[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10408-H10423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      STUDENT RESULTS ACT OF 1999

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 336

       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. 2) to send more dollars to the classroom and 
     for certain other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed six 
     hours. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

[[Page H10409]]

     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. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
     printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. The 
     amendment numbered 5 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. The Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 336 is a modified, open rule that 
provides for consideration of H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. The 
legislation authorizes Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, as well as a number of other programs, which assist some 
of our Nation's neediest students.
  Over the years, educational programs for the disadvantaged have 
failed to accomplish their core mission: closing the achievement gap 
between wealthy and poor students. And while the Title I program has 
its faults, its shortcomings have not led us to abandon it. We believe 
that through thoughtful, common sense reforms in Title I, we can make 
some real progress for children and achieve the results we have been 
striving for for more than 30 years.
  The Students Results Act improves upon the existing Title I program 
not only by increasing our investment in education, but also providing 
for greater accountability, more parental involvement, well-trained 
teachers and local flexibility to implement school reforms that work. 
I, for one, am looking forward to today's debate, because it is not 
about who can spend more money; we are increasing Title I funding in 
this bill. Instead, it is about new ideas and having the courage to 
admit some failures and move in a new direction.
  Under the rule, the House will have 90 minutes to engage in general 
debate, which will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Let 
me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, for his hard work and determination through a 
lengthy markup process to put this bipartisan legislation together. His 
committee reported it by a vote of 42-to-6.
  It is always great to have bipartisan agreement on an issue as 
crucial to our Nation's future as education. The bill has earned even 
the administration's support. Still, some of our colleagues would like 
a chance to amend it. Therefore, the Committee on Rules has provided 
for an open amendment process.
  Under this rule, any Member who wishes to improve upon H.R. 2 may 
offer any germane amendment, as long as it is preprinted in the 
Congressional Record.
  In the case of the manager's amendment numbered 5 in the Record, the 
rule provides that it will not be subject to amendment or to a demand 
for a division of the question.
  To ensure that debate on H.R. 2 is adequate, yet focused, the rule 
provides for a reasonable time cap of 6 hours during which amendments 
may be considered. Overall, the House will have almost 9 hours to 
debate the provisions of and changes to the Students Results Act, which 
should be more than ample time, given the bill's widespread support.
  To further facilitate consideration of H.R. 2, the rule allows the 
Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a 
postponed question, as long as it is followed by a 15-minute vote. 
After the bill is considered for amendment, the rule provides for 
another chance to make changes to the bill through the customary motion 
to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, Title I is the anchor of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and it is the largest Federal and elementary education 
program.

                              {time}  1430

  Since its creation in 1965, taxpayers have provided over $120 billion 
in funding to teach disadvantaged children.
  The initial investment in title I back in 1965 was $960 million, 
which grew to $7.7 billion by 1999. H.R. 2 continues our commitment to 
disadvantaged kids by authorizing more than $8 billion for title I next 
year, but we are not just throwing more money at education and claiming 
victory. We know that more dollars will not automatically translate 
into smarter kids. H.R. 2 strengthens academic performance by holding 
all States, school districts and individual schools accountable for 
ensuring that their students meet high academic standards.
  One incentive to produce results will come through the promise of 
cash rewards to title I schools that close the achievement gap between 
students.
  The success or failure of title I schools will be documented in 
annual report cards that will be distributed to parents and 
communities; and when schools fail to show improvement parents will be 
given the opportunity to take their children out of failing schools and 
enroll them in other public or charter schools. It is simply unfair to 
trap children in schools where they cannot learn so we give them a bit 
of freedom, including money for transportation to a new school through 
this legislation.
  The Student Results Act also recognizes that good results cannot be 
gotten without well-trained teachers. Good teachers are our best chance 
to help our children succeed. H.R. 2 ensures that all newly hired 
teachers funded by title I dollars are fully qualified by raising the 
standard for teachers' aides.
  Under the bill, teaching assistants will need to have 2 or more years 
of college education or an associates degree. Local communities will 
have greater flexibility to ensure their Federal dollars are meeting 
the real needs of their student population. For example, local 
education agencies will be able to combine and commingle Federal funds 
to address the needs of small rural school districts or the needs of 
Indian children.
  These are just a few of the reforms the Student Results Act will make 
to move our Federal education policy toward the principle of 
accountability, quality teaching, and local control.
  There are also a number of other programs authorized in this 
legislation, including migrant education; neglected and delinquent 
youth; magnet school assistance; Native American, Hawaiian and Alaskan 
programs; gifted and talented students; rural education; and the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance program.
  The reforms made in these programs through H.R. 2 will move us away 
from the Washington-knows-best model of the past to a policy that 
equips parents, communities, and schools with the resources, authority, 
and accountability to ensure that every uniquely talented child has the 
opportunity to succeed.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join in today's debate 
about the future of our children and our Nation by supporting this fair 
rule that will provide for a full debate on a key

[[Page H10410]]

component of our Federal education policy. I urge a yes vote on both 
the rule and the Student Results Act.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce), for yielding me the time.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 336 provides for the 
consideration of the underlying bill H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. 
This is a modified open rule which limits debate on amendments to the 
bill to 6 hours. This means the clock may run out on amendments which 
Members have prepared and which deserve to be heard.
  Madam Speaker, it is not as though the House has considered such a 
plethora of landmark legislation that we do not have a little extra 
time to discuss and debate how best we give our children a quality 
education, but the rule inhibits that debate. Last night in the 
Committee on Rules a motion was offered for an open rule with no 
limitation on time, but it was rejected.
  The rule also depends on a preprinting requirement which further 
works to limit the exchange of ideas. These are defects in this rule 
which should not go unnoticed. At the same time, I should point out the 
rule expressly includes the opportunity for a very important amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and numerous other 
colleagues who share my very deep concern with the issue of gender 
equity.
  Since 1974, the Women's Educational Equity Act has provided teachers, 
administrators, and parents with the resources, materials, and tools to 
combat inequitable educational practices. The act trains teachers to 
treat girls and boys fairly in the classroom, and allows the training 
of teachers to encourage girls to pursue the careers and higher-
education degrees in science, engineering, and technology, careers they 
very well may want but are actually discouraged from pursuing.
  The act also funds the Center for Women's Educational Programming, 
which conducts vital research on effective approaches to closing the 
gender gap in education, as well as developing curriculum and model 
programs to ensure that these effective approaches are implemented.
  From its inception, this act has funded over 700 programs while 
requests for information and assistance continue to grow. From February 
to August of this year, the Resource Center received over 750 requests 
for technical assistance, and that is a lot of requests for a country 
that presumes it has reached gender equity, as my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would have us believe.
  The question today is not, What needs does it meet? It is obvious 
that it meets the important gender equity needs of our public education 
system. And the question before us today is why should we reauthorize 
the Women's Educational Equity Act? The majority would have us believe 
that we should not reauthorize it. They argue that gender equity has 
been accomplished and gender inequity or discrimination in the 
classroom is a thing of the past or does not exist, but this is not the 
case.
  According to a recent report conducted by the American Association of 
University Women, women are close to 50 percent of America's 
population. Yet they earn only 7 percent of the engineering degrees and 
36 percent of the math degrees. Women are only 3 percent of CEOs at 
Fortune 500 companies, but in the face of such statistics the majority 
considers gender equity programs no longer useful. They would rather 
ignore these statistics and allow girls' educational needs to be 
neglected. They would rather we eliminate a current long-standing 
program that ensures fairness and equal opportunities in our classrooms 
that would ultimately undermine our commitment to title IX, which has 
been so helpful to young women in this society.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Mink/
Woolsey/Sanchez/Morella amendment to the Student Results Act. This 
amendment will reauthorize the Women's Equity Act and reaffirm our 
commitment to gender equity. The importance is as important today as it 
was in 1974. To this very day, guidance counselors are advising young 
women away from the careers that they would like to have, careers in 
science and math, and urging them to go into five fields which have 
generally over the years been delegated only to women.
  We cannot afford to waste that brain power in the United States, 
Madam Speaker; and those of us who are the mothers and grandmothers of 
young women insist that they be given equal opportunity to achieve 
everything that they want to achieve. So I want to urge my colleagues, 
please do not slam the door to gender equity on America's girls, just 
as they are starting to walk through it. The gender equity provision 
being left out is a glaring omission in a bill which otherwise has many 
meritorious provisions.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair and 
balanced modified open rule. Improving public education, when we put 
together the list of priorities that we wanted to address in the 106th 
Congress, was number one. We went through the issues of providing tax 
relief to working families, rebuilding our defense capabilities, saving 
Social Security and Medicare; but when we began that list, we had 
improving public education up there because we know that if our Nation 
is going to remain competitive globally we have to do what we can to 
bring about that kind of improvement.
  We moved forward earlier in this Congress by passing the Education 
Flexibility Act, and I am very pleased that the President agreed to 
sign that measure. It took a little while to get him there, but I am 
very pleased that he did. This legislation is similar in that it enjoys 
bipartisan support, and I hope it will gain the President's signature 
also.
  The public education improvement bill is based on four very simple 
basic and easily understandable principles: quality, accountability, 
public school choice, which is very important, and flexibility.
  The bill will improve educational opportunities available for 
children that already face the many challenges that accompany poverty 
in this country. It is simply not acceptable that the public education 
system is failing our Nation's disadvantaged children. It is clearly 
time to shift our focus to a results-based education system. For the 
sake of the children, we cannot accept anything less than the best. We 
need clear improvements in academic achievement at the local and the 
State level.
  As we focus on actual results, we need to reward progress. This 
legislation will allow States to reward the schools that are successful 
at closing the achievement gap between children of different income 
levels. We are moving in the right direction on education; and, again, 
it is good that we are enjoying bipartisan support in that quest.
  We are investing in quality public schools, and we are demanding real 
results. We are showing that Congress is committed to success, but we 
are giving State and local leaders the flexibility to develop the 
solutions. Most important, we are relying on parents, teachers, and 
principals to make good choices because we trust them to do what is 
best for our Nation's young people. This is a very, very good piece of 
legislation. I know that we are going to be dealing with several 
amendments on it; but when we finally get through with it, I hope we 
will have a very strong, overwhelming vote and that we will be able to 
again get a presidential signature on it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, 
the so-called Student Results Act. What this really is is an attempt to 
block access to educational services for certain

