational agencies in 
     continuing the task of developing challenging content and 
     student performance standards and aligned assessments, 
     revising curricula and teacher certification requirements, 
     and using challenging content and student performance 
     standards to improve teaching and learning;
       ``(2) assisting high-poverty local educational agencies and 
     low-performing local educational agencies that have the 
     greatest difficulty in recruiting and retaining fully 
     qualified teachers;
       ``(3) supporting States and local educational agencies, in 
     partnerships with institutions of higher education, to 
     recruit and retain teachers in subject areas in which the 
     State has determined there to be a shortage of teachers;
       ``(4) ensuring that all instructional staff have the 
     subject matter knowledge and teaching skills necessary to 
     teach effectively in all subjects in which they provide 
     instruction;
       ``(5) providing assistance to new teachers during their 
     first 3 years in the classroom; and
       ``(6) ensuring that teachers, principals, administrators, 
     and other school staff have access to professional 
     development that is aligned with challenging State content 
     and student performance standards in the core academic 
     subjects.

     ``SEC. 2003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Subpart 2.--For the purpose of carrying out subpart 
     2, there are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000, $1,875,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
     $2,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $2,625,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, and $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       ``(b) Subpart 3.--For the purpose of carrying out subpart 
     3, there are authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

                ``Subpart 2--State and Local Activities

     ``SEC. 2011. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of each State that in 
     accordance with section 2013 submits to the Secretary an 
     application for a fiscal year, and has that application 
     approved under section 2013(c), the Secretary shall make a 
     grant for the year to the State for the uses specified in 
     section 2012. The grant shall consist of the allocation 
     determined for the State under subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(b) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount made available 
     to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall reserve--
       ``(1) \1/2\ of 1 percent to provide assistance to the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, to be distributed among these 
     outlying areas on the basis of their relative need, as 
     determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purpose of 
     this part; and
       ``(2) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior 
     for activities under this subpart for teachers, principals, 
     administrators, and other school staff in schools operated or 
     funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       ``(c) State Allocations.--
       ``(1) In general.--After reserving funds under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall allocate the remaining amount made 
     available to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year among 
     the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico as follows:
       ``(A) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated among 
     such States on the basis of their relative populations of 
     individuals aged 5 through 17, as determined by the Secretary 
     on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data.
       ``(B) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated among 
     such States in proportion to the number of children, aged 5 
     to 17, who reside within the State 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 
     are available, compared to the number of such individuals who 
     reside in all such States for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Minimum allocation.--No State receiving an allocation 
     under paragraph (1) may receive less than \1/4\ of 1 percent 
     of the total amount made available to carry out this subpart 
     for any fiscal year and not reserved under subsection (b).

     ``SEC. 2012. WITHIN-STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       ``(a) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State receiving a grant under this 
     subpart shall expend at least 92 percent of the amount of the 
     funds provided under the grant for the purpose of making 
     subgrants to local educational agencies as follows:
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (2), 80 percent of such amount 
     shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(i) 60 percent shall be allocated among local educational 
     agencies having an approved application under section 2017 in 
     proportion to the number of children, aged 5 to 17, who 
     reside within the jurisdiction served by the agency from 
     families with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by 
     the Office of Management and Budget as 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 are available, compared to the number 
     of such children who reside in all such jurisdictions for 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(ii) 40 percent shall be allocated among local 
     educational agencies having an approved application under 
     section 2017 on the basis of their relative populations of 
     children aged 5 to 17, as determined by the Secretary on the 
     basis of the most recent satisfactory data.
       ``(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be used to provide 
     additional funds to local educational agencies, and 
     partnerships described in section 2016(b)(1), having an 
     approved application under section 2018 in accordance with 
     such section.
       ``(2) Minimum amount.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), a 
     local educational agency may not receive an allocation under 
     such paragraph for any fiscal year that is less than its 
     allocation for fiscal year 1999 under section 2203(1) of this 
     Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment 
     of the Smart Classrooms Act). If the amount available for 
     allocations under paragraph (1)(A) is insufficient to satisfy 
     the preceding sentence, each allocation under such paragraph 
     shall be ratably reduced.
       ``(b) Subgrants to Partnerships.--Each State receiving a 
     grant under this subpart shall expend at least 2 percent of 
     the amount of the funds provided under the grant for the 
     purpose of making subgrants to partnerships under section 
     2016.
       ``(c) State-Level Activities.--Each State receiving a grant 
     under this part may expend

[[Page H5901]]

     not more than 6 percent of the amount of the funds provided 
     under the grant for one or more of the State-level activities 
     described in section 2015.
       ``(d) Administration and Evaluations.--Subject to section 
     2023, each State receiving a grant under this subpart or part 
     C shall expend not more than \1/6\ of its allocation under 
     subsection (c) for--
       ``(1) its costs of administering this subpart and part C;
       ``(2) evaluations of the effectiveness of activities under 
     this subpart and part C, including effectiveness as measured 
     using the indicators of program performance described in 
     section 2451; and
       ``(3) reports required under section 2208, if the State 
     receives funds under part C.

     ``SEC. 2013. STATE APPLICATION.

       ``(a) Applications Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State desiring to receive its 
     allocation under this subpart shall submit, through its State 
     educational agency, an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such form, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary reasonably may require.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The State educational agency shall 
     develop the State application--
       ``(A) in consultation with the State agency for higher 
     education, community-based and other nonprofit organizations 
     of demonstrated effectiveness in professional development, 
     and institutions of higher education; and
       ``(B) with the extensive participation of teachers, teacher 
     educators, school administrators, and content specialists.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each such application shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) A description of how the State educational agency 
     will use all funds received under this subpart to implement 
     State plans or policies that support comprehensive standards-
     based education reform through the following strategies:
       ``(A) Supporting the alignment of curricula and assessments 
     with challenging State content and student performance 
     standards.
       ``(B) Supporting local educational agencies in their 
     efforts to recruit and retain fully qualified teachers, with 
     special consideration given to recruiting highly qualified 
     teachers from minority and other historically 
     underrepresented groups, including bilingual teachers.
       ``(C) Ensuring that teachers employed by local educational 
     agencies are proficient in content knowledge and teaching 
     skills in all subjects in which they provide instruction.
       ``(D) Providing professional development, aligned with 
     State content and student performance standards, in core 
     academic subjects.
       ``(2) A plan for ensuring that all teachers teaching in 
     schools served under this part are fully qualified not later 
     than November 1, 2003.
       ``(3) An assurance that teacher aides or other 
     paraprofessionals who are not fully qualified teachers 
     provide instruction to students only under the direct and 
     immediate supervision of a fully qualified teacher, and have 
     received the professional development necessary to perform 
     their duties.
       ``(4) A description of the process the State educational 
     agency will use to make competitive awards to local 
     educational agencies under section 2018, including a 
     description of--
       ``(A) the State's criteria for classifying local 
     educational agencies as among those having the greatest need 
     for services provided under this subpart and its 
     justification for those criteria;
       ``(B) the State's strategies for ensuring that local 
     educational agencies that have historically had little 
     success in competing for funds are provided a reasonable 
     opportunity compete for subgrants;
       ``(C) the State's criteria for determining the amounts that 
     it will award to recipients and the criteria for providing 
     noncompetitive renewals of subgrants; and
       ``(D) the technical assistance that the State educational 
     agency will provide, under section 2018(e)(2), to local 
     educational agencies that it identifies as having the 
     greatest need for services and that fail to receive an award 
     under section 2018.
       ``(5) A description of how the State educational agency 
     will ensure that all recipients of funds under this subpart 
     will report on their level of performance based on the 
     program performance indicators described in section 2451.
       ``(6) A list of any additional indicators of program 
     performance, beyond those described in section 2451, on which 
     the State educational agency and the State agency for higher 
     education will require recipients to report.
       ``(7) A set of specific, numerical, annual goals for each 
     of the performance indicators required under section 2451 and 
     for any additional indicators that the State elects to use 
     for measuring the progress of the State and local educational 
     agencies receiving funds under this subpart.
       ``(8) A description of how the State will coordinate 
     professional development activities authorized under this 
     subpart with professional development activities provided 
     under other Federal, State, and local programs, including 
     those authorized under title I, title III, title IV, part A 
     of title VII, and (where applicable) the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Technical Education Act. The application shall also 
     describe the comprehensive strategy that the State will take 
     as part of such coordination effort, to ensure that teachers 
     are trained in the utilization of technology so that 
     technology and its applications are effectively used in the 
     classroom to improve teaching and learning in all curriculum 
     and content areas, as appropriate.
       ``(c) Approval.--The Secretary shall, using a peer-review 
     process, approve a State application if it meets the 
     requirements of this section and holds reasonable promise of 
     achieving the purpose described in section 2002.

     ``SEC. 2014. STATE ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Annual Reports.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives funds under this subpart and part C shall, beginning 
     in fiscal year 2002, annually compile, publish, submit to the 
     Secretary, and distribute to the public, a report including 
     the following information:
       ``(1) The percentage of teachers teaching in the State who 
     have not met State qualifications and licensing criteria for 
     the grade levels and subject areas in which they provide 
     instruction.
       ``(2) The percentage of teachers teaching in the State 
     under emergency or other provisional status through which 
     State qualifications or licensing criteria have been waived.
       ``(3) The percentage of teachers teaching in the State who 
     do not hold a postsecondary degree with a major in the 
     subject areas in which they provide instruction.
       ``(4) The average class size.
       ``(5) The percentage of teachers with certification from 
     the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
       ``(6) Information on the progress of recipients of 
     subgrants under this subpart, measured based on the program 
     performance indicators described in section 2041 and any 
     additional indicators included in the State's application.
       ``(7) Student achievement.
       ``(8) Such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       ``(b) Disaggregated Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--Data collected for the purpose of 
     carrying out this section shall be disaggregated by State, 
     local educational agency, and school.
       ``(2) Data on student achievement.--Data collected for the 
     purpose of carrying out subsection (a)(7) shall also be 
     disaggregated by the following:
       ``(A) Gender.
       ``(B) Each major racial and ethnic group.
       ``(C) English proficiency status.
       ``(D) Students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled 
     students.
       ``(E) Economically disadvantaged students as compared to 
     students who are not economically disadvantaged.

     ``SEC. 2015. STATE-LEVEL ACTIVITIES.

       ``Each State shall use funds it reserves under section 
     2012(c) to carry out activities described in its approved 
     application that promote high-quality classroom instruction, 
     such as--
       ``(1) supporting the continued improvement of State content 
     and student performance standards and assessments aligned 
     with those standards;
       ``(2) providing technical assistance and other services to 
     increase the capacity of local educational agencies and 
     schools to develop and implement systemic local improvement 
     plans, implement State and local assessments, and develop 
     curricula consistent with State content and performance 
     standards;
       ``(3) supporting the development and implementation, at the 
     local educational agency and school-building level, of 
     improved systems for recruiting, selecting, hiring, 
     mentoring, supporting, evaluating, and rewarding principals 
     and fully qualified teachers;
       ``(4) redesigning and strengthening professional licensure 
     systems for educators;
       ``(5) developing performance-based assessment systems for 
     full teacher licensure;
       ``(6) establishing, expanding, or improving rigorous 
     alternative routes to State certification or licensure that 
     lead to certification within 2 years and require applicants 
     to meet the same standards and pass the same tests as other 
     applicants;
       ``(7) developing or strengthening assessments to test the 
     content knowledge and teaching skills of new teachers;
       ``(8) developing and implementing professional development 
     opportunities for teachers, principals, administrators, and 
     other school staff based on State content and student 
     performance standards;
       ``(9) operating a teacher academy that establishes and 
     demonstrates models for local educational agencies to improve 
     teaching and learning through activities such as--
       ``(A) using master teachers to mentor and train student 
     teachers; and
       ``(B) providing ongoing professional development 
     opportunities and support for teachers;
       ``(10) providing professional development programs that 
     enable teachers to effectively communicate with parents in 
     the education process to support classroom instruction and 
     work effectively with parent volunteers;
       ``(11) executing policies and practices that will ensure 
     that low-income and minority students are not taught by 
     emergency certified or unqualified teachers at rates higher 
     than other students; and
       ``(12) increasing the portability of teacher pensions and 
     reciprocity of teaching credentials across State lines.

