[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10621-H10656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      STUDENT RESULTS ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2.

                              {time}  1104


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2) to send more dollars to the classroom and for certain 
other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, October 20, 1999, Amendment No. 4 by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) had been disposed of. Three hours and 20 minutes 
remain for consideration of the bill under the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Armey:
       Before section 111 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 111. PUPIL SAFETY AND FAMILY SCHOOL CHOICE.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 1115A of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 6316) the following:

     ``SEC. 1115B. PUPIL SAFETY AND FAMILY SCHOOL CHOICE.

       ``(a) In General.--If a student is eligible to be served 
     under section 1115(b), or attends a school eligible for a 
     schoolwide program under section 1114, and--
       ``(1) becomes a victim of a violent criminal offense while 
     in or on the grounds of a public elementary school or 
     secondary school that the student attends and that receives 
     assistance under this part, then the local educational agency 
     shall allow such student to attend any other public or 
     private elementary school or secondary school, including a 
     sectarian school, in the same State as the school where the 
     criminal offense occurred, that is selected by the student's 
     parent; or
       ``(2) the public school that the student attends and that 
     receives assistance under this part has been designated as an 
     unsafe public school, then the local educational agency may 
     allow such student to attend any other public or private 
     elementary school or secondary school, including a sectarian 
     school, in the same State as the school where the criminal 
     offense occurred, that is selected by the student's parent.
       ``(b) State Educational Agency Determinations.--
       ``(1) The State educational agency shall determine, based 
     upon State law, what actions constitute a violent criminal 
     offense for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) The State educational agency shall determine which 
     schools in the State are unsafe public schools.
       ``(3) The term `unsafe public schools' means a public 
     school that has serious crime, violence, illegal drug, and 
     discipline problems, as indicated by conditions that may 
     include high rates of--
       ``(A) expulsions and suspensions of students from school;
       ``(B) referrals of students to alternative schools for 
     disciplinary reasons, to special programs or schools for 
     delinquent youth, or to juvenile court;
       ``(C) victimization of students or teachers by criminal 
     acts, including robbery, assault and homicide;
       ``(D) enrolled students who are under court supervision for 
     past criminal behavior;
       ``(E) possession, use, sale or distribution of illegal 
     drugs;
       ``(F) enrolled students who are attending school while 
     under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol;
       ``(G) possession or use of guns or other weapons;
       ``(H) participation in youth gangs; or
       ``(I) crimes against property, such as theft or vandalism.
       ``(c) Transportation and Tuition Costs.--The local 
     educational agency that serves the public school in or the 
     grounds on which the violent criminal offense occurred or 
     that serves the designated unsafe public school may use funds 
     hereafter provided under this part to provide transportation 
     services or to pay the reasonable costs of transportation or 
     the reasonable costs of tuition or mandatory fees associated 
     with attending another school, public or private, selected by 
     the student's parent. The local educational agency shall 
     ensure that this subsection is carried out in a 
     constitutional manner.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--Any school receiving assistance 
     provided under this section shall comply with title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and not 
     discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
       ``(e) Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
     Act.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the requirements of part B of the Individuals with

[[Page H10622]]

     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
       ``(f) Maximum Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the amount of assistance provided under this 
     part for a student shall not exceed the per pupil expenditure 
     for elementary or secondary education, as appropriate, by the 
     local educational agency that serves the school--
       ``(1) where the violent criminal offense occurred for the 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the offense 
     occurred; or
       ``(2) designated as an unsafe public school by the State 
     educational agency for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the designation is made.
       ``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this Act or any other 
     Federal law shall be construed to prevent a parent assisted 
     under this section from selecting the public or private 
     elementary school or secondary school that a child of the 
     parent will attend within the State.
       ``(h) Consideration of Assistance.--Assistance used under 
     this section to pay the costs for a student to attend a 
     private school shall not be considered to be Federal aid to 
     the school, and the Federal Government shall have no 
     authority to influence or regulate the operations of a 
     private school as a result of assistance received under this 
     section.
       ``(i) Continuing Eligibility.--A student assisted under 
     this section shall remain eligible to continue receiving 
     assistance under this section for 5 academic years without 
     regard to whether the student is eligible for assistance 
     under section 1114 or 1115(b).
       ``(j) Tuition Charges.--Assistance under this section may 
     not be used to pay tuition or mandatory fees at a private 
     elementary school or secondary school in an amount that is 
     greater than the tuition and mandatory fees paid by students 
     not assisted under this section at such private school.
       ``(k) Sectarian Institutions.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a 
     State constitution that prohibits the expenditure of public 
     funds in or by sectarian institutions.''
       After part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965, as proposed to be added by section 171 of the bill, 
     insert the following:

                      PART F--ACADEMIC EMERGENCIES

     SEC. 181. ACADEMIC EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Academic Emergencies.--Title I of the Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                     ``PART H--ACADEMIC EMERGENCIES

     ``SEC. 1801. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the ``Academic Emergency Act''.

     ``SEC. 1802. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     funds to States that have 1 or more schools designated under 
     section 1803 as academic emergency schools to provide parents 
     whose children attend such schools with education 
     alternatives.
       ``(b) Grants to States.--Grants awarded to a State under 
     this part shall be awarded for a period of not more than 5 
     years.

     ``SEC. 1803. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       ``(a) Designation.--The Governor of each State may 
     designate 1 or more schools in the State that meet the 
     eligibility requirements set forth in subsection (b) or are 
     identified for school improvement under section 1116(b) as 
     academic emergency schools.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be designated as an academic 
     emergency school, the school shall be a public elementary 
     school--
       ``(1) with a consistent record of poor performance by 
     failing to meet minimum academic standards as determined by 
     the State; and
       ``(2) in which more than 50 percent of the children 
     attending are eligible for free or reduced price lunches 
     under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
       ``(c) List to Secretary.--To receive a grant under this 
     part, the Governor shall submit a list of academic emergency 
     schools to the State educational agency and the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1804. APPLICATION AND STATE SELECTION.

       ``(a) Application.--Each State in which the Governor has 
     designated 1 or more schools as academic emergency schools 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary that includes 
     the following:
       ``(1) Assurances.--Assurances that the State shall--
       ``(A) use the funds provided under this part to supplement, 
     not supplant, State and local funds that would otherwise be 
     available for the purposes of this part;
       ``(B) provide written notification to the parents of every 
     student eligible to receive academic emergency relief funds 
     under this part, informing the parents of the voluntary 
     nature of the program established under this part, and the 
     availability of qualified schools within their geographic 
     area;
       ``(C) provide parents and the education community with 
     easily accessible information regarding available education 
     alternatives; and
       ``(D) not reserve more than 4 percent of the amount made 
     available under this part to pay administrative expenses.
       ``(2) Information.--Information regarding each academic 
     emergency school, for the school year in which the 
     application is submitted, regarding the number of children 
     attending such school, including the number of children who 
     are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the 
     level of student performance.
       ``(b) State Awards.--
       ``(1) State selection.--From the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of section 1814 in any fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall award grants to States in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(2) Priority.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that each State that completes an application in 
     accordance with subsection (a) shall receive a grant of 
     sufficient size to provide education alternatives to not less 
     than 1 academic emergency school.
       ``(3) Award criteria.--In determining the amount of a grant 
     award to a State under this part, the Secretary shall take 
     into consideration the number of schools designated as 
     academic emergencies in the State and the number of eligible 
     students in such schools.
       ``(4) State plan.--Each State that applies for funds under 
     this part shall establish a plan--
       ``(A) to ensure that the greatest number of eligible 
     students who attend academic emergency schools have an 
     opportunity to receive an academic emergency relief funds; 
     and
       ``(B) to develop a simple procedure to allow parents of 
     participating eligible students to redeem academic emergency 
     relief funds.

     ``SEC. 1805. SELECTION OF ACADEMIC EMERGENCY SCHOOLS AND 
                   AWARDS TO PARENTS.

       ``(a) Selection.--The State shall select academic emergency 
     schools based on --
       ``(1) the number of eligible students attending an academic 
     emergency school;
       ``(2) the availability of qualified schools near the 
     academic emergency school; and
       ``(3) the academic performance of students in the academic 
     emergency school.
       ``(b) Insufficient Funds.--If the amount of funds made 
     available to a State under this part is insufficient to 
     provide every eligible student in a selected academic 
     emergency school with academic emergency relief funds, the 
     State shall devise a random selection process to provide 
     eligible students in such school whose family income does not 
     exceed 185 percent of the poverty line the opportunity to 
     participate in education alternatives established pursuant to 
     this part.
       ``(c) Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the funds made available to a State 
     under this part and not reserved under section 1804(a)(1)(D), 
     a State shall pay not more than $3,500 in academic emergency 
     relief funds to the parents of each participating eligible 
     student.
       ``(2) Period of awards.--The academic emergency relief 
     funds awarded to parents of participating eligible students 
     shall be awarded for each school year during the grant period 
     which shall terminate--
       ``(A) when a participating eligible student is no longer a 
     student in the State; or
       ``(B) at the end of 5 years,
     whichever occurs first.
       ``(3) Duration.--A State shall continue to receive funds 
     under this part for distribution to parents of participating 
     eligible students throughout the 5-year grant period.

     ``SEC. 1806. QUALIFIED SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Qualifications.--A State that submits an application 
     to the Secretary under section 1804 shall publish the 
     qualifications necessary for a school to participate as a 
     qualified school under this part. At a minimum, each such 
     school shall--
       ``(1) provide assurances to the State that it will comply 
     with section 1810;
       ``(2) certify to the State that the amount charged to a 
     parent using academic relief funds for tuition and fees does 
     not exceed the amount for such tuition and fees charged to a 
     parent not using such relief funds whose child attends the 
     qualified school (excluding scholarship students attending 
     such school); and
       ``(3) report to the State, not later than July 30 of each 
     year in a manner prescribed by the State, information 
     regarding student performance.
       ``(b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used 
     in such report described in subsection (a)(3), except that 
     the State may request such personal identifiers solely for 
     the purpose of verifying student performance.

     ``SEC. 1807. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Use of Academic Emergency Relief Funds.--A parent who 
     receives academic emergency relief funds from a State under 
     this part may use such funds to pay the costs of tuition and 
     mandatory fees for a program of instruction at a qualified 
     school.
       ``(b) Not School Aid.--Academic emergency relief funds 
     under this part shall be considered assistance to the student 
     and shall not be considered assistance to a qualified school.

     ``SEC. 1808. EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Annual Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Contract.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall enter into a contract, subject to amounts 
     specified in Appropriation Acts, with an evaluating agency 
     that has demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, 
     for the conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of the 
     education alternative program established under this part.
       ``(2) Annual evaluation requirement.--The contract 
     described in paragraph (1) shall require the evaluating 
     agency entering into such contract to annually evaluate the 
     education alternative program established

[[Page H10623]]

     under this part in accordance with the evaluation criteria 
     described in subsection (b).
       ``(3) Transmission.--The contract described in paragraph 
     (1) shall require the evaluating agency entering into such 
     contract to transmit to the Comptroller General of the United 
     States the findings of each annual evaluation under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(b) Evaluation Criteria.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     establish minimum criteria for evaluating the education 
     alternative program established under this part. Such 
     criteria shall provide for--
       ``(1) a description of the effects of the programs on the 
     level of student participation and parental satisfaction with 
     the education alternatives provided pursuant to this part 
     compared to the educational achievement of students who 
     choose to remain at academic emergency schools selected for 
     participation under this part; and
       ``(2) a description of the effects of the programs on the 
     educational performance of eligible students who receive 
     academic emergency relief funds compared to the educational 
     performance of students who choose to remain at academic 
     emergency schools selected for participation under this part.

     ``SEC. 1809. REPORTS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       ``(a) Interim Reports.--Three years after the date of 
     enactment of the Student Results Act of 1999, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit an interim report 
     to Congress on the findings of the annual evaluations under 
     section 1808(a)(2) for the education alternative program 
     established under this part. The report shall contain a copy 
     of the annual evaluation under section 1808(a)(2) of 
     education alternative program established under this part.
       ``(b) Final Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a 
     final report to Congress, not later than 7 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Student Results Act of 1999, 
     that summarizes the findings of the annual evaluations under 
     section 1808(a)(2).

     ``SEC. 1810. CIVIL RIGHTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A qualified school under this part shall 
     not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national 
     origin, or sex in carrying out the provisions of this part.
       ``(b) Applicability and Construction With Respect to 
     Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, subsection (a) shall not apply to a qualified 
     school that is controlled by a religious organization if the 
     application of subsection (a) is inconsistent with the 
     religious tenets of the qualified school.
       ``(2) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With 
     respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to prevent a parent from 
     choosing, or a qualified school from offering, a single-sex 
     school, class, or activity.

     ``SEC. 1811. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) In General.--Nothing in this part shall be construed 
     to prevent a qualified school that is operated by, supervised 
     by, controlled by, or connected to a religious organization 
     from employing, admitting, or giving preference to persons of 
     the same religion to the extent determined by such school to 
     promote the religious purpose for which the qualified school 
     is established or maintained.
       ``(b) Sectarian Purposes.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to prohibit the use of funds made available under 
     this part for sectarian educational purposes, or to require a 
     qualified school to remove religious art, icons, scripture, 
     or other symbols.

     ``SEC. 1812. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       ``Nothing in this part shall affect the rights of students, 
     or the obligations of public schools of a State, under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.).

     ``SEC. 1813. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part:
       ``(1) The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State 
     educational agency'' have the same meanings given such terms 
     in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(2) The term ``eligible student'' means a student 
     enrolled, in a grade between kindergarten and 4th, in an 
     academic emergency school during the school year in which the 
     Governor designates the school as an academic emergency 
     school, except that the parents of a child enrolled in 
     kindergarten at the time of the Governor's designation shall 
     not be eligible to receive academic emergency relief funds 
     until the child is in first grade.
       ``(3) The term ``Governor'' means the chief executive 
     officer of the State.
       ``(4) The term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or 
     other person standing in loco parentis.
       ``(5) The term ``poverty line'' means the income official 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       ``(6) The term ``qualified school'' means a public, 
     private, or independent elementary school that meets the 
     requirements of section 1806 and any other qualifications 
     established by the State to accept academic emergency relief 
     funds from the parents of participating eligible students.
       ``(7) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.
       ``(8) The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States and 
     the District of Columbia.

     ``SEC. 1814. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2004, 
     except that the amount authorized to be appropriated may not 
     exceed $100,000,000 for any fiscal year.''.
       (b) Repeals.--The following programs are repealed:
       (1) International education exchange program.--Section 601 
     of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5951).
       (2) Fund for the improvement of education.--Part A of title 
     X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
       (3) 21st century community learning centers.--Part I of 
     title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8241 et seq.).

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the committee for 
bringing this legislation to the floor. If I might, I would like to 
reflect for just a moment on a personal basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I can say that I am sure my own feelings on the 
subject of education are pretty much the same as everybody else in this 
body. I have dealt with education all of my life, as a student, as a 
parent, as a teacher, and now as a grandparent and a legislator.
  One of the things that I have felt very seriously about in the last 
few days as I have thought about this bill is that all of a sudden, now 
as a grandparent, Mr. Chairman, I realize that these children for whom 
we talk about education today, my grandchildren, are more precious, or 
seem to be more precious to me at this time in my life, even than my 
own were at that time. Maybe that is just the business of being a 
grandparent and knowing that one's grandkids are more precious than 
your own children.
  But we are really talking about some very serious business with some 
very important people in our lives. I cannot think of anything that any 
society that can be that can ever be more important than educating and 
keeping safe and happy the children.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some unsettling circumstances out there that 
are faced by the children of this Nation, and I just want to review a 
few of them. There are 15,000 schools in America that are on a list of 
most-troubled Title I schools. One hundred of these have been on the 
list for 10 years or more. There are children who are being abandoned 
by the bureaucracy that does not seem to care, and we must find an 
alternative. Even perhaps more frightening, Mr. Chairman, there are 
children that feel trapped in violent schools. There are children that 
go to school and are assaulted in school, and they are scared. This 
amendment seeks to address that.
  I want to ask just a very simple question. As we mark up this bill 
and we relate to all of the issues we have here, can we not stop for a 
moment and say that no child should be trapped and no parent should 
feel trapped by a circumstance where that child must have as their only 
alternative to stay in a school that is a failure, a school that the 
government might likely look at and say, that school is a disaster 
area. We have those in States across the country and in cities across 
the country. That school is a complete disaster area. If we had a 
flood, if we had a tornado and we saw disaster and we saw the children 
stuck in the muck and the mire of that disaster, we would declare it a 
disaster and we would do something about it. What I am asking us to do 
with this amendment is give the governor an opportunity to look at a 
school and say, that school is a disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, most of us, thank goodness, as parents with families 
will make that decision on our own. We would say, my child is in a 
school that is a disaster, and I have the money, I have the ability, 
and I am going to pick up that child and move him some place else, and 
we do it. I pick up my whole family, my whole household and move it to 
another neighborhood. We do that. One does not have to go house hunting 
very many times and talk to many people who sell houses in America to 
realize that one of the first concerns that we have is what is the 
quality of the schools. But some people do not have those resources, 
some people do not have those options. Some people

[[Page H10624]]

feel like, my child is stuck there and I do not have the money to 
change it.
  So I am asking in this bill to say to those parents, you should be 
able to get, if your governor determines that that school is a disaster 
and you feel like your child is stuck and you do not have any 
resources, you should be able to apply for and receive a scholarship of 
$3,500 so that you can take your child and pick your child up and move 
your child to a school that is not a disaster area. That does not 
strike me as too much to ask.
  And then in another way, we are addressing another concern that I 
have. If my child or grandchild came home from school and had been a 
victim of assault on the school grounds and was injured, sometimes 
these children are stabbed, beaten, I would be able to pick up my 
child, my son would be able to pick up my grandchild and move him out 
of that school, get him someplace else, get him safe. A lot of families 
cannot do that.
  I am asking us here as a Congress to take a look at that mother and 
father and say, do we not have a heart for you? Are we ready to let you 
look at your baby and say honey, you have to go back there?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to think about that. A 
mother standing there in front of her baby, sixth, seventh grade child, 
coming up, bloody, battered, bruised and scared, frightened. These 
children sometimes are terrified, and to have that mother have no 
recourse but to say honey, cannot help it. You have to go back there 
tomorrow, there is no place else for you to go, is not acceptable. 
Fortunately, most children do not face that. Are we not lucky that most 
children do not have that fear? But some children do.
  I am saying, we should be able to find in this bill, in this 
amendment some resources that say, if you are that mother, there is a 
place for you to go. If you do not have the money so that you can take 
that child to another school, there is a place for you to go. You do 
not have to say, go back there and be scared. You can apply for and 
receive a $3,500 scholarship and take your child someplace else.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for all of the money in the world 
forever. I am saying, I think these are two good ideas to address what 
might be the academic disaster we find in a school itself, or the 
academic and personal disaster we find in a child's battered and beaten 
body. I am saying, give us $100 million, let it be available to the 
governors, to the families for 5 years and see if it works for the 
children. Five years from now, we can test the children and see if, in 
fact, they are succeeding in their new school or perhaps with their new 
safety and security. If it does not work in their lives, we will not 
come back and ask for more, there is no need to reauthorize it. But for 
5 years, Mr. Chairman, for 5 years, can we reach out a heart and a hand 
of compassion to children that are today stuck in schools that are 
disasters or who have had in their own personal life a horribly 
frightening, scary, tragic disaster.
  I have seen that, Mr. Chairman. I have seen the child that has come 
home from school beaten up because they just did not fit in. That child 
does not have to go back and should not.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a grandfather. I have three grandchildren in 
public schools, and I am concerned about them as well as any other 
grandparent.
  But I was lost by the logic or illogic of the last statement made 
about compassion for a seventh grader who is in an unsafe environment 
and that parent being able to take that child out of that unsafe 
environment and put that child in a safe environment.
  I would think that to take one child out of an unsafe environment and 
leave the rest of the children in that unsafe environment does not make 
much sense. I would think one would take the disruptive children, the 
ones who are causing the unsafe environment, out of that situation and 
leave all of the children in a safe environment.
  I, too, am a grandparent. I have many reasons why I oppose this 
amendment. The Committee on Education and the Workforce deliberated at 
length on the issue of private school vouchers. Then we voted 
overwhelmingly in committee to reject that concept.
  Second, if this amendment were adopted, it would destroy the 
bipartisanship we developed on this bill during the last 12 or 14 
months. It would also jeopardize all the progress that we are making in 
improving Title I.
  Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this is a reckless amendment that would 
divert funds from poor public schools to parochial schools. It provides 
no oversight of the quality of education provided with Federal funds, 
which is the opposite of what we are doing in the rest of this bill.
  Also, Federal funding of private school vouchers raises serious 
constitutional issues that could jeopardize the independence of 
religious schools and disrupt the administration of Title I programs.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill would have a very discriminatory 
effect. Those students who get private school vouchers can receive up 
to $3,500 in vouchers, which is substantially more than per pupil 
allocation for current Title I students who are in the public schools.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader.
  Most of us in this Chamber are pretty fortunate. Our kids go to good 
schools. I know that my kid went to good public schools in my district; 
and, frankly, the schools in my district, by and large, are very good 
schools.
  But we also know that we have got children trapped in very bad 
schools around our country. The U.S. Department of Education keeps 
track of a list of academic emergencies. Some of these schools have 
been on this list for 10 years. I wonder how long we can look the other 
way when children are trapped in schools that have no chance of 
success. We are imprisoning those children for the rest of their lives.
  Yes, Title I, we have spent an awful lot of money over the years. 
Yes, we have been able to save some children. The point here is that 
this is a pilot program aimed at the worst schools in the country to 
give parents some ability to help their children. The Governor has to 
have declared that the school is an academic emergency. The program is 
completely voluntary so that no State is forced to do this.
  But the point I think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is 
trying to bring here is that it is time for us to help those who are 
most in need. Yes, if one is trapped in a bad school and one is a 
middle-income parent, one is a wealthy parent, one has school choice. 
One has an ability to take one's child out of that school and move them 
to another school.
  But if one is locked in an inner-city school where there is an 
academic emergency, those parents do not have that ability. How can we 
continue to look the other way when we know that there are kids trapped 
in these kinds of schools?
  I think that this is an idea worth trying. It is a separate $200 
million pilot project for 5 years. Let us see if it works. What do we 
have to fear from trying this program? It will not deny any school any 
money that they would already get under Title I and other Federal 
education programs. It would be in addition to that money.
  So let us give these kids a real chance at success and a real shot at 
the American dream that they do not have today.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is contradictory to the underlying 
mission of H.R. 2. Very simply, this amendment would turn Title I into 
a private school voucher program. Obviously, I belong to the 
grandfather caucus, too. Here in this caucus, all of us are seeking the 
best possible education for our children, especially those who are in 
unsafe schools or are the victim