[[Page H10411]]

groups of this country. As we all know, title I serves as the 
cornerstone of Federal support for students most at risk of low 
educational achievement. Included in this profile for serving at risk 
students are limited English proficiency youngsters.
  During the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, it was decided that the limited English proficiency 
students were entitled to educational services under the same basis 
that other children receive under title I; and I repeat, they are 
entitled to the same basis of education under title I.
  All of a sudden now we have a different provision in H.R. 2 that will 
essentially deny access for millions of limited English proficiency 
youngsters in title I educational services. The schools in my district 
and throughout the State of Texas and this country are committed to 
providing limited English proficiency youngsters with the necessary 
language support services to ensure that limited English proficiency 
students achieve high academic standards.
  The language in the legislation as it stands now would prohibit 
schools in my district and throughout the country from providing this 
necessary language support services for students until the parent 
provides consent. Why are we picking only on this particular group? Why 
do we not have, for example, the disabled ask for consent? Why do we 
not have Anglo children have to get their parents to get an okay? We do 
not have that. We have decided to pick on limited English proficiency 
youngsters. As we move forward, in terms of students, we have to look 
at them as a whole. It is simply ridiculous to think that by singling 
out the limited English proficiency youngsters to say that it is fair, 
it is not.
  It is discriminatory. It is discriminatory unless it is applied to 
every single child. If we look at the language the way it is written, 
it is very obvious that anyone could see that those youngsters are 
being picked on.
  If we want to talk about parental involvement, then I am ready to 
support parental involvement. I am ready to require that parents need 
to show up in the classroom. I am ready to make sure that we have those 
programs to get them involved.

                              {time}  1445

  But for them to be the only ones within this particular piece of 
legislation, for them to be required to have to come up and sign for 
parental consent, it is unfair, and it is discriminatory.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to think long and hard about 
supporting legislation that picks on children. Plus this legislation 
raises serious questions about the whole issue in terms of how we are 
denying access of these educational opportunities to these individuals.
  As far as I am concerned, the parental consent provision on Title I 
violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there is no way that we 
should stand for that. I ask my colleagues to seriously consider voting 
no.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I never thought the time would 
come again when I would have to come to the floor and speak out against 
any changes in gender equity for our women and for our girls. Each of 
my colleagues has women and girls in their family, and we must continue 
to be sure that they receive the equity that they deserve.
  So I rise in support of efforts being made today, particularly the 
Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment, an amendment which is coming up 
pretty soon, to reauthorize the Women's Educational Equity Act.
  Because of our far-reaching legislative efforts to ensure gender 
equity, America is much more equal today and more educated, and it is a 
more prosperous Nation. But to be sure, we cannot relax any of our 
efforts as long as we are leaning toward equity. To be sure, much has 
been accomplished, but there is still a gender gap in America's 
schools, and we cannot afford that to happen.
  The changing Nation that we live in today, and it is constantly 
changing as we enter the new millennium, demands a more gender-fair 
education, not a less one. It is even more important now than it was 
years ago to be sure to prepare our women to enter the new century.
  Prior to the enactment of the Women's Educational Equity Act in 1974, 
only 18 percent of women had completed 4 or more years of college 
compared to 26 percent of all men. Though America is far more equal 
since the enactment of the Women's Educational Equity Act, it is not 
equal. Because it is not equal, we must continue our efforts.
  Despite many gains women have made toward equal education attainment 
and our accompanying gains in the labor force, our earnings are only 80 
percent of the earnings of our male counterparts. What do my colleagues 
think led to that? What led to that was that the educational efforts 
have been improved, but our salaries have not.
  If America is to be her true creed and to her level best, we must 
continue the work we have begun to eradicate discrimination based on 
gender. Discrimination anywhere, Madam Speaker, whether it is based on 
gender, whether it is based on race, whatever it is based upon is 
unequal, and it is not good for our wonderful country of America.
  Yes, there have been peaks and valleys in this process, but we cannot 
ignore the fact that inequality and discrimination still remain in the 
fabric of our lives even as we close out this century.
  Madam Speaker, we want to be sure to support every facet of the 
Women's Educational Equity Act as well as the Woolsey amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) who does such a wonderful job representing our 
interests, like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  I know on this particular issue I want to brag on the Republicans, 
too. It appears like we do have something that we can agree on. This 
year has not been the most productive year I have been in Congress. But 
I will say to my colleagues that, if we can rally around the flag and 
do something for education, that is important for all of us. Because I 
stand before my colleagues as a former college president for 4\1/2\ 
years prior to being elected to the United States Congress. I am also 
cochair of the House Education Caucus with the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt).
  I stand in strong support of the rule and in strong support of H.R. 2 
and our Nation's public schools.
  I place a high priority on Title I programs and improving our 
schools. Quite simply, H.R. 2 is a good, sound bill that emphasizes and 
builds on what we know works. It expands public school choice, improves 
the quality of instruction in Title I classrooms, and drastically 
improves the accountability measures in these programs.
  It continues the targeting of Title I resources to the schools with 
the highest poverty level and adds a new focus to include State, school 
district, and school report cards to help parents and States monitor 
student achievement. Strengthening the quality of instruction provided 
in the classroom is essential in achieving results for all students. In 
addition, all students and their teachers should be held to high 
standards. We cannot afford to let any of our schools or students fall 
through the cracks.
  Madam Speaker, I have four very intelligent students visiting 
Washington, D.C. just this week to participate in the Voices Against 
Violence conference. They are shining examples of the best of what our 
schools can produce.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2, to continue to provide these 
students and their peers with the programs and opportunities they need 
to be the leaders in their schools and communities.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has been 
very active as well, and has offered a lot of new initiatives and new 
programs in order to move this country forward.
  Education is the best, cheapest, and fastest way to keep and retain a 
strong middle class in America. Support H.R. 2.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H10412]]

New York (Mr. Owens), an expert in education.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I rise in protest of a rule which limits 
the debate on the most important education bill that we will have in 
the next 3 or 4 years. This is a reauthorization of Title I, which is 
the core of the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act. They 
have chosen to break up the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Assistance Act in small parts. But this is the part that is most 
important.
  Why do we have to have a limited debate if we are not busy doing many 
other constructive things here? Why cannot we have an open debate and 
let every Member have a chance to speak who wants to speak? I think 
that this is an issue that probably every Member of Congress should go 
on record on.
  The American people have made it quite clear that they think 
education is of utmost importance. Recent polls have just continued to 
reaffirm what the old polls have been showing us for years. The ABC 
News and Washington Post poll, which was released on September 5, 1999, 
said that improving education was the top issue when people were asked 
to list 15 issues of great importance. Improving education was listed 
by 79 percent as number one; handling the economy was 74 percent; 
managing the budget, 74 percent; handling crime, 71 percent; Social 
Security was 68 percent, in fifth place compared to education.
  Education, in the minds of the public, both the Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents, clearly they see with their common-sense 
vision that this is the most important issue right now that we should 
be addressing.
  They do not make an issue out of whether the Federal Government 
should do it or the State government or the city government. In their 
common-sense wisdom, they understand that all levels of government are 
involved already. They probably understand that local governments and 
State governments have the greatest responsibilities and contribute the 
greatest amount of money, but they want the Federal Government to be 
involved still.
  They said also that, among the education priorities--this is the 
National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kennedy School of 
Government survey, which was conducted September 7, 1999--they said 
that among the education priorities within that category, fixing 
rundown schools is number one. Ninety-two percent said that we should 
fix rundown schools first; reducing class sizes was number two, 86 
percent; placing more computers in the classroom, 81 percent.
  My colleagues know that the people have spoken. Why do we only have 6 
hours for the amendments and 2 hours for the general debate? Why do we 
not come and respond to the people? They are saying this is most 
important. They did not talk about any F-22s, and they did not say we 
should go search for billions of dollars to keep the F-22s in testing 
or engineering. They said education is number one. If education is 
number one, then why not spend all the time we need to discuss it?
  There are some basic items which we now must come to grips with. 
People are still running around saying that the Federal Government is 
not responsible for education; therefore, the Federal Government should 
play a limited role; the Federal Government should not get into school 
construction; the Federal Government should not do this.
  We play a limited role, and we want to increase the Federal 
involvement threefold, fourfold. We still would be playing a limited 
role. The Federal Government expenditures for education now is about 7 
percent. Most of that goes to higher education. If we increased it by 
up to 25 percent, it is still a 25 percent Federal role, 75 percent 
State and local government. State and local government clearly are 
responsible primarily, but why not have more of the Federal role?
  All taxes are local. They begin at the local level. The taxes that 
come to Washington come from local areas. We manufacture money in the 
mint here, but that money represents the wealth that has come up from 
the States.
  So my plea on the rule is that it should be an open rule that really 
gives all the time necessary. Every Member was allowed to speak, I 
remember, when we had the debate on the Gulf War. It was a matter of 
war and peace, and they felt we should all be able to express 
ourselves.
  This is a matter of the peace for the future. The key to the peace 
for the future is education, starting with education in America. We are 
ahead of everybody else. We should stay ahead of everybody else. But we 
need a great pool of well-educated people. That pool is going to have 
to come from the poorest people.
  The middle-class sons and daughters are already committed. They are 
going to be the doctors and lawyers and Wall Street bankers. They are 
not going to be information technology workers. They are not going to 
be the people who do the sheet metal work. I went to the sheet metal 
work training center, and they have more computers in the sheet metal 
training center than they have in the schools. They now use computers 
to do the sheet metal work.
  Everything is driven by computers, and they need people who have a 
basic education. The Army and the Navy, they need recruits who have 
some aptitude for handling high-tech weapons. Everything needs 
education, and we should spend the time talking about how we, as a 
Congress, are going to respond to the public's call for more help with 
education.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of this 
rule. I think it is a very fair rule. For those of us that want to 
introduce amendments, we have 7 to 8 hours to be able to improve this 
base bill.
  One of the things I would like us to take a look at that we have sort 
of forgotten over the last years is that, in 1996, we had an 
immigration reform bill, and there was a very heated discussion on this 
floor about the issue of should the Federal Government, should Congress 
mandate that local school districts had to educate illegal aliens, not 
the children of illegal aliens, but illegals.
  I think we came to a consensus one way or the other, some did not 
agree, that this was important enough to the national well-being to 
require that all school districts have to provide education to those 
who are in this country, legal or illegal.
  Now, I am going to introduce an amendment that will revisit that 
issue because I think it is only appropriate that, in a city that we 
say that we want the poor, we want the needy, we want the disadvantaged 
to have equal access, we also need to say that those working-class 
communities should have equal access to their tax money, and that the 
Federal Government should not be requiring the education of illegals at 
the disadvantage of the legal residents in those school districts.