     ``SEC. 2016. SUBGRANTS TO PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``(a) Administration.--From the funds made available to it 
     under section 2012(b) for

[[Page H5902]]

     any fiscal year, a State agency for higher education may use 
     not more than 5 percent for its expenses in administering 
     this section, including conducting evaluations and reporting 
     under subsection (g).
       ``(b) Subgrants to Partnerships.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Partnerships.--For the purpose of providing 
     professional development to elementary and secondary school 
     teachers in a local educational agency that is both a high-
     poverty local educational agency and a low-performing local 
     educational agency, a State agency for higher education, 
     subject to subsection (a) and in conjunction with the State 
     educational agency, shall use the funds made available to it 
     under section 2012(b) for any fiscal year to make subgrants 
     to partnerships consisting of--
       ``(i) one or more institutions of higher education 
     (including historically Black colleges and universities and 
     Hispanic-serving institutions), or nonprofit organizations of 
     demonstrated effectiveness in providing professional 
     development in the core academic subjects; and
       ``(ii) a local educational agency that is both a high-
     poverty local educational agency and a low-performing local 
     educational agency, or more than one such agency.
       ``(B) Requirement for institutions of higher education.--
     Participating institutions of higher education shall meet the 
     criteria under section 203(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) Size, duration, and peer review.--Each subgrant under 
     this section shall be--
       ``(A) of sufficient size and duration to carry out the 
     purpose of this subpart effectively; and
       ``(B) awarded, using a peer-review process, on a 
     competitive basis.
       ``(3) Priority.--In making subgrants under this section, a 
     State agency for higher education shall give a priority to 
     projects that focus on induction programs for new teachers.
       ``(4) Other factors.--In making subgrants under this 
     section, a State agency for higher education shall consider--
       ``(A) the need for the proposed professional development 
     activities in the jurisdiction of the local educational 
     agency; and
       ``(B) the quality of the proposed program and its 
     likelihood of success in improving classroom instruction and 
     student academic achievement.
       ``(c) Partnership Agreements.--No institution of higher 
     education or nonprofit organization may receive a subgrant 
     under this section unless it enters into a written agreement 
     with at least one local educational agency that is both a 
     high-poverty local educational agency and a low-performing 
     local educational agency to provide professional development 
     to elementary and secondary school teachers in the schools of 
     that agency in the core academic subjects. Each such 
     agreement shall identify specific goals for how the 
     professional development that the subgrantee provides will 
     enhance the ability of those teachers to prepare all 
     students, including females, minorities, students with 
     disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and 
     economically disadvantaged students, to achieve to 
     challenging State content and student performance standards 
     in all subjects in which those teachers provide instruction.
       ``(d) Coordination.--Any professional development 
     activities carried out under this section by a partnership 
     shall be coordinated with activities carried out under title 
     II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1021 et 
     seq.), if any member of the partnership is participating in 
     programs funded under that title.
       ``(e) Joint Efforts Within Institutions of Higher 
     Education.--In the case of a partnership that includes an 
     institution of higher education, each activity assisted under 
     this section shall involve the joint effort of the 
     institution's school or department of education and the 
     schools or departments responsible for the specific 
     disciplines in which the professional development will be 
     provided.
       ``(f) Uses of Funds.--A recipient of funds under this 
     section shall use those funds for--
       ``(1) research-based programs to assist new teachers during 
     their first 3 years in the classroom, which may include--
       ``(A) mentoring and coaching by appropriately trained and 
     certified teachers;
       ``(B) team teaching with experienced teachers;
       ``(C) observation by, and consultation with, experienced 
     teachers and higher education faculty;
       ``(D) assignment of fewer course preparations; and
       ``(E) provision of additional time for preparation;
       ``(2) professional development in the core academic 
     subjects, aligned with State content and student performance 
     standards, for teams of teachers from a school or local 
     educational agency and, where appropriate, principals, 
     administrators, and other school staff; and
       ``(3) providing technical assistance to school and local 
     educational agency staff for planning, implementing, and 
     evaluating professional development.
       ``(g) Annual Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2002, each 
     subgrantee under this section shall submit an annual report 
     to the State agency for higher education, by a date set by 
     that agency, on its progress, as measured using the 
     indicators of partnership performance described in section 
     2041.
       ``(2) Content.--Each such report--
       ``(A) shall include a copy of each written agreement 
     required by subsection (c); and
       ``(B) shall describe how the partners have collaborated to 
     achieve the specific goals set out in the agreement, and the 
     results of that collaboration.
       ``(3) Copy.--The State agency for higher education shall 
     provide the State educational agency with a copy of each 
     subgrantee's annual report.
       ``(h) Special Rule.--No single participant in a partnership 
     receiving a subgrant under this section may retain more than 
     50 percent of the funds made available to the partnership 
     under this section.

     ``SEC. 2017. LOCAL APPLICATIONS FOR FORMULA SUBGRANTS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--Each local educational agency 
     desiring to receive its allocation from funds made available 
     under section 2012(a)(1)(A) for any fiscal year shall submit 
     an application to the State educational agency at such time, 
     in such form, and containing such information as the State 
     educational agency reasonably may require. Each such 
     application shall include an agency-wide plan for raising 
     student achievement against State standards through each of 
     the following strategies:
       ``(1) Supporting the alignment of curricula, assessments, 
     classroom instructional strategies, and professional 
     development with challenging State content and student 
     performance standards.
       ``(2) Carrying out activities to recruit fully qualified 
     teachers, particularly in subject areas and in schools in 
     which there is a shortage of such teachers with special 
     consideration given to recruiting fully qualified teachers 
     from minority and other historically underrepresented groups, 
     including bilingual teachers.
       ``(3) Ensuring that teachers employed by the local 
     educational agency are proficient in teaching skills and in 
     the content knowledge necessary to effectively teach the 
     content called for by State and local standards in all 
     subjects in which they provide instruction and are prepared 
     to integrate technology into the classroom.
       ``(4) Targeting funds to schools within the jurisdiction of 
     the local educational agency that--
       ``(A) have the highest proportion of teachers who are not 
     fully qualified;
       ``(B) have the largest average class size; or
       ``(C) are identified for school improvement under section 
     1116(c).
       ``(5) Carrying out activities to assist new teachers during 
     their first 3 years in the classroom.
       ``(6) Providing professional development in core academic 
     subjects.
       ``(b) Additional Contents.--Each such application shall 
     also--
       ``(1) identify specific, measurable goals for achieving the 
     purpose described in section 2002 that, at a minimum, reflect 
     the performance indicators described in section 2041;
       ``(2) describe how the local educational agency will use 
     funds received under this subpart to help implement the plan 
     described in subsection (a);
       ``(3) include an assurance that the local educational 
     agency will collect data that measure progress toward the 
     indicators of program performance described in section 2041;
       ``(4) describe how the local educational agency will 
     address the needs of high-poverty, low-performing schools 
     within its jurisdiction;
       ``(5) describe how the local educational agency will 
     address the needs of teachers of students with limited 
     English proficiency and other students with special needs;
       ``(6) describe how the local educational agency will meet 
     the professional development needs of its principals and 
     teachers; and
       ``(7) describe how the local educational agency will 
     coordinate funds under this subpart with the professional 
     development activities funded through other State and Federal 
     programs.
       ``(c) Approval.--Notwithstanding section 2012(a)(1)(A), a 
     State educational agency shall approve a local educational 
     agency's application under this section only if the 
     application satisfies the requirements of this section and 
     the State educational agency determines that the application 
     holds reasonable promise of achieving the purpose described 
     in section 2002.
       ``(d) Consolidated Application.--Local educational agencies 
     may consolidate applications under this section and section 
     2018.

     ``SEC. 2018. LOCAL APPLICATIONS FOR COMPETITIVE SUBGRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State educational agency shall use 
     the funds described in section 2012(A)(1)(B) for competitive 
     grants to local educational agencies, and partnerships 
     described in section 2016(b)(1), that focus primarily on 
     those agencies and partnerships with the greatest need for--
       ``(1) activities related to the development, and effective 
     implementation, of curricula aligned with state content and 
     student performance standards; and
       ``(2) professional development activities that are aligned 
     with those standards.
       ``(b) Selection Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under this section through a peer-review process 
     that includes reviewers who are knowledgeable in the academic 
     content areas.
       ``(2) Public availability.--The State educational agency--
       ``(A) shall provide local educational agencies and the 
     general public with a list of the

[[Page H5903]]

     selection criteria that the State educational agency will use 
     in making subgrants under this section; and
       ``(B) at the completion of the awards process, make public 
     a complete list of applicants and of the applicants that 
     received awards.
       ``(c) Demonstration of Need.--The State educational agency 
     shall identify the applicants with the greatest need for 
     services, based on the following objective data supplied by 
     the applicant:
       ``(1) The number or percentage of children who fail to meet 
     State performance standards on assessments used for part A of 
     title I.
       ``(2) The number or percentage of schools identified for 
     school improvement under section 1116(c).
       ``(3) The number or percentage of teachers employed who 
     have not received full State certification or licensure.
       ``(4) The number or percentage of secondary school teachers 
     who do not have an academic major in a subject area directly 
     related to the area in which they provide instruction.
       ``(5) The number or percentage of students living in 
     poverty.
       ``(6) The number or percentage of students who have limited 
     English proficiency.
       ``(7) The applicant's fiscal capacity to fund programs 
     described in section 2019 without Federal assistance.
       ``(d) Selection of Subgrantees.--The State educational 
     agency shall make awards to applicants based on--
       ``(1) the quality of the applicant's proposal and the 
     likelihood of its success in improving classroom instruction 
     and student academic achievement;
       ``(2) the demonstrated need of the applicant under 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(3) the applicant's need for professional development in 
     mathematics and science.
       ``(e) Opportunity To Compete.--
       ``(1) Strategies.--To ensure that local educational 
     agencies that have the greatest need are provided a 
     reasonable opportunity to complete for an award, State 
     educational agencies shall adopt at least one of the 
     following strategies:
       ``(A) Holding more than one competition for funds for a 
     fiscal year and, before each such competition, providing 
     technical assistance in developing a high-quality application 
     to local educational agencies that have demonstrated the 
     greatest need but were unsuccessful in the previous grant 
     competition.
       ``(B) Holding a competition restricted to local educational 
     agencies that it has identified under subsection (c) as 
     having the greatest need for services.
       ``(C) Requiring recipients seeking a renewal of a subgrant 
     under this section to form a partnership with an applicant 
     that applied for, but failed to receive, such a subgrant.
       ``(D) Providing a competitive priority to those local 
     educational agencies the State educational agency has 
     identified under subsection (c) as having the greatest need 
     for services.
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--At a minimum, a State 
     educational agency shall, after the completion of an award 
     cycle and before the start of the next cycle, provide 
     technical assistance in developing a high-quality application 
     for future competitions to any local educational agency 
     identified under subsection (c) as having the greatest need 
     for services that did not receive a subgrant.
       ``(f) Scope of Projects.--The State educational agency 
     shall award a subgrant under this section only for projects 
     that are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to achieve 
     the purpose of this part.