[[Page H10625]]

of a violent act or in a low-performing school.
  However, taking precious Federal funding out of public schools and 
allowing it to go to private and parochial schools will not solve the 
problems of our educational system. In fact, the Catholic conference 
and every major educational group is opposed to voucherizing Title I.
  H.R. 2 will focus on the achievement of individual children and at 
risk subgroups through this aggregation of data on State assessments. 
In addition, H.R. 2 strengthens both teacher quality by requiring a 
high qualified teacher in every classroom by 2003 and upgrading the 
qualifications of paraprofessionals.
  This amendment will detract from this focus; and worse, by taking 
resources away from public schools, make it more difficult to implement 
these much needed reforms.
  This amendment will not achieve the goal of increased student 
achievement, this amendment will make it harder for schools and 
communities to produce students who can go on to successful careers and 
high paying jobs. We should not and cannot pass this amendment today.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am willing to admit something today that I think 
needs to be stated. It is something that is seldom heard in this body, 
seldom heard in any other legislative arena, certainly never heard in 
State legislatures, and certainly never heard on school boards. But it 
is something I believe to be true, I believe to be true for every one 
of us. That is, that we do not know, not my colleagues, not I, no one 
in this room, nor in the legislature, nor in the school board, no one 
knows what the best education is for every child in America.
  We can hope, we can do what we can with whatever tools we have to 
provide a good quality education for America's children. But we do not 
know what the best educational environment is for every child. Only a 
parent is entrusted with that ability and responsibility. Even they can 
make some wrong decisions I know, but they will make better decisions 
about where their children should go to school than I can or my 
colleagues, frankly, or even members of school boards.
  That is why I am willing to relinquish this power, this authority and 
give it to parents. But it is also why this issue is so controversial, 
because, frankly, my friends, the debate we have here today is not 
really about education. It is about power. It is about who controls the 
power over the educational system and the hundreds of millions of 
dollars, billions of dollars that go into it and the thousands and 
thousands of people employed in there. That is what the real issue is 
today, who will control it.
  How can the education establishment keep control of the billions of 
dollars that come into it? Well, the only way they can do that is by 
maintaining a one-size-fits-all government monopoly school system. The 
thing that frightens them to death, the scariest word in the English 
language to the people in this bureaucracy, to the anti-education 
people who run organizations like the National Education Association, 
the scariest word to them is freedom, freedom to let one's kid go 
wherever one wants to go, wherever that child should be placed. Because 
they want the control over the dollars and over the environment in 
which those children will be taught.
  How can it be that those of us who ask for freedom for those parents 
are considered to be doing something that jeopardizes the educational 
quality of the schools?
  It may, in fact, be, as a Member of the opposite side here said 
earlier, that one child leaving a school, why should not we worry about 
all the others if it is an unsafe school? Well, in fact, of course what 
we are saying here is that school may be a very good school for the 
majority of children in it. Not every child is affected the same way by 
that learning environment.
  But if there is one there that is having a horrible experience but is 
economically not able to make the same decision that my colleagues and 
I might be able to make for our own kids, why should we not let the 
child go? What difference does it make to say they should be set free? 
How come that so rankles us?
  It is peculiar to say in the least that we get so concerned about 
this. It is not every child. We are not closing every school. My kid 
went to public schools. I taught in public schools. My wife just 
retired from a public school after 27 years. It is not that I have 
anything against public schools. I believe in them. I believe that, in 
any sort of competitive environment, they will win. They have got the 
best teachers. They have got the best infrastructure.
  But what we must do is give people the ability to choose among them 
and between them. To take that away from human beings is taking away an 
absolute right. It is an admission of something that we must all do.
  We must admit, Mr. Chairman, people on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, we must admit to our colleagues here and to the people 
of the United States that we do not know what the best education is for 
every single child out there. But we do trust parents to help make that 
decision. Maybe it will not always be right, but it will be right more 
often than what we make the decision for them by forcing them into a 
system that may not work. I say forcing them because they do not have 
the economic ability to make a choice.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Armey safe and sound schools 
amendment. I stand here today as a father and a businessman to explain 
why I believe this amendment is a reasonable and necessary one to 
secure the future for every American child by giving them an excellent 
education.
  As a father, I want my children to go to a school in a safe, orderly 
learning environment. I want them to be in a school which offers 
academic excellence. Failure is not acceptable when it comes to the 
education of my children or any child in America. Unfortunately, some 
children in the United States are trapped in schools which are either 
plagued by violence or failing them academically. In too many cases, we 
are failing on both counts.
  Failure to educate Americans children, whether it is the richest of 
the rich or the poorest of the poor, is unacceptable. Unfortunately, 
too many children are trapped in low-performing schools, and too many 
parents are unaware of the academic failure of their neighborhood 
school.
  How do we provide these needy children with the education they 
deserve? How do we help them out of this trap? We begin by informing 
parents, teachers, local communities about the academic performance and 
the safety of their local school.
  The Armey amendment would require schools to notify parents that 
their child is in an academically failing or an unsafe school and 
provide them with the opportunity to transfer their student to a 
nonfailing public school or, if necessary, a private or parochial 
school.
  Some parents may make arrangements to have their child attend another 
school in the area. Some will want to keep their child in their 
neighborhood school. But they will demand change. They will want an 
excellent education for their child. No longer will low performance or 
academic failure be hidden from parents or tolerated by parents.
  As a father, this makes sense. As a businessman, it makes sense. 
Competition leads to improvement and better choices. Some students will 
choose to go elsewhere to receive their education services.
  But what about the students left behind? Do we intend to leave them 
in failing violent schools? Absolutely not. One of the elements in 
education improvement is parental involvement. Once parents know their 
neighborhood school has been labeled as a low-performing school, they 
will demand change. They will elect new school board members. They will 
hire a new principal. They will make sure teachers are trained. They 
will raise education expectations. Whatever it takes.
  Does this aid the low-income students that this bill is designed to 
help? Absolutely. It provides both the short-term and long-term 
solution to secure the future for every American child with an 
excellent education in a safe learning environment.

[[Page H10626]]

  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Armey safe and sound 
schools amendment.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Armey amendment. I wish to 
compliment the majority leader for being such a vocal and forceful 
advocate for improving education for all children across the United 
States.
  Let me just say a couple of things that I believe are important for 
the record. I believe everybody in this body believes that we need to 
improve education. Indeed, education should be a national issue. I know 
we have some wonderful teachers within the private and parochial 
schools, and especially in the public schools. I know that because I go 
to the school back home in Staten Island and Brooklyn any chance I get. 
And they are wonderful.
  I also believe that every Member of this body is committed to 
enhancing academic achievement for our children, to ensure that our 
children get the best education possible. We recognize that when we 
invest in education what we essentially are investing in is our future 
and building upon what is the greatest country in the history of the 
world.
  But what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is seeking to do is to 
help what some in this body and some across the country believe are the 
helpless, the young children who are trapped, and this has been said so 
many times today, trapped in failing schools. And what is this all 
about? We want to help those who are deprived of the opportunity and 
who have limited freedom, those who are forced to send their children 
to these failing public schools.
  I would ask my colleagues to go home to their districts and ask the 
parent who does not have two nickels to rub together, ask that mother 
or father if, given the chance, they would want to take their child out 
of a failing public school and send that child to a better one. Is 
there not a more important decision that we make as parents than where 
to send our kids to school? I can tell my colleagues in New York City, 
and I am sure it is true across the country, that those helpless 
parents really have no choice.
  Recently, reports tell us that attacks from children and students 
against teachers are up dramatically. How does a child learn, how does 
an innocent child, whose parents want nothing but the best for him, 
learn in an environment where attacks against teachers are up 
dramatically? It is not as if that parent has a choice. They do not. 
Ask that parent and look at the look in their eyes when you tell them 
that we are going to give them the opportunity to send their child to a 
good school and see that their child gets a good education. I think 
many of my colleagues might be surprised at the response, but some of 
us are not.
  Recently, the Washington, D.C. school system offered scholarships to 
the poorest individuals, the poorest families. Now, we are blessed. We 
can send our children to any school we want. But the poorest families, 
when given the chance, one in six chose to take their child out of a 
failing public school. I say ``bravo'' to that parent, because this 
issue is about civil rights. This is the movement we should be 
embarking upon.
  I think we can work together to ensure that our public schools are 
improved and that we give the best to our teachers and reward them for 
their hard work, but, at the same time, understand and recognize that 
there are millions of parents across this country, that have no choice, 
that are trapped in these failing schools, that when they send their 
child off to school they do not know if they are going to come home 
with a black eye or get in a fight with some kids in schools. Nine-
year-olds attacking teachers. That is the environment some of these 
kids are learning in. And it is in the Bronx, and it is on Staten 
Island, and it is in Indiana, and it is in Texas, and it is in 
California.
  If we believe that this country is truly about freedom, and we have 
the freedom to go to any restaurant we want, to buy any car we want, 
but we do not have the opportunity to have the freedom to send our 
child to the school of our choice, then we are depriving the most 
essential basic right, and we are depriving those poor and helpless 
parents of a legitimate civil right.
  I want to remind all my colleagues that this is a pilot program. If 
we fear this, we fear everything.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and I have 
slightly different accents, but we have the same understanding of the 
effort here to secure the future for America's children, and that is 
what this amendment does. That is what this amendment is all about.
  My friends on the left would erect an invisible shield and call it 
protective. This is not protective, it is destructive, to take the 
opportunity from parents to choose for their children. The Federal 
Government has the opportunity here to accelerate and enhance learning 
in public school, not continue to be a massive roadblock for learning.
  There are those who would unfairly and incorrectly mischaracterize 
the Armey amendment. I even heard the term voucherize used. This is 
untrue. The amendment gives hope to parents and children, especially 
disadvantaged children; hope by knowing that they are not trapped in a 
school where they will not learn the skills that they need to succeed 
in life; hope because they can choose a better opportunity for their 
children, safe and sound. That is what this is all about.
  Beside me on the left is a quote from our President in which he says, 
``Parents should be given more choice.'' He stood in this room before 
this body not long ago and said this; and we agree, and we are working 
hard to help provide those choices for parents that will help those 
children succeed.
  Just last week I was in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in the 8th 
District, and there was a school where choice was given. Over 1,800 
applicants for 600 spaces. Discipline, respect, uniforms. In other 
words, a different way to give children and teachers the academic 
environment in which they could learn. This choice has created an 
opportunity, an enthusiasm, a momentum, an energy that was exciting to 
see. It shows what can be done in public schools if we dare to be 
different, if we dare to move ourselves out of the trap created many 
times by the Federal Government in the past.
  So, yes, I support this amendment. I would encourage everyone here to 
support the opportunity for parents to do the best for their children. 
Support the Armey amendment.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the majority leader for bringing 
this measure and this amendment to the floor, and I also want to thank 
our leadership in the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, all over America this morning parents sent their 
children off to school, and they did so with two basic expectations: 
first, that their children would be safe; and the second expectation is 
that while their children were at that school, they would be in an 
environment where they could learn basic skills, math and science and 
history and English, basic skills that would allow them to succeed in 
life.
  The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that all over America today there are 
certain schools that cannot deliver on these basic set of expectations. 
They cannot provide a safe environment, and they cannot provide a 
quality learning environment.
  Now, governors all over America have been working hard to reform 
education, and one of the things these governors tell us is that in 
many instances the Federal Government is an obstacle to reform rather 
than a partner in that reform. Many of the aspects of the bill that we 
are debating here today is to provide for flexibility and more 
creativity in bringing reform to education. This amendment is an 
extension of those reforms. It will be part of the effort in some 
States, not all, to bring real meaningful reform to their education 
system.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate to represent a State that has 
really good schools. Montana students fare very well on national tests 
and meeting standards, but there are many

[[Page H10627]]

States where education emergencies truly exist. Schools absolutely 
cannot provide the basics, a safe and sound environment in school. So 
this amendment basically does this. It says that a governor who 
believes that an education disaster exists can declare that disaster 
and then provide grants to the parents of children to take their 
children out of a school that is failing to provide those basics and 
put them into a safe and a sound one.
  Now, if a hurricane disaster exists, and that is not likely to happen 
in my State, but when it does happen, a governor can declare a 
disaster. He can act to protect the citizens. If a fire disaster, or a 
flood disaster, or a drought disaster exists, a governor can declare a 
disaster and he can act. Why in the world would we not give governors 
the same kind of authority to declare an academic disaster? Governors 
need every tool in the tool box that they can get to reform education. 
They need the tools that are appropriate to the condition and the 
problem that they are facing.
  I believe it is time for Congress to make a simple declaration about 
education, and that declaration should be this: that it is about kids 
and kids first. Nothing else should really matter but the kids. This 
amendment says that kids are more important than the teachers' union; 
it says kids are more important than institutional structures.
  I would urge my colleagues to support our kids and support this 
amendment. Put them first.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment of my 
good friend, the majority leader, to H.R. 2; and I applaud his efforts 
to ensure that all children are given the opportunity to attend safe 
and sound schools. Our children should never be trapped in failing 
schools. Our children should not fear for their safety when they walk 
through the halls or into their classrooms. Parents must be given the 
ability to protect their children and to provide a good education for 
them.
  Those who oppose the Armey amendment oppose giving kids and parents a 
way out of failing schools and a way to educational success. Opponents 
believe in the status quo and in forcing disadvantaged children to 
remain in schools that are failing them.
  When well-to-do students are struggling in school, what do their 
parents do? Generally, they send them to another school. Why? Because 
they have the money to do so. Do my colleagues think that low-income 
parents would not like to have this same option? They certainly want 
what is best for their children.
  The most recent example of this came this year when the Children's 
Scholarship Fund was offering 40,000 scholarships, K through 12, to 
low-income families. How many people do my colleagues think applied for 
their children to receive this opportunity? One and a quarter million. 
1,250,000 families. Let me repeat. For just 40,000 scholarships, 1.25 
million people, many were minorities, many families from 20,000 
different communities in all 50 States sought this opportunity to get 
their children out of failing and unsafe schools.
  Rich or poor, Americans want the best education possible for their 
children. The Army amendment puts parents back in the driver's seat for 
their children's education.
  Now, I know monopolies do not like competition. Some of the powers 
that be are threatened by reform. They are afraid that they will lose 
control of their power. But this is reform that works. So for the sake 
of our children, for the sake of our Nation's kids, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Armey amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I want to thank everybody who spoke on behalf of this amendment.
  I had asked one of the staff to get me a number. I do not have that 
number, but maybe I will get it. Until then, let me just take a wild 
guess or ask the question: How many billions of dollars do we spend 
each year in this great land to educate our children grades, K through 
12? Together with our local taxes, and our State funding agencies, as 
well as through the Federal Government, we put it all together and we 
realize this must be some incredibly large number. What would my 
colleagues suppose that number is, $100 billion a year that we spend to 
educate our little ones, K through 12?

                              {time}  1145

  Would we not agree that, for the most part, across this great land we 
are doing a pretty good job? The kids have pretty good schools. The 
kids are happy. The kids are learning well. The kids are pretty safe. 
And we are proud of that.
  I have to tell my colleagues and I do not mind telling my colleagues 
that I believe that, for all the criticism, all the failure, all the 
heartbreak, this great Nation does put its children up front. This 
great Nation, I believe, is as good as any in the effort we make to 
educate our children, certainly in terms of the money we spend.
  I believe the young lady has the number. Mr. Chairman, if the staffer 
has that number I was seeking, I would just like to look at that for a 
moment if she does not mind just bringing it to me. It is all right. 
This is a well-known fact in this town that staff researches and gives 
us everything we pretend to know. It is not new. But I have the answer. 
I thank her again, and I certainly do appreciate her helping me out.
  This is incredible. We spend $324.3 billion in all public 
expenditures to educate our babies. I am so proud of that. In addition 
to that, we spend 27 billion additional dollars through private 
educational facilities to educate those children. That is $351.3 
billion that we spend for those babies. I am so proud of that.
  Now, what have I said here? For the most part, we are doing well and 
we should be proud. But sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do not.
  We have 15,000 schools year in and year out that are designated as 
failures. What is the number? One hundred of which have been on that 
list for 10 straight years or more, 100 schools 10 years or more that 
have been designated by their governors, have been designated by the 
Department of Education abject disasters, crazy failures.
  Think of those poor babies trapped in these schools. I have seen some 
of those schools. I have seen some of those children. I have to tell my 
colleagues, I am proud to tell my colleagues I have been helpful in 
getting some of those children the resources to move. I have seen the 
difference in their lives, and I have seen them happy and claiming math 
is their favorite subject in a private school where they felt safe and 
loved.
  Most of these children are happy and safe when they go to school, no 
threat, no danger, no harm; and I am proud of that. Some children are 
beaten in school. Some children are stabbed in school. That is not 
acceptable.
  Now, of that total $351 billion that this great Nation spends, $13.8 
billion comes from this Congress, this budget, this Government, $13.8 
billion. One hundred chronically failed schools 10 years or more. Who 
knows where or how many badly beaten babies.
  I ask my colleagues, with this amendment, out of $13.8 billion, are 
they telling me we cannot find $100 million to spread across this land 
for that school that is a disaster for all its children or for that 
child that came home beaten, battered, bloodied, broken, and scared to 
death? If they have got the heart to vote against that, woe be to their 
grandchildren.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support 
of Mr. Armey's amendment to H.R. 2, The Student Results Act. This 
``Safe and Sound Schools Amendment'' to Title I of ESEA is designed to 
help children whose schools fail to teach and protect them while in 
their care. This amendment could not have come at a better time. Many 
of our nation's public schools are in a state of emergency. Thousands 
of children are trapped in failing schools, and we need to provide them 
with a way out to gain a better education. Unfortunately, many of the 
children that are trapped in these failing public schools are from 
lower income families. We need to provide our children with the 
opportunity to choose another public or private school that is 
excelling and will provide them with the best education possible. We 
can not sit back and keep our students in schools that are not working.

[[Page H10628]]

  The district I represent, the 15th district in Florida, has 
unfortunately been in the pathway of the many hurricanes that have been 
sweeping up Florida lately. When natural disasters of this kind happen, 
the federal government does not hesitate to send relief funds to the 
victims. This is a necessary and right practice.
  In turn, it is also necessary to provide relief to our future, our 
nation's children, when they are trapped in failing schools--when they 
are victims of an academic emergency. The Safe and Sound Schools 
amendment establishes a well needed 5-year pilot program designed to 
create a national school choice option for elementary school children, 
grades 1-5, that are trapped in these failing schools. It is morally 
wrong to force them to stay in failing schools in the hope that one day 
these schools might improve. Eligible students, in schools that are 
``academic emergencies'' could apply for $3,500 in relief funds that 
will help defray the costs of attending any qualified public, private, 
or parochial school in their area.
  The investment in our children is the best investment we can make. 
There is no need to keep our children in failing schools that are not 
providing them with a good education. This is a great pilot program 
that will benefit everyone, students, parents, and the future of our 
country.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
amendment. As a colleague of mine from across the aisle stated last 
night, ``we must provide opportunity early and often to the youth of 
America.'' I agree with my colleague and that is why I support this 
amendment.
  Many students who attend schools receiving Title I funding have been 
failed by our education system time and time again. Let us give them 
opportunities early and often to receive a better education and prepare 
for a better life. The Armey amendment simply establishes an optional 
nationwide pilot program that provides relief for students who attend a 
Title I school that is designated as ``failing'' or ``unsafe'' and 
allows them to receive up to $3,500 in scholarship to attend a public, 
private or parochial school in their state.
  As school violence continues to escalate and hamper the education of 
the American youth, let us take the power out of the violent offender's 
hands and place it in the hands of the students and parents. Children 
have the right to feel safe and parents should have the right to choose 
the education of their children.
  Mr. Chairman, Title I has failed these students. Let us not fail 
these children again. Give students who attend Title I schools that are 
deemed ``failing'' or ``unsafe'' by their state the opportunity to grow 
and learn in a safe, successful environment. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Armey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 257, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 521]

                               AYES--166

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Burton
     Camp
     Isakson
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Lucas (KY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1211

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote 521, I was 
unavoidably detained and unable to be on the House floor during that 
time. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 521, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to speak out of order.)


     Recognizing Reigning Miss America, Heather French of Kentucky

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Kentucky has been extremely highly honored 
2 weeks ago when the former Miss Kentucky was named Miss America. That 
is the first time in the history of the contest that a former Miss 
Kentucky has received that high distinction. We have with us on the 
premises today that lovely lady, Heather French, Miss America.
  If I could refer to the gallery, I would refer the Members to the 
gallery to my right where Miss America is with us in this great body. 
Heather French has brought great distinction to our State

[[Page H10629]]

and to this great contest and we are excited that Miss America is Miss 
Kentucky.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman is aware that he 
cannot refer to a person in the gallery.


                 amendment no. 38 offered by mr. payne

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Payne:
       Strike title VIII of the bill.

  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. PAYNE. By way of background, Mr. Chairman, I want to state that 
just 2 weeks ago my amendment to retain Title I statewide programs at a 
50 percent poverty threshold was approved with bipartisan support by 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce during our Title I markup. 
Unfortunately, through legislative maneuvering, this amendment was 
overridden by members of the committee while we were returning from a 
recessed meeting and I was out of the room, and a new title created by 
lowering again the threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent. This action 
was a major setback.
  This move created a new title that lowered the threshold to 40 
percent. This action was a major setback in the fight to provide each 
of our schoolchildren with a fair and comprehensive education, and my 
amendment will rectify that. It calls to strike the last provision in 
the bill that lowers the poverty threshold for schoolwide programs to 
40 percent.
  What that simply means is that, as my colleagues know, Title I funds 
are designated by the number of poverty students in the school 
district. The 40 percent threshold means that 60 percent of the 
students in that school do not have to qualify as poverty and, 
therefore, robbing schools with high number of poverty students from 
the scarce resources to go around.
  Although this year's bipartisan effort to re-authorize Title I 
addressed many of the causal factors of the educational gap, and as a 
former teacher in a Title I school, I fear that certain portions of 
this bill will work to actually widen the gap even further.
  Current law states that in order for a school to be eligible for 
schoolwide programs the school must have 50 percent of its student 
population come from poor families. Schoolwide programs are programs 
that may be provided to the entire student population of a school, not 
just the most financially or educationally disadvantaged.
  Traditionally these schoolwide programs have been targeted to schools 
with higher concentrations of poverty because the performance of all 
students in such schools tend to suffer. Further, schools with high 
percentages of lower-income students receive significantly large Title 
I grants, grants that can make an impact on a schoolwide level.
  Regardless of these facts, the bill before us calls for yet another 
reduction in the poverty threshold for schoolwide program eligibility, 
reversing sort of a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor to give to 
those who are more fortunate. My amendment stops this unnecessary 
unfair reduction and calls for the retention of the 50 percent poverty 
threshold.
  Opponents of this amendment may claim that lowering the poverty 
threshold will give schools more flexibility in establishing schoolwide 
programs. However, given the comprehensive nature of schoolwide 
programs, it is our responsibility to ensure that we meet the needs of 
the poorest schools which, in turn, have the lowest levels of 
schoolwide achievement. Research shows that the 50 percent poverty 
threshold should be retained because that is the level where we begin 
to see negative effects on the entire school population. School poverty 
levels below 50 percent have much smaller impact on the achievement of 
the entire school population.
  For example, nonpoor students in schools between 35 and 50 percent 
poverty have about the same reading achievement level as schools 
falling between 20 and 35 percent poverty. Therefore, setting the 
poverty threshold at any level below 50 percent would be insufficient 
and arbitrary.
  This program began in 1965 with the War on Poverty, and at that time 
the threshold was 75 percent poverty level. In reauthorization 5 years 
ago, we then saw the poverty level drop from 75 percent to 50 percent. 
Now we have seen this amendment come in to reduce the poverty threshold 
from 50 percent to 40 percent, and many in our committee feel that 
there should be a 25 percent threshold, which of course will eventually 
eliminate the program of its natural intent.
  Title I began as a critical portion of the 1965 War on Poverty to 
help our Nation's most disadvantaged students. Let us pass this 
amendment to ensure that our most disadvantaged students in schools do, 
in fact, benefit from this crucial piece of legislation.
  Our Nation is one Nation indivisible under God, and we should try to 
provide opportunity for all of us to meet the new challenges of the new 
millennium.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
First of all, I want to clarify a few things that were mentioned here.
  We have an agreement. The agreement was the 40 to 50, moving from 50 
to 40. That was the agreement that was set up during all the 
negotiations; both sides agreed to that.
  We had on our side an amendment, and we could have easily passed it, 
to go down to 25 percent. I opposed the 25 percent and went back to the 
agreement we had before we ever began the markup.
  Now I also want to mention that I did something that no other Chair 
would have ever done and did not have to do. We had two votes. We voted 
once, and then when one or two gentlemen returned, they were upset. I 
allowed a second vote, a rollcall vote. So I want to make sure 
everybody understands, and that would not happen, I do not believe, in 
any other committee.
  What we have found, as I tried to mention over and over and over 
again, the program has failed and failed and failed and failed and 
failed, and it is totally unfair to these youngsters; and it is 
critical to the Nation that they do not continue to fail; and so what 
we have discovered is that the schoolwide programs are doing much 
better than many of the other programs in raising the academic 
achievement of all students. They testified from Maryland, they 
testified from Texas; they have statistics to show the accomplishments 
they have made for all children.
  So we agreed, as I said, that we would move from 50 to 40. We 
defeated going down to 25 percent; we defeated going back up to 50 
percent.
  So it would be my hope that now that it is working and now that we 
are seeing some success for the most needy children in the country, we 
stop this business that I heard for 20 years, we got to be sure exactly 
where the penny goes. It does not matter whether it does not do any 
good; it does not matter if it tracks these kids forever.
  Now we find some programs that work. Why are we not willing to try to 
give every child that opportunity to succeed?
  So I would hope that we vote down this amendment, and I should 
indicate that we will be rolling all votes until the end of this 
legislation today.
  So again, we realize that it is succeeding by using a schoolwide 
model, so let us not try to stop something that is succeeding to help 
the most needy children in this country.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to understand the gentleman from New Jersey's 
intention with this amendment; we need to examine the history of the 
schoolwide percentage in Title I.
  Prior to the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, the schoolwide percentage 
was 75 percent. In other words, prior to 1994, 75 percent or more of 
the children in our schools were poor; we could operate a schoolwide 
program where we can combine Federal, State and local funds to do 
whole-school reform. The 1994 reauthorization lowered this to 50 
percent. This bill lowers this percentage to 40 percent, and the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) would 
return that to 50 percent.
  I believe it is important to also realize that the prevailing 
research in this