                              {time}  1500

  So all my amendment is going to say is, just as we recognize the 
Federal impact on local schools when the military goes into an area and 
requires education of military children, we also are going to now 
finally recognize the Federal impact on local school districts when we 
basically have illegal immigrants in the school districts and are 
requiring them to be educated.
  So what I am talking about right now, Madam Speaker, is the fact that 
it is time that Washington starts paying for the unfunded mandate that 
we clarified in 1996. And let me point out that that unfunded mandate 
does not impact the rich, powerful districts. It impacts 
disproportionately the poor working-class districts of color. This is 
an issue of fairness, that those who have the least are being required 
to pay the most for this problem, and it is time for us to address 
that.
  So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to walk away 
from this issue. We made lofty statements and made a decision that we 
were going to mandate this service. Now it is time that we revisit it 
and say let us back up our kind words with dollars and cents and let us 
send the reimbursement to those working-class neighborhoods across 
America that are being asked to bear the burden of our mandate. I think 
we not only have a right

[[Page H10413]]

to start paying for this expense, Madam Speaker, we have a 
responsibility to start paying our fair share.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time and, in closing, I would remind my colleagues this rule provides 
for consideration of a bipartisan bill through an open amendment 
process. Any Member may offer any germane amendment as long as it is 
preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule does impose a 6-hour 
time limit on the consideration of amendments; but, overall, the House 
will have almost 9 hours to debate the Student Results Act and propose 
changes to it. On top of the 4-day markup held by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, 9 hours of debate on the House floor is 
wholly adequate.
  Madam Speaker, with the passage of this rule, the House will embark 
on a very important debate over Federal education policy. Today, we are 
not squabbling about money, we are talking about kids and the 
tremendous investment that we are making in them. Let us make sure that 
that investment pays off and our success is measured by the academic 
performance of students in schools. Where there is failure, let us 
expose it and be bold enough to try something new. Where there is 
success, let us reward it and strive to repeat it. And in all of this, 
let us remember that the best interests of the children must always be 
paramount.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
fair rule so that we can move on to debate legislation that represents 
the single largest component of our effort to improve elementary and 
secondary education. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Student 
Results Act.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 336 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. 2.

                              {time}  1504


                     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. 2) to send more dollars to the classroom and for certain other 
purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, today the House will consider H.R. 2, 
the Student Results Act, and the major focus of this bill is to 
reauthorize but, above all, improve title I, which is the single 
largest Federal grant program for helping educate disadvantaged 
students.
  The bill includes a number of other programs targeted at 
disadvantaged students, including Indian education, gifted and 
talented, magnet schools, rural education and homeless education; and I 
am especially pleased that H.R. 2 also includes key changes to the 
migrant education program for which I have fought long and hard over 
the years.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support. It was reported from our 
committee by a vote of 42 to 6, and I would like to thank the full 
committee ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay); the 
subcommittee member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), above all; and many 
others for their key contributions to putting this legislation 
together.
  The Student Results Act was put together with four overarching 
principles in mind: quality, accountability, choice, and flexibility. 
And let me review briefly how each of these has been embedded 
throughout H.R. 2.
  The notion of focusing Federal education programs and quality has 
been my mission since joining Congress some 25 years ago. Coming here 
as a superintendent and as a school board president, I knew Head Start 
was not working, and I knew how to fix it. I knew chapter 1 was not 
working, which became title I, and I knew how to fix it. But I could 
not do anything about it. It was so obvious. And I am so happy that, 
finally, when we reauthorized Head Start, not the last time but the 
time before, it was the first time we talked about quality. And the 
last time we reauthorized it, we really talked about quality; and I 
thank Secretary Shalala because she shut down 100 dysfunctional Head 
Start programs. I could not get my people to do that when they were 
down there. So, finally, we are talking about quality.
  We have to do the same thing with title I, because it is obvious, all 
the studies have indicated, that we are not helping disadvantaged 
youngsters close the academic gap between disadvantaged and 
nondisadvantaged. So we have to do something to make sure that we do 
that.
  So let me start with the issue of quality, the most important issue 
facing us today. One of the most distressing features of the title I 
program for too long and in too many places was that it became a jobs 
program rather than a program to try to change the disadvantaged to 
become advantaged academically. So we have dealt with that issue.
  And we now have, for instance, over 75,000 teacher aides. Big news. 
All they had to do was have a GED 2 years after they got the job. 
Somehow or other, unfortunately, they were teaching reading and they 
were teaching mathematics, many times without the supervision of a 
qualified teacher. And these youngsters need the most qualified 
teachers we can possibly find in order to help them.
  So we are freezing the number of teacher aides that they can hire, 
and we are telling them there are a lot of things they have to do in 
order to make sure that they continue as teacher aides. Now, my side, 
some of my Members, do not like that. They say we are telling local 
districts what to do. Well, it is Federal tax dollars, 100 percent. The 
program has failed, and we simply cannot fail these youngsters any 
longer. We cannot have 50 percent of our children in this country in a 
failing mode.
  The Student Results Act includes a lot of other quality issues. One 
is that they can use some of their new money to reward those who are 
doing well. The most devastating letter that I got was from one of the 
largest lobbying groups that deals with these disadvantaged youngsters. 
And in there they indicate to not reward anybody for doing well, just 
give them the money and they will continue doing poorly, not giving 
these children an opportunity for anything that every other child has 
an opportunity to receive. That is pretty disheartening to get that 
kind of thing from one of the largest lobbying groups for these 
particular youngsters and their parents.
  Let me make a couple of very important points about accountability. 
The bill does not provide for more accountability to the Federal 
Government. Instead, what we are insisting on is more accountability to 
parents. We thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for 
a lot of the information and a lot of the parts that have been put in 
here in relationship to the accountability provision.
  The Student Results Act says that children attending schools 
classified as low performing must be given the opportunity to attend a 
higher quality public school in their area. In other words, if that 
school is a poor performing school, and designated as such, those 
parents and those children should be able to escape and go to another 
school within that school district that is not a poor performing 
school. And we say that in order to get there, there will have to be 
some transportation money, and they can use some of this money in order 
to transport their youngsters to that particular point.

[[Page H10414]]

  We also do things for those school districts that are small, rural 
school districts particularly. School districts with less than 1,500 
students, which is more than 10 percent of the school districts in 
America, will be exempted from several formula requirements, giving 
them the flexibility to target funds in a manner which best suits their 
needs.
  In conclusion, I would ask that we consider this bill in the context 
of our larger efforts at the Federal level to improve education in this 
country. We started with EdFlex, which passed the House with an 
overwhelming majority. We followed up with the Teacher Empowerment Act. 
Now we are considering title I. Again, I would like to emphasize that 
50 percent of the youngsters in this country are not getting a quality 
education. And if we are going to remain a number one country, we 
positively cannot continue that. They must be in a position to do well 
in our 21st century.
  So I would hope that we get bipartisan support in passing this 
legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, next April will mark the 35th anniversary of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a flagship great society 
program that underscored our country's national commitment to help 
communities improve their public schools.
  We have come a long way since the deplorable, segregated, and 
neglected public schools of yesteryear, but not far enough. Today, too 
many States and too many communities lack either the political will or 
the financial resources to ensure that poor children get a good 
education. Too many poor communities lack fully qualified teachers, 
safe schools, and access to emerging school technology.
  Recent reports show that title I is making strides in increasing 
student achievement. Ten of 12 urban school districts and five of six 
States reviewed showed increases in the percentage of students in the 
highest poverty schools who met district or State standards for 
proficiency in reading and math. These results should serve to broaden 
our commitment to increase investment in public schools while 
strengthening accountability for results.
  I support this legislation because it strengthens our commitment to 
improve educational opportunities for students, regardless of their 
race, economic status. Or special needs. It targets funds to our most 
disadvantaged children and schools, it requires States to have rigorous 
standards and assessments, and it increases the title I authorization 
to $8.35 billion.
  The bill imposes strong sanctions for schools who continue to fail 
after receiving substantial assistance. It also ensures that teachers 
and teacher aides are fully qualified. I am very pleased that we will 
include title VII, bilingual education, as part of the manager's 
amendment, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and the gentleman from Puerto 
Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) on our committee who helped forge a 
compromise on this critical program.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2 clearly prohibits the use of title I funds for 
private school vouchers. The proposal to allow vouchers was 
overwhelmingly rejected by our committee members.
  The bill is not a perfect bill, however. There are some provisions 
that undermine programs for women's equity in education, that repeal 
the Women's Educational Equity Act, that eliminate the provision that 
trains teachers to eliminate gender bias in the classroom, and 
terminates dropout prevention programs for pregnant and parenting 
teens. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) have prepared amendments to restore these 
provisions, and I hope that this body will vote in favor of them.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for his work on this bill and the 
committee members on our side, each of whom made important 
contributions to the bill. I also want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for 
working with us in a bipartisan manner.