     ``SEC. 2019. USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Priority for Professional Development in Mathematics 
     and Science.--
       ``(1) Appropriation equal to or less than $300,000,000.--
     Except as provided in section 2020(d), in any fiscal year for 
     which the amount appropriated for this subpart is 
     $300,000,000 or less, each local educational agency shall 
     ensure that all funds received by the agency under this 
     subpart are used for professional development in mathematics 
     and science.
       ``(2) Appropriation greater than $300,000,000.--Except as 
     provided in section 2020(d), in any fiscal year for which the 
     amount appropriated for this subpart is greater than 
     $300,000,000, each local educational agency shall ensure that 
     the amount of funds under this subpart that the agency uses 
     for professional development in mathematics and science is at 
     least as much as the amount that would have been made 
     available to the agency if the amount appropriated had been 
     $300,000,000.
       ``(3) Interdisciplinary activities.--In meeting the 
     requirement under paragraph (1) or (2), a local educational 
     agency may use funds under this subpart for activities that 
     focus on more than one core academic subject if those 
     activities focus predominantly on improving instruction in 
     mathematics or science.
       ``(4) Waiver.--
       ``(A) Application.--A local educational agency, in 
     consultation with teachers and principals, may seek a waiver 
     of the requirements under paragraph (1) or (2) from a State 
     in order to allow the local educational agency to use such 
     funds for professional development in academic subjects other 
     than mathematics and science.
       ``(B) Standard for granting.--A State may not approve such 
     a waiver unless the local educational agency is able to 
     demonstrate that--
       ``(i) the professional development needs of mathematics and 
     science teachers, including elementary teachers responsible 
     for teaching mathematics and science, have been adequately 
     met and will continue to be adequately met if the waiver is 
     approved;
       ``(ii) State assessments in mathematics and science 
     demonstrate that each school within the local educational 
     agency has made and will continue to make progress toward 
     meeting the challenging State content standards and student 
     performance standards in these areas; and
       ``(iii) State assessments in other academic subjects 
     demonstrate a need to focus on subjects other than 
     mathematics and science.
       ``(C) Grandfather of old waivers.--A waiver provided to a 
     local educational agency under part D of title XIV prior to 
     the date of the enactment of the Smart Classrooms Act shall 
     be deemed effective until such time as it otherwise would 
     have ceased to be effective.
       ``(b) Other Professional Development Activities.--Each 
     local educational agency shall ensure that funds under this 
     subpart that the agency uses for professional development, in 
     areas other than mathematics or science, are used to provide 
     professional development activities in one or more of the 
     other core academic subjects.
       ``(c) Other Uses of Funds.--Subject to subsection (a), a 
     local educational agency that receives funds under this 
     subpart may use those funds for activities to raise student 
     achievement against challenging State standards, in 
     accordance with its plan described in section 2017(a), which 
     may include the following:
       ``(1) Activities to recruit fully qualified teachers, 
     including teachers from historically underrepresented groups, 
     such as the provision of signing bonuses and other financial 
     incentives.
       ``(2) Providing the necessary education and training, 
     including paying (for programs that meet the criteria under 
     section 203(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1023(b)(2)(A)(i))) the costs of college tuition 
     and other student fees to assist current teachers or other 
     school personnel who are not fully qualified teachers to 
     become fully qualified, except that, to receive funds under 
     this paragraph, an individual must be within 2 years of 
     completing an undergraduate degree and must agree to teach in 
     a high-poverty, low-performing school for a period of at 
     least 3 years.
       ``(3) Programs to assist new teachers during their first 3 
     years in the classroom, such as--
       ``(A) mentoring and coaching by trained mentor teachers;
       ``(B) team teaching with experienced teachers;
       ``(C) observation by, and consultation with, experienced 
     teachers and higher education faculty;
       ``(D) assignment of fewer course preparations; and
       ``(E) provision of additional time for preparation.
       ``(4) Provision of professional development aligned with 
     State content and student performance standards.
       ``(5) Provision of professional development programs that 
     enable teachers to effectively communicate with parents and 
     involve parents in the educational process to support 
     classroom instruction and to work effectively with parent 
     volunteers.
       ``(6) Participation by teams of teachers in summer 
     institutes and summer immersion activities that focus on 
     preparing teachers to bring all students to high standards in 
     one or more of the core academic subjects.
       ``(7) Subsidizing fees for teachers who participate in the 
     assessment process of the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.
       ``(8) Teacher participation in working groups, task forces, 
     or committees, charged with adapting and implementing high 
     standards for all students, including district-wide and 
     school-based teams of teachers charged with aligning 
     curricula and lesson plans with State content and student 
     performance standards and assessments.
       ``(9) Programs to implement peer-assistance peer-review 
     processes for teachers, principals, administrators, and other 
     school staff.
       ``(10) Establishment and maintenance of local professional 
     networks that provide a forum for interaction among teachers 
     and that allow for the exchange of information on advances in 
     content and pedagogy.
       ``(11) Development of incentives to encourage teachers 
     employed by the agency, and other qualified individuals, to 
     obtain proficiency in content knowledge in a core academic 
     subject area identified by the agency as having a shortage of 
     qualified teachers.
       ``(12) Development and acquisition of curricular materials 
     and other instructional aids, if they are not normally 
     provided by the local educational agency or the State as part 
     of the regular instructional program, that will advance local 
     reform efforts to raise student achievement against State 
     content and student performance standards.
       ``(13) Providing increased opportunities for minorities, 
     individuals with disabilities, and other individuals 
     underrepresented in the teaching profession.

     ``SEC. 2020. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Annual Reports.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives funds under this subpart shall, beginning in fiscal 
     year

[[Page H5904]]

     2002, annually compile, publish, and submit to the State 
     educational agency a report on its activities under this 
     subpart, at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the State educational agency may reasonably 
     require.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each report shall include the following 
     information:
       ``(1) The percentage of teachers teaching in the 
     jurisdiction of the agency who have not met State 
     qualifications and licensing criteria for the grade levels 
     and subject areas in which they provide instruction.
       ``(2) The percentage of teachers teaching in the 
     jurisdiction of the agency under emergency or other 
     provisional status through which State qualifications or 
     licensing criteria have been waived.
       ``(3) The percentage of teachers teaching in the 
     jurisdiction of the agency who do not hold a postsecondary 
     degree with a major in the subject areas in which they 
     provide instruction.
       ``(4) The average class size.
       ``(5) Information on the progress of schools and teachers 
     under this subpart, measured based on the program performance 
     indicators described in section 2041 and any additional 
     indicators included in the local educational agency's 
     application.
       ``(6) Student achievement.
       ``(7) Such other information as the State educational 
     agency may reasonably require.
       ``(c) Disaggregated Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--Data collected for the purpose of 
     carrying out this section shall be disaggregated by local 
     educational agency and school.
       ``(2) Data on student achievement.--Data collected for the 
     purpose of carrying out subsection (b)(6) shall also be 
     disaggregated by the following:
       ``(A) Gender.
       ``(B) Each major racial and ethnic group.
       ``(C) English proficiency status.
       ``(D) Students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled 
     students.
       ``(E) Economically disadvantaged students as compared to 
     students who are not economically disadvantaged.
       ``(d) Funding.--A local educational agency may reserve up 
     to 5 percent of the amount it receives under section 
     2012(a)(1)(A) to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 2021. PARENTS' RIGHT TO KNOW.

       ``Each local educational agency that receives funds under 
     this subpart shall provide, upon request, to any parent of a 
     student attending any school receiving funds under this 
     subpart, in an understandable and uniform format, information 
     regarding the professional qualifications of the student's 
     teacher, including--
       ``(1) whether the teacher has met State qualification and 
     licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in 
     which the teacher provides instruction;
       ``(2) whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or 
     other provisional status through which the State 
     qualifications or licensing criteria have been waived;
       ``(3) the college major of the teacher and any other 
     graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the 
     field or discipline of the certificate or degree; and
       ``(4) the school or local educational agency's hiring 
     policy.

     ``SEC. 2022. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The State educational agency shall provide technical 
     assistance to local educational agencies receiving a subgrant 
     under this subpart that fail for 2 consecutive years to meet 
     their goals, as measured using the performance indicators 
     described in section 2041.

     ``SEC. 2023. CORRECTIVE ACTION.

       ``The State educational agency shall take corrective 
     action, against any local educational agency that does not 
     make sufficient effort to comply with this subpart within the 
     time specified. In a case in which a State fails to take 
     corrective action, the Secretary shall withhold funds from 
     such State up to an amount equal to that described in section 
     2012(d).

     ``SEC. 2024. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

       ``No funds may be provided to a local educational agency 
     for a fiscal year under this subpart unless the State 
     educational agency is satisfied that the local educational 
     agency will spend, from other sources, at least as much for 
     activities described in this subpart as the average amount it 
     spent from other sources for those activities over the 
     previous 3 fiscal years.

     ``SEC. 2025. EQUIPMENT AND TEXTBOOKS.

       ``A local educational agency may not use subgrant funds 
     under this subpart for equipment, computer hardware, 
     textbooks, telecommunications fees, or other items, that 
     would otherwise be provided by the local educational agency, 
     the State, or a private school whose students receive 
     services under this part.

     ``SEC. 2026. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``A local educational agency that receives funds under this 
     subpart shall use those funds only to supplement the amount 
     of funds or resources that would, in the absence of those 
     Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for 
     the purposes of the program authorized under this subpart, 
     and not to supplant those non-Federal funds or resources.

 ``Subpart 3--National Activities for the Improvement of Teaching and 
                           School Leadership

     ``SEC. 2031. ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, local 
     educational agencies, educational service agencies, State 
     educational agencies, State agencies for higher education, 
     institutions of higher education, and other public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, organizations, and institutions 
     to carry out subsection (b).
       ``(b) Activities.--The Secretary--
       ``(1) may support activities of national significance that 
     are not supported through other sources and that the 
     Secretary determines will contribute to the improvement of 
     teaching and school leadership in the Nation's schools, such 
     as--
       ``(A) supporting collaborative efforts by States, or 
     consortia of States, to review and benchmark the quality, 
     rigor, and alignment of State standards and assessments;
       ``(B) supporting collaborative efforts by States, or 
     consortia of States, to develop performance-based systems for 
     assessing content knowledge and teaching skills prior to full 
     teacher licensure;
       ``(C) efforts to increase the portability of teacher 
     pensions and reciprocity of teaching credentials across State 
     lines; and
       ``(D) research, evaluation, and dissemination activities 
     related to effective strategies for increasing the 
     portability of teachers' credited years of experience across 
     State and local educational agency lines;
       ``(2) may support activities of national significance that 
     the Secretary determines will contribute to the recruitment 
     and retention of fully qualified teachers and principals in 
     high-poverty local educational agencies and low-performing 
     local educational agencies, such as--
       ``(A) providing States with assistance in the development 
     of alternative certification programs that lead to 
     certification within 2 years and require applicants to meet 
     the same standards and pass the same tests as other 
     applicants;
       ``(B) the development and implementation of a national 
     teacher recruitment clearinghouse and job bank, which shall 
     be coordinated and, to the extent feasible, integrated with 
     the America's Job Bank administered by the Secretary of 
     Labor--
       ``(i) to disseminate information and resources nationwide 
     on entering the teaching profession to persons interested in 
     becoming teachers;
       ``(ii) to serve as a national resource center for effective 
     practices in teacher recruitment and retention;
       ``(iii) to link prospective teachers to local educational 
     agencies and training resources with particular attention to 
     high-poverty local educational agencies and low-performing 
     local educational agencies with critical teacher shortages; 
     and
       ``(iv) to provide information and technical assistance to 
     prospective teachers about certification and other State and 
     local requirements related to teaching; and
       ``(C) the development and implementation, or expansion, of 
     programs that recruit talented individuals to become 
     principals, including such programs that employ alternative 
     routes to State certification, and that prepare both new and 
     experienced principals to serve as instructional leaders, 
     which may include the creation and operation of a national 
     center for the preparation and support of principals as 
     leaders of school reform; and
       ``(3) may support the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.

     ``SEC. 2032. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRINCIPALS AS 
                   LEADERS OF SCHOOL REFORM.

       ``(a) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 
     2003(b) for competitive grants to eligible partnerships--
       ``(1) consisting of--
       ``(A) one or more institutions of higher education that 
     provide professional development for principals and other 
     school administrators; and
       ``(B) one or more local educational agencies; and
       ``(2) that may include other entities, agencies, and 
     organizations, such as a State educational agency, a State 
     agency for higher education, or professional organizations 
     for principals, administrators, teachers, and parents.
       ``(b) Application.--An eligible partnership that desires to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the activities the partnership will 
     carry out to meet the purpose of this part;
       ``(2) a description of how those activities will build on 
     and be coordinated with other professional development 
     activities, including activities under this title and title 
     II of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
       ``(3) a description of how principals, teachers, and other 
     interested parties were involved in developing the 
     application and will be involved in planning and carrying out 
     the activities under this section; and
       ``(4) a description of how the professional development 
     will result in the acquisition of a license, degree, or 
     continuing education unit.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership that receives 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to 
     provide professional development to principals and other 
     school administrators to enable them to be effective school 
     leaders and prepare all students to achieve to challenging 
     State content and student performance standards, including 
     professional development on--

[[Page H5905]]

       ``(1) comprehensive school reform;
       ``(2) leadership skills;
       ``(3) recruitment, assignment, retention and evaluation of 
     teacher and other instructional staff;
       ``(4) State content standards;
       ``(5) effective instructional practice;
       ``(6) using smaller classes effectively; and
       ``(7) parental and community involvement.

     ``SEC. 2033. SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.

       ``(a) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 
     2003(b) for competitive grants to eligible partnerships 
     consisting of--
       ``(1) one or more institutions of higher education;
       ``(2) one or more technology-deficient local educational 
     agencies or schools;
       ``(3) one or more technology-proficient local educational 
     agencies or schools; and
       ``(4) such other entities, agencies, and organizations, 
     such as a State educational agency, a State agency for higher 
     education, nonprofit organizations, or businesses, as the 
     partners described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) determine 
     to be appropriate.
       ``(b) Application.--An eligible partnership that desires to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the activities the partnership will 
     carry out under this section;
       ``(2) a description of how the partners will work together 
     to build the capacity to use technology to improve teaching 
     and learning in the partners described in subsection (a)(2); 
     and
       ``(3) a description of the goals of each partner and how 
     progress toward those goals will be measured.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership that receives 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to 
     develop or expand a technology center serving the partners 
     described in subsection (a)(2).