[[Page H10630]]

area states that when a half of a school's population is poor, the 
entire school educational achievement is impacted. Below that level 
research shows that the impact is lessened. If research says that we 
should maintain the 50 percent threshold, we should pass the Payne 
amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate my comments with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and show my strong support for a 
very important amendment on today's legislation, the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  The genesis of this act, the purpose of this act, the priority of 
this act in 1965 was to try to focus and target money to the poorest 
and neediest and most at-risk children in America because the States 
were not adequately fulfilling that role. The Federal Government did 
it. We need to continue to focus the money there and not dilute those 
funds to students in need with a bill that is doing some innovative new 
things in a bipartisan way.
  So I encourage in a bipartisan way for us to improve the bill further 
and support the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Payne 
amendment.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
thank him for leading the fight to keep this from being rolled all the 
way back to 25 percent, and I admire his leadership on that; but I 
think it is very important we keep this as 50 percent. I think it is 
very important that we say that a program that is designed to reach out 
and help economically disadvantaged children will stay that way, and I 
think if fewer than half the children in a school fit that economically 
disadvantaged category, but we permit the expenditure of Title I funds 
anyway in whole school reform, that we are marching toward Federal 
education revenue sharing, which is really not something I think we 
want to do.
  The underlying purpose of this act is to use targeted resources for 
children who most need it, for children who have the least out of State 
and local resources. I think that the Payne amendment is crucial toward 
establishing that goal; I enthusiastically support it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very, very 
important amendment. It goes to the principle that we are establishing 
by enacting this legislation to help children in low-income 
circumstances who are disadvantaged in many ways in their educational 
experience.
  The fundamental issue is that the distribution of funds is based upon 
a head count of the number of low-income children in a particular area, 
and if we are going to put the moneys there on the basis of a head 
count of low-income children, then these children need to be served. We 
cannot take the money that is allocated by this head count and 
distribute it to other schools.
  There is no question that every school needs help in America, but 
this legislation is geared to the low-income, disadvantaged 
communities; and that is where it should stay, and I think that the 50 
percent cut off is a legitimate cut off. It allows for schoolwide 
reform where 50 percent of the children are in an economically 
disadvantaged category. Then all of the students in that particular 
enrolled school could benefit. But to lower it, I think, is to really 
destroy the essence of targeting this money to the children, and that 
is how the money gets to the local school districts, by a head count.
  So let us not dilute the fundamental purpose of this legislation by 
taking the money away from these children and scattering it to other 
areas.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 
amendment. Let me just start by saying that I respect greatly all of 
those who have spoken on this particular amendment, and particularly 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the sponsor of this 
amendment. I have debated this issue with them as well as others in the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I understand the 
sincerity of their beliefs in this.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is some reasoning here that we 
need to discuss in terms of how we are really helping kids. I am not 
one of those that is going to stand here and say that Title I has 
failed all together. God only knows where some of these students might 
be if it was not for Title I. On the other hand, I do not think that 
many people in this room can stand up and say that Title I has been a 
rip-roaring success either. That is not demonstrable one way or 
another. I believe we should continue Title I. I believe we should try 
to improve Title I. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. 
We worked on it together, and I think that is fine.
  But this particular point that we are debating right now I think is 
vitally important to the whole future of Title I and where we are going 
on this. I do not think we should reinstate the 50 percent school 
poverty threshold. I think it should go to 40 percent. One could argue 
it could go to 43 percent or whatever. If it went down to 25 percent, I 
would be up here opposing it or even 30 percent; but just as I support 
trying to keep it at the 40 percent level.
  This is something, by the way, that was agreed to by many members of 
the committee who are ranking members, who sat down and worked this 
out, and among staff members, because we thought it was so important.
  But why is it important? That is what I think we are missing. Does 
schoolwide work or not? What is schoolwide? Schoolwide is essentially 
when a school which may have 40 percent or 50 percent, whatever the 
number may be, who have kids who are economically disadvantaged and at 
the poverty threshold going to their particular school; and then they 
then put together programs that will lift the entire school so that 
everybody will benefit from it, but particularly aimed at trying to 
help that 40 percent or 50 percent or whatever it may be.
  This is opposed to having special programs for those who may be 
educationally disadvantaged as determined by schools in which people 
are economically disadvantaged. It is my judgment, based on the small 
evidence that we have seen so far, the schoolwide programs are working. 
The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) has already cited two examples of that, both in Maryland and 
Texas, which really took Ed-Flex very seriously when we gave them that 
opportunity and came forward and they put together schoolwide programs. 
Others have done it too by going through the Secretary of Education, 
and they seem to have worked. Test scores have gone up. In a very data-
based way, test scores have actually gone up in those schools which are 
doing it that way.
  They are also becoming very popular with principals and teachers. 
According to the national assessment of Title I, the number of schools 
which are implementing schoolwide programs has more than tripled from 
5,000 to 16,000 since 1995. Usually when programs grow, when there is a 
choice and programs grow, there is an indication that those who are 
dealing with the programs, the educators, are making a difference.
  This does not dilute the amount of dollars that would go to a school, 
it is just a question of how the dollars are going to be utilized when 
they get to that school. I think that is important to understand as 
well in terms of dealing with the program of schoolwide versus the 
individual instruction, which has taken place before.
  So for all of these reasons I am strongly supportive of keeping the 
poverty threshold at 40 percent which will, frankly, enable more 
schools, if they wish to operate schoolwide programs. It gives 
principals flexibility and it is, to me, proving to be beneficial. 
Those are the reasons that I stand forth and argue that we should do 
this. I would hope that we would all look at this, and I hope frankly 
this amendment will be defeated, but ultimately I think we all have the 
same aim and that is to

[[Page H10631]]

educate all of our children, particularly those in poverty as well as 
we possibly can.
  I happen to think that leaving the level at 40 percent is the way to 
do that, and I hope that I am right, and I hope that we are able to 
defeat the amendment and eventually we will improve the course of our 
students.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate that teachers 
always came to me and said in social studies class, be sure to 
homogeneously group these kids. Can my colleagues imagine homogeneously 
grouping children in social studies. So those who never hear anything 
but nothing at home, if there is a dinner table, hear nothing in 
school, because they are all grouped together.
  Children learn from other children probably more than they learn, as 
a matter of fact, from the teacher in that classroom. I certainly think 
that we should give something that is successful an opportunity to 
continue to succeed and save some of these children that we are losing 
everyday.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
say, I do not like opposing an amendment sponsored by people who I 
think are genuinely interested in education and children. But I think 
in this case, the intent of what is in the legislation is right and is 
the direction to go.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I would like to speak in support of the Payne amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of pedagogical considerations 
here which are interesting, but they avoid the real problem. The 
problem is money and the resources necessary to make a schoolwide 
program succeed. My colleagues are taking away some of the money. We 
move from 75 percent down to 50 percent, and now we want to move from 
50 percent to 40 percent. So 75 percent to 40 percent is a radical 
move. My colleagues oppose going all the way down to 25 percent; that 
would be even more radical. But we have already made a radical move 
going from 75 percent to 40 percent, and my colleagues are jeopardizing 
the success that they claim that these schoolwide programs have 
achieved.
  The program and the law was designed to reach the poorest children in 
America. The formula is driven by individual poverty; children who 
qualify for free lunches, that determines the amount of money one gets 
in a district. If one has a situation where one can play with the 
formula and take a school that only has 40 percent poverty and make it 
eligible, then one would be diluting what goes to the school that has 
the 75 percent poverty where we have already reduced the funding down, 
based on a 50 percent level of sharing.
  The public concern for education is at an all-time high right now. 
Almost 90 percent of the voters have declared that more government 
assistance for education is their highest priority. In response to this 
overwhelming concern for the improvement of education, Title I is 
presently our only really significant program. But instead of providing 
leadership to increase the funding of Title I and increase the scope of 
Title I so that we can get more children in, we are going to follow the 
leadership of the Republican majority; we are going to seize funds from 
the poorest youngsters and spread it out to the more fortunate ones in 
the other schools.
  Why do we not have an increase of funding and let all of the new 
money be divided between these new schools that will be qualified under 
the 40 percent? Why do we not respond to the public concern that we 
need to do more for education, not less?
  We are not going to do more by taking what we have already and 
spreading it out. Marie Antoinette said, if the people have no bread, 
let them eat cake. What we are saying is that the loaf of bread is too 
small, but instead of getting more bread, we want to divide the loaf up 
into crumbs and distribute the crumbs more widely. To distribute the 
crumbs more widely may get a lot of political pluses because one can go 
back and say to their constituents that they had no Title I funds 
before, but look now, we are doing something about education. We 
brought you some funds that you did not have before. But we took them 
from some other place. We took them from the poorest, and we spread it 
out. The original law was designed to help the poorest.
  That, I do not think, is a way to proceed in response to the public 
cry for more help with education. That is Robin Hood in reverse. What 
we have been doing all along, and the pattern here in the Congress 
under the Republican leadership is to do just this, spread it out. Ed-
Flex was a beginning, straight As is coming after this, either today or 
tomorrow. Straight As is all about wiping out any Federal control with 
the money after it goes down to the local level and that means you do 
not have to have 40 percent or 25 percent, but just spread it out.
  I yield at this point to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the Payne amendment and 
say that it has nothing to do with us not wanting all children to have 
an education, nor does it have anything to do with finding a way to 
have another model to be more effective. If we take a limited amount of 
resources and indeed dilute that, we really take the chances of 
effectiveness away from the program. So if we are trying to effectively 
educate those who need it the most, we would not dilute that, we would 
try to make sure that it was more pointedly directed to that.
  Take eastern North Carolina, take school districts that I know that 
indeed many of the school districts, not just schools, school 
districts, have 40 percent poverty. So when we then shift that to the 
more affluent school districts in my State, we have really denied that 
district as a whole, not just the school, to have an opportunity.
  So I want to support this amendment and tell my colleagues that we 
need to find a way not necessarily to defeat the issue of raising all 
kids up, but we do not do it at the expense of the poorest of the poor, 
and that is, indeed, what the effect of this would be, whether we 
intend that or not. We would end up making sure those who are failing 
will be sure to fail. Not that Title I is perfect. We need to improve 
it, but this is not the way to do it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I apologize for my voice. I will do the best I can. I have been 
involved in this issue, and I want to participate in the debate today.
  I would like to clarify a few statements that are going around and 
add some additional comments. One is this is not a spending bill, it is 
an authorizing bill. This is a bill that sets policy.
  Secondly, inside that policy, we are not moving dollars between 
school districts. This is a question of how the school district moves 
the dollars within a school and who is included in a given program. It 
is not moving from low-income districts to high-income districts; this 
is not driving money to the State. This affects formulas and what 
percentage of the students are covered within this program inside a 
school and inside that district.
  Thirdly, I am very concerned about bipartisanship. We have talked 
about trying to develop this as a bipartisan bill. I am one who is a 
believer that if the Federal Government is going to be involved in 
Federal aid to education, there is a legitimate need to come in and to 
help low-income families where they may not have the property tax 
structure, they may not have the income, and that was a legitimate 
role, even though the Constitution was silent on the Federal role in 
education, because that means by definition that it was intended to 
local and State. But when there has been a failure such as for special 
needs kids or for low-income kids, the Federal Government has stepped 
in. My goal is not to spread targeted Federal dollars to all students 
in America so that everybody gets attached to the Federal dollars.
  But this was to be a bipartisan bill. We worked out a compromise. 
Some of us are starting to feel that the only thing that is bipartisan 
in this is we have to do it the other side's way, or we do not do it. I 
am fast moving towards a no on this bill when I have been a strong 
advocate of this bill all the way along. I, for one, do not believe 
that Title I has failed. I differ from many of my conservative friends. 
This is like Lou Holtz coming to the University of South Carolina and 
South Carolina not winning this year in football

[[Page H10632]]

and people saying well, that failed. It takes more than a football 
coach to change the football program in South Carolina and turn it into 
Notre Dame, not that Notre Dame is the best example this year. But when 
we look at this, it takes split ends, it takes quarterbacks, it takes 
halfbacks.
  Title I going to low-income schools, they often do not have a lot of 
other resources. This is only part of the program that goes into these 
schools. We cannot expect Title I to solve every problem in low-income 
schools. What I see in Indiana is they are doing it very effectively in 
targeting for reading recovery. But this is a question about 
flexibility. It is not a question about moving among students. In this 
bill, we require that the students' performance has to move up if we go 
down to 40. We are caring here about individual students. Why do we 
feel in Washington that we have to tell each principal and 
superintendent and teacher that they have to do it a certain way. What 
we want to see is that the students' scores are improving.
  I am sorry I did not get down here to debate on the Armey amendment. 
I do not understand why people do not want to give local schools and 
school boards more flexibility if we say you have to improve the 
students' scores. The argument here is not in my case against having 
the money go to those who need it most. I want to see it used most 
effectively, whether it is public school choice, private school choice, 
Title I inside the schools, reading recovery programs. We want to see 
that the kids who are left behind in our system, who often are not able 
to get the job, to get the opportunities that many of us who have been 
more fortunate have, we want to see the most flexibility and the best 
ways possible to do that, and I fear that this amendment will lead to 
further unraveling both of that local flexibility and of this 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment very briefly on the 
comments of the gentleman that just preceded me.
  The chairman indicated that the 50 percent Title I has been working, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and that when they moved 
down from 75 to 50 percent that we have seen success. Why not then 
leave it at the 50 percent?

                              {time}  1245

  Secondly, the gentleman said that we are not shifting money around; 
we are simply authorizing, we are an authorizing committee. He is 
portraying a point that those schools now that are eligible, that would 
be 40 percent, they are simply going to apply for the money and 
therefore the pot remaining the same will simply reduce the amount of 
money to the higher poverty schools.
  It is just like having a pot for FEMA. We do not stop and say we only 
have a certain amount of money and all of the tragedies and natural 
disasters we have are limited. We come up to the amount.
  We do not do that with education. I would just like to say that we 
are moving money by moving the formula because those now who qualify 
will take the money.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Payne amendment. In 
my previous life, I was a teacher and guidance counselor in the New 
York City public schools and I only taught in Title I schools so I 
think I have some familiarity with it.
  Most of the schools in my congressional district qualify as Title I 
schools. I agree with my colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), who said 
the real problem here is that we just need more money for Title I 
schools. We do need more money.
  The other side can scoff all they want, but the fact of the matter is 
every child who is eligible should be getting help. If we are going to 
make the commitment, and this bill goes a long way in increasing funds 
but we still have a long, long way to go, it seems to me that what we 
ought to be doing is concentrating on those schools that have the 
greatest levels of poverty because those are the kids that are most 
disadvantaged. Those are the kids that really need the help. School-
wide programs have usually been limited to higher poverty schools 
because the performance of all people, all students in that school, 
tends to be low.
  This amendment calls for the 50 percent poverty threshold because a 
level of 50 percent poverty is where we begin to see an impact on the 
entire school. At poverty levels below 50 percent, the school poverty 
level has a much smaller impact on the achievement of the entire school 
population. So the Payne amendment would certainly prevent the 
undermining of Title I's targeting provisions and ensure that these 
programs are focused on higher poverty schools that need improvements 
on a school-wide level and the poorest schools are better equipped. It 
will ensure that the poorest schools are better equipped to deal with 
school-wide problems.
  I also would be remiss if I did not mention that within the City of 
New York there is a very distinct problem. I represent Bronx County, 
and the way the funds are being allocated right now hurts students in 
Bronx County and Queens County and New York County within the City of 
New York. If we had more money, we could take care of those problems 
without impacting negatively on the other counties.
  So it seems to me that the fight here should not be a fight about a 
pie and who should take away from other people; but the fact is that 
where there are poor schools those are the schools that ought to be 
adequately funded. It pains me a great deal that in Bronx County we are 
being shortchanged with this Title I funding allocation, and again only 
in New York and Hawaii and parts of Virginia do we face this problem. 
It hurts Bronx County. It hurts Queens County. It hurts New York 
County; and if there were more money in this bill, we could take care 
of it. We could hold these districts harmless so that they could help 
the poorest kids and help the poorest schools.
  So this goes a step in the right direction in terms of allocating 
more money, but in my estimation it does not do the job. If we are 
going to have a Federal commitment to education, and again the polls 
show that that is what people want across the country, a commitment to 
education, then we really need to put our money where our mouth is. If 
we are going to help children in the poorest areas, then we need to 
help those schools that are the poorest schools.
  The bill goes in the wrong direction. The Payne amendment would right 
that wrong, and I wholly support it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to make sure one more 
time, this program was designed with one thing in mind. That one thing 
in mind was students achieving below grade level. That is what it was 
designed for. That is in the legislation. It has always been there.
  What I really get most upset about, and I should not get carried 
away, but when it is said all we need is more money, that is all I 
heard for 20 years: all we need is more money. It has been a block 
grant; that is what title I has been, a block grant to districts. As 
long as those who are achieving two levels below grade level are met, 
do with it what they want; and it has failed. We have failed those 
children over and over again because nobody went out to check and see 
whether there was any quality in the program, even though all the 
statistics showed that they were not increasing, they were not catching 
up to the children who are more advantaged.
  The program was designed for children who are below grade level; and, 
again, let us try to make it a quality program. Let us not just say 
that somehow or another we can take a program that has not worked, if 
we give it more money it will work. If more children are covered with 
mediocrity, then more children are just being destroyed. We want to 
cover them with quality.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us now 
mirrors much of what we are doing in the rest of H.R. 2. This really is 
the first time that a Republican Congress has a chance to make real 
changes to Federal education policy, to try to improve Title I so that 
disadvantaged

[[Page H10633]]

children do actually learn and succeed so that we can take those who 
are below grade level and move them up.
  The focus does have to be on accountability and achievement. There 
are a number of improvements in this bill that move us in that 
direction, but there is also a movement that I am concerned about. We 
have so-called accountability, but the problem is that there is not 
flexibility. We tell States how to target their money, where to spend 
it. We tell States what information to report to parents and the public 
on their schools.
  We tell States how to desegregate students based on race and gender, 
and we tell States what kind of qualifications teachers and para-
professionals must have. The section of the bill that we are attempting 
to change here is one of those areas where we provide more flexibility 
for school-wide programs so that we can tailor those programs to most 
effectively meet the needs of the children in those schools.
  The amendment that we have in front of us, again, takes us away from 
flexibility at a local level, takes us away from having the flexibility 
to design the programs for the needs of the children in those schools. 
Like other parts of the bill, it moves decision-making away from the 
State and the local level and moves it back into Washington.
  This Congress has had a number of successes in moving decision-making 
to the local level. We passed Ed-flex. We passed the teacher 
empowerment. Tomorrow or later today we will have the opportunity to 
debate the program called Straight A's. All of those programs take us 
in a direction that says we know who we are focused on, and we are 
going to let the States and the local levels design and implement the 
programs most effective to meet the needs of those kids; very much 
based on the welfare reform model, where we recognize that States and 
local officials care more about the people that were on welfare than 
the bureaucrats in Washington; that they were most concerned about 
moving those people off of welfare and into dignity by providing them a 
good job.
  We are going to see the same thing in education, that when we empower 
people at the local level to address the students with the greatest 
needs, we are going to see more success. We recognize that the 34 years 
and the $120 billion of investment have not gotten us the kinds of 
results that we want. Parts of this bill move us in the right 
direction. Parts move us in the wrong direction, but this amendment 
should not be passed and we should stay with current law.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there have been some enormously 
weighty arguments that have been made on this issue. They have probably 
been intertwined with equality and justice and fairness, and I believe 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) epitomizes in his legislative 
agenda, throughout the time that I have known him, to affirm all of 
those principles.
  All of us who have fought for educational opportunity, the equalizing 
of the doors destined to carry our young people into the rewards of 
strong work ethic, the ability to provide for their families, we have 
all supported equalizing education. In fact, this body in its wisdom, 
way before I came to these honored halls, had the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and translated the Brown versus 
Topeka decision argued by Thurgood Marshall into reality by opening the 
doors of education and providing opportunity for those who had been 
excluded.
  I am somewhat taken aback that we now come to a place where every 
American is talking about education, but yet we have an underclass of 
sorts, individuals who have yet been able to get on the first wrung of 
the ladder. Title I has proven to be the door opener in those hard-core 
pockets, where people are living at 50 percent of poverty threshold, 
barely making ends meet but every day getting up and washing and 
ironing that same piece of clothing for their child and getting them 
out that door so that they can sit in a seat of opportunity.
  I go home to my district and I am always hearing, money is being 
wasted. It is being given to the go-along and get-along. It is being 
given to the people who really do not need it. Big tax shelters are 
being given to corporations, and though I believe in business 
opportunity and the idea of capitalism in this Nation but we get 
criticized for wasting money.
  This amendment reinforces the fact, Mr. Taxpayer and Mrs. Taxpayer, 
that they can be assured that the money that we are putting out to 
educate children who otherwise would not have an opportunity to give 
those school districts the resources for computers, to give them 
special training, to provide that child who comes to school with no 
lunch and no breakfast opportunity at home, will be able to learn.
  Is it not better to hand someone not a welfare check but rather hand 
them a salary check? For all of those who gathered around us to 
determine that we wanted to have welfare reform, what better tool, what 
better vehicle out of it? To undermine that threshold number says to me 
that my colleagues want to scatter the dollars to those who may not 
need it, and they want to take away the focus of the hard-core poverty.
  Again, let me tell Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, I do not want them to get 
angry and say there we go again talking about the poor person; I need 
to make it because I am a middle-class working person. Yes, they are, 
and we appreciate it. What we are trying to do is to get the burden off 
their back by educating more of these children to ensure that they have 
the ability.
  A pupil's poverty status is based on their eligibility for free or 
reduced-price lunch. The income thresholds for free or reduced-price 
lunch are substantially higher than the poverty level. For example, a 
child is eligible for reduced or free lunch if his or her family income 
is below 130 percent. Thus, in most cases the current school-wide 
program of eligibility threshold is actually 50 percent of pupils 
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
  We are not throwing money away. What we are saying is that we are 
focusing the money so that it can be utilized properly.
  Let me say that the fact that this has been taken out or put in in a 
reduced amount is a travesty with taxpayers' money. It is a travesty on 
what we tried to do. It takes away the spirit of this Congress that 
tried to open the doors of education. Pell grants, GI loans, all of 
that had to do with us saying that these are deserving people. I bet we 
can look back now and find out the investment in the GI loans has paid 
three times; the investment in Pell grants, ten times; and I can assure 
them that their investment in Title I funds in districts around this 
country where people are yearning for an education but yet do not have 
the resources, the lunches, the computers and various other things, I 
can say, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, that a better investment could not have 
been made.
  I would hope my colleagues understand that we are not trying to throw 
away money and we are not trying to give away money.

                              {time}  1300

  I had to come here on the floor of the House as we were ending, 
because I am so passionately committed to the fact that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is right. I want this amendment to be 
passed, and I want the defeaters of education and quality to be 
defeated.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that I am not a fan or advocate of the 
underlying bill, but I still care deeply about the component parts of 
this legislation and this part being one of them, because I believe 
that this particular amendment makes a bad bill worse.
  I voted for this amendment at one point in committee. I did so 
primarily because of some of the persuasive elements in the arguments 
that my colleagues have just heard. But after that vote, the committee 
adopted several others that I would consider responsible amendments 
that did a better job of providing more freedom and more liberty and 
the ability for local administrators to spend, in fact, more money on 
children in schools.
  In fact, the administrators of many of these programs estimated that 
that one amendment that dealt with the rewards program freed up funding 
for an additional 123,000 children, disadvantaged children around the 
country.