                              {time}  1515

  I urge support of H.R. 2.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) a member of our committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that we want 
to make sure that all the school districts know that the next time we 
test them, they have to test all children. We do not want any of this 
nonsense of pulling people out to show that they have improved. The 
Department is now investigating that issue, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. PETRI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is a 
great credit to our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling); our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay); 
the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); 
and, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). It is a great 
tribute to all of them that the bill passed our committee with an 
overwhelming vote of 42-6.
  The Student Results Act was put together with four principles in 
mind: Quality, accountability, choice, and flexibility. It contains 
several noteworthy provisions.
  For the first time, it encourages public school choice, at least in 
those situations that cry out for it most. The public school choice 
provision is a simple concept. Children should not be forced to attend 
failing schools.
  One of the problems in education today is that some students, 
especially many of those participating in Title I programs, are trapped 
in substandard schools without a way out. The bill allows children 
attending schools classified consistently as low performing to be given 
the opportunity to attend a higher quality public school in the area. 
And if there is no such school in the area, then the school district is 
authorized to work out a school choice program with another school or 
schools in a neighboring school district.
  Surely, if we cannot fix our worst schools, we should give their 
students a way out, at least to a better school. Failure to do that is 
completely unfair to those children and robs our Nation of the 
contributions they could make if their talents were better developed.
  Although Title I has traditionally tried to engage parents in the 
education of their children through measures such as parental compacts 
and formal parental involvement policies, I am pleased to note that 
there are new provisions in H.R. 2 that attempt to address this issue 
better.
  A significant parental empowerment provision is the annual State 
academic reports on schools and the school district reports. Through 
these report cards and annual State reports, H.R. 2 makes available to 
parents information on the academic quality of Title I schools.
  Among other things, such information would include test scores at the 
school as compared to other Title I schools in the district.
  H.R. 2 would also require school districts to make available upon 
request information regarding the qualifications of the Title I 
student's classroom teachers, including such information as whether the 
teacher has met State qualifications and licensing criteria for the 
grade levels and subject areas in which he or she provides instruction.
  In an effort to provide a higher caliber of teachers, H.R. 2 also 
places a freeze on the number of teacher aides that can be hired with 
Title I funds. For those aides employed with such funds, the bill 
increases the minimum qualifications that must be met by all teacher 
aides within 3 years.
  Finally, the bill attempts to reward excellence by giving States the 
option of setting aside up to 30 percent of all new Title I funding to 
provide cash rewards to schools that make substantial progress in 
closing achievement gaps between students.
  Madam Chairman, when it comes down to it, this is what we are 
attempting to do. Not only must we improve all our schools, it is 
especially

[[Page H10415]]

vital to close the achievement gaps between them and to find ways for 
low-income students to have equal access to high-quality education.
  This bill makes positive steps in that direction; and, therefore, I 
am pleased to support it.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me the time.
  Madam Chairman, since last spring, our staffs have been working on 
the reauthorization of this bill. I am pleased that we have finally 
been able to put forth the reauthorization proposal that establishes a 
strong foundation for student achievement as we enter the 21st century. 
During these negotiations, I believe that we have created a balance 
between the priorities of both parties. Several of the bill's 
provisions are worthy of mention.
  With regard to Title I, the amendment maintains and preserves many of 
the core advances that the last reauthorization of ESEA in 1994 
instituted. Preserved are the requirements for State education reform, 
based on challenging standards and aligned assessments. Preserved are 
Title I's targeting of resources to high poverty school districts and 
schools.
  Most importantly, I believe, the strong accountability requirements 
we have maintained and added to Title I are very critical. Among them 
are disaggregation of data based on at-risk populations, increased 
teacher quality requirements, and a focus on turning around failing 
schools through the investment of additional help and resources.
  We can no longer tolerate low-performing schools that place the 
education of our children at risk. This means that States and school 
districts will need to provide substantive intervention to help the 
students of low-performing schools reach high standards.
  If schools are still failing after substantive intervention and 
assistance, then consequences must and should exist. This bill will 
accomplish this feat.
  I will also be supporting the Mink-Morella-Woolsey-Sanchez amendment 
to restore the Women's Education Equity Act, or WEEA. This act plays a 
critical role in providing leadership in women's issues. For too long, 
I have seen the inequities that exist between the genders, especially 
in fields that produce high economic returns: technology, mathematics, 
and science.
  I am troubled that the base legislation does not include this 
important program. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to adopt 
this amendment.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) for working with me to modify the parental consent provisions 
of this legislation.
  These modifications, which are included in the Goodling manager's 
amendment, will ensure that limited-English proficient students do not 
go without educational services. And while this compromise is not 
perfect, I intend to support it.
  I want to thank the ranking gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling), and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) 
for their hard work on this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), another important member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Chairman, I thank my chairman for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise certainly in strong support of H.R. 2 today. 
This bill's renewed emphasis on accountability, local initiative, and 
student performance provides a very strong foundation for our Nation's 
schools as we move into the 21st century.
  I am particularly pleased with provisions found in Title VI that 
address the needs of small, rural schools based on a bill I introduced 
this past summer, the Rural Education Initiative Act, H.R. 2725.
  Over 20 percent of the students in this country attend small, rural 
schools; and many of these schools, of course, are found in my Nebraska 
district.
  For the most part, these schools offer students excellent educations 
and many benefits, including small classes, personal attention, strong 
family and community involvement. However, until now, the Federal 
formula grant programs have not addressed some of the unique funding 
needs of these districts because they do not produce enough revenue to 
carry out the program that the grant is intended to fund.
  The rural education initiative in H.R. 2 is completely optional. 
However, if a school district chooses to participate in exchange for 
strong accountability, the rural provisions will allow a small rural 
school district with fewer than 600 students to flex the small amounts 
that they receive from selected Federal formula grants into a lump sum 
and then receive a supplemental grant. No school district would receive 
less than $20,000. And to these very small districts, this can make a 
huge difference.
  The rural education initiative has broad bipartisan support and has 
been endorsed by over 80 education organizations including the National 
Education Association and the Association of School Administrators. It 
does provide a common-sense approach to using Federal dollars in the 
way that Congress intended, that is, to ensure all students, regardless 
of their background, have the opportunity to receive a high-quality 
education.
  I encourage support for the program and, of course, for the passage 
of H.R. 2.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2. It is a good bill 
I think we can support with bipartisan effort today. But it can be 
better. And it can also be made worse.
  It can be better by the acceptance, I feel, of some crucial 
amendments that will be offered later today, one of which will be 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) on gender equity issues; one by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) which will increase the authorization level 
of this program by $1.5 billion.
  But it is also a bill that can be made worse through a variety of 
amendments that may also be offered, one of which is the portability 
amendment, which I think given the roughly per capita $600 share that a 
student receives under Title I funding really does not go that far if 
it is attached as a voucher or portability type of provision rather 
than a targeted one.
  This week, we had over 350 students from around the country come to 
our Nation's Capitol to have a serious discussion about school 
violence. One of the common refrains that I have heard in speaking to a 
lot of the students which are from western Wisconsin is that we here at 
the Federal level and the State legislatures have an obligation to 
ensure that all the students in the country receive a quality education 
regardless of the wealth of their community, regardless of their own 
socioeconomic background.
  And in essence, in a nutshell, that is what the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act was really geared to do over the last 35 years 
and specifically the Title I funding.
  The Federal role in K-12 public education is relatively small, 
roughly 6 or 7 percent of the total spending that is going on out 
there, but it is a very important role because of the targeted nature 
in the limited funds in this bill, roughly $8.3 billion. It is targeted 
more to the disadvantaged, lower-income students in our school system. 
And because of that, we are able to leverage the money to get a bigger 
bang out of the buck.
  I am concerned with the directions that some of the amendments will 
go to as far as vouchers, portability that would dilute that leverage 
effect on the quality of education.
  I certainly hope that after today's debate and the amendment process 
that we go through and, hopefully, at the conclusion when we receive 
bipartisan support that we do not take up another measure tomorrow, 
referred to

[[Page H10416]]

as ``Straight A's'' that would effectively blow up everything that we 
do in essence today by just block-granting all the money back to the 
States, and we would lose that crucial targeted priority effect that we 
currently have right now in Title I funding.
  But one component of the bill I want to speak on, and I want to 
commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) in this regard, and 
that is the rural school initiative. We have got some changes in Title 
X funding that targets rural schools because of the unique nature that 
they always face and the challenges that they face, the isolated 
nature, the difficulty in recruiting teachers and administrators, the 
difficulty of them to join professional partnerships, consortiums for 
professional development purposes.
  What the rural school initiative will do is add greater flexibility, 
along with some accountability provisions, to give them more leeway in 
targeting this money and how best they can use it to get the best 
results in rural school districts.
  So I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for the efforts 
that they have put into it and the ranking members on the subcommittee 
that truly believe that this is a good bipartisan bill that, hopefully, 
at the end of the day, will receive all of our support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), our newest member on the committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to also address this House on a point, 
as a new Member, which I would like to make from the outset. I want to 
thank the chairman for his time and his dedication to allow all sides 
to have their way in committee and have their say. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for the amount of time that he put 
in and the amount that he afforded to all of us, and the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) as well.
  My purpose in rising to speak on this is because I have had the 
unique opportunity during the past 2 years in Georgia before I came to 
Congress to be the recipient of Title I funds as chairman of the State 
Board of Education to see actually what happened with Title I funds and 
to see actually what the effect of Federal regulations and lack of 
flexibility in some cases or lack of direction in others or in some 
cases too much direction really did.