     ``SEC. 2034. EISENHOWER NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 
                   MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Establishment of Clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall 
     award a competitive grant or contract to establish the 
     Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science 
     Education (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Clearinghouse').
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) Application and award basis.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each entity desiring to establish and 
     operate the Clearinghouse shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Peer review.--The Secretary shall establish a peer 
     review process to make recommendations on the recipient of 
     the award for the Clearinghouse.
       ``(C) Merit.--The Secretary shall make the award for the 
     Clearinghouse on the basis of merit.
       ``(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall award the grant or 
     contract for the Clearinghouse for a period of 5 years.
       ``(3) Activities.--The award recipient shall use the award 
     funds to--
       ``(A) maintain a permanent collection of such mathematics 
     and science education instructional materials and programs 
     for elementary and secondary schools as the Secretary finds 
     appropriate, with a priority for such materials and programs 
     that have been identified as promising or exemplary, through 
     a systematic approach such as the use of expert panels 
     required under the Educational Research, Development, 
     Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994;
       ``(B) disseminate the materials and programs described in 
     paragraph (1) to the public, State educational agencies, 
     institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, 
     and schools (particularly high-poverty, low-performing 
     schools), including through the maintenance of an interactive 
     national electronic information management and retrieval 
     system accessible through the Worldwide Web and other 
     advanced communications technologies;
       ``(C) coordinate with other databases containing 
     mathematics and science curriculum and instructional 
     materials, including Federal, non-Federal, and, where 
     feasible, international databases;
       ``(D) support the development and dissemination of model 
     professional development materials in mathematics and science 
     education;
       ``(E) contribute materials or information, as appropriate, 
     to other national repositories or networks; and
       ``(F) gather qualitative and evaluative data on submissions 
     to the Clearinghouse, and disseminate that data widely, 
     including through the use of electronic dissemination 
     networks.
       ``(4) Submission to clearinghouse.--Each Federal agency or 
     department that develops mathematics or science education 
     instructional materials or programs, including the National 
     Science Foundation and the Department, shall submit copies of 
     that material and those programs to the Clearinghouse.
       ``(5) Steering committee.--The Secretary may appoint a 
     steering committee to recommend policies and activities for 
     the Clearinghouse.
       ``(6) Application of copyright laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to allow the use or copying, in any medium, of any 
     material collected by the Clearinghouse that is protected 
     under the copyright laws of the United States unless the 
     permission of the owner of the copyright is obtained.
       ``(B) Compliance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Clearinghouse shall ensure compliance with title 17 of the 
     United States Code.

     ``SEC. 2035. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON RESEARCH-BASED 
                   PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       ``The Secretary shall gather and disseminate information 
     related to comprehensive, research-based professional 
     development, in the core academic subjects other than math 
     and science, including business.

     ``SEC. 2036. SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     this section to establish or expand elementary and secondary 
     school counseling programs.
       ``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give special consideration to applications 
     describing programs that--
       ``(1) demonstrate the greatest need for new or additional 
     counseling services among the children in the elementary and 
     secondary schools served by the applicant;
       ``(2) propose the most promising and innovative approaches 
     for initiating or expanding elementary and secondary school 
     counseling; and
       ``(3) show the greatest potential for replication and 
     dissemination.

     ``SEC. 2037. HOLOCAUST EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 
     2003(b) for competitive grants to eligible Holocaust 
     educators to carry out activities described in this section.
       ``(b) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an eligible Holocaust educator shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     form, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require and contain a specific and detailed 
     description of the Holocaust education program for which the 
     grant will be used.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--A Holocaust educator receiving a grant 
     under this section shall use such grant to carry out a 
     Holocaust education program that--
       ``(1) has as its specific and primary purpose the 
     improvement in awareness and understanding of the Holocaust 
     among elementary and secondary school students; and
       ``(2) to achieve such purpose, furnishes at a school or 
     Holocaust education center--
       ``(A) 1 or more classes, seminars, or conferences;
       ``(B) educational materials;
       ``(C) teaching training; and
       ``(D) any good or service designed to improve awareness and 
     understanding of the Holocaust.

     ``SEC. 2038. RURAL TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Competitive Grants.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated under section 
     2003(b) for competitive grants to eligible rural local 
     educational agencies to carry out activities described under 
     this section.
       ``(b) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an eligible rural local educational 
     agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such form, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible rural local educational 
     agency that receives a grant under this section may use such 
     funds to develop incentive programs--
       ``(1) to recruit and retain fully qualified teachers; and
       ``(2) to provide high quality professional development to 
     teachers.

  ``PART B--TRANSITION OF CAREER-CHANGING PROFESSIONALS TO TEACHING; 
                           TROOPS TO TEACHERS

     ``SEC. 2101. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds as follows:
       ``(1) School districts will need to hire more than 
     2,000,000 teachers during the first decade of the 21st 
     century.
       ``(2) The need for teachers in the areas of math, science, 
     foreign languages, special education, and bilingual 
     education, and for teachers able to teach in high-poverty 
     school districts, will be particularly high. To meet this 
     need, talented Americans of all ages should be recruited to 
     become successful, qualified teachers.
       ``(3) Nearly 13 percent of teachers of academic subjects 
     have neither an undergraduate major nor minor in their main 
     assignment fields. This problem is most acute in high-poverty 
     local educational agencies, where the out-of-field teaching 
     percentage is 22 percent.
       ``(4) The Third International Math and Science Study 
     (TIMSS) ranked United States high school seniors last among 
     16 countries in physics and next to last in math. It is also 
     evident, mainly from the TIMSS data, that based on academic 
     scores, a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the 
     academic preparation of our children in math and science.
       ``(5) One-fourth of high-poverty local educational agencies 
     find it very difficult to fill bilingual teaching positions, 
     and nearly half of public school teachers have students in 
     their classrooms for whom English is a second language.

[[Page H5906]]

       ``(6) Many career-changing professionals with strong 
     content-area skills are interested in a teaching career, but 
     they need assistance in getting the appropriate pedagogical 
     training and classroom experience.
       ``(7) The teacher placement program known as the `troops-
     to-teachers program', which was established by the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation under section 
     1151 of title 10, United States Code, has been highly 
     successful in securing high-quality teachers for teaching 
     positions in high-poverty local educational agencies.

     ``SEC. 2102. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to address the need of local 
     educational agencies that are high-poverty local educational 
     agencies or low-performing local educational agencies for 
     fully qualified teachers in particular subject areas, such as 
     mathematics, science, foreign languages, bilingual education, 
     and special education, by--
       ``(1) continuing and enhancing the troops-to-teachers 
     program for recruiting and supporting the placement of former 
     members of the Armed Forces as teachers in such local 
     educational agencies; and
       ``(2) recruiting, preparing, placing, and supporting 
     career-changing professionals who have knowledge and 
     experience that will help them become such teachers.

     ``SEC. 2103. CONTINUATION AND SUPPORT FOR TROOPS-TO-TEACHERS 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Continuation.--The Secretary may enter into a written 
     agreement with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Transportation, or take such other steps as the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate, to ensure effective continuation 
     of the troops-to-teachers program, notwithstanding the 
     duration of the program specified in section 1151(c)(1)(A) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       ``(b) Support.--Before providing any assistance under 
     section 2104 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall first--
       ``(1) consult with the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Transportation regarding the appropriate amount 
     of funding needed to continue and enhance the troops-to-
     teachers program; and
       ``(2) upon agreement, transfer that amount to the Secretary 
     of Defense to carry out the troops-to-teachers program.

     ``SEC. 2104. TRANSITION OF CAREER-CHANGING PROFESSIONALS TO 
                   TEACHING.

       ``(a) Authority To Support Transition Programs.--The 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in section 2108 to award 
     grants to, and enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with, institutions of higher education, including 
     historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanic-
     serving institutions, and public and private nonprofit 
     agencies or organizations to recruit, prepare, place, and 
     support career-changing professionals as teachers in local 
     educational agencies that are high-poverty local educational 
     agencies or low-performing local educational agencies.
       ``(b) Application.--Each entity described in subsection (a) 
     that desires assistance under subsection (a) shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1) a description of the target group of career-changing 
     professionals upon which the applicant will focus in carrying 
     out its program under this part, including a description of 
     the characteristics of that target group that shows how the 
     knowledge and experience of its members are relevant to 
     meeting the purpose of this part;
       ``(2) a description of how the applicant will identify and 
     recruit career-changing professionals for its program under 
     this part;
       ``(3) a description of the training that career-changing 
     professionals will receive in the program and how that 
     training will relate to their certification as teachers;
       ``(4) a description of how the applicant will ensure that 
     career-changing professionals are placed and teach in high-
     poverty local educational agencies or low-performing local 
     educational agencies;
       ``(5) a description of the teacher induction services 
     (which may be provided through existing induction programs) 
     that the career-changing professionals in the program will 
     receive throughout at least their first year of teaching;
       ``(6) a description of how the applicant will collaborate, 
     as needed, with other institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations to recruit, train, place, and support career-
     changing professionals under this part, including evidence of 
     the commitment of those institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations to the applicant's program;
       ``(7) a description of how the applicant will evaluate the 
     progress and effectiveness of its program, including--
       ``(A) the program's goals and objectives;
       ``(B) the performance indicators the applicant will use to 
     measure the program's progress; and
       ``(C) the outcome measures that will be used to determine 
     the program's effectiveness; and
       ``(8) an assurance that the applicant will provide to the 
     Secretary such information as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to determine the overall effectiveness of programs 
     under this part.

     ``SEC. 2105. USES OF FUNDS AND PERIOD OF SERVICE.

       ``(a) Authorized Activities.--Funds provided under section 
     2104 may be used for--
       ``(1) recruiting career-changing professionals, including 
     informing them of opportunities under the program and putting 
     them in contact with other institutions, agencies, or 
     organizations that would train, place, and support them;
       ``(2) training stipends and other financial incentives for 
     career-changing professional in the program, such as moving 
     expenses, not to exceed $5,000, in the aggregate, per 
     participant;
       ``(3) assisting institutions of higher education or other 
     providers of teacher training to tailor their training to 
     meet the particular needs of career-changing professionals;
       ``(4) placement activities, including identifying high-
     poverty, low-performing local educational agencies with needs 
     for the particular skills and characteristics of the newly 
     trained career-changing professionals and assisting those 
     persons to obtain employment in those local educational 
     agencies; and
       ``(5) post-placement induction or support activities.
       ``(b) Period of Service.--A career-changing professional 
     selected to participant in a program under this part who 
     completes his or her training shall serve in a high-poverty 
     local educational agency or a low-performing local 
     educational agency for at least three years.
       ``(c) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such 
     requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate to 
     ensure that career-changing professionals who receive a 
     training stipend or other financial incentive under 
     subsection (a)(2), but who fail to complete their service 
     obligation under subsection (b), repay all or a portion of 
     such stipend or other incentive.

     ``SEC. 2106. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.

       ``To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall make 
     awards and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements 
     under section 2104 to support teacher placement programs for 
     career-changing professionals in different geographic regions 
     of the United States.

     ``SEC. 2107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $18,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

                     ``PART C--CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

     ``SEC. 2201. FINDINGS.

       ``The 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.
       ``(3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with 
     more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction 
     and lesson 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. 2202. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to help States and local 
     educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000 
     additional fully qualified 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. 2203. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this part, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
     $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $2,100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $2,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $3,000,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       ``(b) Allotments.--From the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the Secretary--

[[Page H5907]]

       ``(1) 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
       ``(2) 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 2011(c) (or, as applicable, section 
     2202(b) (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Smart Classrooms Act)), whichever percentage 
     is greater, except that such allotments shall be ratably 
     decreased as necessary.
       ``(c) Within-State Distribution.----
       ``(1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment 
     under this section shall distribute the amount of the 
     allotted funds that remain after using funds in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(3) to local educational agencies in the 
     State, of which--
       ``(A) 80 percent of such remainder shall be allocated to 
     such local educational agencies in proportion to the relative 
     number of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the 
     jurisdiction 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 jurisdictions served by all the 
     local educational agencies in the State for that fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(B) 20 percent of such remainder 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 jurisdictions 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--
       ``(A) 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;
       ``(B) the local educational agency agrees to supplement the 
     award with non-Federal funds sufficient to pay the cost of 
     hiring a teacher; or
       ``(C) the local educational agency agrees to use the funds 
     for professional development related to teaching smaller 
     classes.

     ``SEC. 2204. 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 fully 
     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 fully qualified 
     regular and special education teachers and teachers of 
     special-needs children;
       ``(B) testing new teachers for academic content knowledge, 
     and to meet the State qualifications and licensing criteria 
     in the areas in which they teach; and
       ``(C) providing professional development to teachers, 
     including special education teachers and teachers of special-
     needs children.
       ``(2) Restriction(s).--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 
     2005, to carry out activities described in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) of section 2204(b)(1).
       ``(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 providing--
       ``(i) professional development;
       ``(ii) financial incentives to new or veteran fully 
     qualified teachers to join the instructional staff of schools 
     in which at least 50 percent of the students are from low-
     income families; and
       ``(iii) financial incentives to fully qualified teachers 
     who are currently teaching in schools in which at least 50 
     percent of the students are from low-income families.
       ``(4) Recruitment.--In order to ensure that it hires only 
     fully qualified teachers, a local educational agency that is 
     having difficulty recruiting such teachers to teach in its 
     schools may use funds under this part to recruit such 
     teachers through the use of incentives such as training 
     stipends and scholarships, signing bonuses, and other 
     inducements.
       ``(5) Existing programs.--A local educational agency that, 
     prior to enactment of this part, is implementing a program to 
     reduce average class size in the early grades to not more 
     than 20 children may use funds under this part, in accordance 
     with its terms, as if that local educational agency's 
     preexisting average class size goal were the goal of 18 or 
     fewer children.
       ``(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) 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. Sections 14503 
     through 14506 shall not apply to other activities under this 
     section.
       ``(e) 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.
       ``(f) Consortia Requirement.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (b)(3), if a local educational agency has already reduced 
     class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer children and 
     intends to use funds provided under this section to carry out 
     professional development activities, including activities to 
     improve teacher quality, then the State shall make the award 
     under subsection (b) to the local educational agency without 
     requiring the formation of a consortium.