[[Page H10634]]

  So within the context of that effort to move toward greater academic 
freedom, greater managerial liberty by local administrators and 
officials, my position on this amendment has changed dramatically. It 
is for that reason that I, once again, as the subsequent vote took 
place in committee, urge that we stay at the 40 percent level threshold 
as the bill has before us today.
  I say that for a couple of reasons, and I really would ask all 
Members to consider this. We are not talking about changing one bit the 
allocation of appropriations to a school. By moving the threshold, 
however, we are allowing more schools to be involved in schoolwide 
programs to reach those children who have been identified to have the 
legitimate and honest need for additional assistance when it comes to 
bringing those kids up to grade level.
  The amendment that is being proposed is one that actually does, that 
actually constricts the ability of local administrators to get those 
dollars to kids who need it the most.
  I submit that that is the wrong direction for us to move in. I 
understand the temptations for those of us in Washington to try to 
exercise our compassion and concern, which we all share, through 
additional mandates, additional constraints, additional regulations. It 
is the problem with the amendment. It is also the problem that occurs 
throughout much of the rest of the bill. But in this case, we ought to 
take the step, even though it is a 10 percent step in the direction of 
schoolwide programs, of more freedom and flexibility at the local 
level.
  None of my colleagues here know the names of the kids in the school 
where my children are at school today. But their principal does. Their 
superintendent does. Their teachers certainly do. I submit that they 
ought to be given, even that 10 percent additional flexibility, to 
design a program that approximates the needs of those children in that 
school; and that we are out of line, frankly, here in Washington and 
under a false set of pretenses to believe that somehow our judgment is 
superior to theirs back home. That is what the underlying bill in this 
provision tries to achieve, a small 10 percent adjustment in the 
threshold that allows more flexibility.
  The amendment before us tries to take that little bit of flexibility 
away and return this provision of the bill back to the more 
prescriptive, more regulatory, more confining posture of the current 
law. This is not what our administrators have asked us to do. This is 
not what governors around the country have asked us to accomplish. This 
is not what any State superintendent has asked us to achieve.
  This is an amendment that is one that appeals to a very narrow set of 
individuals in schools, those who get to control this particular line 
item of the cash.
  I think it is time for this Congress to put children ahead of those 
folks for a change. What a novel idea. We do not do it entirely. We do 
not do it to my satisfaction.
  I am still probably going to vote no on the entire bill. But with 
respect to this amendment, the bill does achieve a 10 percent victory 
for those children who have an opportunity to be engaged in schoolwide 
programs, it is not much of a victory, but it is one that should not be 
obliterated with the amendment that is in front of us.
  Therefore, I ask the committee to vote no on the amendment of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief because I know there are a 
number of amendments that need to be offered and very important 
amendments. But this one is critically important to me for several 
reasons.
  First of all, before I came to Congress, before I even really 
followed politics closely, during the Ronald Reagan presidency, I 
followed from a distance the debate that was going on at the national 
level about the role that the Federal Government should play in 
education. That debate has been going on consistently for a good while.
  During those years, we actually came to a resolution of what the 
Federal Government's role should be in education, identifying what 
national standards should be and trying to get kids who are performing 
below a national standard up to what we should expect as a Nation to be 
the minimum standard.
  At that point, Republicans, as I recall, were consistently arguing 
that we should have a specific definition of what the Federal 
Government's role in education would be. Over time, actually the 
country came to such a consensus that the Federal Government's role 
should be carefully defined and the Federal Government dollars should 
be restricted to fulfilling that role.
  One of those roles is to make sure that kids who are performing below 
the Federal level standard get brought up to that standard.
  I do not think we can separate the debate on this amendment from that 
larger question about what the Federal Government's role in education 
should be. Because if we abandon the definition that we have given for 
the Federal Government's role and start to block grant money to the 
local governments to make their own dispositions, then the next step 
beyond that is to ask, well, what is the Federal Government's role 
again? Why should we be involved at all in education? Why would we be 
collecting money, bringing it to the Federal level, and sending it back 
to the State level without a definition of what our role at the Federal 
level is and without helping to fulfill the Federal objective?
  I think that is really what this amendment is all about. We have 
defined as a Federal role helping people who are underachieving. Poor 
people, poor kids are underachieving disproportionate to other children 
in the system. Therefore, we have elected under Title I and other 
similar programs to devote a disproportionate part of the Federal 
dollar to address that particular issue. To the extent that one steps 
away from that formula, then one is stepping away from the definition 
that we have given to the Federal role.
  I think it is important to keep in mind what the Federal Government's 
role in education is that we have, through a process of debate and 
discussion over time, coalesced behind. This amendment furthers that 
purpose.
  Now, I would not have supported cutting back from 75 to 50. I 
certainly would not support cutting back from 50 to 40. I guess the 
next step next week is going to be cutting from 40 to 0.
  Then we are going to start another whole debate, I project; and that 
debate will be, well, okay, now we are using the Federal Government as 
a pass-through, so why should we have any role for the Federal 
Government at all?
  I support the Federal Government's defined limited role in education 
and this amendment furthering that objective.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, I 
want to again commend the leadership on this committee on both sides of 
the aisle for having worked so diligently and over so many months to 
bring H.R. 2 to the floor with bipartisan support.
  I do regret the fact that, unlike some other of these negotiations 
that I have been involved in in other committees, that leadership, 
after having reached an agreement and worked out a bill that makes a 
number of improvements in the Title I program, is not willing on a 
bipartisan basis to defend the agreement on the floor of the House from 
amendments, whether they come from one party or the other.
  Because the purpose of having negotiations and give-and-take and 
working out a good piece of legislation is then to stick by those 
agreements when we get to the floor and move the bill forward.
  That having been said, I am proud that we are at this point here in 
the House of Representatives, with a good piece of legislation before 
us, authorizing more money for Title I.
  We are on the verge of, in this Congress, appropriating some $350 
million above what the administration has requested for Federal aid to 
the school children of our country, because I think we have got our 
priorities right here in this Congress.
  We have managed to appropriate, not just talk about, and not just 
authorize, but appropriate more money than ever before in the history 
of this Republic for Pell Grants to help the neediest of

[[Page H10635]]

our children to go to college and vocational school and get on the 
ladder of success here in our country, more money for special ed, and 
more flexibility for school districts to deal with disadvantaged kids 
with handicaps here in our country.
  This legislation deserves bipartisan support, not tinkering from the 
fringes. So I hope the amendment is defeated and the bill is passed.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first defend the negotiations that were 
commented on by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). The 
Democratic leadership on this committee had negotiated a bill, and they 
stood on the floor, and they said that they are going to support this 
bill. There was never any agreement that there would not be amendments 
offered. But they have said they are going to support this bill whether 
these amendments are passed or defeated.
  Now, we heard from another gentleman who said he is opposed to the 
bill, and he is opposed to this amendment.
  I want to rise in support of this amendment because it focuses 
dollars that the Congress has appropriated for disadvantaged children 
at schools in which at least 50 percent of the children are 
disadvantaged.
  Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if we 
were appropriating money for all children, then we would not be keying 
on free and reduced lunch levels, there would not be a program for 
children who were disadvantaged.
  It is because, in 49 out of our 50 States, disadvantaged children, 
that is poor children, are in schools in which their State governments 
have found a way to have less being spent on their education than 
children who are not disadvantaged; that is, they start out 
impoverished in school districts in which the financing systems end up 
giving them less per pupil than in the wealthiest districts in those 
States.
  So, now, why should the Federal Government come along with money to 
help disadvantaged students and dissipate the effectiveness of those 
dollars?
  This amendment would raise the level to 50 percent. It would say one 
has to have 50 percent of the kids in one's school in poverty in order 
to have these dollars be spent on a schoolwide effort. That is a 
reasonable position for the Democratic leadership on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to take.
  It is also understood that there was a negotiation. We are prepared 
to stand by that negotiation. But it does not bind the floor. Members 
of this Congress should come and listen to the National Education 
Association, the Council of the Great City Schools. Listen clearly to 
the administration in its statement of administration policy that they 
would like to see these dollars targeted if one wants to have the 
administration finally support this effort.
  So we ask that the Congress consider the Payne amendment. We think it 
is a reasonable position. Those of us who support Title I and support 
this bill think that this would improve the bill.
  We have those who do not support the bill, are not going to vote for 
the bill, who are saying that somehow they think that defeating the 
Payne amendment is the right way to go. Let us be on the side of those 
who support Title I and know that, even though it is a good bill, it 
can be improved by adding the amendment of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).

                              {time}  1315

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 48.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Schaffer:
       Before section 111 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 111. PUPIL SAFETY AND FAMILY SCHOOL CHOICE.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 1115A of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 6316) the following:

     ``SEC. 1115B. PUPIL SAFETY AND FAMILY SCHOOL CHOICE.

       ``(a) In General.--If a student is eligible to be served 
     under section 1115(b), or attends a school eligible for a 
     schoolwide program under section 1114, and--
       ``(1) becomes a victim of a violent criminal offense while 
     in or on the grounds of a public elementary school or 
     secondary school that the student attends and that receives 
     assistance under this part, then the local educational agency 
     shall allow such student to attend another public school or 
     public charter school in the same State as the school where 
     the criminal offense occurred, that is selected by the 
     student's parent; or
       ``(2) the public school that the student attends and that 
     receives assistance under this part has been designated as an 
     unsafe public school, then the local educational agency may 
     allow such student to attend another public school or public 
     charter school in the same State as the school where the 
     criminal offense occurred, that is selected by the student's 
     parent.
       ``(b) State Educational Agency Determinations.--
       ``(1) The State educational agency shall determine, based 
     upon State law, what actions constitute a violent criminal 
     offense for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) The State educational agency shall determine which 
     schools in the State are unsafe public schools.
       ``(3) The term `unsafe public schools' means a public 
     school that has serious crime, violence, illegal drug, and 
     discipline problems, as indicated by conditions that may 
     include high rates of--
       (A) expulsions and suspensions of students from school;
       (B) referrals of students to alternative schools for 
     disciplinary reasons, to special programs or schools for 
     delinquent youth, or to juvenile court;
       (C) victimization of students or teachers by criminal acts, 
     including robbery, assault and homicide;
       (D) enrolled students who are under court supervision for 
     past criminal behavior;
       (E) possession, use, sale or distribution of illegal drugs;
       (F) enrolled students who are attending school while under 
     the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol;
       (G) possession or use of guns or other weapons;
       (H) participation in youth gangs; or
       (I) crimes against property, such as theft or vandalism.
       ``(c) Transportation Costs.--The local educational agency 
     that serves the public school in which the violent criminal 
     offense occurred or that serves the designated unsafe public 
     school may use funds provided under this part to provide 
     transportation services or to pay the reasonable costs of 
     transportation for the student to attend the school selected 
     by the student's parent.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--Any school receiving assistance 
     provided under this section shall comply with title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and not 
     discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
       ``(e) Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
     Act.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     the requirements of part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
       ``(f) Maximum Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the amount of assistance provided under this 
     part for a student shall not exceed the per pupil expenditure 
     for elementary or secondary education, as appropriate, by the 
     local educational agency that serves the school--
       (1) where the violent criminal offense occurred for the 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the offense 
     occurred; or
       (2) designated as an unsafe public school by the State 
     educational agency for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the designation is made.

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House's favorable consideration 
of my amendment No. 48.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill deals with allowing families school choice in 
those cases where children are eligible and defined under title I of 
the bill and find themselves in a school that has a prevalence of 
violence. The bill speaks to these children in two ways. Those 
individuals who are first themselves victims of violent activity and, 
second, those that are in schools that have been defined under the bill 
as being subject to or being in an environment that is unsafe.
  Let me be specific about the terms of the bill. An unsafe public 
school means

[[Page H10636]]

a public school that has serious crime, violence, illegal drug and 
discipline problems, as indicated by conditions that may include high 
rates of expulsion and suspension of school students; referral of 
students to alternative schools for disciplinary reasons, to special 
programs for schools for delinquent youth into juvenile court; those 
where there is victimization of students or teachers by criminal acts, 
including robbery, assault, or homicide; enrolled students who are 
under court supervision for past criminal behavior, possession, use, 
sale or distribution of illegal drugs; enrolled students who are 
attending school while under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol 
possession, or use of guns or other weapons; participation of youth in 
gangs; crimes against property, such as theft and vandalism.
  It is virtually impossible, I would submit, at least according to 
most educators I have spoken with, to compete with these kind of 
unreasonable circumstances and environments in trying to deliver 
educational services to the children who need them most. It is the 
children who need them most who oftentimes find themselves in these 
exact kinds of settings and school conditions.
  I realize there are many here who believe that school choice is a bad 
idea. I am not one of them. I think free and open market approaches to 
public schooling is, in fact, a good idea. But I think in this one 
example we ought to be able to find wide and common agreement that 
those children who are victims of violence and also find themselves in 
violent schools ought to be given the freedom to exercise school 
choice; to choose another setting that more approximately meets the 
needs of those children; that offers a better opportunity for children 
to learn in less threatening environments; that gives real hope for 
children that there are teachers and there are places where the only 
objective of their setting is to teach and it is to learn and it is to 
grow academically, not to constantly be looking over one's shoulder 
wondering whether they too might be the next victim.
  This amendment is, I think, a very reasonable step in the right 
direction. It does address those schools that we all know to exist, 
where violence seems to be chronic and where children have a huge 
hurdle to clear with respect to education. This gives them a relief 
valve, an escape hatch, a way to find schools that teach, schools that 
work, and environments that are safe.
  It is on that basis, Mr. Chairman, that I ask for the body's 
favorable consideration of amendment 48.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is unnecessary and is 
presently covered under the current Title I statute. Because it appears 
that it does not expand current law, we will accept it on this side.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment.
  The opportunity to move students from a school where they have 
experienced crime or serious problems, I think, is a proper direction. 
Again, what we are doing is we are providing flexibility. In this case, 
we are empowering students, we are empowering parents, and we are 
empowering local school districts to make the appropriate decision for 
their children as to where they need to be educated. Again, this builds 
on the other programs that we have introduced and passed this year that 
are moving decision-making back to the local level, back to teachers, 
and back to States. This is really the appropriate place for those 
decisions to be made.
  In this amendment we are empowering parents and we are empowering 
people at the local level to do the right thing to help their students. 
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the author of the 
legislation. In the legislation at the present time, we allow parents 
to move children within a school district to another school, or a 
charter school in that district, if it is classified as a dysfunctional 
school or a nonachieving school.
  As I understand the gentleman's amendment, he expands that to say 
that an individual can go across district lines to a public school or a 
charter school, and also if it is because of the problems that are in 
the school beyond academic problems. Do I understand that correctly?
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. The gentleman is correct. The choice mechanism in the 
bill, as drafted, triggers the choice option only in those cases where 
schools are determined to be nonachieving schools, or failing schools. 
This amendment acknowledges that it is quite possible, in fact likely 
in many cases, that an achieving school, one that is succeeding, may 
also be a violent school on occasion.
  So in those instances we give an additional trigger, I guess, in this 
bill, would be the appropriate way to say it, that allows parents whose 
children suffer from violence or in violent schools that do not meet 
the definition currently in the bill the option of choosing another 
academic setting in a public school or a public charter school.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 43.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Roemer: In section 1002(a) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     proposed to be amended by section 103 of the bill strike 
     ``$8,350,000,000'' and insert ``$9,850,000,000''.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment to 
increase the money for the poorest and most at-risk children in America 
under Title I funding programs by $1.5 billion. I offer this on behalf 
of myself, on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), a 
Republican; the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a Republican; 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a Democrat.
  Now my colleagues know, on both sides of the aisle, that I probably 
come down into the House well often to cut a program, to argue for a 
balanced budget, to encourage this body to have a provision in the 
legislative appropriations bill where we can return money out of our 
office accounts back to the treasury so that we reduce the debt; and I 
have been the coauthor of that bill for the last 8 years, but I do not 
come down into this well to throw money at problems. But today we have 
a bipartisan bill, a bill that is not the status quo, a bill that does 
not continue a program that has had some problems lifting many children 
that are 1 year or 2 years behind in reading and math and science back 
to the level they should be.
  We have taken appropriate action in this Republican-Democratic bill 
to address those concerns. The very strength of that action, that 
bipartisan action, was to require tougher certification for the 
teachers, all teachers certified in those programs by 2003, and to 
require that para-professionals who are working in this program and 
being paid can no longer be simply working toward a high school degree 
or a GED. Now they need to be certified.
  We provide an incentive program for those children and those schools 
that do better. We have an incentive program in here now to reward 
those good schools. We have tightened up the accountability in this 
bill. We have tightened up the standards in this bill. We have improved 
drastically, in a bipartisan way, the Title I program for the most at-
risk, the poorest, and the most disadvantaged kids in America. Why can 
we not then put a little bit more money into this program to make sure 
those kids have the opportunity to learn? That is why I came to 
Congress, is to improve the education system in this country. That is 
what we are doing in this bill.
  Now my colleagues might say, okay, how much money is it going to 
take? We currently have today, my colleagues, 4 million children in the 
Title I program that do not get a dime, they do not get a nickel, they 
do not get a penny. We do not help them. $1.5 billion. Would it make a 
difference to

[[Page H10637]]

some of them? Yes. To all of them? According to the Congressional 
Research Service, they say it would take $24 billion to fully fund 
Title I.
  My amendment, my bipartisan amendment, would simply lift the funding 
from $8.3 billion to $9.8 billion, $15 billion short of what it would 
take to fully fund this program for the poorest, most at-risk kids, 
who, if they drop out of school, are more likely to get involved in 
delinquency, are more likely maybe to fall into juvenile centers or to 
get into the incarceration system, and then we really pay a price. So I 
would encourage my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan increase.
  And I just want to end on the fact that 196 years ago, in 1803, the 
Senate ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty on a vote of 24 to 7. We 
bought the western half of the Mississippi River Basin from France for 
less than 3 cents per acre. We expanded the size of the country and 
paved the way for western development. This is a better investment, in 
our children, in our future, in giving people a chance to succeed 
spiritually, emotionally and educationally. Let us give our kids a 
chance to get a good, decent education in America today. Vote for this 
bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We have just heard the same chorus that we have heard for 20 or 30 
years. If we just had more money, somehow or other the problems will go 
away. Even though the program is not a quality program, something good 
will happen. All we need to do is spend more money.

                              {time}  1330

  Well, it has not worked, and we have been spending more money and 
spending more money. Now we believe we have put together a piece of 
legislation that will work. And so, we are going to show to those 
appropriators, as a matter of fact, as this kicks in and becomes a 
reality, that it is beginning to work. And, therefore, I am sure they 
will be happy to pour in much more money.
  But we have already, and we had an agreement, three leaders on their 
side agreed, we are appropriating $7.7 billion. We moved it up to $8.35 
billion. That was a bipartisan agreement. I realize they are not worth 
much, I suppose. But, nevertheless, that was the bipartisan agreement. 
We had moved it up to $8.35 billion.
  First all, the 1997 study was a disaster. The 1998 study indicated 
that, somehow or other, we improved a little bit on NAPE scores for 
these youngsters, we got them back up to where they were 10 years 
before.
  However, all that is under investigation now. Because it also appears 
that the way to do that is, as I told them in committee the way they 
did when I was to fire on the rifle range and because I was so cross-
eyed I did not know which was my target and it messed us up and our 
platoon did not do as well as the other platoons, so my sergeant said, 
well, we will just put somebody else's helmet on your head and that way 
our company will do well, and that sounds about like what we are trying 
to do here.
  We have to prove now to the appropriators that we put together a 
piece of legislation that is, for the first time in the history of 
Title I, going to help improve the academic achievement of those most 
in need, those who are two grade levels below. Because that is what 
Title I is all about. And so, we have to prove that.
  But already we have taken a gamble and said, we know it is going to 
succeed. Get it through the Senate. Get it down, and get it signed and 
we know it will succeed.
  So we said, okay, not $7.7 billion, $8.35 billion, which, as I said, 
was negotiated, was agreed upon by several of the leaders on that side 
and our side.
  So I would hope, again, that we first prove that we have finally made 
the changes in this legislation that will help the most disadvantaged 
youngsters in this country to receive a quality education so we can 
close the gap.
  More money has never done it. Covering more children with mediocrity 
has never done it. Now, more money with excellence, that is a different 
story. But we are now in a position that we have to prove that. We have 
to prove what we put together collectively in a bipartisan fashion 
will, as a matter of fact, turn this whole situation around. So I would 
say we have already increased it.
  Let us not hold out a lot of hope, and it is false hope of course, by 
simply raising an authorization level beyond what we have already done.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of this very important 
amendment in this reauthorization process. I commend my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and my good friend the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Quinn) for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came to the United States Congress, I came from 
the fiscal tradition of Senator Bill Proxmire in Wisconsin. I am very 
proud of the fiscally responsible record that I have developed as a 
young Member of this body. I believe we can maintain fiscal discipline 
while making crucial investments for our future.
  I do not often come to the House floor asking for an expansion of 
programs or more money for programs unless I feel in my heart that it 
is absolutely vital and necessary in order to accomplish the goals of 
those programs. This, Mr. Chairman, is one of those programs. An 
expansion of Title I funding, I believe, is just dealing with reality.
  There are school districts all around the country, high-poverty 
school districts, that are in desperate need of basic supplies, more 
material, and more resources. We have one example of the commitment 
that teachers are putting into their own profession and in their own 
schools from a news report that was released just a couple of weeks ago 
in the city of Waterbury, Connecticut, when teachers with their first 
two paychecks voluntarily took money out of their own pockets totaling 
$303,000 dollars and donated it back to the school district in order to 
use it for more books and supplies and computers and other educational 
needs. And it was based on a matching fund agreement with the city and 
the school board.
  This is just one example of many across the country of teachers who 
are willing to dip into their own pockets to buy supplies for the 
students that they are responsible for because policymakers are not 
doing the job, not giving them the tools to succeed with their 
students. That is a tragedy, especially when we are talking about a 
program such as Title I that is targeted to the highest at-risk 
students, who have the greatest need, and are the most disadvantaged 
students across the country.
  This is comparable to the great epic struggle of the 20th century for 
Western Civilization, the Second World War, with Winston Churchill 
coming to the United States, which was an isolationist country at the 
time and a reluctant ally to get involved with the fight against 
Naziism and fascism. Churchill understood that and he went to F.D.R. 
and said, I understand the position you are in as a Nation, your 
reluctance to get involved in European entanglements. But if you give 
us the tools, we will finish the job. The United States did give 
England the tools through Lend-Lease and Churchill called that the most 
``unsordid act'' of generosity.
  That is a common refrain we are hearing from across the country from 
administrators and parents and teachers that if we policymakers can 
just give them the tools, they can finish the job. This is the next 
great challenge that we face as a Nation in the 21st century: to be 
able to provide quality educational opportunities for all our children 
regardless of where they live and the wealth of their communities.
  Yes, we can demand greater accountability and even more flexibility 
at the local level. We did that earlier this year with the Ed-Flex 
legislation. But let us not delude ourselves into believing that this 
debate is not also about dollars and cents to the classroom. Adequate 
resources is a very important ingredient to doing the job that we would 
like to see local school districts be able to perform in enhancing 
student performance and giving all of our children the educational 
opportunities that they desperately need and deserve.
  So I want to encourage the Members of this body, in the bipartisan 
spirit in which the amendment is offered, to support this amendment and 
improve on what is a good bill but what can be a better bill with the 
passage of the

[[Page H10638]]

 $1.5 billion increase in the authorization level.
  This is just an authorization level. We still have to convince the 
appropriators that this is a level that needs to be fully funded. But I 
think it also sends not only a message to the appropriators but to the 
American people that the United States Congress is getting serious 
about establishing the priorities that are important to our country. 
Education is one such priority that should be at the top of the list 
when it comes to balancing the budget and allocating our limited 
resources for one of the most effective investments that we can make in 
our children.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take all 5 minutes. I just want to 
rise in support of the work my good friend the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) has done and others have spoken to and want to say how 
pleased I am to offer this amendment.
  I also want to mention the fact, as others have and will, that I am a 
firm believer that just throwing more money at many problems does not 
solve them.
  I know the background of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Goodling) is in education. I happened to have been a middle school 
teacher for 10 years before I came to work here in the Congress and 
know that there are some problems we will never fix no matter how much 
money we throw at them or throw toward them or with them.
  This is one, though, that works. This is one where I think we are 
appreciative of the work that the chairman and the ranking member of 
the full committee and the chairman and the ranking member also of the 
subcommittee. We appreciate that increase of 7.7 up to 8.3.
  We are suggesting another modest increase that will not solve all the 
problems, will not be a panacea, and there will still be some problems. 
But I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are some problems in 
this country in some schools where when and if we can get some 
additional funding it will make a difference.
  I am convinced that this is one of those areas where that will work. 
I am convinced that when we approach this in a bipartisan way, we will 
have success. We are willing to work with the committee and the 
appropriators to make sure that that kind of money is made available.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of 
this legislation that we have before us this afternoon on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, and I think that the committee has done a 
magnificent task in changing the direction of the Title I program. I 
think that is why it took us so long to mark it up in committee. That 
is why we are spending a considerable amount of time on it here on the 
floor yesterday and today.
  But the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) pointed out, we are changing the direction of this program; and 
as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has pointed out a 
number of times, we are changing the direction of this program. We are 
taking a program that for all too long did not have much accountability 
in it, did not affix responsibility to parties, it really did not have 
standards of excellence in it. We are changing that now; and, in fact, 
we are redirecting this program on a course of excellence and 
accountability and performance.
  The time has come where we can no longer, with the knowledge that we 
have of the number of children who are not able to participate, not 
provide the adequate funding so that those children can participate to 
the full extent of the advantages of this law. They must be included in 
this program. The Roemer amendment provides for that to happen. That is 
why we ought to support it.
  One of the things when we look at schools that are reconstituted by 
local school boards, the governing bodies of local Government, when we 
look at schools where venture capitalists have come in, various firms 
have been formed now to take over some of these schools and run them on 
a private market model where they have turned them into charter 
schools, it is very interesting that in many of these schools that are 
poor performing and have a disproportionate number of disadvantaged 
children in these schools, the first thing they do is add money. The 
very first thing the private marketers do is they add money to these 
schools.
  It runs about a half a million dollars a school. When they say, pay 
us, we will run their school, we will get the results for them, we will 
show them how the market system will work, the first thing they do is 
invest capital in those schools on behalf of those disadvantaged 
children.
  Money does make a difference. It, in fact, does make a difference. 
And that is what private firm after private firm after private firm has 
been doing with these schools.
  As everybody here has just claimed, that does not mean that throwing 
money at a problem will solve that problem. But here there are many 
problems that will not be fixed if we do not have money. And children 
who are not included in this program are not going to get the 
advantages of it.
  I think we should take the pride of our workmanship here, we should 
take the understanding of the redirection that we have given to this 
program on a bipartisan basis, and we ought to take the Roemer 
amendment and try to add to the funding for this program for 
excellence. We ought to add to this funding for the results that we 
expect and for the accountability that is in this program.
  Because we are challenging the States, we are challenging the States 
on behalf of the Federal taxpayers to close the gap between rich and 
poor students, between majority and minority students. We are 
challenging the States to provide qualified teachers in every classroom 
within 4 years. With those kinds of changes in this program, we have 
the opportunity to deliver a program of excellence at the local level 
on behalf of these students.
  As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has pointed out, we cannot 
continue to allow the tremendous number of students who are not 
included in this program, who do not get served in this program, to 
continue to happen in this country because we are losing those children 
and their opportunity to participate in our economy, to participate in 
our society to the fullest extent of their potential.
  Because that is the tragedy, the downside of not properly funding 
this program. That is why this amendment is well placed, it is well 
directed, and I think we ought to recognize that that amendment is a 
complement to the work that this committee has done and the faith we 
have in these very, very difficult changes, very tough changes that we 
have made in this program at the urging of the chairman of the 
committee, the ranking member, and the two subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members of this committee.
  I urge passage of the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  The interesting thing about this process has been it has been a 
bipartisan effort. My understanding is that the bipartisan bill that 
was negotiated in good faith included an increase in the authorization 
level from $7.7 billion a year to $8.35 billion.
  I believe, as my chairman said earlier in the debate on this, we are 
finding that bipartisan agreements do not necessarily mean a whole lot 
anymore. What we are now finding is that, in this bill, we are moving 
from the current authorization from $7.7 billion in its proposal to 
move up to $9.85 billion.
  This is a 36-percent increase in funding for a bill that my 
colleagues on the committee have said all of the reports would indicate 
that we are not doing very well with this program.
  Today, 34 years later since the inception of Title I, we still see a 
huge gap in the achievement levels between students from poor families 
and students from non-poor families.