                              {time}  1530

  All of us have been frustrated that this program, which is targeted 
to the most needy in our country, never seemed to bring about the 
results that we had hoped for. I think the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's efforts and the efforts of the committee in this bill, 
which I sincerely hope this House will pass in an overwhelming and 
bipartisan fashion, will bring about results, and I do so for four 
specific reasons:
  Number one, for the first time these funds go to systems and 
accountability is required in return. For the first time we are going 
to measure the response of systems in terms of the effectiveness of the 
use of this money in Title I, our most disadvantaged students.
  Number two, one of the most difficult problems in public education in 
dealing with Title I students is having the transportation necessary 
sometimes to move those students to the best possible school. Under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the school choice in 
this bill within the school district itself allows local 
superintendents to use Title I funds for the transportation of a Title 
I student out of one school to any other school regardless of the 
percentage of Title I students in that school. Environment oftentimes 
can be the main change in a child's attitude and in a child's learning 
ability, and the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in 
providing this is essential.
  Third, the reduction from the 50 percent requirement to the 40 
percent requirement in terms of percentage of Title I students in order 
to use funds for a schoolwide project is essential. I found in 
committee there was a little bit of a lack of understanding about what 
a schoolwide project is. A schoolwide project is the ability to take 
Title I funds, merge them with other funds, State, local and in some 
cases Federal, and use them in a broad-based program in the school that 
benefits all students. The reason this is important to Title I is as 
follows, and I want to use some very specific examples.
  In our youngest children, in kindergarten and in first grade, basic 
things like eye-hand coordination and team building programs necessary 
in the building blocks of learning are essential to involve not only 
children who are disadvantaged but children who may not fall in that 
category, because kids learn by example. And a schoolwide program 
allows money to be merged, money to be enhanced and kids to be put 
together in that learning experience. A second example is reading. To 
assume that all money should be targeted in Title I outside of a 
schoolwide project or with an overwhelmingly high requirement means 
that you lose the ability to merge those disadvantaged children with 
more advantaged children in the process of reading. In kindergarten 
through third grade, the most essential thing we can do in America's 
schools is improve the reading ability and reading comprehension of our 
children. This move by widening the ability to use funds and merge them 
for schoolwide programs and by lowering the threshold from 50 percent 
to 40 percent is going to ensure that those children most in need of 
better education also are exposed more to programs that involve those 
children who are already performing.
  I rise to support the chairman, the ranking member and the committee 
and urge this House to pass the reauthorization of ESEA.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 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. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for all their work on this legislation. The 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) put in a lot of hours as have the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who 
have really carried the bulk of the work around this legislation. But I 
think we had an opportunity in the markup of this legislation for all 
members to participate, and I think it was one of our better hours in 
this committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) who just spoke because of his willingness to sift through many 
hours of hearings and also the markup and contribute, I think, a unique 
perspective to some of the deliberations that we were having about this 
legislation and the impacts of some of the things that we wanted to do 
on local districts.
  The Federal Government has spent roughly $120 billion over the last 
three decades funding this program and the results have been mixed. We 
have closed the gap to some extent between rich and poor, majority and 
minority students, but the gap remains wide and it remains open. We 
ought to see in this legislation if in fact we can close that gap, and 
I think that this legislation has a chance of finishing the job.
  In return for our investment over the next 5 years of $40 to $50 
billion, we are asking that the States measure the performance of all 
students and that it set goals of closing the gap of achievement 
between majority and minority and the rich and poor students; we ask 
that children be taught by fully qualified teachers; we ask that 
schools and teachers be recognized and rewarded for their successes in 
improving student achievement; and that parents be given clear and 
accurate information about their child's educational progress and about 
the quality of their schools. And what we ask most of all in this bill 
is that we educate all children, each and every child, that no child is 
left behind. This can be done, it has been our rhetoric for 20 years, 
but it has not been what is happening in the classroom and it has not 
been what is happening on the ground.
  We understand now that all children can learn. We have enough 
information

[[Page H10417]]

to fully understand that children from disadvantaged backgrounds can 
learn as well as children from the suburbs and elsewhere. If we set 
standards, if we have high expectations of those students, we now know 
that that kind of success is possible. But we must have those 
expectations of success and we must have qualified teachers and we must 
monitor the achievement. It can be done.
  Just this last week, we learned that it happened again in the State 
of Texas where this same kind of decision that we are making here today 
was made in Texas under the leadership of everybody from Ross Perot to 
Ann Richards to George W. Bush. We learned last week that in Houston 
and Fort Worth, the gap was closed between majority and minority 
students, that in fact the achievement was coming closer together. We 
have seen it in Kentucky where many schools achieving the highest 
scores last year in reading and writing were in high poverty schools, 
in the South Bronx in the KIPP Academy, once again where we ask 
students to achieve high standards, where we have the expectations that 
they can achieve and we put them together with qualified teachers and 
good curriculum, those children in fact throw aside mediocrity, they 
throw aside the failure and they achieve as our expectations are in 
this country for all of our children.
  I believe that this legislation starts that process on a national 
scale. I believe that we can have qualified teachers in all classrooms, 
that we can have these expectations of our young children and they can 
meet those standards of achievement and we can have rich and poor 
children, majority and minority children learning at the same rate. But 
we will have to hold on to these standards as this bill continues to 
progress. I think we continue to need to provide additional funding and 
there will be amendments that address that, because one of the things 
we know about this system is it is, in fact, resource poor. But we will 
get to that later in the deliberations on this legislation.
  I want to thank every member of the committee and especially the 
committee chair and the ranking member and the subcommittee chair and 
the ranking member. This was long hours of negotiations, some of which 
went on until this morning, I guess, over some of this legislation. I 
want to thank the staff on both sides for all of their effort.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), another member of our committee.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I know that 
the goal of everyone here is to have quality education for everyone in 
this country. I do not like the approach. The approach has been going 
on for 30 years with us here in the Congress at the national level 
controlling and financing education. But the evidence is pretty clear 
there has been no success. It is really a total failure. Yet the money 
goes up continuously. This year it is an 8 percent increase for Title I 
over last year.
  In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education 
programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 
billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The 
violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There 
is no evidence that our approach to education is working.
  I just ask my colleagues to think about whether or not we should 
continue on this same course. I know the chairman of the committee has 
made a concerted effort in trying to get more local control over the 
schools, and I think this is commendable. I think there should be more 
local control. But I am also convinced that once the money comes from 
Washington, you really never can deliver the control back to the local 
authorities. So that we should give it serious thought on whether or 
not this approach is correct.
  Now, I know it is not a very powerful argument, but I might just 
point out that if Members read carefully the doctrine of enumerated 
powers, we find that it does not mention that we have the authority, 
but I concede that we have gotten around that for more than 35 years so 
we are not likely to reconsider that today. But as far as the 
practicality goes, we should rethink it.
  If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if 
everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really 
doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the 
school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or 
let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we 
think we can continue to do this.
  There are more mandates in this bill. Even though we like to talk 
about local control, there are more mandates, and this bill will 
authorize not only the $8 billion and an 8 percent increase this year, 
but over the next 5 years there will be an additional $28 billion added 
to the budget because of this particular piece of legislation.
  I ask my colleagues, give it serious thought. This does not deserve 
passage.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise as a graduate of and a believer in American public 
schools to support this legislation. I think there is a broad consensus 
among the Members of this Congress that a very top priority is that we 
improve our public schools. Our employers are asking for it, our 
parents are asking for it, our students and our teachers are asking for 
it, and I believe this legislation takes an important step in that 
direction.
  I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their 
excellent bipartisan cooperation in bringing this legislation to the 
floor. I think we should do more, and I hope that before we adjourn for 
the year, we find it in our agenda to enact the President's class size 
reduction initiative and put 100,000 qualified teachers in America's 
classrooms. I hope that we enact for the first time a meaningful 
Federal program to assist in the construction and reconstruction of our 
crumbling schools. But I think this legislation is an important step in 
the right direction.
  It is important for what it does, by placing tutors and learning 
materials and new opportunities in the hands of the children who are 
least likely to have those opportunities without this law. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) said, it is important for what it 
does not do, because it does not take us down the false promise path of 
vouchers and the privatization of our public schools. I commend the 
leaders of our committee for reaching that delicate balance.
  I would also like to thank the leaders of the committee for including 
in this bill two initiatives which I have sponsored and supported, one 
which attempts to stem the tide of school violence that we have seen in 
this country by the enactment of peer mediation programs that help 
young people work out their differences among themselves. I also thank 
the leadership for their inclusion of an effort that the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I have worked on to promote the education of 
young people in entrepreneurship, so that young people may learn ways 
that they may build businesses into successes to pay taxes to support 
our public school system.
  I will be offering an amendment later today which attempts to give 
local educators a new tool to expand the benefits of the ESEA to 
preschoolers, to 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds who are not yet in 
kindergarten. There is no rule that says that we should wait until our 
children are 5 years old before they start to learn. They sure do not 
wait until they are 5 years old. I believe that my amendment will 
liberate the resources of this bill to help local school decisionmakers 
make prekindergarten programs a more viable success in the future.
  I would urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to step forward,

[[Page H10418]]

show the country that we can act together for the benefit of America's 
education and pass this bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, education is about 
providing our children with the tools they need to get a good 
education, like flexibility, accountability and choice. After 30 years 
and $120 billion, Washington needs to realize it is not how much you 
spend but what you spend it on that counts.
  For too long, we have spent money educating bureaucrats in 
regulation, red tape and Federal control. But now we are returning 
control and flexibility to the States while at the same time demanding 
more accountability for your tax dollars.