     ``SEC. 2205. 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. 2206. REQUEST FOR FUNDS.

       ``In order for a local educational agency to receive funds 
     under this part, the local educational agency shall include 
     in the application submitted under section 2017 a request for 
     such funds and a description of the agency's program under 
     this part to reduce class size by hiring additional fully 
     qualified teachers.

     ``SEC. 2207. REPORTS.

       ``Each State educational agency receiving funds under this 
     part shall report on activities in the State under this 
     section as a part of its report under section 2014.''.
       (b) National Writing Project; Sabbatical Leave for 
     Professional Development; General Provisions.--Title II of 
     such Act is amended by striking part E and inserting the 
     following:

                   ``PART E--NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT

     ``SEC. 2301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the United States faces a continuing crisis in 
     writing in schools and in the workplace;
       ``(2) the writing problem has been magnified by the rapidly 
     changing student population, the growing number of at-risk 
     students due to limited English proficiency, the shortage of 
     adequately trained teachers, and the specialized knowledge 
     required of teachers to teach students with special needs who 
     are now part of mainstream classrooms;
       ``(3) nationwide reports from universities and colleges 
     show that entering students are unable to meet the demands of 
     college level writing, almost all 2-year institutions of 
     higher education offer remedial writing courses, and three-
     quarters of public 4-year institutions of higher education 
     and half of all private 4-year institutions of higher 
     education must provide remedial courses in writing;
       ``(4) American businesses and corporations are concerned 
     about the limited writing skills of both entry-level workers 
     and executives whose promotions are denied due to inadequate 
     writing abilities;
       ``(5) writing is fundamental to learning, including 
     learning to read, yet writing has been neglected historically 
     in schools and in teacher training institutions;
       ``(6) writing is a central feature in State and school 
     district education standards in all disciplines;
       ``(7) since 1973, the only national program to address the 
     writing problem in the Nation's schools has been the National 
     Writing Project, a network of collaborative university-school 
     programs the goals of which are to improve student 
     achievement in writing and student learning through improving 
     the teaching and uses of writing at all grade levels and in 
     all disciplines;
       ``(8) the National Writing Project is a nationally 
     recognized and honored nonprofit organization that improves 
     the quality of teaching and teachers through developing 
     teacher leaders who teach other teachers in summer and school 
     year programs;
       ``(9) evaluations of the National Writing Project document 
     the positive impact the project has had on improving the 
     teaching of writing, student performance in writing, and 
     student learning;

[[Page H5908]]

       ``(10) the National Writing Project has become a model for 
     programs to improve teaching in such other fields as 
     mathematics, science, history, reading and literature, 
     performing arts and foreign languages;
       ``(11) each year over 150,000 participants benefit from 
     National Writing Project programs in 1 of 156 United States 
     sites located in 46 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico; and
       ``(12) the National Writing Project is a cost-effective 
     program and leverages over 6 dollars for every 1 Federal 
     dollar.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part--
       ``(1) to support and promote the expansion of the National 
     Writing Project network of sites so that teachers in every 
     region of the United States will have access to a National 
     Writing Project program;
       ``(2) to ensure the consistent high quality of the sites 
     through ongoing review, evaluation and technical assistance;
       ``(3) to support and promote the establishment of programs 
     to disseminate effective practices and research findings 
     about the teaching of writing; and
       ``(4) to coordinate activities assisted under this part 
     with activities assisted under this Act.

     ``SEC. 2302. AUTHORIZATION.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to make a 
     grant to the National Writing Project (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the `grantee'), a nonprofit 
     educational organization that has as its primary purpose the 
     improvement of the quality of student writing and learning, 
     to improve the teaching and uses of writing to learn in our 
     Nation's classrooms.
       ``(b) Requirements of Grant.--The grant shall provide 
     that--
       ``(1) the grantee will enter into contracts with 
     institutions of higher education or other nonprofit 
     educational providers (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as `contractors') under which the contractors will agree to 
     establish, operate, and provide the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of teacher training programs in effective approaches and 
     processes for the teaching of writing;
       ``(2) funds made available by the Secretary to the grantee 
     pursuant to any contract entered into under this section will 
     be used to pay the Federal share of the cost of establishing 
     and operating teacher training programs as provided in 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) the grantee will meet such other conditions and 
     standards as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     assure compliance with the provisions of this section and 
     will provide such technical assistance as may be necessary to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       ``(c) Teacher Training Programs.--The teacher training 
     programs authorized in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be conducted during the school year and during the 
     summer months;
       ``(2) train teachers who teach grades kindergarten through 
     college;
       ``(3) select teachers to become members of a National 
     Writing Project teacher network whose members will conduct 
     writing workshops for other teachers in the area served by 
     each National Writing Project site; and
       ``(4) encourage teachers from all disciplines to 
     participate in such teacher training programs.
       ``(d) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) or 
     (3) and for purposes of subsection (a), the term `Federal 
     share' means, with respect to the costs of teacher training 
     programs authorized in subsection (a), 50 percent of such 
     costs to the contractor.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the provisions of 
     paragraph (1) on a case-by-case basis if the National 
     Advisory Board described in subsection (e) determines, on the 
     basis of financial need, that such waiver is necessary.
       ``(3) Maximum.--The Federal share of the costs of teacher 
     training programs conducted pursuant to subsection (a) may 
     not exceed $100,000 for any one contractor, or $200,000 for a 
     statewide program administered by any one contractor in at 
     least five sites throughout the State.
       ``(e) National Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The National Writing Project shall 
     establish and operate a National Advisory Board.
       ``(2) Composition.--The National Advisory Board established 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall consist of--
       ``(A) national educational leaders;
       ``(B) leaders in the field of writing; and
       ``(C) such other individuals as the National Writing 
     Project deems necessary.
       ``(3) Duties.--The National Advisory Board established 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) advise the National Writing Project on national 
     issues related to student writing and the teaching of 
     writing;
       ``(B) review the activities and programs of the National 
     Writing Project; and
       ``(C) support the continued development of the National 
     Writing Project.
       ``(f) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     independent evaluation by grant or contract of the teacher 
     training programs administered pursuant to this Act in 
     accordance with section 14701. Such evaluation shall specify 
     the amount of funds expended by the National Writing Project 
     and each contractor receiving assistance under this section 
     for administrative costs. The results of such evaluation 
     shall be made available to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress.
       ``(2) Funding limitation.--The Secretary shall reserve not 
     more than $150,000 from the total amount appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of subsection (h) for fiscal year 
     1994 and the four succeeding fiscal years to conduct the 
     evaluation described in paragraph (1).
       ``(g) Application Review.--
       ``(1) Review board.--The National Writing Project shall 
     establish and operate a National Review Board that shall 
     consist of--
       ``(A) leaders in the field of research in writing; and
       ``(B) such other individuals as the National Writing 
     Project deems necessary.
       ``(2) Duties.--The National Review Board shall--
       ``(A) review all applications for assistance under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(B) recommend applications for assistance under this 
     subsection for funding by the National Writing Project.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the grant to the National 
     Writing Project, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2004.

        ``PART F--SABBATICAL LEAVE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 2351. GRANTS FOR SALARY DURING SABBATICAL LEAVE.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     State educational agencies and local educational agencies to 
     pay such agencies for one-half of the amount of the salary 
     that otherwise would be earned by an eligible teacher 
     described in subsection (b), if, in lieu of fulfilling the 
     teacher's ordinary teaching assignment, the teacher completes 
     a course of study described in subsection (c) during a 
     sabbatical term described in subsection (d).
       ``(b) Eligible Teachers.--An eligible teacher described in 
     this subsection is a teacher who--
       ``(1) has been employed for the 3 previous years by a local 
     educational agency that is both a high-poverty local 
     educational agency and a low-performing local educational 
     agency;
       ``(2) has secured from such agency, and any other person or 
     agency whose approval is required under State law, approval 
     to take sabbatical leave for a sabbatical term described in 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(3) has submitted to the agency an application for a 
     subgrant at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the agency may require, including--
       ``(A) written proof--
       ``(i) of the approval described in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) of the teacher's having been accepted for enrollment 
     in a course of study described in subsection (c); and
       ``(B) assurances that the teacher--
       ``(i) will notify the agency in writing within a reasonable 
     time if the teacher terminates enrollment in the course of 
     study described in subsection (c) for any reason;
       ``(ii) in the discretion of the agency, will reimburse to 
     the agency some or all of the amount of the subgrant if the 
     teacher fails to complete the course of study; and
       ``(iii) otherwise will provide the agency with proof of 
     having completed such course of study not later than 60 days 
     after such completion;
       ``(4) has agreed to continue teaching in the high-poverty, 
     low-performing local educational agency for a period of 3 
     years following the sabbatical;
       ``(5) has agreed to collaborate with other teachers of the 
     same subject in the local educational agency following the 
     sabbatical to share the skills and knowledge obtained through 
     the sabbatical; and
       ``(6) has been selected by the agency to receive a subgrant 
     based on the agency's plan for meeting its classroom needs.
       ``(c) Course of Study.--A course of study described in this 
     subsection is a course of study at an institution of higher 
     education that--
       ``(1) requires not less than one academic semester and not 
     more than one academic year to complete;
       ``(2) is open for enrollment for professional development 
     purposes to an eligible teacher described in subsection (b); 
     and
       ``(3) is designed to improve the classroom teaching of such 
     teachers through academic and child development studies.
       ``(d) Sabbatical Term.--A sabbatical term described in this 
     subsection is a leave of absence from teaching duties granted 
     to an eligible teacher for not less than one academic 
     semester and not more than one academic year, during which 
     period the teacher receives--
       ``(1) one-half of the amount of the salary that otherwise 
     would be earned by the teacher, if the teacher had not been 
     granted a leave of absence, from State or local funds made 
     available by a State educational agency or a local 
     educational agency; and
       ``(2) one-half of such amount from Federal funds received 
     by such agency through a grant under this section.
       ``(e) Payments.--
       ``(1) To eligible teachers.--In making a subgrant to an 
     eligible teacher under this section, a State educational 
     agency or a local educational agency shall agree to pay the 
     teacher, for tax and administrative purposes, as if the 
     teacher's regular employment and teaching duties had not been 
     suspended.
       ``(2) Repayment of secretary.--A State educational agency 
     or a local educational agency receiving a grant under this 
     section

[[Page H5909]]

     shall agree to pay over to the Secretary the Federal share of 
     any amount recovered by the agency pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)(ii).
       ``(f) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

             ``PART G--IMPROVING SPECIAL EDUCATION QUALITY

     ``SEC. 2401. SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER IMPROVEMENT.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     assistance through part D of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) to 
     improve the quality of instruction provided by special 
     education teachers and the instructional strategies of other 
     elementary and secondary school teachers who provide 
     education to children with disabilities.
       ``(b) Grants to Local Educational Agencies.--The Secretary 
     shall make grants to local educational agencies and the 
     outlying areas, and provide funds to the Secretary of the 
     Interior, based on the number of children with disabilities 
     who are receiving special education and related services, for 
     the purpose of providing additional funds to carry out--
       ``(1) subpart 1 of part D of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); and
       ``(2) section 673 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1473).
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
       ``(d) Definitions.--The terms used in this section shall 
     have the meaning given such terms in section 602 of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).

                      ``PART H--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 2451. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.

       ``(a) Minimum Indicators.--At a minimum, the indicators of 
     program performance under this title, against which 
     recipients of funds under this title shall report their 
     progress in such manner as the Secretary may determine, are 
     the following:
       ``(1) Improvement in student achievement.
       ``(2) Closing of the achievement gap between groups of 
     students.
       ``(3) An increase in the percentage of fully qualified 
     teachers, including teachers from minority and other 
     historically underrepresented groups.
       ``(4) An equalization, between high- and low-poverty 
     schools in a local educational agency, of classes in core 
     academic areas taught by fully qualified teachers.
       ``(5) An increase in the percentage of new teachers 
     receiving support during their first 3 years of teaching.
       ``(6) An increase in the percentage of teachers 
     participating in high-quality professional development.
       ``(7) An increase in the percentage of paraprofessionals 
     enrolled in certification programs.
       ``(8) A decrease in the average class size.