                              {time}  1345

  I do not want new money for Title I until we fix it. I am not sure 
there ever

[[Page H10639]]

was a time when Title I was unbroken, but it certainly is broken now.
  So before we take a look at whether the changes that are in this bill 
which move more accountability and more control to Washington, before 
we take a look at whether what I believe is a misdirected step actually 
will improve the education of our most neediest children, this 
amendment says, ``Let's throw 36 percent more money at the problem 
before we realize whether the changes that we have proposed will 
actually make a difference or not.''
  I do not think that is necessarily a good step to take. I do not 
think it is a wise step to take. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it sounds like we are being criticized because we would 
throw money at our schools, and our accusers might be right. We do want 
to throw money at our public schools, and we know that by putting more 
money into our public schools, we would solve many problems.
  Think about it. We do not hesitate to throw money at the Department 
of Defense. We throw plenty of money to build roads and bridges. But 
when it comes to our schools and to our children, somehow it is rude to 
talk about spending money. Somehow all of our schools, regardless of 
where they are, are expected to give all of our students a first-class 
education on a second-rate budget. Mr. Chairman, it will not happen if 
we continue to do this.
  If this country, led by this Congress, does not begin to invest in 
our children and do it now, it will not matter how many fancy new 
weapons our defense funds buy, because there will not be enough 
soldiers with the education to use those weapons. And there may not be 
any new weapons at all because who is going to be educated enough to 
build and design these weapons? Who will be mixing the materials and 
operating the machinery to build all those new roads and bridges? Have 
my colleagues seen how high tech the equipment is these days?
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to be voting for the gentleman from 
Indiana's amendment to increase funding for Title I. $24 billion is 
barely what we need. That is what the Congressional Research Service 
says that we would need to fully fund Title I. Let us get with it, let 
us support our children, and let us increase the funding for Title I.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Roemer-Quinn-Kelly 
amendment to H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. I commend the Members of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for bringing this bipartisan legislation before us 
today. Under the language of H.R. 2, Title I has been authorized at a 
level of $8.35 billion. Our amendment would increase this authorization 
by $1.5 billion, to bring it to a total of $9.85 billion for the fiscal 
years 2000 through 2005.
  The Student Results Act will hold our educational system to a higher 
set of standards. It requires the States and the school districts to 
issue report cards on student achievement to the parents and the 
community. It also recognizes that there is an active achievement gap, 
and demands that the State and local education agencies establish a 
plan to close this gap.
  H.R. 2 provides choice and flexibility and rewards while demanding 
accountability, quality and results. The bill before us today continues 
to provide flexibility for our State and local education agencies which 
we have already established earlier this year in the Ed-Flex bill and 
the Teacher Empowerment Act. The Title I program is the largest Federal 
commitment to elementary and secondary education in the reauthorization 
before Congress this year. Passage of our amendment will provide 
additional funds to help States, school districts and schools make the 
changes necessary to raise student achievement across the board.
  As a former public school teacher and the mother of four, I support 
public schools. And I know that few things are more important to the 
future success of our children and our Nation than education. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment as well as the underlying bill. In 
doing so, we will demonstrate our real commitment to Title I programs 
and to improving the educational system in this Nation.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like my other colleagues, rise to support the 
Roemer-Quinn-Kelly-Etheridge amendment to increase Title I funding to 
$9.85 billion. I will be very brief. I will not use all my time. The 
reason I will not is because this ought to happen and we ought not even 
to be debating it.
  This will provide additional funding for more students. Over a third 
of the students are not now allowed to be involved in this program 
because there is not enough funding and the funding level is too low to 
provide for the curriculum enrichment that many of these children need, 
for the staff development that needs to be done, and the accountability 
in this bill in my opinion is what we ought to be about. And the report 
card is certainly needed. It is what we have done in North Carolina now 
for almost 10 years.
  It has made a difference in our State and it will make a difference 
in this Nation. It ought not be a debatable issue. It ought to be 
something we are moving on and doing.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that approximately 99 percent of 
this money, of Title I money, goes to that local school. My colleagues 
on the left over here, as they refer to themselves on the right, are 
always talking about how much goes to the classroom. Ninety-nine 
percent of this money goes directly to the local school unit, for those 
children that so badly need it, that have the greatest need. If we are 
going to improve education in America, we are going to improve it for 
all children and every classroom in every corner of this country. Let 
us pass this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Kelly-Quinn amendment and want 
to make two points: The first is the reason I support this amendment, I 
think one of our highest priorities ought to be providing the tools to 
our teachers and principals in our most struggling schools to help 
their students survive. The second point I want to make pertains to a 
question that was asked which was, do we really know what works, are we 
really willing to make that investment?
  Let me offer to my colleagues as an example the State of Florida. In 
the State of Florida, we are having a terribly hardy debate right now 
about vouchers. I personally do not support vouchers. But when you look 
past all the speeches that are being made, what Democrats and 
Republicans, what virtually all lawmakers agree upon, is that we know 
what works to help our most struggling students succeed. It is smaller 
class size, it is giving after-school and before-school programs, it is 
providing tutor support, exactly the ingredients to success contained 
in this amendment. We know it works. We do not need to wait. We need to 
do it. I urge strong support of the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Most of these points have been made. 
Title I, I think, is very, very important. And I think covering as many 
children as we can within some degree of reason is very, very 
important. We are making significant changes in this legislation, most 
of which, if not all of which, I happen to believe are positive and I 
think things that we should do.
  One of the key things that was worked out, and it has already been 
stressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but was worked out with 
the key Members from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking members over there, was the 
increase which is included here, and I stress that that is an increase 
which is included here, the good faith increases to $8.35 billion from 
$7.7 billion. I am doing this math in my head, so hopefully it is 
correct. But I think that is about a 9 percent increase in the 
authorization. That is a 1-year increase in authorization.

[[Page H10640]]

  In this amendment, we are dealing with an increase which is about a 
25 percent increase, and I am not sure that they could even put that 
into place, much less be able to sustain it. But from an economic point 
of view, there are many things we have to do in education. We have to 
deal with IDEA, we have to deal with all the other programs involved in 
the ESEA, and there are many other things we have to do in general. I 
just do not think this is a responsible step.
  I think it is disappointing that we have not taken the stand of the 
bipartisan leadership of this community on that and endorsed the new 
and higher figure which they recommended. Hopefully we can defeat this 
amendment and go ahead and pass the bill and there will be an increase 
and we will be able to help those kids who are disadvantaged more than 
we do now.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as possible 
because I know I have colleagues who have amendments. I rise in support 
of the Roemer-Kelly-Quinn amendment and talk about that it is just $1.5 
billion in authorization. The biggest battle always is in the Committee 
on Appropriations that is done every year here. But this lets us at 
least go to the Committee on Appropriations because we have to 
authorize before we can appropriate.
  This year we have seen that what has happened with the Committee on 
Appropriations, literally the Labor-HHS appropriations bill is the last 
one that comes up on the floor of the House, it is a second thought to 
everything else we do and it really should be the first thought. 
Education is expensive. It is expensive for teachers, expensive for 
administrators, for parents, but mostly it is expensive for the 
community. That is why this authorization, even though it is a partial 
loaf, is so important.
  If my colleagues think education is expensive, they ought to see how 
expensive ignorance is, because we see what is happening, whether it be 
the businesses in my district along the Houston ship channel trying to 
hire students or like my colleague from California said earlier, young 
people who graduate from high school to join our military, we need to 
make sure they are qualified and they are ready to go into business and 
industry or else to serve their country.
  Again, this is just a partial success, but we have thousands of 
students all over the country who are not served by Title I and this 
authorization increase would be a great first step.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, wanted to rise on this amendment, the Roemer-
Quinn-Kelly-Etheridge amendment, et al. Increasing Title I by $1.5 
billion will go a long way. It will not go far enough as far as I am 
concerned where in New York City only one-third of the eligible 
students for Title I actually receive Title I funding. There is more we 
have to do to help education in this country. We have to build more 
classrooms, lower class size, get more funding from the Federal 
Government for school construction and modernization. But I think even 
more importantly, we have to make sure there is money there in this 
budget for all children who are entitled to Title I education program 
funding.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       At the end of section 1114 of the the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by 
     section 108 of the bill, add the following:
       ``(e) Prekindergarten Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--A school that is eligible for a 
     schoolwide program under this section may use funds made 
     available under this title to establish or enhance 
     prekindergarten programs in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents.--Before a school uses funds made available 
     under this title to establish or enhance prekindergarten 
     programs it shall consider the following:
       ``(A) The need to establish or expand a prekindergarten 
     program.
       ``(B) Hiring individuals to work with children in the 
     prekindergarten program who are teachers or child development 
     specialists certified by the State.
       ``(C) The ratio of teacher or child development specialist 
     to children not exceeding 10-1.
       ``(D) Developing a sliding fee schedule to ensure that the 
     parents of a child who attends a prekindergarten program 
     established under this section share in the cost of providing 
     the prekindergarten program, with the amount of such 
     contribution not to exceed $50 each week that a child attends 
     such program.
       ``(E) That none of the funds received under this title may 
     be used for the construction or renovation of existing or new 
     facilities (except for minor remodeling needed to accomplish 
     the purposes of this subsection).
       ``(F) Using a collaborative process with organizations and 
     members of the community that have an interest and experience 
     in early childhood development and education to establish 
     prekindergarten programs.
       ``(G) Coordinating with and expanding, but not duplicating 
     or supplanting, early childhood programs that exist in the 
     community.
       ``(H) Providing scientifically based research on early 
     childhood education services that focus on language, 
     literacy, and reading development.
       ``(I) How the program will meet the diverse needs of 
     children aged 0-5 in the community, including children who 
     have special needs.
       ``(J) Employing methods that ensure a smooth transition for 
     participating students from early childhood education to 
     kindergarten and early elementary education.
       ``(K) The results the programs are intended to achieve, and 
     what tools to use to measure the progress in attaining those 
     results.
       ``(L) Providing, either directly or through private 
     contributions, non-Federal matching funds equal to not less 
     than 50 percent of the amount of the funds used under this 
     title for the prekindergarten programs, with such 
     contributions including in kind contributions and parental 
     co-payments.
       ``(M) Developing a plan to operate the program without 
     using funds made available under this title.

  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for his indulgence. I would be open to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania's suggestion of a second-degree amendment. 
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that under whole 
school reform, pre-K programs may be offered on a whole school basis 
for children.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodling to Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. 
                                Andrews

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling to amendment No. 9 
     offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Strike line 1 on page 1 and all that follows through line 
     20 on page 3 of the amendment (subsection (e) that is 
     proposed to be added by the amendment at the end of section 
     1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) 
     and insert the following:
       ``(e) Prekindergarten Program.--A school that is eligible 
     for a schoolwide program under this section may use funds 
     made available under this title to establish or enhance 
     prekindergarten programs for 3, 4, and 5-year old children, 
     such as Even Start programs.''.

  Mr. GOODLING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in its present form, the Andrews 
amendment lays the groundwork for expanding prekindergarten programs by 
developing a specific set of criteria that schools must consider when 
using Title I money for pre-K programs under schoolwide reform.
  My second-degree amendment maintains the language that allows schools 
to use funds under the schoolwide program to establish or enhance 
prekindergarten programs but strikes the

[[Page H10641]]

specific set of criteria. In other words, my amendment explicitly says 
that schools can use Title I money to establish or enhance 
prekindergarten programs for 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children, including 
such programs as Even Start.
  In doing so, it provides schools with the necessary flexibility that 
is needed to run a schoolwide program without dictating a series of 
additional requirements. I understand that the gentleman from New 
Jersey is supportive of this change and I appreciate his work on the 
issue.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania's 
bipartisan cooperation. I believe this is a good step forward. I would 
yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his help.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Petri

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

       Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Petri:
       After section 1128 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be added by section 126 
     of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 127. ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT CHILD CENTERED PROGRAMS.

       Part A of title I is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

               ``Subpart 3--Pilot Child Centered Program

     ``SEC. 1131. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Eligible child.--The term `eligible child' means a 
     child who--
       ``(A) is an eligible child under this part; and
       ``(B) the State or participating local educational agency 
     elects to serve under this subpart.
       ``(2) Participating local educational agency.--The term 
     `participating local educational agency' means a local 
     educational agency that elects under section 1132 to carry 
     out a child centered program under this subpart.
       ``(3) School.--The term `school' means an institutional day 
     or residential school that provides elementary or secondary 
     education, as determined under State law, except that such 
     term does not include any school that provides education 
     beyond grade 12.
       ``(4) Education services.--The term `education services' 
     means services intended--
       ``(A) to meet the individual educational needs of eligible 
     children; and
       ``(B) to enable eligible children to meet challenging State 
     curriculum, content, and student performance standards.
       ``(5) Tutorial assistance providers.--The term `tutorial 
     assistance provider' means a public or private entity that--
       ``(A) has a record of effectiveness in providing tutorial 
     assistance to school children; or
       ``(B) uses instructional practices based on scientific 
     research.

     ``SEC. 1132. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM FUNDING.

       ``(a) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall grant to the first 10 States that 
     meet the requirements of paragraph (2) the authority to use 
     funds made available under subparts 1 and 2, to carry out a 
     child centered program under this subpart on a Statewide 
     basis or to allow local educational agencies in such State to 
     elect to carry out such a program on a districtwide basis.
       ``(2) Requirements.--To be eligible to participate in a 
     program under this subpart, a State shall provide to the 
     Secretary a request to carry out a child centered program and 
     certification of approval for such participation from the 
     State legislature and Governor.
       ``(b) Participating Local Educational Agency Election.--If 
     a State does not carry out a child centered program under 
     this subpart, but allows local educational agencies in the 
     State to carry out child centered programs under this 
     subpart, the Secretary shall provide the funds that a 
     participating local educational agency is eligible to receive 
     under subparts 1 and 2 directly to the local educational 
     agency to enable the local educational agency to carry out 
     the child centered program.

     ``SEC. 1133. CHILD CENTERED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Uses.--Under a child centered program--
       ``(1) the State or participating local educational agency 
     shall establish a per pupil amount based on the number of 
     eligible children in the State or the school district served 
     by the participating local educational agency; and
       ``(2) the State or participating local educational agency 
     may vary the per pupil amount to take into account factors 
     that may include--
       ``(A) variations in the cost of providing education 
     services in different parts of the State or the school 
     district served by the participating local educational 
     agency;
       ``(B) the cost of providing services to pupils with 
     different educational needs; or
       ``(C) the desirability of placing priority on selected 
     grades; and
       ``(3) the State or the participating local educational 
     agency shall make available a certificate for the per pupil 
     amount determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) to the parent 
     or legal guardian of each eligible child, which certificate 
     shall be used for education services for the eligible child 
     that are--
       ``(A) subject to subparagraph (B), provided by the child's 
     school, directly or through a contract for the provision of 
     supplemental education services with any governmental or 
     nongovernmental agency, school, postsecondary educational 
     institution, or other entity, including a private 
     organization or business; or
       ``(B) if requested by the parent or legal guardian of an 
     eligible child, purchased from a tutorial assistance 
     provider, or another public or private school, selected by 
     the parent or guardian.

     ``SEC. 1134. LIMITATION ON CONDITIONS; PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preempt any 
     provision of a State constitution or State statute that 
     pertains to the expenditure of State funds in or by religious 
     institutions.''.

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a pilot program 
that allows up to 10 States or school districts with the approval of 
their respective State legislatures and governors to convert Title I 
into a portable benefit, one that follows the child to the education 
service chosen by his or her parents. The amendment gives interested 
States wide latitude to vary the amount of the benefit according to 
factors such as differences in cost of services in different areas of 
the State, differences in educational needs of students, or a desire to 
place priority on selected grades.
  The amendment also provides wide latitude in the types of educational 
services which may be covered. This amendment does not require States 
to provide benefits to all poor students regardless of educational 
need, as some have indicated. States are explicitly allowed to target 
the funds as they wish. Therefore, this provision will not necessarily 
dilute the assistance provided to current Title I recipients. In fact, 
Mr. Chairman, States can increase targeting to those students with the 
greatest educational need if they so wish.
  Similarly, the amendment need not threaten school-wide programs. For 
example, States could provide that any child attending a school with a 
school-wide program must use his or her Title I benefit to pay for that 
program. If the State also provides public school choice, it would then 
get some highly useful market-based feedback on the perceived value of 
those school-wide programs.
  The child-centered benefit might be more difficult in the current 
program to administer, but I prefer to let the States and school 
districts decide whether the benefit of this approach exceeds any such 
costs.
  The basic philosophy of this amendment is that if something is broken 
we should allow people to try to fix it. I am not sure if there ever 
really was a time when Title I was unbroken, but it is certainly broken 
now. There are some places where it works, including some in my own 
district, but on the whole studies show that the $120 billion we have 
spent on this program over the years has failed the children that it 
was supposed to help.
  It is time to let the States try something different, and it is 
especially appealing to allow experimentation when we have so little 
clues when it is so unlikely that we will do worse than the current 
program.
  And what is the heart of the experiment allowed by this amendment? It 
gives power to parents. If education bureaucracies have not helped 
their children, why not give some decision-making power to parents? To 
those who

[[Page H10642]]

 argue poor parents cannot make good decisions, I reply that that 
represents the kind of bureaucratic paternalism that has failed 
practically everywhere it has been applied. To those who argue that the 
likely per-child benefit on the order of some $650 is not a lot, well I 
reply that it is something, and something is better than nothing.
  It will offer some choices and give parents some power and the 
responsibility to play some direct role in the education of their 
children. The money could pay for supplementary services from a variety 
of sources including a child's own public school. It could even be used 
by a private school student to pay for an exemplary after-school or 
Saturday morning program at a public school. We should never assume 
that the public schools could not compete for these dollars. But if 
some parents decided that the best option for their children was to 
apply their $650 toward private school tuition rather than 
supplementary services of any kind and that $650 made the difference in 
enabling them to afford the tuition, I believe we owe it to their 
children to allow them to make that choice.
  Some decades ago, Mr. Chairman, many folks used the slogan: Power to 
the People. Of course, they really meant power to themselves claiming 
to represent the people. This amendment provides real power to the 
people and one of the strongest kind, purchasing power. In every other 
case where individual consumers make decisions, we get better and 
cheaper goods and services. Why not try that in compensatory education?
  Remember, this is a pilot program. We are trying a different 
approach. If it does not work, we can return to the drawing board and 
consider other options; but if it does work, Mr. Chairman, if it does 
make a difference to our educationally disadvantaged students, then it 
means that today with this bill in this 106th Congress we will have 
significantly affected the future of America and of her children. What 
have we got to lose?
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, for similar reasons on the Armey amendment I rise to 
oppose my good friend from Wisconsin's (Mr. Petri) amendment. We have 
already voted on the issue of private school vouchers both in committee 
and earlier today on the floor; and in both times, Mr. Chairman, the 
amendments were defeated overwhelmingly.
  The Petri amendment would allow Title I funds to be diverted from the 
poor public schools to be used for private school vouchers in 10 
States. We all know that vouchers do raise the usual constitutional 
issues, and others argue also that they could jeopardize the 
independence of our private schools and certainly undermine the 
administration of the Title I program; and also, when we look at the 
real amount authorized in this amendment for vouchers, it certainly 
would be too small for poor families who actually send their children 
to private schools where the tuition is usually quite high.
  I think rather than diverting funds to private schools, we should be 
investing additional resources to public schools where over 90 percent 
of America's children learn every day. We defeated by a very sound 
margin earlier today the Armey amendment, and as my colleagues defeated 
that amendment, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the Petri 
amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and it 
has been a privilege to work with him in committee and here on the 
floor.
  I support this amendment because I believe our Nation's students will 
immeasurably be benefited when Federal money begins to follow the 
child. This is a proposal that has been floated for a number of years 
by Checker Finn and others. It has been supported by the Heritage 
Foundation and is hardly a strange concept. We have a similar approach 
in college funding called Pell grants named after former Senator 
Claiborne Pell, a Democrat. Out of deference to my friend from 
Michigan, I guess we will not call these Kildee grants, but it is not a 
new concept that we would have the money follow the student and follow 
the child. We have done this in college education for years and have 
not disrupted public educational colleges, and it has strengthened in 
fact the choices that parents have.
  This amendment simply allows 10 States to experiment with a new pilot 
program. One would think that we were trying to gut the schools rather 
than saying if the legislature and the governor decide in a few pilot 
States that they want to experiment that they should be allowed to do 
so.
  I believe in choice. I believe in public school choice. I believe in 
private school choice, and one of the most astounding things that is 
happening in America is watching in the urban centers in particular the 
rapid growth of African American and other minority school choice 
programs run by locals who are concerned that their kids are not 
getting the education. It is not sufficient to say that the dollars 
that go to Title I to the student is not enough to cover the tuition.
  The fact is in Cleveland, when the court just threw out their private 
school support program, the parents worked together to come up with 
that money because they are very concerned about the quality of 
education for their students. The Catholic church for years has 
subsidized members of their parish who cannot afford it. We see that in 
Golden Rule in Indiana with Pat Rooney. He has put together scholarship 
funds. We see Ted Forstman and others do this. The demand is far 
exceeding. There are supplemental ways to get the income in. Some 
sacrifice for the parents. They are voting with their feet, and not 
every school costs like St. Albans, where our vice president may send 
his children or like the private schools in Washington where Members of 
Congress may send their children or the private schools around the 
country where the affluent send their children. There are many lower 
cost private schools where people, apparently the only people who can 
have those choices are middle-class and upper-class parents, not the 
lower-income people who need the desperate education.

  Furthermore, let me make clear that it is not a matter of just this 
sudden abandonment of the public schools. We are not going to wipe out 
our Federal education programs for the public schools because even if 
we maximized private school choice, for multiple reasons it would 
probably never hit in this country. If we had a pure voucher system, 
more than 20 percent.
  I went to public schools; my kids are in public schools. Most people 
are not going to abandon their local school. It is close, they know the 
teachers, they are invested in it. But denying those who have the most 
at stake who most need the best education possible the possibility of 
even having a pilot program that would have to clear State legislature 
and a governor and give them an opportunity that if they can find a 
place where they can take this voucher or at least have the leverage to 
go to the school and say, I might take my child out if you do not 
respond to some of my concerns, to deprive the powerless of any power 
over their school systems, they often have very little control over the 
school boards already. They are ignored by the principals; they are 
ignored by the teachers. At least if they could take their money like a 
middle-class or an upper-class family and say, I might leave, perhaps 
they would be listened to.
  Why would we take the most powerless in this society and say, 
everybody but you gets a choice, but not you.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

                 [From the Public Interest, Fall, 1998]

                      Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

                    Washington Versus School Reform

           (By Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Michael J. Petrilli)

 [Note: This is the original manuscript and has been heavily edited by 
                         the Public Interest.]