                              {time}  1545

  I am especially proud that many of the reforms provided in this bill 
are mirrored after the efforts of my home State of Texas. Under the 
proven leadership of Governor George Bush, Texas has become the model 
for school accountability and student achievement. In fact, the 1998 
national assessment of education progress recently reported that eighth 
grade students in Texas scored higher on average than the entire Nation 
in writing skills.
  Madam Chairman, this proves once and for all that giving the States, 
teachers, and parents greater control over their children's education 
works. That is what this Congress is doing today.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I rise, first of all, to commend the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and my ranking members on the Democrat side, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), for crafting, I think, very significant and important 
bipartisan education legislation that will hopefully be signed by the 
President of the United States into law. That is a difficult task today 
in Washington.
  I also want to talk about three parts of this bill. First of all who, 
who does this bill help; secondly, what do we do to help those 
children; and, thirdly, why, why might we need to do more through the 
amendment process?
  First of all: Who?
  This is the title I bill for education that is targeted at the 
children who are most likely to drop out of our Nation's schools and 
possibly get into trouble, crime-related trouble. This is legislation 
targeted at children that are eligible for free and reduced lunches 
that oftentimes get their only hot meal at school. This is targeted at 
children who are below the poverty line, children that are in families 
making less than $16,600 per year. That is who we are trying to help. I 
think it is the most important thing that we can do in a bipartisan way 
as Members of Congress.
  Now what do we do in this legislation? Well, with the majority, some 
in the majority's help, and with the minority's help I attached an 
amendment in committee to broaden public school choice to give parents 
more choice as to where they send their children to school and 
hopefully not wait until the school fails and hopefully share good 
ideas. If Indiana has a good idea in public school choice, let us share 
it with Wisconsin and California.
  We have report cards in this legislation to share academic and report 
academic progress. We have teacher certification by the year 2003. We 
have school-wide projects.
  So, many good things, but it is not enough. What else do we need to 
do and why?
  I will be offering an amendment to increase title I funds by 1.5 
billion more dollars. I will offer that as the Roemer-Quinn-Kelly and 
Etheridge amendment, two Democrats and two Republicans. Why do we need 
to do that? Because of the strength of this bill. We put a good 
Republican-Democrat bill together that does require more from para-
professionals, that does require more from teachers, that is not fully 
funded. We need $18 billion more to fully fund this bill to get to 
every eligible child. Let us make sure we have this bill have the 
opportunity to work. I ask for bipartisan support for that amendment.
  To paraphrase President Kennedy, if not now, when for these poorest 
children; and if not for the poorest, the most disadvantaged and the 
most needy, who should we help in this society? Let us pass this 
bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the most needy, the 
poorest, and the most disadvantaged children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of 
this bill, and as a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I was really proud to see that we came together across the 
aisle on the committee and by a vote of 42 to 6 demonstrating that 
there is genuine and real evidence that on a bipartisan basis we can do 
what is right for the American people and for these children, children 
who are our future, and that is not just silly rhetoric; but we are 
facing a new millennium. I mean it genuinely. We are doing this for the 
children who are the future, and I think it is most important for me 
from my side of the aisle and in something that I have learned over the 
years, whether I was in the Parent/Teacher Association or a member of 
the Board of Education or someone on the committee, that we are really 
focusing on student achievement, because that is what this is all 
about, and not filling out the right forms and not supporting more red 
tape and regulation, but making sure that the Government's program, 
that our dollars are really going for quality programs, academic 
accountability, and local flexibility.
  That is something I believe deeply in, local control and the 
flexibility.
  I think that the most important thing is that we recognize that all 
States, school districts and schools should be held accountable for 
ensuring that students are raising their standards of academic 
accountability. Otherwise, why are we giving out more money into the 
classrooms? And the reports that will be issued to the parents and the 
community on student achievement and teacher qualifications, which is 
another component of this bill, all will be indicators of quality 
schools.
  I think that one of the most important things in the bill to stress 
again in another way is that we are sending dollars to the classroom 
and less dollars for bureaucracy, and to state it with precision. 
Ninety-five percent of the funds in this bill, as prescribed, will go 
to the classroom and very limited amount for State or local 
bureaucracies and reporting requirements.
  I think the thing that we must understand is that we are basing our 
instructional practices on the most current and proven research, and we 
are not using them as incentives for more trendy fads or more 
experimentation, but we want proven results and proven research to be 
funded.
  Then I guess finally I must say, and I hope that this will prove to 
be the case in the implementation of this legislation, that parent 
involvement will be an essential component of this title I legislation. 
Parents must be notified if their children are failing or if their 
schools are failing, and so we are including parents.
  As a former teacher and a mother, I just want to say, and I think my 
colleagues know this, but I want to stress it, I am not speaking out of 
theory here, but I am a former school teacher, a mother of three who 
went and graduated from public schools and also a school board member, 
and I know firsthand that State and local school districts will use 
that flexibility to build better schools and to ensure accountability 
and higher achievement levels, and I think that is what we owe this 
country as we face the new millennium.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I also want to add my congratulations to

[[Page H10419]]

the chairman and to the ranking members for their good work in putting 
together a bill that moves us forward on the work that was begun in 
1994, the idea of having a bill that gives all students the best chance 
to have the kind of education that we want our children to have.
  This bill focuses on accountability. It allows us to determine the 
academic progress based on disaggregated information so that we can 
assure that every student, majority and minority, whether they are rich 
or they are poor, are getting the kind of improvement and the kind of 
success that we want them to have in our public educational system. The 
bill allows for reporting to parents so that they know that the 
teachers are qualified and that their children are getting the kind of 
attention that they want, and they get to measure the performance of 
their schools so they can make decisions about where they send their 
children.
  This would allow us for the first time to define and require fully 
qualified teachers; and when put together with other legislation this 
committee has passed this year, it allows us to make sure that we give 
teachers the kind of support they need to be the very best. We are 
providing for mentoring; we are providing for good professional 
development, and that moves the whole system across because the most 
important thing, of course, is a qualified teacher in every classroom.
  We need to know that this bill also authorizes, it brings from a 
demonstration program to a fully authorized program the comprehensive 
school reform that allows schools to get sufficient moneys, to look out 
and see what programs are research based, proven effective, for that 
school to implement for a curriculum with standards that can be 
measured that brings in the parents, brings in volunteers, and brings 
in the kind of work that we need in our schools and gives them the 
flexibility of putting together a program to lift that entire school 
from literacy right through to every other subject and focus where they 
know that school needs the most attention.
  This is a bill that is worth supporting but still needs some 
attention, and we hope that before we wrap this up we will look at 
passing the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). I am 
going to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in an amendment that will 
make sure that all of the services the children get are comparable, 
that they have equal access to quality teachers, curriculum, and 
learning resources.
  With those things done, Madam Chairman, it is a good bill, and we 
would urge support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), another new member on the committee.
  (Mr. FLETCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the 
Student Results Act of 1999, the reauthorizations of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, and certainly laud the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for all of his work along with the ranking 
member in this bipartisan effort.
  Now the education of our children is one of our greatest 
responsibilities, and this bill is about children that often are born 
and know only poverty and failure. It is based on some very important 
principles, the first being accountability and rewards. For about 34 
years we spent $120 billion on programs in title I to help those 
disadvantaged students, and yet we have not seen the kind of results 
that we should have seen spending taxpayers' money to that degree. But 
we have a bill here now that gives that money and holds the students 
and the teachers, the local education administration, accountable. 
Certainly it empowers them, but it also has the kind of accountability 
that we can ensure that those students show improvement like we have 
seen in many other States.
  Flexibility is another important principle here with local control. 
It allows local teachers, parents, and local education administrators 
to really use the resources that match the local needs. A one-size-fits 
all does not work. The needs of my home State differ even within my own 
district in different counties, and I think this bill gives the kind of 
flexibility that is needed.
  Thirdly, it gives choice. It gives disadvantaged students the choice 
of public schools; and with this choice, I think it renews hope to 
those students. As my colleagues know, some schools in some areas, we 
could put a banner over them and say that all who enter, abandon hope, 
because they have continued to operate without empowering the students, 
without showing the students that they can improve, without giving them 
what they need; and yet this bill gives those students when schools 
fail to have a choice to go to another school, not to be robbed of 
hope, but to enter a school where they can be taught and mentored.
  It also empowers teachers. It also gives the students the hope of 
having a mentor or a teacher that is well trained, that is capable, as 
well as the classroom aides that have the kind of instruction and 
training that they need.

                              {time}  1600

  I am very glad to stand and speak in support of this bill and the 
work that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman 
of the committee, has done, and I certainly laud him. I am thankful for 
the opportunity to work on the committee.
  Again, the education of our children is one of our greatest 
responsibilities. I think this bill moves us in the direction of giving 
more local control and restoring hope to children.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, I would like to join in the celebration of 
bipartisanship on this bill. However, I think it is too early to 
celebrate, and we have to look at the context in which this bill is 
being offered today. It is being offered in a context where we have 
already this year passed an Ed-Flex bill which set the stage for giving 
a great deal of power and decision-making authority to the governors. 
Tomorrow or next week, we are going to be considering something called 
a Straight As bill, which is going to wipe out most of what we say 
today about the Title I concentration on the poorest youngsters in 
America.
  Within this context, we have to consider what we are doing today. 
When they move today to take the first step as sort of a guerilla, 
beachhead action, we are going to reduce the concentration required of 
poverty youngsters in a school from 50 percent to 40 percent, and this 
bill is just the beginning.
  This bill looks like a status quo bill with just a few innovations 
here and there, and a little increase, but it is setting the stage for 
something very different. I would certainly be quite happy if we could 
leave it up to our leadership on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. The people there have the institutional memory, and they 
have the dedication to education. We could do a great job if we did not 
have these overriding forces of the majority of the Republicans here 
who are pushing still to minimize the role of the Federal Government in 
education. One way or another they are going to do that, and the stage 
is being set today for the block grant. By reducing the thresholds from 
50 percent to 40 percent, that is the first stage, and then the 
Straight As bill will come along and it will push out the decision-
making of the Federal Government to a great degree and hand it over to 
the States. We are moving toward a block grant rapidly. The Senate, the 
other body, has a bill which is probably going to lead up to that block 
grant and move us in a direction that we do not want to go.
  I have several amendments that I will introduce later dealing with 
innovative programs which I think we should undertake at this time. 
This should not be a status quo bill. At a time when the United States 
is at peace and with unprecedented prosperity, we should be taking a 
great leap forward in education. This bill, which is going to be our 
reauthorization for 5 years, ought to be an omnibus-cyber-civilization 
education program to guarantee the brain power and leadership that we 
need in our present and for our expanding and future digitalized 
economy in a high-tech world.