     ``SEC. 2452. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this title:
       ``(1) Career-changing professional.--The term `career-
     changing professional' means a person who--
       ``(A) holds at least a baccalaureate degree;
       ``(B) demonstrates a commitment to changing the person's 
     current professional career and becoming a teacher; and
       ``(C) has knowledge and experience that is relevant to 
     teaching a high-need subject area in a high-poverty local 
     educational agency.
       ``(2) Core academic subjects.--The term `core academic 
     subjects' means--
       ``(A) mathematics;
       ``(B) science;
       ``(C) reading (or language arts) and English;
       ``(D) social studies (history, civics/government, 
     geography, and economics);
       ``(E) foreign languages; and
       ``(F) fine arts (music, dance, drama, and the visual arts).
       ``(3) Eligible rural local educational agency.--The term 
     `eligible rural local educational agency' means a local 
     educational agency--
       ``(A) that is not located in a metropolitan statistical 
     area, as defined by the Census Bureau; and
       ``(B) in which 20 percent or more of the children, aged 5 
     to 17, served by such agency 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 
     are available.
       ``(4) Fully qualified.--The term `fully qualified'--
       ``(A) when used with respect to an elementary or secondary 
     school teacher, means that the teacher has obtained 
     certification or passed the State licensing exam and holds a 
     license; and
       ``(B) when used with respect to--
       ``(i) an elementary school teacher, means that the teacher 
     holds a bachelor's degree and demonstrates general knowledge, 
     teaching skill, and subject matter knowledge required to 
     teach at the elementary school level the academic subjects 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2); 
     or
       ``(ii) a middle or secondary school teacher, means that the 
     teacher holds a bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high 
     level of competency in all subject areas in which he or she 
     teaches through--

       ``(I) a high level of performance on a rigorous academic 
     subject area test; or
       ``(II) completion of an academic major in each of the 
     subject areas in which he or she provides instruction.

       ``(5) High-poverty local educational agency.--The term 
     `high-poverty local educational agency' means a local 
     educational agency in which--
       ``(A) the percentage of children, ages 5 to 17, 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 are available is 33 percent or 
     greater; or
       ``(B) the number of such children exceeds 10,000.
       ``(6) Holocaust educator.--The term `Holocaust educator' 
     means a school, Holocaust education center, or any other 
     person or entity providing education about the Holocaust.
       ``(7) Low-performing local educational agency.--The term 
     `low-performing local educational agency' means--
       ``(A) a local educational agency that includes a school 
     identified by the agency for school improvement under section 
     1116(c); or
       ``(B) a local educational agency that includes a school in 
     which at least 50 percent of the students fail to meet State 
     student performance standards based on assessments the agency 
     is using under part A of title I.
       ``(8) Professional development.--The term `professional 
     development' means sustained and intensive activities that 
     improve teachers' content knowledge and teaching skills and 
     that--
       ``(A) enhance the ability of teachers to help all students, 
     including females, minorities, children with disabilities, 
     children with limited English proficiency and economically 
     disadvantaged children, reach high State and local content 
     and student performance standards;
       ``(B) advance teacher understanding of one or more of the 
     core academic subject areas and effective instructional 
     strategies for improving student achievement in those areas, 
     including technology;
       ``(C) are directly related to the subject area in which the 
     teacher provides instruction;
       ``(D) are of sufficient duration to have a positive and 
     lasting impact on classroom instruction;
       ``(E) are an integral part of broader school and district-
     wide plans for raising student achievement to State and local 
     standards;
       ``(F) are aligned with State content and student 
     performance standards;
       ``(G) are based on the best available research on teaching 
     and learning;
       ``(H) include professional development activities that 
     involve collaborative groups of teachers and administrators 
     from the same school or district, institutions of higher 
     education, and, to the greatest extent possible, include 
     follow-up and school-based support such as coaching or study 
     groups; and
       ``(I) as a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact 
     on increased teacher effectiveness and improved student 
     achievement, with the findings of such evaluations used to 
     improve the quality of professional development.
       ``(9) Technology deficient.--The term `technology 
     deficient', when used with respect to a local educational 
     agency or a school, means that the agency or school does not 
     possess the equipment, networking, or skills to use 
     technology to enhance teaching and learning.
       ``(10) Technology proficient.--The term `technology 
     proficient', when used with respect to a local educational 
     agency or a school, means that the agency or school possesses 
     the equipment, networking, and skills to use technology to 
     enhance teaching and learning.
       ``(11) Troops-to-teachers program.--The term `troops-to-
     teachers program' means the teachers and teachers' aide 
     placement program for separated members of the Armed Forces 
     that was established by the Secretary of Defense, and the 
     Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard, 
     under section 1151 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(12) Unqualified teacher.--The term `unqualified teacher' 
     means a teacher who is not fully qualified.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) National writing project.--Part K of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8331 et seq.) is repealed.
       (2) Reference to national clearinghouse for mathematics and 
     science education.--Section 13302(1) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8672(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``2102(b)'' and inserting ``2032(b)''.
       (3) Definition of covered program.--Section 14101(10)(C) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801(10)(C)) is amended by striking ``(other than section 
     2103 and part D)'' and inserting ``(other than subpart 3 of 
     part A)''.
       (4) Private school participation.--Section 14503(b)(1)(B) 
     (20 U.S.C. 8893(b)(1)(B)) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``(other than section 2103 and part D of such title)''.

[[Page H5910]]

     SEC. 3. READING EXCELLENCE ACT.

       Section 2260(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6661i(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Fiscal years 2001 to 2004.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out this part $286,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2004.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, while my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), has attempted to craft legislation that will 
ensure our children are taught by highly qualified individuals in an 
environment conducive to learning, I believe that H.R. 1995 has some 
serious flaws.
  H.R. 1995 says that class size reduction is important but not 
important enough to merit a separate funding stream. Despite 
overwhelming support for class size reduction among teachers, students, 
parents alike, H.R. 1995 effectively repeals President Clinton's 
100,000 new teacher program. H.R. 1995 says that teacher quality is 
important but not important enough to request additional funding over 
last year's level, even though there is enough money in the budget for 
a trillion dollar tax cut.
  It recognizes the greatest problem of uncertified and out-of-field 
teaching occurs in urban and rural low-income districts, but their bill 
then takes money from those districts and sends it to school districts 
that in all likelihood have already qualified teachers.
  Although H.R. 1995, at the insistence of the Democrats, includes a 
hold-harmless, new funding is allocated under a poorly targeted 
formula, meaning that over the life of the reauthorization, money will 
be taken from poor and urban and rural districts and sent to less needy 
areas.
  I believe my substitute, on the other hand, sends a clear message, 
and that message is that the education of our Nation's children is 
important. It is important enough for teacher quality and class size 
reduction. It is important enough for increased Federal spending, and 
it is important enough to ensure that disadvantaged children have 
access to the same quality of education as their peers.
  Whereas H.R. 1995 rolls funding for the Eisenhower program, Goals 
2000, and the Clinton/Clay class size reduction initiative into a block 
grant to the States, my amendment provides funding for a wide variety 
of teacher recruitment, retention and professional development 
activities, in addition to encouraging States to continue standard 
based reform and continue the commitment made to teachers and students 
and parents last year to reduce class size in the early grades by 
maintaining a separate funding stream for class size reduction.
  While H.R. 1995 seeks only to maintain the fiscal year 1999 funding 
level for these activities, my amendment recognizes the importance of 
high-quality education to our Nation's future by tripling the Federal 
investment in our public school teachers and providing districts with 
adequate funding to decrease class sizes to 18 students by 2004. This 
amendment also is in keeping with the philosophy behind the Federal 
Government's role in education. It targets money to the neediest school 
districts where it can have the greatest impact.
  Finally, this amendment provides sufficient resources to meet the 
challenges of skyrocketing school enrollments which will require a new 
highly qualified teacher corps. As I said before and I will say it 
again, if Members are serious about improving the quality of funding 
education in this, the national bill, then they will support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when I woke up this morning I looked at the watch and 
it said 5:30 a.m. Then I looked at the calendar and it said July 20. 
Then all of a sudden I came to the floor of the House and I discovered 
this is not July at all; this is December. Christmas is just around the 
corner.
  Normally, back home, we do not put the tree up until after 
Thanksgiving and then we start putting the ornaments on little by 
little by little. But here we are going to put the tree up in July, and 
we are going to put all the ornaments on at one time. Is not that 
remarkable? Of course, again, then the appropriators have to say, well, 
obviously if we are going to do all of these things, we will have to 
eliminate 100,000 new teachers; we will have to eliminate this, this 
and this because we have to fund these things.
  It is an interesting place we work in. I want to make sure my 
colleagues understand that.
  First, the legislation holds no one accountable in relationship to 
100,000 new teachers. $1.2 billion that went out last week has 
absolutely no accountability to ensure that students will benefit from 
smaller classes.
  Second, this legislation puts smaller classes ahead of better 
teachers. I cannot think of a worse mistake to make than that. It keeps 
class reduction as the end to all, even in situations such as a poor 
urban area where reducing class size has resulted in a major increase 
in the number of unqualified teachers entering the classroom.
  The fact is, a class of 10 students with an unqualified teacher is no 
better and probably much worse than a classroom with 22 students and a 
highly qualified teacher.
  Third, it throws local decision-making in education out the window. 
Reducing class size is a priority under the Teacher Empowerment Act 
that we have had before us, but ultimately, under this program and not 
the Martinez substitute, it is up to local schools to make this 
decision.
  Whether the benefits outweigh the costs, we allow local waivers if 
reducing class size does not make sense.
  Now, a recent study by the Rand Corporation, in relationship to 
California, says, the costs of reducing class sizes exceeded State 
funding, forcing districts to raid money for libraries, music, art, 
maintenance, and other services.
  I think we have heard that several times in relationship to IDEA, did 
not we? They have to rob from everything else on the local level to 
deal with that mandate. Here we are doing the same thing all over 
again, and so they have discovered in their Rand study in California 
that as a matter of fact they had to produce local revenue; and, 
therefore, they had to take away and reduce the amount of money they 
spent on libraries, music, art, maintenance and other services that the 
district provides.
  Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to education as 
under the Martinez/Clinton proposal, the Teacher Empowerment Act allows 
local school districts to determine the correct balance between teacher 
quality and class size. The Teacher Empowerment Act requires that local 
schools use a portion of their funds to reduce class size but not if it 
means having to compromise the quality of the teachers they hire.
  The President's current 100,000 new teacher program not only provides 
a single purpose for the use of $1.2 billion but it lacks any 
accountability. So, again, I go back to my opening statement. This is 
July 20, folks. This is not December 25. It is not time to put up the 
Christmas tree. It is not time to sprinkle the ornaments all over that 
Christmas tree. It is time to think seriously about having quality 
teachers in every classroom throughout the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is Christmas time to provide 
services for children who are needy and need them. I guess it is up to 
the prerogative of the chairman to provide mischaracterizations of the 
bill, but that is fine.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martinez substitute. 
This substitute maintains a separate