       ``Promiscuous'' is an overused word in Washington these 
     days, but it aptly describes the trend in federal education 
     policy-both at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and on Capital Hill. 
     The 1990's have seen the wanton transformation of innumerable 
     notions, fads and impulses into new government programs and 
     proposals for many more such. Since inauguration day, 1993, 
     the Clinton administration alone has embraced dozens of novel 
     education schemes, including subsidies for state

[[Page H10643]]

     academic standards, tax credits for school construction, 
     paying for teachers to be appraised by a national standards 
     board, hiring 100,000 new teachers to shrink class size, 
     ensuring ``equity'' in textbooks, collecting gender-sensitive 
     data on the pay of high school coaches, boosting the self-
     esteem of rural students, establishing a Native Hawaiian 
     education Council, connecting every classroom to the 
     Internet, developing before-and after-school programs, 
     forging mentoring relationships between college students and 
     middle schoolers, increasing the number of school drug-
     prevention counselors, requiring school uniforms, and 
     fostering character education. ``Superintendent Clinton'' has 
     also supported the Family Involvement Partnership, the 
     America Reads partnership. Lighthouse Partnerships (for 
     teacher training), HOPE Scholarships, Presidential Honors 
     Scholarships, Americorps, Voluntary National Tests, Education 
     Opportunity Zones, and Comprehensive School Reform Grants. 
     And that's just a selection from the brimming smorgasbord.
       But Mr. Clinton is not alone. Nor is policy promiscuity 
     indulged in only by lusty Democrats. Roving-eyed Republicans 
     in Congress have proposed, inter alia, slashing class size, 
     ending social promotion, legalizing school prayer, replacing 
     textbooks with laptops, funding environmental education, 
     paying for school metal detectors, and creating a new 
     literacy program.
       As education has ascended the list of policy issues that 
     trouble voters, politicians of every stripe have predictably 
     lunged for it. This has led Washington officials to shoulder 
     problems and embrace initiatives that once were deemed the 
     proper province of states and communities (or 
     individual schools and families). The federal education 
     policy arena has come to resemble a vast flea market, 
     where practically any program idea can be put on display 
     and offered for purchase without regard to its soundness 
     or effectiveness. As at a flea market, there's plenty of 
     old stuff hanging around, too. Once created, education 
     programs seldom disappear, no matter how poorly they 
     accomplish their stated purposes and no matter what harm 
     they may do along the way.
       It's not that their authorizers and appropriators are 
     ignorant. The major programs have been evaluated time and 
     again. Countless studies have shown that most of them, for 
     all their laudable ambitions and fine-sounding titles, do 
     little or no good. What then accounts for this risky--even 
     reckless--behavior? Why can't federal officials keep their 
     wallets zipped? Today's promiscuous approach has four main 
     origins:
       (1) The clamor for someone to do something. Education is 
     clearly a problem. Solving that problem ranks high with 
     voters and taxpayers. The simplest way to give at least the 
     appearance of action is to propose another program or three. 
     Of course, this impulse isn't confined to Washington. Many 
     governors, legislators, mayors and aldermen have spent their 
     way into citizens' hearts with pricey education programs. As 
     the 1998 election draws closer, reports the Washington Post, 
     local, state, and national candidates of both parties are 
     stumbling over one another with promises to shrink third 
     grade classes, build new classrooms, launch after-school 
     programs, etc.
       (2) Devotion to focus group fancies and pollsters' 
     pointers. The public is vague about how it wants education to 
     change, and rather naive about the sources of its problems. 
     The easiest, surest way to appeal to voters is to offer to do 
     something with instant, intuitive appeal, like shrinking 
     classes or refurbishing buildings, even if that something 
     won't actually solve any real problems. One thereby avoids 
     being labeled ``anti-education'' because one wants to 
     overhaul or--quel horreur--scrap some dysfunctional program 
     or disrupt an established interest. Democrats have long 
     tended to solve education problems by hurling new programs at 
     them. When Republicans briefly and clumsily tried a surgical 
     approach in 1995, they wounded themselves (for seeking to 
     trim the school lunch program and scrap the federal education 
     department, etc.) They, too, have mostly retreated from the 
     operating room to the program delivery room. Even when they 
     propose a radical innovation, such as Paul Coverdell's 
     education savings account (which would lightly subsidize 
     private school attendance), they no longer offer it instead 
     of an obsolete program; it is nearly always an addition to 
     the federal nursery.
       (3) Gridlock over the tough ideas that might actually 
     effect change. One serious reform strategy focuses on 
     standards and accountability, the other on school choice and 
     diversification. It's not hard to design a shrewd blend, 
     combining national standards with radical decentralization 
     and merging tough accountability measures with school choice. 
     But politicians with an eye on their ``base''--or an upcoming 
     primary--won't yield an inch on their pet schemes and 
     aversions. Unable to reach agreement on genuine reforms, they 
     reach instead for crowd-pleasers.
       (4) The marginal nature of the federal role in education. 
     Washington furnishes just seven percent of the K-12 education 
     budget. Federal officials know very well that nothing they do 
     will have great impact. Since they're not ultimately 
     responsible for what happens in the schools, heedlessness 
     comes easy to them. They rarely behave quite so immaturely in 
     policy areas where Uncle Sam plays the lead role, such as 
     national defense, Social Security and international trade.


                            How We Got Here

       Because the Constitution assigns Washington no 
     responsibility whatsoever for education, the federal role is 
     guided by no general principles. It just grew. This property 
     never had a master plan, an architectural design or even a 
     central structure, just a series of random sheds, annexes and 
     outbuildings. Though some early construction can be found as 
     far back as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the creation 
     of land-grant colleges in 1862, the federal role in education 
     is essentially a late Twentieth century design. Indeed, save 
     for vocational education, the G.I. bill, the post-Sputnik 
     ``national defense education act,'' and, of course, the 
     judiciary's deep involvement in school desegration, the 
     federal role as we know it is a creation of the mid-sixties, 
     of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
       The major legislation of the day included Head Start 
     (1964), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), 
     the Higher Education Act (1965), the Bilingual Education Act 
     (1968), and, soon after, the Education for All Handicapped 
     Children Act (1975). All these programs sought to expand 
     access to education for needy or impoverished segments of the 
     population--and to disguise general aid to schools as help 
     for the disadvantaged. The dozens of programs created by 
     these five statutes (and their subsequent reauthorizations) 
     script the federal role in education today.
       That role will soon be up for review. The 106th Congress 
     will reauthorize the centerpiece Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (E.S.E.A.) and its $11 billlion worth of 
     programs, accounting for fully a third of the Education 
     Department's budget. Out of 69 K-12 programs currently 
     administered by that agency, 47 are authorized by E.S.E.A. 
     Title I, the largest of them at nearly $8 billlion, is 
     included, as are bilingual education, safe and drug free 
     schools, the Eisenhower professional development program, and 
     scores more.
       These programs mostly began under Lyndon Johnson (and up 
     now no Republican Congress has had a crack at them), but 
     their support has been bipartisan. Richard Nixon presided 
     over a significant expansion of aid to college students. 
     Gerald Ford signed the burdensome ``special education'' bill 
     into law.
       The Reagan and Bush administrations proposed to return 
     control to states and localities. They found early success--
     federal K-12 education spending declined 21 percent in real 
     terms between 1980 and 1985. But funding for these programs 
     then skyrocketed 28 percent from 1985 to 1992, and another 14 
     percent during Clinton's first term. Their complexity grew, 
     too. The 1994 version of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act--passed just a few weeks before 
     the GOP won control of Congress--sprawled over 1000 pages. 
     Today, the federal government currently spends $100 
     billion per year on over 700 education programs spanning 
     39 agencies. The Department of Education manages roughly 
     one-third of this money and employs close to 5000 people.


                 changing problems, unchanging programs

       The underlying assumptions of the federal role in education 
     have not changed since LBJ occupied the Oval Office. 
     Increasing access to more and more services--rather than 
     boosting achievement and productivity--is the primary 
     mission. States and localities are assumed to be unjust, 
     stingy, and stubborn. Top-down regulations and financial 
     incentives are assumed to be the surest ways to induce 
     change. And Uncle Sam's primary clients are assumed to be 
     school systems, not states and municipalities, and certainly 
     not children and families.
       It's remarkable how stable these assumptions have been 
     despite thirty-plus years of failure. America's schools 
     remain perilously weak. Whether one looks at worldwide math 
     and science results, comparisons of ``value added'' over 
     time, or other indices of achievement, they simply don't 
     measure up-except in spending, where U.S. outlays per-pupil 
     are among the planet's loftiest. Domestically, our National 
     assessment results are mediocre-to-dismal, and the 
     achievement (and school completion) levels for minority 
     youngsters and inner-city residents are catastrophic. In 
     Ohio, for example, the school districts of Cleveland, 
     Youngstown, and Dayton are all posting drop-out rates of 
     greater than 40 percent. Nationally, a staggering 77 percent 
     of fourth-graders from high-poverty urban schools cannot read 
     at a basic level. The achievement gap between the rich and 
     poor and between whites and minorities has not closed; it may 
     even be growing. After three decades, billions of dollars, 
     and thousands of pages of statutes and regulations, we have 
     astonishingly little to show for the effort.
       One might think policy makers would take notice. One might 
     suppose they would demand a fundamental overhaul, a thorough 
     hosing-out of this Augcan stable of feckless programs and 
     greedy interest groups. But one would be wrong. In a 
     spectacular example of throwing good money after bad and 
     refusing to learn from either experience or research, the 
     scores of program proposals made within the past few years 
     simply extend--indeed deepen--the familiar trend.
       The recent proposals and new programs don't sound exactly 
     like the old ones. Although the basic approach is the same, 
     the language has been updated. Today's programs are generally 
     mooted in phrases that focus groups favor, such as 
     ``comprehensive services,'' ``mentoring'' and ``literacy.''

[[Page H10644]]

       Most of them fall under three headings: ``partnerships'' 
     that mask government activism under complex organizational 
     links; the extension of services into new domains; and the 
     adoption by Uncle Sam of duties and responsibilities that 
     were once the province of states and communities.


                            ``partnerships''

       ``Partnership,'' the pollsters assure us, is a ``warm'' 
     term that focus groups adore. Upon examination, though, most 
     ``partnerships'' turn out resemble what used to be called 
     ``bureaucracies.'' Consider the ``Lighthouse Partnerships'' 
     for teacher training, proposed by the Clinton administration 
     and supported by several Republicans (and soon to be 
     enacted). Washington's dollars would allow ``model'' colleges 
     of education to ``partner'' with weaker ones. They would also 
     ``partner'' with state education agencies, local school 
     districts, and non-profit organizations. All these new 
     partners would supposedly work together to improve teacher 
     training.
       Nobody can quite explain why federal funding is necessary 
     for them to cooperate. They are all supposed to be improving 
     teacher training in the first place. Nor is it clear that 
     anything real will result from their newly-subsidized 
     bonding. Will teachers be tested on more difficult material? 
     Will schools of education be held accountable for producing 
     teachers who know their stuff? Will students learn more? No 
     one can be sure, since the stated mission of the program is 
     simply to encourage institutions to hook up with one another. 
     What is certain is that teacher training colleges and other 
     pillars of the education establishment will reap added 
     financial benefits. The traditional monopoly will be 
     strengthened and the teacher quality problem, far from being 
     solved, will likely be exacerbated.


                        colonizing new territory

       The President recently trotted out a proposal to support 
     ``community learning centers'' that tutor students and 
     provide them with a safe place to go after school. It's hard 
     to fault the impulse (though like most ``compensatory'' 
     efforts it may let the original malefactors off the hook--why 
     is it that most public schools close by 3 p.m.?). But is 
     there a compelling reason for the federal government to fund 
     them? And won't Uncle Sam's embrace prove to be a chokehold?
       If there is any sure lesson from these years of experience, 
     it is that regulatory entanglements follow federal funding. 
     New programs bring unaccustomed mandates, fresh conditions 
     and additional rules. We'll wake up one day to learn that the 
     new after-school centers must be accredited, or staffed by 
     certified teachers (or unionized teachers); they can be 
     sponsored only by secular organizations; their buildings must 
     be built or rehabbed by workers paid the ``prevailing'' union 
     wage; they will have to teach diversity and conflict 
     resolution, saving the environment, or esteem-building via 
     ``cooperative learning.''
       Are there compelling benefits that outweigh these costs? 
     Perhaps some esoteric expertise that the federal government 
     is privy to when it comes to after-school tutoring? We have 
     not spotted it. The only real asset Washington has to offer 
     to education is money. But at present the states have more of 
     that than they really need. Their combined surplus was 
     estimated by the National Conference of State Legislatures at 
     $28.3 billion for FY 1997. With so many dollars floating 
     around, why burden worthy programs with Washington-style red 
     tape? States, philanthropies, and local communities could 
     easily create after-school havens for kids and recruit tutors 
     for those who need help. Why must the Department of Education 
     grow a ``bureau of community learning centers'' to manage 
     this process?


                    Minding Other People's Business

       Far from being stodgy, recalcitrant and ignorant, the 
     states today are bubbling labs of education reform and 
     innovation. Information about promising programs gets around 
     the country in a flash. A few years ago no states produced 
     school-by-school ``report cards''; now at least a dozen do. 
     Five years ago, only eight states had charter school laws. 
     Today, 33 have enacted them. This copycat behavior can be 
     seen even at the municipal level. Chicago's successful 
     accountability plan--ending social promotion and requiring 
     summer school for those who failed--is being mimicked by 
     dozens of communities, just as Chicago's dramatic new school 
     governance scheme (with the mayor in charge) is being adapted 
     for use in other communities. Yet the tendency in Washington 
     is still to nationalize problems and programs that states and 
     communities are capable of tackling.
       When, for example, did class size become a federal issue? 
     It's states and communities that hire and pay teachers. It's 
     states and communities that make the trade-offs, deciding, 
     for example, whether they would prefer a large number of 
     inexperienced, low-cost teachers or a smaller number of 
     pricey veterans. Long before Mr. Clinton (and, for the 
     Republicans, Congressman Bill Paxon) decided that smaller 
     classes are better, several states were headed this way on 
     their own. And while the idea is undeniably popular with 
     parents, state class-size reduction initiatives have shown 
     that its efficacy is unsure and its unintended consequences 
     numerous. Pete Wilson's class size reduction plan for 
     California, for example, prompted a mass exodus of 
     experienced teachers from inner-city schools to posh suburbs, 
     leaving disadvantaged kids with even less qualified teachers 
     than before. Teacher shortages are now rampant and thousands 
     of people have received ``emergency waivers.'' Instead of 
     remedying the real teacher crisis--the lack of deeply 
     knowledgeable instructors--it has made the situation worse.
       Research on class size is also inconclusive. Most studies 
     show no systematic link between smaller classes and higher 
     achieving pupils. The versions that seem to yield the 
     greatest gains are those that slash class size below fifteen 
     kids. Such an expensive proposition must be weighed against 
     the opportunity costs of other programs, strategies, or 
     initiatives that could be funded. Some communities might 
     decide the price is worth it, while others would rather 
     use their incremental dollars in different ways.
       But Mr. Clinton's across-the-nation plan does not allow for 
     such delicate and decentralized decision-making. While the 
     President often uses words like ``autonomy'' and 
     ``accountability,'' his proposal would micro-manage school 
     staffing and budget priorities from Washington.
       Once upon a time, Uncle Sam provided some real leadership 
     in educational innovation. Now that the states are taking 
     charge, the feds appear disoriented, playing ``me too.'' And 
     not just with respect to class size. From ending social 
     promotion, to adopting school uniforms, to implementing 
     accountability systems, Washington now reverberates with 
     echoes of state and local initiatives.


                           a chance to repent

       A rare opportunity is at hand for a top-to-bottom overhaul. 
     The public seems readier for fundamental reforms in education 
     than ever before--and indeed is getting a taste of them at 
     the grassroots level. There we can glimpse higher standards, 
     tougher accountability systems, brand-new institutional forms 
     and profound power shifts. Surveys make it plain that voters, 
     taxpayers and parents are hungry for charter schools, for 
     ending social promotion, for tougher discipline, for more 
     attention to basic skills, and for school choice. Privately-
     funded voucher programs are booming, with hundreds of 
     millions of philanthropic dollars now being lavished on them 
     and thousands of children in queues for lotteries to 
     participate. Two cities have publicly-funded voucher 
     programs, and more soon will. Charter schools are spreading 
     like kudzu. And opinion leaders from newspaper columnists to 
     business leaders to college presidents--are signaling their 
     own readiness to try something very different.
       Into this shifting landscape will soon drop the periodic 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act. The federal role in education could be almost entirely 
     reshaped via this one piece of legislation. But will it be?
       Plenty of political obstacles block the path to a true 
     overhaul. Three decades of doing things one way creates huge 
     inertia, and every program, indeed every line in this endless 
     statute, now serves an entrenched interest or embedded 
     assumption. Still, that was also true of welfare a few years 
     back, and Washington was able to muster the will and 
     imagination to change it anyway--once policymakers understood 
     that the old arrangement had failed and allowed themselves to 
     visualize a different design.
       What would a different approach to the federal role in K-12 
     education look like? We see three basic strategies.


                              block grants

       Instead of myriad categorical programs, each with its own 
     regulations and incentives to prod or tempt sluggish states 
     and cities into doing right by children, what about 
     trusting the states (or localities) with the money? do 
     federal officials really know better than governors and 
     mayors what the top education reform priorities of Utica 
     or Houston or Baltimore should be? The block grant 
     strategy rests on the belief that, while states and 
     communities may crave financial help from Washington to 
     solve their education problems, they don't need to be told 
     what to do.
       Block grants can be fashioned without cutting aid dollars 
     at all. (Indeed, by reducing the overhead and transaction 
     costs of dozens of separate, fussy programs, they should 
     enable more of the available resources to go to direct 
     services to children.) Rather, they amalgamate the funding of 
     several programs and hand it to states (or communities) in 
     lump sums that can be spent on a wide range of locally-
     determined needs. In so doing, they dissolve meddlesome 
     categorical programs in pools of money.
       Block grants also rid the nation of harmful programs, which 
     get dissolved in the same pools. Do federal taxpayers really 
     need to be funding the development of TV shows for kids? How 
     about the sustenance of ``model'' gender-equity programs? Are 
     ``regional education laboratories'' still needed to 
     disseminate reform ideas in the age of the Internet?
       Block grants come in every imaginable size and shape. If 
     all the programs in E.S.E.A. were combined into a single one, 
     at 1999 appropriation levels the average state would receive 
     $220 million per annum to use as it saw fit. Earlier this 
     year, the Senate passed a somewhat smaller block grant 
     designed by Washington's Slade Gorton, which assembled some 
     21 categorical programs into a block grant totaling $10.3 
     billion. (Facing a Clinton veto threat, it was later deleted 
     by Senate-House conferees.)
       Block grants respect the Tenth Amendment and--in our view 
     properly--leave states

[[Page H10645]]

     in the driver's seat. They allow Uncle Sam to add fuel to the 
     gas tank but they hand the keys to the governors. In the 
     process, federal bureaucracy is slashed--along with the state 
     and local bureaucracies that currently service the torrent of 
     federal regulations (and are paid for with overhead siphoned 
     from federal grants before any services are provided to 
     children).


                                vouchers

       While block grants hand money and power back to the states, 
     vouchers empower families directly. Instead of writing fifty 
     checks, Washington would send millions of them straight to 
     needy children and their parents, thus helping them meet 
     their education needs as they see fit. Vouchers shift power 
     from producers to consumers.
       This is already standard practice in federal higher 
     education policy, where an historic choice was made in 1972; 
     students rather than colleges became the main recipients of 
     federal air. A low-income college student establishes his 
     own eligibility for a Pell Grant (or Stafford Loan, etc.), 
     and then carries it with him to the college of his choice. 
     That might mean Stanford or Michigan State, Assumption 
     College or the Acme Truck Driving School. The institution 
     only gets its hands on the cash if it succeeds in 
     attracting and retaining that student.
       The same thing could be done with federal programs meant to 
     aid needy elementary and secondary students. The big Title I 
     program, for example, spends almost $8 billion annually to 
     provide ``compensatory'' education to some 6.5 million low-
     income youngsters. That's about $1250 apiece. What if the 
     money went straight to those families to purchase their 
     compensatory education wherever they like: from their public 
     or private school, to be sure, but also from a commercial 
     tutoring service, a software company, a summer program, an 
     after-school or weekend program, or the local public library? 
     Title I would turn into millions of mini-scholarship, like 
     little Pell grants. A similar approach could be taken to any 
     program where individual students' eligibility is based on 
     specific conditions: limited English proficiency, disability, 
     etc.
       The argument for vouchers is that a program designed to 
     help people in need should channel the resources directly to 
     them, not to institutions, intermediaries or experts. Giving 
     families cash empowers them while also building incentives 
     for providers to develop appealing, effective programs. 
     Furthermore, they make disadvantaged children financially 
     attractive to schools and other service providers.
       The question most often asked about vouchers is whether 
     families can be trusted to do right by their own children. We 
     think the answer is yes about 99 times out of a hundred and 
     experience with publicly- and privately-funded voucher plans 
     all over the country seems to confirm that intuition.
       How about the administrative headache of linking the 
     federal government directly to millions of families? Such 
     huge direct-grant programs as social security and veterans' 
     benefits show that this can be done. But it's still an 
     invitation to bureaucracy and confusion.
       There are alternatives to direct relationships between 
     Uncle Sam and millions of children and families, however. A 
     hybrid strategy of vouchers and block grants, for example, 
     would turn the money over to states for them to hand out in 
     the form of vouchers. Or the whole process could be 
     outsourced to private financial services managers (much like 
     the new welfare services providers).


                            bust the trusts

       While the first two strategies loosen Uncle Sam's grip and 
     shift power and decisions away from Washington, the third 
     demands vigorous federal action. It calls for Big Government 
     to tackle Big Education. Think of it as trust-busting.
       Even if all federal programs were block granted, or 
     voucherized, after all, the present power structure would 
     still be in charge. School administrators, teachers' unions, 
     colleges of education and similar groups have erected a 
     fortress that devolution may slightly weaken but will not 
     vanquish. Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona's crusading 
     Superintendent of Public Instruction, understands this well. 
     By pressing for charter schools, for school choice, for 
     capital dollars ``strapped to the back'' of individual 
     children, and for tough statewide standards, she has 
     started to break the iron establishment grip that has long 
     been obscured by the beguiling phrase ``local control.'' 
     As David Brooks recently wrote, Keegan recognizes that 
     ``If you really want to dismantle the welfare state, you 
     need a period of activist government; you need to 
     centralize authority in order to bust entrenched 
     interests.''
       Though the agencies sometimes overstep their bounds, few 
     question the role of the Justice Department and Federal Trade 
     Commission in combating monopoly and collusion in the private 
     sector. Education is currently the largest protected monopoly 
     in our country; a tough federal agency that presses for true 
     competition might work wonders.
       What education ``trusts'' need busting? Our three leading 
     candidates are:
       (1) The information monopoly. Education consumers inmost of 
     the U.S. lack ready access to reliable, intelligible 
     information about student, teacher, and school performance. 
     By manipulating the information, the establishment hides the 
     seriousness of the problem. While most Americans know the 
     education system is troubled, they also believe that their 
     local school serves its students well. This is the 
     misinformation machine at work. There's need for the 
     education equivalent of an independent audit--and it's a 
     legitimate role for the federal government, albeit one that 
     many Republicans in Congress have so far been loath to 
     permit.
       (2) The teacher training monopoly. Due to state licensure 
     rules, virtually all public school teachers must march 
     through colleges of education en route to the classroom. As 
     indicated by Massachusetts' recent teacher-testing debacle 
     (over 60% of those taking the Commonwealth's new 
     certification test flunked), those campuses aren't even 
     teaching the rudiments. Institutions other than traditional 
     ed schools should be allowed to prepare future teachers. 
     Knowledgeable individuals should be allowed to bypass formal 
     teacher training altogether. And nobody who has not mastered 
     his/her subject matter should enter the classroom at all. 
     Federal programs--including grants and loans to college 
     students--could wield considerable leverage in this area.
       (3) Exclusive franchises. Local public school monopolies 
     need competitors. Entities besides local school boards and 
     state bureaucracies should be allowed to create and run 
     schools. Private and nonprofit managers should be encouraged 
     to do so. Any school that is open to the public, paid for by 
     the public and accountable to public authorities for its 
     performance should be deemed a ``public school''--and 
     eligible for all forms of federal aid. Vigorous trust-busting 
     undeniably smacks of Big Government. It's as much a 
     Washington-knows-best strategy as was the Great Society. But 
     it directs that strategy against the genuine problems of 1998 
     rather than the vestigial problems of 1965.