[[Page H10420]]

  This Congress should take that step now. At the heart of this kind of 
an initiative, we should set the important revitalization of the 
infrastructure of our schools. That is, we should have a major program 
in this bill. It is germane. It is possible that in this bill we could 
have a program for school construction. I will be introducing an 
amendment which calls for a 25 percent increase in the Title I funding 
for health, safety and security improvements in infrastructure.
  I will also introduce an amendment for training paraprofessionals. 
That is the best source of teachers, and we have a shortage now and one 
that is going to get worse. The source for new teachers is 
paraprofessionals. Also, I will offer an amendment for an increase to 
train and develop staff for technology.
  We should not be content with the status quo. We should not accept 
the leadership outside of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
which wants us to do the least possible and to turn over the role and 
authority of the Federal Government to somebody else. We should push 
for what the American voters demand, and that is a major innovative, 
creative approach to the improvement of education.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, could I inquire as to the division of 
time.
  The Chairman pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. I want to congratulate all of the members on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce for all of their hard work, certainly the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) and to all of the chairs and ranking members who worked so 
hard and diligently to provide us here in the Congress with something 
that all of us could be proud of and something that all of us could 
vote for.
  Title I, Madam Chairman, as you know, is our Nation's educational 
safety net. In 1999 and 2000, the State of Tennessee's public schools 
will receive more than $130 million in Title I funding. These resources 
play a vital role in helping to keep poor schools or schools with a 
high percentage of poor students on a fiscal par with wealthy ones. Our 
responsibility is to ensure that these dollars drive better 
performance. This bill seeks to do that. This year, the Memphis City 
school system, which is in my district, received a Title I grant of 
approximately $27 million. This grant fully funds 114 schools which 
have a poverty index of at least 70 percent.
  Our challenge, as we consider legislation today that would authorize 
nearly $10 billion in programs for the Nation's low-income students, is 
to reverse the quality drain in our public schools and prepare every 
child for the 21st century marketplace. As important as Title I is to 
my district and State and Nation, Madam Chairman, we must recognize 
that it is not perfect.
  Three principles should guide our deliberations: investment, quality, 
and accountability. We must acknowledge Title I shortcomings and look 
to it for the 21st century, but we must resist the extremist impulse to 
gut the Federal role in support of our neediest students. We must focus 
our limited Federal education dollars on policies and practices that 
work to raise teacher achievement and improve teacher quality. 
Unfortunately, we will consider something very soon, a Straight As 
proposal that will not quite bring the bipartisanship and the 
cooperation and really the comity that we see pervading this debate 
right now, because quite frankly, many of us on this side of the aisle 
believe that Straight As guts many of the accountability provisions 
and, quite frankly, does not direct and channel the resources to those 
students who need it most.
  With regard to the reauthorization of this ESEA, what we need to do, 
it means allowing school districts to establish pre-K education 
programs; helping to equalize per pupil expenditures across States; 
providing parents and communities with valuable information about the 
qualifications of their teachers; training teachers that use technology 
in Title I schools; providing violence prevention training and early 
childhood and education programs, and ensuring gender equity.
  Madam Chairman, as we proceed with this debate, I believe it is 
imperative that we understand the direct connection between enhancing 
Title I and broader goals in our society. When I travel around my 
district and my State, principals describe for me the importance of 
providing all children with opportunities early and often. Principals 
and teachers recognize that if we fail to serve these children, we will 
see not only low achievement, but higher dropout rates. They know 
firsthand that this results in higher rates of incarceration and in 
lower overall levels of productivity.
  It is important to note that here in this body and State legislative 
bodies around the Nation, no one objects when we talk about building 
new prisons. No one objects to constructing new prison cells. We have 
an opportunity now to expand opportunities in the classroom. I support 
my colleagues on the Republican aisle and my colleagues on the 
Democratic aisle. We are ready to support this bill and move forward.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the 
Student Results Act, a bill to authorize a number of special population 
programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. H.R. 2 
renews most importantly the Title I program, our Federal commitment to 
help our most disadvantaged children achieve equal education 
opportunity.
  Since its inception in 1965, Congress has recognized the importance 
of the Title I program and has sought to strengthen it. Today, the 
purpose of Title I is to narrow gaps in academic achievement and help 
all students meet high academic standards. Yet, without clear 
performance measures and real accountability, Title I will do little to 
positively impact student achievement.
  With the help of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay); the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee; a lot of 
very good steps are included in this bill; and for that we should all 
be thankful.
  H.R. 2 maintains State content and performance standards; and, for 
the first time, sets a date certain for the implementation of State 
student performance assessments. These standards and assessments, which 
were first established during the 1994 reauthorization, which was 
another positive step for Title I, will help States and local districts 
and schools measure the academic progress of its students and identify 
those schools in need of assistance.
  H.R. 2 also strengthens existing accountability provisions by 
requiring States, school districts, and schools to report performance 
data by separate subgroups of students such as those who are 
economically disadvantaged and limited-English proficient. By 
encouraging States to make decisions about academic achievement based 
on disaggregated data, we eliminate averages, which can mask the 
shortfalls of certain groups and open the door to improvement for all 
children. And, in addition, H.R. 2 requires States who choose to 
participate in the Title I program to widely distribute information on 
the academic performance to parents and the public through report cards 
or other means. This change will help parents access the information 
they need to become a full partner in their child's education.
  The Student Results Act also ensures that the nearly 75,000 teachers' 
aides hired with Title I funds are qualified to provide instruction in 
reading, language arts, and math. Under current law, many of these 
aides provide direct instruction to our most disadvantaged students and 
with a minimum of a high school diploma or GED. We freeze the number of 
teachers' aides that could be hired with Title I funds; and within 3 
years, we require all aides to demonstrate the knowledge and ability to 
assist with instruction based on a local assessment.
  Finally, H.R. 2 ensures that no student will be forced to attend a 
failing school. Specifically, it requires schools

[[Page H10421]]

to notify parents of their ability to transfer to another public or 
charter school as soon as the home school is identified as one in need 
of school improvement. In addition, the bill makes the existing choice 
program viable by allowing States, if they so choose, to use Title I 
funds for transportation.
  With new flexibility and new authority to operate school-wide 
programs, the Student Results Act, when combined with Ed-Flex waivers, 
makes the Title I program extremely pliable. We challenge all States, 
school districts, and schools to determine how best to raise the 
academic standards of all children.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  (Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PHELPS. Madam Chairman, I want to first commend the chairman and 
the ranking member for their hard work together in a bipartisan manner 
to bring to us this important legislation today.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2 because it continues to provide the 
necessary investment in education to the low-income schools that need 
it the most. At the same time, it ensures that schools must produce 
results for the assistance they receive.
  As a former teacher and the husband of a teacher, I have seen 
firsthand the benefits investing in our kids can make and how, with 
quality education, even the poorest of our children can find better 
opportunities.
  I agree that education policy should remain a local issue, and that 
is why I cosponsored and supported the education flexibility act. But 
we as a Nation have a responsibility to ensure that no child is left 
out of the opportunities education provides. That is why I will support 
this bill because it says that no one will be left behind with 
substandard education.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2 focuses this limited Federal role on 
impoverished students and requires that schools and localities 
receiving Title I funds are held accountable for student performance. 
In addition, H.R. 2 ensures that our kids get a quality education with 
quality instructors. I also cosponsored the rural school initiative 
that targets the same children and will help us utilize the resources 
and allow flexibility to reach these same children.
  I want to urge my colleagues to remember these children and that we 
do our best for them and leave no child behind. Vote for H.R. 2.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), another member of the committee.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chairman, a couple of comments that I would like to make. As a 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I sat through 
the 3\1/2\ days of comment and testimony and debate about the bill 
before us today, and it is with a certain amount of reluctance that I 
rise to oppose the bill and urge Members to vote against it.
  I do so because I have come to the conclusion, one that I think is 
easy to reach by reading the bill, that this bill, while it proposes to 
offer more flexibility to States, it actually does quite the opposite. 
This bill is loaded with new mandates. It is heavy on prescriptions 
from the Federal Government. And it does so in a program that over the 
last 30 years has spent some $120 billion on a program that members of 
both parties, and in fact, some of the program's strongest advocates 
have described as a dismal failure.

                              {time}  1615

  I would like to read a quote that was issued today describing the 
bill from former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education. It says, ``The 
depressing bill on the House floor today suggests that when it comes to 
Federal education policy it matters not whether or not the Congress is 
Republican or Democrat. Neither seems to care about the kids. Neither 
is willing to preserve the status quo. Both are willing to throw good 
money after bad. This Title I bill is essentially more of the same, 
which is why the education establishment likes it, why the 
establishment's cheerleaders in the media have praised it and why it 
will not do anything good for America's neediest children, though it 
will continue to pump billions into the pockets of those employed by 
their failing schools. It perpetuates failed programs, failed reform 
strategies and a failed conception of the Federal role. To all intents 
and purposes, Lyndon Johnson is still making Federal education policy, 
despite 3\1/2\ decades of evidence that this approach does not work. A 
huge opportunity is being wasted. Needy kids are being neglected. The 
blob is being pacified. States and districts with broken reform 
strategies are being spurned and the so-called reforms in this package, 
while not harmful do not amount to a hill of beans. Every important 
idea for real change has been defeated, though some brave House members 
are going to try to resuscitate them,'' and I will end the quote there.
  It goes on to talk about tomorrow's debate on Straight A's as an 
opportunity for real reform and that we should keep our fingers 
crossed.
  The author of that quote, Chester Finn, again a former Assistant U.S. 
Secretary of Education, is right on the mark, Madam Chairman. We are 
for accountability. Accountability is a nice topic. It is one that we 
should be in favor of. This bill takes a bad program, adds $900 million 
in new authorization and proposes to fix this broken system with new 
Federal controls, new Federal definitions of quality and new Federal 
prescriptions for change at the local level.
  I submit that it will not work, and we should not have any reasonable 
expectation that it will work. I do not doubt that it makes us feel 
good here in Washington. From that perspective, this bill certainly 
satisfies a certain therapeutic need that we may have because we care 
about these children, and we want to see the dollars get to their 
classrooms, and we want to see them progress and improve academically. 
That is a goal to which we all can agree.
  The notion that we here in Washington, D.C. can establish new rules, 
new regulations, new mandates and expect them to take hold in all 50 
States, in tens of thousands of school districts, and make some 
meaningful improvement is the same failed philosophy that this Congress 
has pursued for decades. This bill truly is more of the same, and I am 
afraid to say that.
  One of the opportunities that we missed is in full portability. If we 
really believe that the fairness in education should be measured by the 
relationship between students, we should allow the dollars that are 
spent in this bill to follow the students when they try to seek the 
academic opportunity in the best setting, according to their parents' 
choice.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am glad to follow my colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), because obviously I support 
the bill generally; but I had some concern about the committee mark, 
and I am told that it has been corrected in dealing with limited 
English proficient children under title I. The concern I had was a 
parent would actually have to give permission for their children to be 
in a bilingual program or even be in title I if they were limited in 
English proficiency.
  I do not have any problem with parents being able to take their 
children out of a program, but to get that parent's permission before, 
and the wife that is a schoolteacher, oftentimes they do not have the 
correct address sometimes and the teachers are the ones that are going 
to have to follow up on making sure that parent gives that permission; 
and it is the children who will be in a no-man's land for a period of 
time. I know the manager's amendment, I think, corrected it where that 
child will be in that program and if the parent wants to remove them 
that is fine because it ought to always be the parent's decision.
  In fact, that is the way the practice is today because in my own 
district children say they do not want their children in bilingual, and 
it is not that difficult to remove them from that if the parent wants 
it.
  The bill overall is very good. In fact, even in the administration 
statement where it said that in supporting the bill that the House 
should change or should delete the provisions that would