[[Page H5911]]

stream of funding for class size reduction. It passed overwhelmingly 
last year. Passing this substitute will continue to target funds in 
current programs to ensure that school districts most in need are 
served.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) provides strong 
accountability provisions to ensure qualified teachers in every 
classroom. His substitute doubles funding for professional development 
and class size reduction. It also includes a $500 million authorization 
to ensure training of special education teachers.
  President Clinton's proposal for Troops to Teachers, the proposal of 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for intensive teacher training 
through sabbaticals, and the emphasis of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind) on principal development are included in this substitute.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this substitute maintains support for the 
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which operates a 
national voluntary system to access and certify teachers, and it also 
provides continued support for standards-based reforms as recommended 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The Martinez substitute makes good on the commitment that we made to 
reduce class sizes in the early grades.
  Mr. Chairman, those who claim support for raising the academic level 
of disadvantaged students should embrace the Martinez substitute with 
enthusiasm.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), not because it is not 
well meaning or well intentioned but because it goes in the same old 
direction that Washington has gone in for the last 40 years.
  Something has happened over the last 5 years in this Congress and it 
is not that Republicans have taken control. It is that we as a Congress 
have done a better job of listening to our local communities, our local 
school boards and the Nation's 50 governors of all parties.
  What has happened out of all of this listening and working with them 
is that we passed an unfunded mandate bill that said we would not 
mandate more requirements on States and local communities without the 
money.
  We have passed welfare reform, where we took a whole slew of 
categorical programs, packaged them together, sent them back to the 
States so that States and local communities could decide how best to 
meet the needs of those of little means in their communities. In other 
words, we trusted the States and local communities to deal with the 
problems back home.
  Earlier this year, we passed the Ed-Flex bill, taking more 
categorical programs mandated out of Washington, grouped them together, 
sent them back home because the governors of all parties said, give us 
the flexibility and hold us accountable for test scores in the end.
  So the bill we have before us today is another step in that 
direction, of working with all the governors, local school boards and 
parents, to try to give them the flexibility they need to improve the 
schools and to improve the test scores of our Nation's students.
  What they are asking for in return is very simply this: give us the 
flexibility and hold us accountable for the results that we get from 
our children. That is the direction the Congress has been going in for 
the last 5 years, and the fact is that this proposal, offered by our 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and 
pioneered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) is a giant step 
in giving States, teachers, local school boards the kind of flexibility 
they want.
  It has broad bipartisan support. Why not pass it? The gentleman's 
amendment would go back to the same old tired programs of here are all 
of these little categorical programs and if the school districts do 
what we say they should do, then we will give them the money. The fact 
is I think it has been a failed approach. It has been a hodgepodge.
  Local schools need all types of things. Some need more teachers. Some 
need technology. Some need help in the library. Maybe they need more 
books. Let us let them decide how to improve the schools and hold them 
accountable for improving those test scores.
  So the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
would gut the legislation before us today. I think it is a failed 
policy that we have tried for the last 50 years and we know has not 
worked. Let us give this an opportunity to pass.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the last speaker was certainly right. Something has 
happened in the last 5 years. Locals know best unless we know better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that we had 
learned to listen. Well, teachers have said that they do not want this 
bill. They want the Democratic substitute. Parents have said it through 
the PTA. We have heard earlier that the governors, that each of the 
elements of the educational enterprise in our country, support the 
Democratic substitute over the main bill.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the 
chairman, just said, as he closed his remarks, that it was time for us 
to think seriously about putting a qualified teacher in every 
classroom.
  Well, let us think about that for a minute. Who has been responsible 
for putting unqualified teachers in classrooms of children around this 
country, particularly in areas where children come from low-income 
families?

                              {time}  1715

  Who has been responsible for doubling the number of children in 
classes that all of us believe ought to be there, including President 
Clinton who says the number should be 18?
  It has not been the Federal Government making these decisions. It is 
the people that my colleagues suggest they want to give more 
flexibility to. They want to take these Federal dollars where we are 
trying to set some priorities that local people agree with, that is, 
the parents agree, the teachers agree, the local school boards agree. 
But no, my colleagues want to take the same local entities at the State 
level, who have made these unfortunate decisions, and give them more of 
an opportunity.
  I think that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) 
said, let us think seriously about putting quality teachers in every 
classroom. Let us take our responsibility seriously. Let us be leaders. 
Let us set some priorities.
  The President has said, first and foremost, classroom reduction. That 
is the Democratic mark. Now if my colleagues would like to come up with 
another $1.2 billion and do it and focus on some other issues, then 
fine, let us all work together. But let us not step on this initiative 
in a way that creates a problem for any of us to have the kind of 
decision making we want on this issue.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is darn 
right I can answer the question who made the problems. It has been the 
Federal Government, as a matter of fact, mandate after mandate back 
there that somebody has to pay. Therefore, the local district has to 
make decisions contrary to what they want to do to improve education in 
the district because they got the mandates from here, unpaid mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I will try to follow that statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say that, as far as I am concerned, this bill 
that I am supporting, and I think the chairman has described it 
excellently, is not only the art of the possible, and by that I mean 
that we are not giving away everything and promising more than can ever 
be delivered, this is the art of the possible, but it also sets 
priorities and sets up accountability standards and

[[Page H5912]]

fosters what I believe we should be returning to a proper relationship 
between State and local control and accountability and make those 
commitments identifiable in this legislation.
  The substitute that the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) is 
proposing does not do that. Of course I want to stress, I mean it puts 
more control back in Washington's hands. I want to stress, however, 
because I think it has been misrepresented here, that the TEA bill that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodman) is advancing here and 
that I strongly support does allow and requires new teachers.
  It does require a correct balance between teachers and class size. 
But as I read it, it does not put all of the authority in with the 
Washington establishment, but does require an approach to improving 
student achievement.
  The President's proposal that we have before us here lacks any 
accountability on the relationship between reducing class size and 
making those reductions in fact a measurement on how we improve student 
achievement. So the accountability standards here I think are very 
important in their relationship to class size.
  Perhaps one of the most important points is that a separate program 
is not necessary under this proposal. Since teacher quality and class 
size are so closely interrelated, it makes sense, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has pointed out, for these funds to be 
under the same grant. I want to repeat that. Not only class size, but 
also teacher quality.
  I might point out that, according to the numbers that I see, I do not 
think there are 100,000 teachers that are qualified and certified to be 
hired out there. If anything, we have to put a higher priority on 
teacher quality and teacher certification.
  But I might also point out that State and local school districts that 
wish to receive a waiver with respect to this program should not have 
to go to Washington as identified in that bill, but waivers should be 
State based and again putting that direction and higher priority on 
State and local control.
  I guess I have no more time, but I strongly support it. Ninety-five 
percent of our program goes directly to schools, and that is very 
important to remember.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just inform the lady that half of what is in the 
Republican bill was in my bill before it was in the Republican bill. Of 
course, we were grateful that they took that and put it in their bill; 
but, nevertheless, those are our initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, the Martinez substitute addresses a number 
of concerns I have with the underlying bill.
  The Martinez substitute targets a greater share of teacher quality 
funding to disadvantaged school districts than H.R. 1995. This greater 
emphasis on needy districts reflects the reality of where our greatest 
problems as a Nation are in maintaining high quality teachers.
  The Martinez substitute also raises our commitment to these programs 
by authorizing $3.5 billion. The substitute does this through separate 
streams of funding for both teacher quality and class size reduction, 
thereby not pitting one need against another.
  As we have seen from research, it takes both smaller classes and 
fully qualified teachers to have a positive impact upon student 
achievement. Both of these priorities funded through separate streams 
have a greater chance of ensuring that we reach our national priorities 
of a high quality teacher force and small, manageable class sizes from 
kindergarten through third grade.
  Mr. Chairman, the Martinez substitute amendment is a critical step 
forward in our effort to ensure a teaching force that is ready for the 
21st Century and deserves the support of all Members today.
  In my city of Flint, Michigan, about 7 years ago, we did this, the 
only city in Michigan to do it. Let me tell my colleagues, it has 
worked. We have quality certified teachers teaching classes of 18. All 
the tests indicate that those gains those students make persist through 
the eighth grade examination. This is really a chance to make a real 
difference in education in this country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, what is the division of time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 9 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 
11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Martinez substitute. I commend 
both the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and the ranking 
member of the committee for the outstanding work that they have done on 
this substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are again debating an issue that is essential 
to our children's future, and that is the size of the classrooms in our 
disadvantaged communities. The Republicans have repeatedly attempted to 
politicize this issue. It is indisputable that reduced class size, 
especially in the early years, improves student achievement and 
provides lasting benefits, particularly for disadvantaged students.
  H.R. 1995 fails to target funds to the neediest school districts. Are 
the Republicans suggesting that urban poor and rural poor students are 
not deserving of adequate funding for public education? Do Republicans 
not understand that an educated child provides for a more productive 
work force?
  I implore my colleagues on both size of the aisle to come to their 
senses and support the Martinez substitute. Let us end this political 
parade and put our children first.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), another subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, over the last number of years, we have 
had the opportunity to travel around the country, taking a look at 
schools and local programs and identifying what works and what does not 
work. It is called Education at a Crossroad. This bill is built on the 
principles that we outlined as a result of that effort.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act follows five important principles, and I 
think these principles could apply to all Federal education programs 
because we do recognize how important education is to secure the future 
of this country.
  What are those five principles? We need to empower parents and not 
bureaucracies. We need to use education methods that work, not fads and 
gimmicks. We need to spend the money where we have the most impact. 
That means that we spend the money on the kids; we spend it in the 
classroom; we do not spend it in Washington; and we do not spend it on 
red tape. We need a terrific teacher in every classroom. Then we have 
to have accountability for results.
  Because not how much we put it in is what matters. What matters is 
how much learning takes place.
  That is why I oppose the Martinez amendment. Because what it does, it 
moves us away from these principles. It moves us away from empowering 
parents. It empowers bureaucracies. It moves the decision making back 
to Washington. It means that we will end up spending and approving 
local spending decisions here in Washington, not at the local level.
  If we are going to have waivers to a Federal education program, those 
decisions need to be made at a State and a local level. As we found out 
in welfare reform, what sense does it make to move decisions from the 
State level to Washington? Let us keep moving decision making and 
improving education and make it a local responsibility.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, again my amendment is being 
mischaracterized. We do all of the things that the Republican bill 
does, but we do it better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me.
  Listening to the debate, a couple of words, operative words come to 
mind

[[Page H5913]]

more than anything else. In supporting the Martinez substitute, what we 
are doing is providing accountability. We are providing local 
governments with a message that we intend to fulfill our commitments, 
and we provide the message that we will guarantee our words with 
actions.
  To support H.R. 1995 would be to send the opposite message, that, 
one, we send the message that we want our local school districts to be 
able to reduce their class sizes, but, two, we are going to take the 
money, pull the rug right from under their feet when they are about to 
start doing that, and say to them go on, go about and do this all by 
yourself.
  It is unfortunate that we cannot, for whatever reasons, decide in 
this Congress to have the accountability we always say we want our 
local school boards to have with the parents that send their kids to 
school. But here we are telling the local governments that we have 
already sent them down $1.2 billion last year to start reducing class 
sizes. Some 30,000 teachers have been hired.
  Yet, now, all of a sudden, we are going to pull the rug right from 
under their feet as they start these initiatives. Now they have to find 
the funding from some other source. What a way to try to organize 
themselves, to try to conduct their governments at the local level, to 
have the Federal Government say to them one day, we are going to do 
this for you on a bipartisan basis last year, and now for us to say go 
on it alone.
  Worse than that, we do not even target monies if we pass H.R. 1995. 
We need the Martinez substitute because we need to make sure that we 
are letting schools know that we want to help them where they need it 
most. If we take away that ability to target the monies, who knows what 
this money will be spent on. We want accountability at the local level. 
We should have accountability at the Federal level as well.
  Let us stick to the Martinez substitute. Let us not pass H.R. 1995. 
Let us give schools what we would expect them to get from the parents, 
what the parents would expect to get from them. That is accountability. 
Let us do the same here in the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. 
Let us give them the accountability and guaranties they can do the work 
they can do.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), another member of our committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we just came upstairs from a hearing that the 
subcommittee held. It was subcommittee on examining education programs 
benefiting Native American children.

                              {time}  1730

  It was a fascinating hearing. We heard from a number of people from 
the BIA and people running Indian schools on reservations. We asked 
those folks about what they considered to be the most significant 
change we could possibly provide for them that would make something 
positive happen in their schools. Because, frankly, today, the 
educational system for Native Americans is a disaster. From almost any 
standpoint or any way we want to measure it, it is a disaster. It is 
perhaps a microcosm of the broader problems we have in this country. So 
we asked what it was they thought we can do, what can the Federal 
Government possibly do to help you make it better.
  The first thing that was said by the gentleman who is with the BIA, 
and he went on at some length on this, is essentially this: please give 
us more flexibility. He said everything that has happened up to this 
point in time, the 20 to 25 years that we have been experimenting with 
the various programs handed down by government, all of the individual 
programs and titles that have tied our hands have made it literally 
impossible for us, and I am paraphrasing here, I admit, literally 
impossible for us to do what we have been asking them to do, and that 
is to improve the quality of education for our children.
  He said, please do this for us: give us the money; let us determine 
how it will be spent. Give us more flexibility in determining exactly 
who goes to school, in what school, and what kind of a teacher that 
particular student confronts. That, he said, is what will do more for 
Indian education than anything else.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest it will also do more for American education, 
and that is why we have to defeat the Martinez amendment and go with 
the bill itself.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, congratulations to teachers. At last, 
Members on both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives 
agree on the fact that teachers are important. Congratulations. It is 
about time.
  But one side, through the Martinez substitute, provides more funds to 
reduce class size with a guaranty that educators and parents can count 
on. The Martinez substitute maintains the class size reduction program 
as a separate program with a dedicated stream of funding, while H.R. 
1995 puts all funds in one pool for governors to spend as they will and 
at their will.
  We need a democratic triangle of learning, with dedicated funds to 
hire qualified teachers on one side; class size reduction on the second 
side; and in a separate proposal, the third side of the triangle needs 
to fund school construction and modernization.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to know rocket science to know that the 
Martinez substitute is the better choice for our students and our 
schools, just simple geometry. Vote for the Martinez substitute so our 
students will have 100,000 more qualified teachers and smaller class 
sizes. They need and deserve both, not one or the other.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman again and again 
congratulate him for the work which he has done on this.
  Unfortunately, I respectfully rise in opposition to the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). I say 
regretfully because he is a wonderful guy, not because I necessarily 
agree with him on the policy.
  Unfortunately, the specific set-aside for class size reduction in the 
Martinez substitute creates a false choice between the need for more 
teachers and the need for better teachers. We can do better.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act maintains our commitment to smaller class 
size by requiring a portion of funds be used for this purpose, but it 
also recognizes the different needs of our local school districts by 
focusing resources on initiatives to improve classroom outcomes for 
teachers and students alike.
  In States like Delaware, where I am from, where the average class 
size in grades K through 3 is 17 students or in other States where 
further reductions in class size will result in hiring uncertified or 
unqualified teachers, these funds can be used to provide teacher 
training in subject areas like math, science, reading, and the language 
arts.
  The flexibility in the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the fact 
that students in smaller classes may perform better academically, but 
that advantage is lost if the teacher is unprepared to teach. The 
Teacher Empowerment Act allows our teachers to receive the intensive 
long-term training they need to raise the academic achievement of their 
students.
  If the localities are unable to provide professional development, 
this bill allows the teachers to choose their own high-quality training 
programs and, in so doing, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the 
plain truth that a skilled professional can and will raise the academic 
achievement of the entire classroom, even among our most disadvantaged 
children, even in classrooms that exceed 18 students.
  Finally, it is estimated that approximately 40 percent of teachers 
will become eligible for some type of retirement during the next 5 
years. This bill addresses that as well. I would encourage us all to 
support the underlying bill and to defeat the Martinez amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