                              what to do?

       These approaches to the reconstitution of federal education 
     policy are not mutually exclusive. All three would shift 
     power away from vested interests. All three would profoundly 
     alter the patterns established over the past third of a 
     century. In reconstructing the federal role, especially its 
     centerpiece Elementary and Secondary Education Act, through 
     these means--and deciding which current programs warrant what 
     treatment--we would be guided by a trio of principles:
       (1) First, do no harm. This is part of the Hippocratic 
     oath, familiar to budding doctors but a solemn pledge that 
     policymakers should make, too. Federal programs should not 
     impede promising state and local initiatives or contravene 
     family priorities.
       (2) Consumer sovereignty. Federal aid should actually serve 
     the needs of its putative beneficiaries--primarily children 
     and families--rather than the interests of the education 
     system qua system.
       (3) Quality, not quantity. America has largely licked the 
     challenge of supplying enough education. Today's great 
     problem is that what's being supplied isn't good enough. The 
     mid-sixties preoccupation with ``more'' needs to be replaced 
     by a fixation on ``better.''
       Applying those principles to E.S.E.A. via the three 
     strategies outlined above, here are some specifics:
       Block grant. Most of today's categorical programs--and all 
     of the pork barrel programs--should be amalgamated into 
     flexible block grants that are entrusted to states--not to 
     the ``state education agency'' but to the governor and 
     legislature. Most of E.S.E.A.'s 47 programs would benefit 
     from this fate. Into the mix go myriad teacher-training 
     programs, including the $800 million Eisenhower Professional 
     Development Program. Also the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
     Program, which has yet to yield safe or drug free schools. 
     Impact aid, school reform grants, technology money, 
     facilities funds, arts education programs, and many another 
     vestige of some lawmaker's urge to play school board 
     president should be thrown in. So should the regional labs, 
     the gender-equity programs, federally-funded TV shows, and 
     the like. Interest groups will object because they crave (and 
     have grown dependent on) the categorical aid. Also protesting 
     will be the (literally) thousands of state education 
     department employees whose salaries are paid by Washington. 
     But block grants will largely remove Uncle Sam's hands from 
     the education cookie jar. States can use the funds for their 
     own reform plans. The strings should be very few--possibly a 
     requirement that the money be spent on direct services, 
     perhaps a priority for low-income kids, maybe a commitment 
     from the states to publish their scores on the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress--and states should have 
     the right to convert their block grants into vouchers if they 
     wish. The total value of the most obvious candidates for 
     block-granting is (at 1998 spending levels) about $3 billion, 
     or $60 million per state. Throwing in a few other 
     categorical programs that would benefit from this 
     treatment (such as the ``Goals 2000'' program, the school-
     to-work program, and vocational education) would boost the 
     total to roughly $5 billion, or $100 million per state.
       Voucherize. Take the three big programs aimed at helping 
     needy individuals--Title I for the poor, special education 
     for the disabled, and bilingual education for those who don't 
     yet speak English well--and hand that money directly to the 
     putative beneficiaries. Take the annual appropriations for 
     each program and divide by the number of students eligible 
     for aid. Using 1998 numbers, this would mean youngsters 
     eligible for Title I would each receive a $1250 annual 
     stipend. Those who cannot yet speak English would receive a 
     $130 voucher. Special education

[[Page H10646]]

     students would receive aid in relation to the severity of 
     their disability, with amounts ranging from $200 to $1200 in 
     federal money. A family whose child is poor, disabled and 
     does not yet speak English would receive a check in the $1600 
     to $2600 range, all within current budget levels. Such a 
     system would certainly empower consumers, slash federal red 
     tape, and create a world of new educational services and 
     providers vying for the attention of disadvantaged students.
       Bust the trusts. To crush the information monopoly, 
     Congress should renew the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress (which also expires the next year) on a more 
     independent basis--and authorize its governing board to make 
     those standards-based tests available to communities, 
     schools, even individual parents. This would replace the 
     politically-stalemated ``voluntary national test'' that Mr. 
     Clinton proposed with a more flexible instrument that enjoys 
     greater insulation from politicians, bureaucrats and special 
     interests.
       To tackle the teacher training monopoly, Washington should 
     fund alternatives to ed schools. Think of them as ``charter 
     schools'' for future teachers. Uncle Sam can also make shoddy 
     schools of education accountable by holding their federal aid 
     hostage to graduates' meeting minimal standards of knowledge 
     and skill.
       To end the exclusive franchise of local school districts 
     and state bureaucracies, the federal government should 
     vigorously support the development of thousands of charter 
     schools and other supply-side innovations (like contract 
     schools, alternative schools, etc.). These schools should 
     only be supported, though, if they are held to high standards 
     and operate independently from school districts and state 
     regulations.
       Finally, to tilt federal incentives in the direction of 
     quality, Washington should insist that all students seeking 
     federal college grants and loans first pass a rigorous high 
     school exit exam. Students will not get serious about 
     academics until there are palpable consequences linked to 
     academic standards--an obvious point that has been hammered 
     home by (among others) the perceptive columnist Robert 
     Samuelson and the late teacher union chief, Albert Shanker. 
     (This will also serve to hold voucher schools to high 
     academic standards--as their business will dissipate if their 
     graduates cannot matriculate to college.)
       Could trust-busting activities get out of hand? Yes, 
     indeed. Perhaps these functions should be overseen by an 
     outfit one step removed from direct political influence, much 
     like the National Assessment Governing Board. Maybe governors 
     should be empowered to excuse their states from these 
     initiatives, if they attest that the cause of education 
     reform would be advanced by immunity from all Federal 
     meddling. But we suspect that most governors would quietly 
     welcome as much help as they can get in combating the 
     education establishment.


                        the next welfare reform?

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act will likely be 
     signed into law just before the presidential election in 
     2000. The legislative process is cranking up with field 
     hearings and advisory panels already being convened by the 
     Clinton administration. If 33 years of history is any guide, 
     the likeliest outcome will be minor tweaking of extant 
     programs. They may not work--they may even do harm--but they 
     have great momentum and plenty of vested interests, and the 
     few members of Congress who really understand them tend to 
     favor the status quo. Certainly the administration will do 
     nothing to rile its friends in the school establishment. So 
     there will be plenty of proposals to tinker and fine tune. A 
     few decrepit programs may even vanish, to be replaced by new 
     fads and pet schemes. The bad habits of a third of a century 
     will go unconquered and the Johnson-era conception of the 
     federal role in education will endure for another five or six 
     years.
       But there could be an altogether different ending to the 
     tale, a transformation of the federal education bazaar from 
     flea-market to a consumer-focused department store. While 
     promiscuity may well continue elsewhere inside the Beltway, 
     it plainly isn't good for schools or children. When it comes 
     to education, Federal officials should pledge themselves to 
     temperance, prudence and clean living.
                                  ____


            [From the Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1999]

                      Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

        Clinton's School Plan Is A Good Start. Let's Go Further

                           (By Diane Ravitch)

       Every opinion poll shows that education is now the public's 
     top domestic priority. Every poll also shows that the public 
     wants schools to have higher academic standards and to be 
     safe and orderly places. So it was not surprising that 
     President Clinton would stress education in his State of the 
     Union address last night.
       The president wants to set federal guidelines for teacher 
     training, student discipline, school performance and 
     promotion policy. School districts that violate the new 
     federal guidelines would risk losing their federal funding. 
     Federal aid to the schools--about $20 billion--is 
     considerably less than 10% of what Americans spend for public 
     education, but no district is going to risk losing even that 
     fraction of its budget.
       The White House has raided the right issues, and it is 
     about time. In the 34 years since Congress passed the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act, federal money has 
     been spread to as many districts as possible with scant 
     regard for whether its beneficiaries--especially poor kids--
     were actually learning anything. For too many years, federal 
     aid to the schools has been both burdensome and ineffective. 
     Now the president wants to establish quality standards to 
     accompany the federal aid.
       This proposal makes some important points: Schools should 
     never have started promoting kids who have not mastered the 
     work of their grade; they should have effective disciplinary 
     codes; they should never hire teachers who don't know their 
     subject; and they should issue informative school report 
     cards to parents and the public.
       And yet experience suggests that when the education 
     lobbyists begin to influence any future legislation, we can 
     expect more regulation and more bureaucrats, and precious few 
     real standards. This is why Mr. Clinton must link his 
     proposals to deregulation, thus liberating schools from 
     redundant administrators, onerous regulations and excessive 
     costs, most of which are imposed by current federal education 
     programs.
       The best way to do this would be to turn the key federal 
     program for poor kids--Title I--into a portable entitlement, 
     so that the money follows the child, like a college 
     scholarship. Presently, federal money goes to the school 
     district, where bureaucrats watch it, dispense it and find 
     manifold ways to multiply their tasks and add to their 
     staffs. As a portable entitlement, Title I's $8 billion 
     would allow poor children to attend the school of their 
     choice instead of being stuck in low-performing schools. 
     It would be a powerful stimulus for school choice. At the 
     very least, states should be given waivers to direct 
     federal money to the child, not the district.
       There are additional steps that Mr. Clinton should take now 
     to enhance incentives for student performance in current 
     federal programs:
       Renew a campaign to authorize national tests in fourth-
     grade reading and eighth-grade mathematics. President Clinton 
     proposed this last year, but it has languished because of 
     opposition from conservative Republicans and liberal 
     Democrats. If he can't resuscitate that proposal, then he 
     should ask Congress to allow individual districts and schools 
     to administer the excellent subject-matter tests devised by 
     the National Assessment of Educational Progress (which only 
     statewide samples of students can take now). As the 
     excitement over a new fourth-grade reading test demonstrated 
     last week in New York state, nothing concentrates the mind of 
     students, parents and teachers like a test.
       Adopt, by executive order, a terrific idea floated by 
     columnist Robert Samuelson: Require any student who wants a 
     federal scholarship for college to pass a 12th-grade test of 
     reading, writing and mathematics. Half of all college 
     students get some form of federal aid. This should not be an 
     entitlement. If students must pass a moderately rigorous 
     examination to get their college aid, there would be a 
     dramatic and instantaneous boost in incentives to study hard 
     in high school and junior high school.
       Adopt, by executive order, real educational standards for 
     Head Start and set better qualifications for Head Start 
     teachers. This preschool program was supposed to give poor 
     children a chance to catch up with their better-off peers, 
     but it has turned into a big day-care program with no real 
     educational focus for the kids who need literacy and numerary 
     the most.
       Require that those who teach in federally funded programs 
     have a degree in an academic subject and pass a test of 
     subject-matter knowledge and teaching competence. This should 
     apply to all teachers, not just the newly hired.
       Mr. Clinton has described some important changes for 
     American education. Whether or not Congress endorses his 
     plan, he has pointed the national discussion about education 
     in the right direction, toward standards and accountability. 
     If we can add to that a strong dose of deregulation, choice 
     and competition, we will be on the road to educational 
     renewal.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I do this only because I am afraid time will run out and I 
will not be able to thank the people who worked day and night for 6 or 
8 months.
  I discovered one thing in 4 days of markup and 2 days on the floor. I 
am still very, very naive after 25 years in this institution. But I 
still have 13 months to go, and maybe I will lose some of that naivete 
and realize that agreements are agreements only when we say they are 
and they are gone 2 minutes later.
  But I want to make sure that I thank people who worked around the 
clock day and night on this legislation, and I want to thank Sally 
Lovejoy, Kent Talbert, Christie Wolfe, Darcy Philps, Lynn Selmser, 
Becky Campoverde, Kevin Talley, Jo Marie St. Martin, Kim Proctor, Vic 
Klatt, and Kara Haas from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle). And from the minority I want to thank Alex Nock, Cheryl 
Johnson, Mark Zuckerman,

[[Page H10647]]

June Harris, Charles Barone, and Gail Weiss, among others. They worked 
day and night, and sometimes I do not think we realize what hours 
staffers put in to try to bring about an agreement. In this we were 
trying to bring about a bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the body to consider favorably the amendment that 
is presently before us. In my opinion the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) is without a doubt the greatest 
opportunity we have and we have had today to convert this bill from not 
just a creation of a new set of mandates imposed on local schools, but 
to do something much better and turn it into a good bill, and that is 
to allow freedom and flexibility for families and children who are 
trapped in schools that do not earn their confidence.
  As my colleagues know, to hear the argument against the Petri 
amendment one would think that all schools around the country are bad. 
I do not think that is the case at all. I think most schools are 
genuinely good and that they try very hard to create a learning 
environment that is in the best interests of the children that they 
serve. The Petri amendment acknowledges that and suggests that for 
those children who are trapped in terminally bad schools that they do 
have the opportunity to find a different academic setting, a better 
academic setting.
  It begins to regard families and parents as the individuals who play 
the most paramount role, the most pivotal role in designing an academic 
strategy that is in the best interests of their children. The notion 
that government knows best is what is insinuated in this bill and in 
the Title I program; and we have before us right now an opportunity to 
appeal to the free market instincts of parents, of teachers, of 
students, treating teachers like real professionals, parents like 
customers and honor the freedom to teach and the liberty to learn that 
we all believe to be important.

                              {time}  1415

  I would ask this body to consider most seriously the opportunity that 
is before us with the Petri amendment. I thank the gentleman for 
offering it, and I commend him for his vision in trying to provide 
school choice and portability with these Title I dollars, because this 
is the only amendment we have had a chance to consider that measures 
fairness in education by the relationship between students, not the 
relationship between school buildings or school districts or other 
political entities.
  I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Petri) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       In section 1111(b)(1)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 105 of the bill, 
     strike ``mathematics and reading or language arts,'' and 
     insert ``mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science,''.
       In section 1111(b)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 105 of the bill, 
     strike ``mathematics and reading or language arts,'' and 
     insert ``mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science,''.
       In section 1111(h)(2)(A)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 105 of the bill, 
     strike ``reading or language arts and mathematics,'' and 
     insert ``mathematics, reading or language arts, and 
     science,''.
       At the end of section 105 of the bill--
       (1) strike the quotation marks and the final period; and
       (2) insert the following:
       ``(i) Special Rule on Science Standards and Assessments.--
     Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (h), no State shall be 
     required to meet the requirements under this title relating 
     to science standards or assessments until the beginning of 
     the 2005-2006 school year.''.

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out some basic facts about 
science in the United States. First of all, more than one-half of all 
economic growth in this Nation is tied to recent developments from 
science and technology. That is, over one-half of our economic growth 
is dependent on science and technology.
  Our Nation's economic future and our economic strength are directly 
linked to the science aptitude of our work force. Unfortunately, our 
science aptitude is not good. You are aware that, on an international 
scale developed through international assessments, the United States 
came out near the bottom; and, in fact, in physics it was at the bottom 
of the 15 developed countries participating in the evaluation. With 
that type of record, it is very hard for us to keep our economy going. 
Science education must start early to prepare students for the demands 
of tomorrow's jobs. But currently, schools are not teaching science in 
many cases, and they are not teaching it well in other cases. There 
are, of course, exceptions. Some schools do exceptionally well. But, 
across the country, our science and math education is deficient and as 
a result, our students are falling behind other countries. Perhaps one 
indication of that is that in today's graduate schools in science and 
engineering, over one-half of all of the graduate students are from 
other countries.
  It is clear that has to change, and the best place to have it change 
is in early education.
  My amendment is a simple amendment. It will not place much demand on 
the educational system, but it simply will require that by the 2005-
2006 school year that science will be placed alongside of reading and 
math as essential subjects to be assessed in each school. In other 
words, this will give parents an opportunity to determine how well 
their schools are teaching science and how well their students are 
learning science, the science they must have if they are to be 
employable and to contribute to the economic growth of our Nation.
  I believe this is a good amendment which will help solve a major 
national problem. There is very little expense, if any, attached to it. 
It simply will make clear the need for increased teaching of science in 
elementary and secondary schools, and will give us an opportunity to 
assess how well the schools are doing in meeting that need. I urge 
adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The goal is noble. The cost we do not know. According to governors it 
would be exorbitant. We have the cost at the present time for the math 
and the reading and we do not know the cost in relationship to science. 
Therefore, I have to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to include 
science in the bill.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2 which provides educational support for 
low-income students.
  Let me first say that I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone 
into making this a strong bill. As a teacher and a scientist, it is 
refreshing for me to see Members put their partisan differences aside 
to work on a bill that will help all our children.
  Every child in this nation has the right to receive an excellent 
education. Furthermore, it is necessary for the well being of society 
at large for all children to receive an excellent education.
  The accountability provisions for the funds provided in this bill are 
critical to the success of ensuring a quality education for all.
  This bill requires that judgments about school progress be based on 
disaggregated data. That is, all at-risk subgroups of students must be 
making adequate yearly progress toward proficiency in reading and math.
  I rise in support of Mr. Petri's amendment to include science among 
the subjects in which student progress and proficiency are measured.
  Science education has been established as a national priority.
  This Congress has supported that priority by maintaining and 
strengthening teacher training

[[Page H10648]]

in math and science in the teacher bill we passed in July.
  National efforts to improve science and math education are resulting 
in exciting new teaching methods. These hands-on methods allow students 
to conduct experiments and learn to question and discover for 
themselves.
  Science classes are gateways for our children to the opportunities of 
tomorrow.
  But we need to do more. The Third International Math and Science 
Study (TIMSS) results showed that U.S. 12th graders are lagging below 
the international average in science and math.
  Previous Congresses have encouraged states to establish standards for 
what our children should be learning in science. Forty states have 
standards for our children in science. But only 26 are actually testing 
to find out if the students are learning according to these standards.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, would the author of the amendment answer a question?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman's response to the 
argument that some have made that this is one more mandate, and we are 
attempting to give more flexibility to the States, mandate that there 
be science education in addition to I guess we do mandate reading and 
math.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question; and I also 
appreciate the support from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
and other Members of the body who have indicated their support. Because 
of the shortness of time, not everyone will be able to speak.
  There is a question as to whether or not this is another mandate. I 
do not believe it is so, because this is a matter of assessment. The 
schools are ready, the teachers are ready. This is simply saying this 
is an important national priority and one of the subjects that we 
should teach and which our school systems should assess is the 
knowledge that students have acquired in the scientific arena so that 
we know whether or not we will have an adequate work force for the 
future, and so that we will have an adequate number of scientists and 
engineers as well.
  So it addresses both the issue of workers in the workplace, and 
training for scientists. We simply need more technological workers. And 
then secondly, that we will have the researchers necessary to do the 
research work that will be necessary. In my own State, they are still 
evaluating this amendment. The Governor is not opposing it, but I know 
he is concerned about it. A few other States have indicated a concern, 
and that is why we added the language that this does not take effect 
until 2005-2006.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, what amendment are we on?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Amendment No. 40 by Mr. Ehlers is pending.
  Mr. OWENS. Did we vote on that already?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee has not voted on that yet. 
Members are still speaking in support or in opposition to that 
amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. I am sorry. I thought we had voted on it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, just to wrap up, we do not have this take 
effect until 2005-2006, which is actually after this bill expires. It 
is basically setting the groundwork for the next bill. It will be in 
effect the final year only if we do as we normally do, and reauthorize 
the bill for an additional year. But it sets the pattern for the future 
and gives the schools more than adequate time to prepare.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his response. This would, in fact, not be a mandate in the sense 
that its effective date is after the expiration date of this particular 
reauthorization bill, but this is a signal to State and local school 
districts that we feel science education is important and to prepare 
young people for the changing world of work and to be productive 
Members of our society and to be a competitive society, we must 
emphasize science education.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
thank the gentleman for stating that very well. There is no additional 
cost involved for the States.
  Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) is 
recognized until 2:25 p.m.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this amendment because I am 
somewhat uncertain as to whether we should go forward with it or not. 
Perhaps the chairman can help me with some of this.
  Let me just say a couple of things up front. I am a total believer 
that in the United States of America today that we do have a problem in 
terms of lack of basic knowledge in the area of science, I am talking 
about people like me and others who were mediocre science students and 
not just the people of the stature of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) who are among the eminent scientists in America today. I think 
we should all have a greater and broader knowledge than we do.
  In my heart, my feeling is that something like this is a good idea, 
developing science and math which are somewhat related in many 
instances which is something we need to do, particularly when compared 
to other countries.
  So for all of those reasons, I have a lot of sympathy for what we are 
dealing with here, and that is why we have supported initiatives under 
the Teacher Empowerment Act which the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) sponsored which highlights the need for the natural focus in 
the area of science and particularly having teachers who are prepared 
to teach, which is a major problem in both science and math. We have 
too many people teaching those subjects who really are unprepared.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague, 
Mr. Ehlers', amendment to add science as one of the subjects that will 
require State standards and assessments.
  I am fortunate to serve with Congressman Ehlers on both the education 
and the science committees, so I know, first-hand, how committed he is 
to improving science education in this country.
  And it needs improvement! There's a good reason why the test scores 
of American students ranked No. 16 out of students in 21 countries on a 
recent international science examination.
  There is also a good reason why, just last week, Senator Robb 
introduced a bill in the other body to create a new category of visas 
for foreign nationals with graduate degrees in high technology fields.
  International graduate students would be eligible for the new ``T-
visas'' if they had skills in science and technology and a job offer 
with an annual compensation of at least $60,000.
  What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to 
figure it out!
  We must--we must, must, must--do more to ensure that more U.S. 
students pursue the kinds of studies they need to have a high-tech, 
high-paying career.
  According to the American Electronics Association, the American high-
tech industry has created one million new jobs since 1993. At the same 
time, the number of degrees awarded in computer science, engineering, 
mathematics and physics have declined since 1990.
  And, of the degrees awarded in these fields, a large percentage are 
going to foreign nationals; 32 percent of all master's degrees and 45 
percent of all doctoral degrees currently go to foreign students.
  Without doubt, one of the reasons for this decline is that too many 
American students are not studying science in the early grades. This is 
particularly true of girls and minorities, who are more than half of 
our student population.
  It is predicted that by the year 2010, 65 percent of all jobs will 
require at least some technology skills. We need to make science 
education a national priority. That's what the Ehlers amendment will 
do, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
include science as one of the subjects for which states would be 
required to develop standards and assessments. I congratulate my 
colleague, Mr. Ehlers, for bring this important issue to the attention 
of the whole House.
  In the largest international study ever undertaken of student 
performance in math and science, the math and science skills of 
children from the United States lagged far behind students in other 
countries. The results of this study . . . called third International 
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) . . . are

[[Page H10649]]

clear: As we prepare to enter the new millennium engaged in a 
competitive global economic marketplace, we have a severe crisis facing 
our children's ability to be fully prepared for the future.
  American students don't deserve to be at the bottom when compared to 
their counter parts in other countries. We have the opportunity to 
encourage American students to rise to the top, where they belong. I 
believe that we must ensure that the teaching of mathematics at all 
educational levels in the United States is strengthened and that our 
children are adequately prepared to compete for jobs with their global 
peers.
  Education has been my personal priority. I am the parent of 9 
children and 16 grandchildren. I want to make sure that my 
grandchildren can understand science and math. I want them to be taught 
by teachers who are enthusiastic about teaching and have been given 
professional training, who are dedicated and recognized for their 
commitment and innovation.
  If we are to stay on top as a nation, we must continue to promote 
activities that will ensure economic vitality and enhanced 
opportunities for all Americans.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Ehlers amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, consideration of 
further amendments must now cease.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) will be postponed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask for unanimous 
consent to speak for 1 minute?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. At this point unanimous consent requests 
for additional debate time cannot be granted in the Committee of the 
Whole. Those requests can only be offered in the whole House.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, just to enter a very short statement in 
the Record; it will take me 15 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the special order adopted by the 
House at this point the gentleman must do that in the House, not in the 
Committee of the Whole, since all time for consideration has expired.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 38 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); Amendment No. 43 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer); Amendment No. 42 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); and Amendment No. 
40 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Payne

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 38 offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 215, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Camp
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Larson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Scarborough
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter

                              {time}  1451

  Messrs. FRANKS of New Jersey, LoBIONDO, BATEMAN, GANSKE, ENGLISH, 
EWING, and RAMSTED

[[Page H10650]]

changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Messrs. SPRATT, LAMPSON, and HOEFFEL changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 522, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 522, I inadvertently, 
pressed the ``aye'' button. I meant to vote ``nay.''