[[Page H10422]]

require parental consent for title I services and jeopardize student 
access to the full title I benefit and opportunities of the high 
standards and, again, I think the manager amendment has done that and I 
congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member and the committee 
for being able to do that, because I have been in every public school 
in my district. I have watched bilingual programs work, and they do 
work. Students do not stay in there for their full life. They stay in 
there typically 2 to 4 years, depending on the students.
  Although I have to admit I was in a kindergarten class a few years 
ago, went to that class in September when they were first bilingual, 
went back in May and those children were speaking English. I read to 
them first in September in Spanish, and when I went back in May they 
were speaking English; and I read them an English book.
  So it works. That is what we need to make sure that we continue that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), another member of the committee, a 
subcommittee chair.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for yielding me this time; and I 
congratulate him on the pair of bills that he passed out of the 
subcommittee last week.
  I think if we take a look at the bills in context as a pair they are 
a very positive step forward, and tomorrow I will strongly urge my 
colleagues to support the Straight A's bill because I really believe 
that this is the type of program that addresses the needs of our 
neediest children.
  Today, however, we are talking about H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is what I believe 
is a tinkering around the edges of a program that needs much more 
radical reform. If we take a look at this program and the results that 
it has generated over the last 35 years, here are some of what my 
colleagues on the full committee have said about title I: all of the 
reports would indicate that we are not doing very well. Another quote, 
to date, 34 years later, title I, since its inception, we still see a 
huge gap in the achievement levels between students from poor families 
and students from nonpoor families.
  The message is consistent that title I has not achieved the kinds of 
results that we want, and that is why we need more significant reform 
than what we find in this bill. Other quotes, I do not want new money 
for title I until we fix it. I am not sure there ever was a time when 
title I was unbroken, but it is certainly broken now.
  I know what is currently the law. It is not working. We have failed 
those students over and over and over again. That is why we need more 
significant reform than what we have.
  Over the last couple of years, we have had the opportunity to travel 
around the country and also take a look at education programs here in 
Washington. The project was called Education at a Crossroads. It went 
to many of these areas where title I is, and what the people at the 
local level wanted is they did not want more mandates from Washington. 
What they wanted is more flexibility to serve the needs of their kids. 
They know the names of their kids. They know the needs of the kids in 
their classroom, and they said please free us up from the regulations 
and the mandates and let us serve the needs of our kids.
  What we have is, yes, we have reforms but we have a thick bill that 
is going to impose significantly more mandates on those schools that 
are going to end up focusing on red tape and meeting the process 
requirements rather than focusing on the needs of our kids. That is why 
tomorrow when we talk about Straight A's, that is what represents the 
type of change that we need, because what it says is, in exchange for 
accountability, where we measure the results of the learning for each 
of our kids, which is a huge new mandate on the States, but in exchange 
for that mandate we give the States and the local education agencies a 
tremendous amount of flexibility for how they meet the needs of their 
kids, so we measure performance and we give them flexibility. That is 
the kind of mirror package that we need to put together.
  The Education Department has hundreds of programs and hundreds of 
mandates. It is why we need reform. It is why we need flexibility with 
accountability.
  I am disappointed I have to oppose this bill, but I look forward 
tomorrow when we pass the Straight A's bill which will give States and 
local education agencies the types of flexibility they need to really 
improve education.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam 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. Madam Chairman, I believe very strongly in the 
Federal responsibility for public education. As we come to the end of 
this century, it is extremely heartwarming to me to be told by all 
sectors of our society that education is the most important 
responsibility that any level of government has and must assume if we 
are to fulfill the responsibilities that each of us has been given: the 
local school boards, the local communities, the parents, the State 
government, and finally the Federal Government.
  I was here in 1965 when Public Law 8910 passed and the first steps by 
the Federal Government were taken to try to encourage the Nation to do 
better in public education. After 25 years of debate, the one area that 
everybody, all of the different sectors of disagreement could come 
together on, was that the Federal Government at the very least had 
responsibility for the poor, the disadvantaged, the economically 
disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged children of our country.
  That is how Public Law 8910 came to pass. It has made tremendous 
strides. I disparage to hear that people are saying that it has made no 
difference. It has made tremendous difference, and there are numerous 
reports that document that. If that were not true, we would not be here 
today under a new majority leadership of this Congress again talking 
about the importance of Federal education programs. That is what we are 
here today under H.R. 2 debating.
  Title I has been a success. We in each of our districts are terribly 
frustrated when we pick up the test results and see the same schools at 
the bottom of the list, and so we want to do everything we can to help 
them; but I am not sure that standardizing everything, holding 
everything into precise measurement, is going to fit in each of our 
circumstances. So I would hope that we look at this legislation and 
look at its creative dynamic for us to meet our responsibilities in the 
next century.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, let me thank my ranking member and his 
counterpart in my home State, the chairman of the committee. These two 
gentlemen, along with the former governor, the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), have done 
an extraordinary job crafting the legislation that is now before the 
House, and I am pleased to rise in support of it.
  This is a major step forward. It is a bipartisan bill. It responds to 
the national cry that we focus more on the next generation and their 
education than perhaps we ordinarily would do.
  It is said that the difference between a statesman and a politician 
is the focus on the next generation versus the next election.

                              {time}  1630

  Well, this bill focuses on the next generation in an important way. I 
want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this bill and the subcommittee chairs.
  I want to say that I want to have the opportunity to offer a couple 
of amendments that I hope that will improve the bill. I know all who 
offer amendments are hopeful that we will be able to improve this bill. 
But the work that has been done should be applauded by this House.
  This is a bill that today represents a significant step forward; and, 
rather than take time out of the general debate to focus on my 
amendments, I really wanted to just rise and to ask this House to make 
sure that, at the conclusion, we have a bill that is at least as good 
that has been presented to us today, because I think this bill is 
worthy of this House's support.

[[Page H10423]]

  The amendments that I am going to offer is just going to attempt to 
even the playing field between Title I students and non-Title I 
students, between disadvantaged students and those who have a little 
more advantage in our States.
  This is supposedly one Nation under God. We should work through this 
bill to make sure that each child has an equal opportunity. We say that 
a lot, but we know that, in each of our States, different children have 
different sets of opportunities.
  The amendments that I am going to offer are going to seek to close 
those gaps and to make sure that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) said in his opening remarks, that the children who 
most need to have a qualified teacher have a qualified teacher, and 
that we have the opportunity in terms of equalizing spending to 
encourage our States to make sure that they are providing an equal 
playing field as the Federal Government comes in and hopefully provides 
a hand up for those who may be starting out in a deficit position.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support the Student Results Act, 
H.R. 2.
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, I am proud to be before the House today 
to support H.R. 2. This legislation will take a step in the right 
direction, without question, to improve the Title I education program 
for our children.
  Providing more flexibility and accountability for Title I is exactly 
what our children need in disadvantaged areas. The improvement in Title 
I would be felt most in our inner cities where Title I funds repeatedly 
get caught in a bureaucratic maze and too few of those dollars actually 
reach our children.
  However, I also want to commend the committee for realizing that 
rural schools must also be helped. Within H.R. 2, there is a section 
that specifically will allow the rural schools to receive the aid that 
they might not otherwise receive.
  Often rural schools are at a disadvantage in receiving formula 
grants, like Title I, and competitive grants. These communities simply 
do not have the tax base and the access to grant writers that some of 
their bigger urban counterparts do. In addition, the formulas are 
skewed in some cases to strike against rural areas even if they have a 
high poverty quotient.
  H.R. 2 successfully, although not completely, addresses this problem 
by including a rural schools initiative that will provide additional 
flexibility and funds for those underserved populations.
  I hope that all of my colleagues can join together and support this 
great piece of legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, my 
ranking member, for his time.
  Madam Chairman, I want to say at the beginning how much I appreciate 
the efforts by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) and my distinguished colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and for 
their amendment; and that is the issue to which I would like to speak 
for just a second, Madam Chairman.
  Their voices on this issue will and have made an enormous difference, 
not just in this Congress, but in the lives of young girls who will 
grow up to be women and leaders in their communities for decades and 
generations to come.
  This amendment that they are offering reaffirms our commitment, our 
Nation's commitment to offer girls equal educational opportunities from 
the day they start school. That is when the difference has to be made, 
right out of the box, right from the beginning.
  This amendment will provide important training and resources for our 
teachers so that they are aware of their need to be equitable in how 
they pursue their educational instructions in the classroom.
  Different expectations lead to different academic performances. So if 
a girl in the classroom is not expected to excel in math or in science, 
which leads to careers that are lucrative in terms of their financial 
ability and are productive and are important in terms of the overall 
community, if they are not expected to excel in those areas, they will 
not excel in those areas.
  So the attitude that is brought into the classroom by the teacher is 
critical, and that requires training and understanding.
  Over time, if this is not done, what we have is a situation which 
leads to inequality and then just enormous missed opportunities later 
on for these girls and then eventually women. With training, teachers 
could learn to get the most out of every student regardless of their 
gender.
  Then, fourthly, let me just say that this amendment will help America 
close an alarming gender gap between boys and girls in technology: 
math, science, but also in technology. Experts predict that 65 percent 
of all the jobs in the year 2010 will require technological skills, but 
only a small percentage of girls take computer science classes or go on 
to pursue degrees in math and science. If girls are not being 
encouraged in these fields, they and their families are, as I said, 
going to suffer economically in the future.
  In conclusion, Madam Chairman, let me just say that it used to be 
said that teachers can change lives with just the right mix of chalk 
and challenges. Well, in today's high-tech world, the challenges are 
there, but the chalk is not enough.
  This amendment will put resources into our schools that will pay 
dividends for generations to come. It will create a sensitivity. It 
will create a training. It will create an aura that girls can do 
anything they set their minds to do. They can be challenged. They can 
meet that challenge. They can grow up with careers that will provide 
them, their families, and their communities great, not only challenge, 
but reward in the future.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and all my colleagues 
who have worked on this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ose) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________