[[Page H5914]]

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with America's teachers and 
America's students in support of the Martinez substitute.
  I must say I heard a very unique argument just a few moments ago from 
the other side of the aisle. I have never before heard it said that 
reduction in class size causes us to have less qualified teachers. What 
a slap in the face to America's teachers to say something like that. 
That misguided, illogical and incorrect conclusion is an example of why 
we need to focus on education in America.
  Education is an investment. It is not an expense. It is our most 
important investment, an investment in our children. Last year we made 
a commitment. We made a commitment to our teachers, we made a 
commitment to our children, and we made a commitment to our families. 
We committed to hiring 100,000 new teachers all across this country in 
grades 1 through 3 to address the issue of education and to address the 
issue of juvenile crime.
  H.R. 1995 would be a serious step back from that commitment. Because, 
make no mistake about it, 1995 does not require a reduction in class 
size. It does not. Martinez does.
  We have many other important issues in this country involving 
education. We need to address those issues. But that does not mean we 
need to back away from reduction in class size. Let us do the right 
thing. Let us support Martinez and reduce our class size. Let us do 
what the teachers and the students in America want us to do and keep 
our commitments.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  I have been very vocal this afternoon, speaking about the deficits of 
the bill that we are debating, H.R. 1995, because it does not support 
the program that the President has recommended for the reduction of the 
number of students in a typical classroom in the early primary grades. 
That is an essential signal to this country that we ought to be doing 
something about.
  It is not enough to say that the local people can make these 
decisions. They have had this opportunity to make these decisions all 
these years, and yet we see so many jurisdictions with these very 
crowded classrooms.
  The second point is that the primary bill that the Republicans are 
putting forth today does not support the idea of targeting for the 
neediest people in our society, whereas the Martinez substitute does.
  I want to, however, in just my limited time, focus on one essential 
ingredient of the Martinez substitute, which retains the language of 
the current law, and that has to do with assuring that the teachers who 
are trained have the opportunity to understand the diverse needs of 
girls in their classes, of students with a different ethnic background 
who are disadvantaged, and students with disabilities.
  Achieving equity in education requires going beyond just access to 
education. It requires the elimination of subtler forms of inequity. 
Qualitative, small-scale studies over the last years have cumulatively 
decided and described the inequities that exist. The AUW report of 
1998, Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children, showed that 
while inequitable teaching practices are frequently inadvertent, 
inequality still persists in teaching practices.
  Knowing that this is the case, knowing that we have these protections 
in current law, the Republican bill, H.R. 1995, eliminates these very 
important provisions from the bill that they are asking the House to 
vote for. The Martinez substitute keeps and retains this language, and 
I urge support for the Martinez substitute.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), another new member of the committee.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the 
Teacher Empowerment Act and against this proposed replacement bill that 
will reverse all the good that the Teacher Empowerment Act will do for 
our children and our schools.
  One of the most important responsibilities of this Congress is to 
secure the future for every child in America. Some say we can 
accomplish this goal best by running our schools from the White House 
or some congressional committee. Republicans believe that we can secure 
the future for every child in America best by returning education 
dollars, decisions and flexibility back home to parents, teachers, and 
local schools.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act does just that. It provides much-needed 
funds to schools, but it does not tell them how to spend it. It just 
tells them to get results. Schools can hire teachers and reduce class 
size; they can focus on innovative programs for math and science; or 
they can help train teachers.
  I am on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and I have heard 
countless testimonials of educators who have said that if we just give 
them back the flexibility, the decisions, and the dollars that they can 
secure the future for our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the 
Teacher Empowerment Act and against the Martinez substitute.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
which is how much?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of time, and 
in order to respond to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), 
who spoke last, I think there are people who are actually in the 
education industry that disagree with what he just said. And let me 
just read what the National School Board Association said about my 
legislation.
  ``It is much stronger legislation. Far more targeted Federal dollars 
are needed if the Nation's public schools are to ensure that students, 
particularly those in poverty, have a real opportunity to improve 
student achievement.'' That was on July 16, 1999.
  The California Chief State School Officers: ``The Martinez substitute 
would target Federal resources to two distinct but companion Federal 
policies without making them compete one against the other for a fixed 
pot of funds.''

                              {time}  1745

  ``H.R. 1995 greatly reduces the targeting of Federal resources to the 
neediest districts with the highest poverty, largest class size and 
greatest shortage of qualified teachers.''
  That was on July 19, 1999.
  The National PTA. ``The National PTA urges you to oppose H.R. 1995 
when it comes to the floor for a vote on Tuesday, July 20, 1999. We 
suggest improving the bill by supporting the Martinez substitute, but 
if it fails, we oppose the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act.''
  That was on July 19, 1999.
  The Leadership Conference of Civil Rights. ``We write to express our 
opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act of 1999, H.R. 1995, unless it 
includes class size reduction as a separately authorized program and 
ensures that all students benefit from quality teachers to meet their 
particular needs. Combining class size reduction with other programs as 
proposed in H.R. 1995 will serve merely to undermine its effectiveness, 
particularly for low-income and minority students, by failing to 
achieve the goal of hiring 100,000 qualified teachers.''
  This was on July 16, 1999.
  The American Federation of Teachers. ``The Democratic substitute 
would continue funding to school districts that need the money the 
most. H.R. 1995, as proposed, diverts program funds from high poverty 
districts.''
  That was on June 29, 1999.
  I urge all of the Members to understand that the people in the 
industry, the people that are on the front lines, the people who are 
concerned most about the education of our children, the people who have 
to respond to the criticism from everybody if they do not do a good job 
are all in support of my substitute, not the Republican bill, H.R. 
1995.
  With that, I would urge all of my colleagues to support my bill, vote 
for my bill and oppose H.R. 1995.

[[Page H5915]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, for years I sat beside a wonderful gentleman who was 
chairman of the committee and he would say over and over again, ``All 
of these programs we introduced to help my people have not helped my 
people.''
  I would say over and again, ``Let's change them.'' We never did. Why 
did they not help rural poor? Why did they not help the disadvantaged? 
Why did they not help urban poor? Because there was no accountability. 
Just take the money, do whatever you want to do with the money. No 
accountability whatsoever.
  So now we have an opportunity finally to do something to help the 
urban poor and the rural poor, the disadvantaged, because we can assure 
that they have a quality teacher in the classroom which next to their 
parents will be the most important thing that ever happens to them. 
Class size reduction alone does not do it. You have to have quality in 
the classroom.
  A gentleman said he is surprised, he never heard anybody say anything 
about a teacher not being qualified in a classroom. He must have had 
his head in a hole somewhere. All the studies are saying it has failed. 
All the studies are saying that they have had to replace people when 
they had to add new teachers because they reduced the class size with 
people who were not competent and were not capable of teaching the kind 
of quality education the most needy children need.
  We are in a real world, Mr. Chairman. Let us quit playing this game 
that somehow or other there are a few trees in Washington and we can 
pull off money here, there and elsewhere.
  Everybody, you say, supports it. Of course they support it. More 
money. ``Don't worry about quality. Don't worry whether it does any 
good or not. Just give us more money.''
  Oh, I have heard that for 40 years and it has failed and it has 
failed and it has failed. Now we have a golden opportunity. We know we 
are not going to get a lot more money. Now we have a golden opportunity 
to finally, finally insist that those most disadvantaged have a golden 
opportunity to get a quality teacher in that classroom that will make 
the difference in their life and will give them the opportunity to 
succeed like so many other young people have in this country.
  Let us do it right this time. Let us admit we failed for 40 years. We 
have not helped the people we wanted to help. This is an opportunity 
now. Defeat the Martinez gift list and move ahead with legislation that 
will give us quality teachers in all classrooms for all children.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the Martinez substitute and in support of the Teacher 
Empowerment Act.
  This bill demonstrates and defines the basic philosophy regarding 
education that separates Republicans from the White House.
  Let's be honest--the President just wants a number. The latest mantra 
coming out of the White House is ``100,000 new teachers.'' It's a nice 
big number, and it makes for a good soundbite.
  Never mind how the teachers are actually trained. Never mind if they 
truly know the subject they're teaching or not. That isn't the focus 
for the President--what he wants, quite simply, is for the Federal 
Government to pay for 100,000 extra bodies. Period.
  Republicans believe it's better to have 500,000 better trained 
teachers than just 100,000 new ones. Instead of telling schools that 
they must hire teachers, we instead combine the current Federal teacher 
programs into one grant.
  With this money, we let the schools decide how best to spend their 
money on teachers.
  If they need to hire more, fine. If they need to train the ones they 
already have, even better. If they want to offer salary increases or 
merit pay, that's OK too.
  The point is that we believe local schools and local school districts 
know their teacher situation better than some bureaucrat sitting in a 
cubicle in Washington, DC.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act passed the Education Committee with 
bipartisan support, even after a strong, yet unsuccessful, lobbying 
blitz from the highest officials in the White House.
  I think our kids deserve something more than just a sound bite from 
the President. They deserve to be educated by the best-trained teachers 
possible, and that's what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to 
reject the Martinez substitute and support the Teacher Empowerment Act.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Rep. Martinez's 
substitute to H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The intent of 
H.R. 1995 is admirable, but it falls short of key funding matters vital 
to our nation's schools and teachers.
  Class size reduction was a bipartisan effort in the 105th Congress. 
H.R. 1995 threatens this agreement by allowing funds for this program 
to be diverted to other areas. On the other hand, the Martinez 
substitute not only increases funding for class size reduction 
programs, it also provides for its separate authorization doubling 
current funding, a clear signal that we are serious about improving our 
children's education.
  Teacher quality and professional development are two more goals 
sought for in the Martinez substitute. It doubles the funding for these 
goals by authorizing $500 million in each of the fiscal years 2000 to 
2004.
  While H.R. 1995 attempts to funnel federal funds away from local 
education authorities, the Martinez substitute ensures that educational 
funding for grades K-12 are directed towards the ``state education 
agency'' responsible for elementary and secondary education. This 
ensures that federal funds are used together with the state or 
territory's own educational programs.
  We clearly have a very simple decision to make today, whether we 
continue to be committed to our children and our teachers, or whether 
we choose to stifle our nation's educational excellence. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote yes on the Martinez substitute and no on H.R. 1995.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, further 
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 253, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 1 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); amendment 
No. 10 offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink); amendment 
No. 11 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and 
amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey

[[Page H5916]]


     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     English
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark

                              {time}  1814

  Ms. RIVERS and Mr. BOSWELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1815


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Pursuant to House Resolution 
253, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


            amendment no. 10 offered by mrs. mink of hawaii

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 10 offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 242, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     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
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     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
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard

[[Page H5917]]


     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     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)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     English
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Porter
     Stark

                              {time}  1824

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 0, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     English
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark

                              {time}  1831

  Mr. GRAHAM changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Amendment No. 12 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 12 in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 217, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     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
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)

[[Page H5918]]


     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     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

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     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
     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
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     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
     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
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     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
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     English
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1839

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gibbons, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to 
empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality 
professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading 
Excellence Act, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
253, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 185, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--239

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     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
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost

[[Page H5919]]


     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     English
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Kennedy
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark
     Waxman

                              {time}  1859

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________