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

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


                 Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment 43 offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 523]

                               AYES--243

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--181

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Camp
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Scarborough
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
  Mr. NEY and Mr. GALLEGLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Petri

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 42 offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 271, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 524]

                               AYES--153

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)

[[Page H10651]]


     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--271

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Camp
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Scarborough
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  1509

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. RUSH and Mr. LATHAM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 40 offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360, 
noes 62, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 525]

                               AYES--360

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

                                NOES--62

     Armey
     Barr
     Blunt
     Burr
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gekas
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     LaHood
     Largent
     Manzullo
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Souder
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Camp
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)

[[Page H10652]]


     Jefferson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McInnis
     Ryan (WI)
     Scarborough
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  1517

  Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 525, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 525, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been presdent, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as chair of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2. I oppose this bill due 
to strong reservations concerning the Bilingual Education Act and 
parental notification component of the bill.
  I know my Democratic colleagues on the committee, Ranking Member Clay 
and Representatives Kildee, Hinojosa, and Martinez and staff have 
fought hard for acceptable and fair language in the reauthorization of 
the Bilingual Education Act. However, in the end, what the Republicans 
offered in the final negotiations fails to fully protect bilingual 
education programs.
  For example, instead of making bilingual education programs stronger, 
Republicans are simply interested in block granting the program. Those 
of us who support bilingual education want to bring more accountability 
to the program and help students meet high state standards. Diluting 
the funds through block grants will do little to help LEP students 
achieve high standards.
  Bilingual education is important to our students and our nation. We 
must promote bilingual education so that our students can learn 
English, while retaining their native language, in order to excel 
academically. We must help our limited English proficient children 
develop the talents and the skills they need to compete in today's 
highly technical and competitive global economy.
  Multilingualism is something we should be proud of. Our LEP children 
bring invaluable language resources and knowledge to our society. 
Bilingual education promotes our students' native language skills.
  Another significant problem with H.R. 2 was the parental notification 
and consent requirement for LEP students. In order for LEP students to 
receive services under Title I, schools would have to seek permission 
from the parents of these students. No other group of students is asked 
to get permission from their parents to receive services under Title I, 
only LEP students. This is wrong, discriminatory and has no place in an 
education bill.
  Many of my colleagues will support this bill, in the hopes that it 
will be improved as it moves through the process, knowing that when the 
bill comes back from conference they will have the option to vote 
against it. However, as chair of the Hispanic Caucus, I feel it is 
important for me to vote against this bill as a signal that the Caucus, 
regardless of their vote on the overall bill, feels strongly that much 
more work needs to be done.
  It is unfortunate that this signal must be sent because the 
reauthorization of Title I is critical to the Hispanic community.
  Title I funds serve a rapidly expanding number of low-income and 
limited English proficient students, for example, nearly 32 percent of 
Title I students are Hispanic.
  In addition, H.R. 2 holds our schools accountable by mandating that 
Title I schools ensure all students meet high standards.
  H.R. 2 also requires that States and schools provide report cards so 
that parents have the basic facts about the progress their children are 
making in their education so they can take action to improve their 
schools' curriculum, if needed.
  Also, H.R. 2 raises the standards for paraprofessionals in the 
classroom. Paraprofessionals are supervised teacher's aides who provide 
critical assistance for our kids in the classroom. However, in many of 
our schools it is the teacher's aide and not the teacher who is doing 
the instruction. This bill would encourage paraprofessionals to enroll 
in a career track program to better assist teachers with instructional 
support in the classroom.
  These are just a few examples of the good that is in this bill and 
why so many of my colleagues will support the movement of this bill to 
the Senate. But with their vote also comes the commitment of the CHC 
members to work diligently to make the final version of the bill 
closely mirror the CHC language on bilingual education. The future of 
many of our children depends on it. Therefore, it is my hope that the 
Republican leadership will work with us to achieve this goal.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, 
the Student Results Act. I am encouraged by the bipartisan nature of 
this education bill which was crafted on an unbiased basis following 
the appropriate committee process.
   Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that Title I funds will receive a 
$1 billion increase over last year's appropriation level bringing the 
authorization level to $8.35 billion in fiscal year 2000. By providing 
this commitment to our educationally disadvantaged students, the 
success we will see in our Nation's school children will be 
immeasurable.
  This bill will require schools to meet challenging Title I standards 
and hold schools accountable for the results of their Title I programs 
by requiring an annual report to parents and the public on the academic 
performance of schools receiving Title I funds. In addition, this 
legislation strengthens the requirement for teachers' aides by 
requiring 2 years of higher education, an associate's degree or meet 
rigorous standards assessing their math, reading and writing skills.
   Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the bill allows states to set aside 30 
percent of any increase in Title I funds to reward schools and teachers 
that substantially close the gap between the lowest and highest 
performing students that have made outstanding yearly progress for 2 
consecutive years. In my own Congressional District in Southwestern 
Illinois there is a school that will benefit tremendously from this 
award system. Belleville School District 118 has been lauded as one of 
the best Title I programs in the State. In fact, the Illinois State 
Board of Education called upon Belleville 118's Title I director, Tom 
Mentzer, to give presentations to other school districts on how to 
reach the level of success that District 118 has had with their Title I 
program. Yet, this year Bellenille School District 118 was forced to 
reduce their Title I teaching staff. Due to no increase in Title I 
funds for this school year, and not being eligible for additional Title 
I related grants such as Comprehensive School Reform Initiative (CSRI) 
based on high test scores, there are schools in 118 that received Title 
I funding last year that will not be serviced by Title I funding this 
year. What a difference Title I funds may have made in an educationally 
disadvantaged student's life had they had additional funds to provide 
Title I remedial reading initiatives. By putting this provision in the 
bill we will no longer economically punish schools that have excelled 
in achieving the goals set out for them by Title I.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that helps at-risk 
students stay in school. Vote for this bipartisan education bill that 
will benefit thousands of students in each of our congressional 
districts.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking today in support of H.R. 2: 
The Students Results Act of 1999, which authorizes Title I Federal 
Elementary and Secondary Education Programs for five years, although I 
have some serious concerns regarding this proposal.
  While I applaud the efforts of our Democratic committee members who 
fought tooth and nail to ensure that funding remains targeted at the 
most disadvantaged and poorest students, I fear that the poor and 
disadvantaged will be left in the cold again. This is due to Republican 
demands disguised to provide greater flexibility in using federal money 
and require more information on results. This so-called flexibility 
comes at a high price.
  This proposed legislation would, in fact: dilute services to schools 
that are the most needy by allowing diversion of up to 30 percent of 
all new title I money to reward schools that improve student 
achievement; and lower the poverty threshold for school-wide programs.
  While I support rewarding schools for achieving success, I believe 
that it should not come out of the existing Title I pot of funding. As 
it stands already, we are stretched to provide service to all Title I 
eligible children. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 
serving all Title I eligible children would require $24 billion, that's 
nearly 3 times the current funding level. Therefore, instead of taking 
money out of the same pot, we should find other avenues to reward 
successful school programs.
  Another proposal in the Title I provision to lower the poverty 
threshold from the current 50 percent poverty limit to 40 percent for 
schoolwide programs would only further water down funding.
  We should strive not only for greater fiscal accountability within 
our programs, we should ensure that we provide sound program 
accountability to our poor and disadvantaged children.
  Some serious concerns have also been raised by members with the 
provision to require parental consent for students with limited English 
proficiency in Title I. I am deeply concerned that the parental consent 
requirement may impede a child's ability to gain meaningful

[[Page H10653]]

instruction while waiting to be placed in a Limited English Proficiency 
(LEP) program. First and foremost, our primary concern for this measure 
is to ensure that the best needs of students are being served. So, that 
important instructional support to LEP children are not delayed.
  Finally, I urge members to strongly consider the reauthorization of 
the Bilingual Education Act (BEA). The BEA serves as one of the most 
meaningful tools a teacher can use to provide meaningful academic 
instruction to students. However, I believe that the BEA must allow 
schools the flexibility to choose instructional methods that are best 
suited for their students.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed 
its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last 
thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal 
programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, 
good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional 
limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their 
rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain 
an exception for ``good intentions!''
  The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, 
in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to 
increased levels of taxation, federally-empowered ``experts'' would 
create an educational utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new 
golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education 
has, not coincidently, coincided with a decline in American public 
education. In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than 
nine hundred thousand dollars, the average Scholastic Achievement Test 
(SAT) score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when federal 
education spending ballooned to 19 billion dollars, the average SAT 
score had fallen to 902. Furthermore, according to the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of 
America's 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th grade 
level!
  Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened 
that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal 
taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, 
too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the ``right 
federal program'' conceived by enlightened members and staffers will 
lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this 
legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by 
this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 
billion over the next five years--yet the drafters of this legislation 
somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes 
local control!
  One mandate requires states to give priority to K-6 education 
programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance this may 
seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an 
equal, or greater, amount of resources to high school education. In 
fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed 
concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I 
funds if this provision becomes law! What makes DC-based politicians 
and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas 
school district than that school's principal?
  Another mandate requires teacher aides to be ``fully qualified'' if 
the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this 
may appear to be simply a matter of following sound practice, the cost 
of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many 
small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to 
go without teachers aides, placing another burden on our already 
overworked public school teachers.
  Some may claim that this bill does not contain ``mandates'' as no 
state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal 
educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the 
education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive 
taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal 
specifications.
  One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal 
education programs is the need to ``hold schools accountable for their 
use of federal funds.'' This is the justification for requiring Title I 
schools to produce ``report cards'' listing various indicators of 
school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding 
schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal 
Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the 
schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control 
their child's education does not hold schools accountable to parents. 
As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not 
parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of 
parents.
  Furthermore, maximum decentralization is the key to increasing 
education quality. This is because decentralized systems are controlled 
by those who know the unique needs of an individual child, whereas 
centralized systems are controlled by bureaucrats who impose a ``one-
size fits all'' model. The model favored by bureaucrats can never meet 
the special needs of individual children in the local community because 
the bureaucrats have no way of knowing those particular needs. Small 
wonder that students in states with decentralized education score 10 
percentage points higher on the NAEP tests in math and reading than 
students in states with centralized education.
  Fortunately there is an alternative educational policy to the one 
before us today that respects the Constitution and improves education 
by restoring true accountability to America's education system. 
Returning real control to the American people by returning direct 
control of the education dollars to America's parents and concerned 
citizens is the only proper solution. This is precisely why I have 
introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). The Family 
Education Freedom Act provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax 
credit for the K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the 
Education Tax Credit Act (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit 
for cash contributions to scholarships as well as any cash and in-kind 
contribution to public, private, or religious schools.
  By placing control of education funding directly into the hands of 
parents and concerned citizens, my bills restore true accountability to 
education. When parents control education funding, schools must respond 
to the parents' desire for a quality education, otherwise the parent 
will seek other educational options for their child.
  Instead of fighting over what type of federal intervention is best 
for education, Congress should honor their constitutional oath and give 
complete control over America's educational system to the states and 
people. Therefore, Congress should reject this legislation and instead 
work to restore true accountability to America's parents by defunding 
the education bureaucracy and returning control of the education dollar 
to America's parents.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Crowley/
Etheridge/Wu amendment.
  Our sense-of-the-Congress amendment recognizes the fact that certain 
communities across the country are facing growing student populations. 
It shows our schools that Congress is aware of the problems of 
overcrowding and the need for financial support from Federal, State, 
and local agencies to assist these school districts.
  All across this country, more and more students are entering schools. 
According to the Baby Boom Echo Report issued by the Department of 
Education, 52.7 million students are enrolled in both public and 
private schools. A new national enrollment record.
  Schools are literally bursting at their seams with overcrowded 
classrooms. As I travel throughout my District, I see this first-hand. 
At Findley Elementary School in Beaverton, Oregon, students have 
outgrown a 5-year-old school and are now being taught in trailers.
  In Washington County, one of the fastest growing counties in the 
nation, students are being taught in overcrowded classrooms. A report 
that I had commissioned showed that only 4 percent of K-3 students in 
Washington County were taught in classes of 18 or fewer students. In 
addition, approximately two out of every five Washington county K-3 
students were taught in classes that significantly exceeded federal 
class size objectives.
  Studies show that when you reduce class size in the early grades, and 
give students the attention they deserve, the learning gains last a 
lifetime.
  Last year, Congress made a down payment on the administration's plan 
to hire 100,000 new teachers over a period of 7 years in order to 
reduce average class size to eighteen students in grades one through 
three. But that was only a down payment. We are now in the process of 
determining if we will keep our promise, and continue to fund the 
program.
  Until we finalize the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill, 
we need to send a message to our schools that we are aware of the 
problems of overcrowding and will work to fix it.
  Support the Crowley/Etheridge/Wu amendment. Show your schools that 
you care.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage my colleagues to 
support H.R. 2, the Student Results Act of 1999. Educating America's 
youth is essential to the future of our nation. This legislation 
focuses on improving accountability and quality in our education 
system. The Student Results Act gives parents more control over key 
decisions for their children's education, including school choice, and 
academic accountability.
  Education decisions belong at the local level, where parents and 
educators can be involved. H.R. 2 achieves this by authorizing greater 
local control and more choice for parents. It also provides aid to 
state and local educational agencies to help educationally 
disadvantaged children achieve the same high performance standards as 
every other student.

[[Page H10654]]

  Mr. Chairman, everyone should support improvements to our education 
system that will raise the standard of excellence in learning and give 
every child in America the opportunity to learn at his or her maximum 
potential. I urge my colleagues to support the Students Results Act 
today.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) 
to send more dollars to the classroom and for certain other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 366, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hinojosa

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hinojosa moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     conduct hearings and promptly report to the House on title 
     VII regarding the effectiveness of bilingual education and 
     migrant education.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I planned today to offer three amendments, 
Nos. 25, 26, and 27, bilingual education and migrant education issues 
that are very important to me and my district, in fact to many people 
throughout the country. I did not do so.
  However, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has grave concerns about 
bilingual education and migrant education in the manager's House bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish we could have made more progress on 
these issues in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In fact, 
I wish we could have marked up Title VII in the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  However, I am hopeful that eventually the House and the Senate 
conferees will work to resolve differences between their respective 
versions of ESEA and implement these provisions.
  I am going to vote for final passage for H.R. 2. But, as I said, I 
want to reiterate so that everyone here understands that the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus is speaking for over 3\1/2\ million 
children and we are concerned that many of the provisions that were in 
our bill were not included in H.R. 2.
  The concerns of the Hispanic Caucus are very important and need to be 
addressed in the next steps of the process.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we doing here today? Are we fighting for the 
rights of our disadvantaged children to have a solid education--or--are 
we relegating them to a second-rate education?
  Under this manager's amendment, the plate is full for some students, 
but empty for too many others. I don't believe anyone in this body can, 
in good conscience, support this manager's amendment to Title VII.
  I have some very specific concerns with this ill-conceived manager's 
amendment that I'd like to share with you. But before I proceed, I 
first want to say ``Thank you!'' To my ranking members--Congressmen 
Bill Clay and Dale Kildee. Both men and their staffs valiantly 
attempted to negotiate a compromise that we could all support.
  Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, that was not to be.
  Again, thank you for your assistance.
  Now, Mr. Chairman I'd like to discuss, point by point, my concerns 
with the manager's amendment as I also highlight the Hispanic caucus' 
substitute amendment to Title VII.
  Concern No. one: Turning Title VII into a state formula grant. In 
Turning Title VII into a State formula grant, we are assured that fewer 
fiscal resources (which will depend on a funding trigger), will be 
available to educate limited English proficient children.
  Currently, less than 10 percent of all children eligible for 
bilingual classes are being served by this title. This is shameful.
  Of the 3\1/2\ million limited English proficient children in our 
country--and this figure is growing--only 10 percent are currently 
receiving Title VII services.
  Title VII is the only Federal program designed for children whose 
native language is not English, but who will soon become English 
proficient given the proper professional guidance and instruction.
  Mr. Speaker, with such a large projected growth in the future, we 
should be increasing funds and resources for this population, not 
trying to shirk our federal responsibility of ensuring that they 
receive the best education possible.
  The current competitive grant structure of Title VII assures us that 
local schools have made a commitment to provide high quality programs 
for our children. These local grant applications are peer-reviewed and 
monitored by the U.S. Department of Education.
  We think it is doubtful that local schools would maintain their 
commitment to educating L-E-P children if they were automatically 
assured of formula funding.
  What very well may result is that programs with so little funding 
will also provide precious little to disadvantaged students.
  Concern No. 2 accountability for learning. Mr. Speaker, we want ot 
make sure that limited English proficient children are assessed in the 
most scientifically based manner, and the managers amendment does not 
provide that flexibility.
  The Hispanic caucus bill requires annual assessments in academic 
content areas, whereas the manager's bill merely stresses ``English 
language acquisition'' at the expense of content.
  Concern No. 3: Parental involvement. The Hispanic caucus deeply 
regrets that the manager's amendment does not thoroughly involve the 
parents of limited English proficient children.
  This is counter to all modern research. The Hispanic caucus bill 
calls for assuring that parents participate and accept responsibility 
for the education of their children.
  The manager's idea of parental involvement is parental consent not to 
participate in bilingual programs.
  Don't get me wrong--the caucus does not oppose parental consent as 
long as it improves the program. However, the manager's amendment 
actually prevents children from participating and receiving an equal 
educational opportunity.
  The manager's amendment would also increase the paperwork burdens of 
our local schools.
  And there's no assurance that limited English proficient students 
will receive appropriate educational services.
  It is immoral to warehouse children without providing timely 
educational opportunities--it's wrong and it's discriminatory, and the 
Hispanic caucus is soundly against this proposition.
  Concern No. 4: Professional development. Let me once again point out 
the deficiencies in the manager's amendment.
  For the first time, the manager has merged four separate categories 
(career ladder, teachers and personnel, training for all teachers and 
graduate fellowships)--into one grant program. They would also reduce 
funds for some of these programs.
  Let me highlight the four programs in professional development:
  1. Career ladder--All of us are aware of the tremendous problems of 
teacher shortages for limited English proficient children. Career 
ladder programs are extremely important in shortening the time that 
capable teachers and assistants may participate in the classrooms. It 
is also an incentive for young adults to seek careers teaching limited 
English proficient children.
  2. Teachers and personnel--Most of this section is commendable, but 
the participation of pupil services personnel is not assured. The 
manager's amendment focuses funds on teachers, while ignoring their 
professional peers who provide counseling and important support 
services which is vital to the academic success of our kids in the 
classroom.
  3. Teacher training--The manager's amendment limits the opportunity 
for preservice and inservice training for instructional personnel. It 
is crucial that each teacher be aware of the latest research and 
instructional technology available to help them with limited 
English proficient children. Not only are local resources

[[Page H10655]]

curtailed, but the national professional institutes may not be able to 
provide the necessary training to improve the quality of professional 
development programs. Again, this will cripple the teacher pipeline.

  4. Graduate fellowships--The managers's amendment caps funding for 
fellowships for masters, doctoral and postdoctoral study related to the 
instruction of limited English proficient children. We need 
professional teacher training program administration, research and 
evaluation and curriculum development and the support of dissertation 
research related to such studies. No other profession abolishes newly 
trained professionals, yet this request is being made by the manager's 
amendment.
  Concern No. 5: The fate of the national bilingual education 
clearinghouse. The national bilingual education clearinghouse provides 
the latest research and instructional methodology for the use of public 
schools, colleges and universities throughout the United States.
  The manager's amendment would eliminate thirty-plus years of research 
as well as a national system-wide network by suggesting that these 
functions be taken over by the office of education research and 
improvement, without any specific assurances.
  This is counter to all calls for accountability where we want 
education and teacher training programs to use the latest education 
research and technology to improve classroom instruction.
  Mr. Speaker, my last concern is that the manager's amendment has 
eliminated the Emergency Immigrant Education Act. This act is extremely 
important to state governors, national school boards, local school 
boards, principals and teachers. The emergency immigrant act has been 
approved the last three times we have reauthorized ESEA.
  While the funds are not meeting the tremendous need for educating 
newly-arriving immigrants, these funds remain crucial for the initial 
success of these students while they learn the American system of 
education.
  I urge all my colleagues to consider the support that you will 
provide to local school systems that are impacted by these children.
  The Congressional Hispanic caucus amendment continues to provide 
equal educational opportunities for limited English proficient 
children, youth and adults.
  This federal effort started in 1968 and thousands of children have 
benefitted, although millions more could have used these services.
  Our children are our future, and knowledge is the ticket. I urge all 
my colleagues to support the Congressional Hispanic caucus substitute 
on title VII, listed as the Hinojosa amendment No. 25, that 
reauthorizes bilingual education.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my amendment No. 26 was to establish a 
national parent advisory council for migrant parents at the federal 
level.
  I just want to toss out an interesting fact, and that is my 
congressional district in South Texas, along the Texas/Mexico border, 
has the highest concentration of migrant workers and their children 
than anywhere else in the country.
  What exactly does this mean? My questions may sound rhetorical, but 
the point is, most of us have no idea what the life of a migrant worker 
is like, and even more of us have less of an idea of the impact this 
lifestyle has on the children of these workers.
  At the beginning of each school year, most of us place our kids in 
school knowing that for the next nine months they will have a stable 
classroom environment--one conducive to learning. We take this for 
granted, but this is not the norm for migrant children who on average 
attend several schools a year in as many States.
  Weeks of school are missed, interrupting the continuity of a 
student's education. Think about your own child having to make these 
constant adjustments.
  This amendment would establish, for the first time, a national 
migrant parent advisory council, where migrant families would be better 
able to communicate their needs--language skills, reading problems, 
health issues, deficient housing, and other factors associated with low 
income--to the Secretary of Education.
  This parent advisory committee would provide a national focus that 
transcends the geographical barriers that form the educational systems 
for most children. As migrant needs are national, and only national 
programs can meet those needs, it is crucial that this advisory 
committee maintain a national perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my Amendment No. 27 was to establish a 
national data exchange system to be used for maintaining migrant 
students' academic and vital information records.
  This amendment is the result of meeting with parents of migrant 
students; with the education personnel who serve them; and the 
disadvantaged who travel from one State to another from April to 
October.
  We are all familiar with the saying, ``If at first you don't succeed 
try, try again!''
  We know that the first attempt at putting together a migrant student 
record transfer system was unsuccessful. But that does not mean the 
idea isn't important. It is. And we have to work together to provide 
effective services for this mobile population. The current system just 
doesn't work as well as it could. I've personally heard horror stories 
from migrant students about these children receiving 6 immunizations of 
the same medicine, and of being enrolled in below-grade level classes.
  I am not trying to fix what ain't broke, but there is room for 
improvement and that is all I'm trying to do here.
  We cannot just pretend migrant students don't exist--that's 
perpetuating the status quo.
  When it comes to education, we should be long past the days of the 
haves versus the have-nots. We are not talking about an investment 
that's frivolous--my amendment would authorize $1 million for the first 
two fiscal years following the effective date of this act.
  These children deserve to have as high a quality education as any 
other child, regardless of income. All this is about is making certain 
these children receive the same treatment as their counterparts. You 
would expect this for your children, I know I would expect it for mine. 
Why should these migrant children be treated any differently?
  As it stands now, they are treated differently--they are pretty much 
an afterthought. We can change that, and I hope you will support this 
amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody understands that for 
6 months we wanted to put together whatever legislation they had of 
interest. The negotiations then did not really take place until day one 
of the markup.
  Day one of the markup I said, ``Do you have something to offer?'' 
``No, I am not ready.'' Day 2 of the markup, ``Do you have something to 
offer?'' ``No, I am not ready.'' Day 3 of the markup, ``Do you have 
something to offer?'' ``No, I am not ready.'' Day 4 of the markup, ``Do 
you have something to offer?'' ``No, I am not ready.''
  I then said, ``Please have whatever it is you are interested in ready 
between now and the time we go to the floor.''
  On Tuesday, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of this week, I was told we 
have an agreement. At 9 o'clock on Tuesday evening, I was told we do 
not have an agreement. At 10 o'clock on Tuesday evening, I was told we 
do have an agreement.
  So I said put what they said, and the chairman of the Caucus agreed 
to it, into the manager's amendment so that we have something there. So 
we have done everything under the sun we possibly could to accommodate.
  We also had a hearing in the district of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa). We also had a hearing in D.C. And we also had more time 
on other legislation in order to deal with the issue if there is total 
dissatisfaction. But we have done everything we possibly could and the 
ranking member has done everything he possibly could to bring about 
some kind of agreement.
  We thought we had one. The chairman of the Caucus said we had one; 
and so, it was put in the manager's agreement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 358, 
noes 67, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No 526]

                               AYES--358

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono

[[Page H10656]]


     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--67

     Archer
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Blunt
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Gonzalez
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lee
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Payne
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Wamp
     Waters
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Camp
     Davis (VA)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1542

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. McINNIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was standing in the well of the 
House before the vote was announced and the machine did not work. I 
would have voted ``aye'' on the last vote.
  Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 526, I was away from the 
House Chamber attending an education press conference with other 
members of the House of Representatives and an eighth grade class and 
faculty from Rogersville, TN. city schools. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________