[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10685-H10715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT FOR ALL ACT (STRAIGHT A's ACT)

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 338

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the

[[Page H10686]]

     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2300) 
     to allow a State to combine certain funds to improve the 
     academic achievement of all its students. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
     failure to comply with clause 4 of rule XXI are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instruction.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the 
ranking member on the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 338 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act, 
also known as Straight A's. The Straight A's Act encourages innovative 
education reform that will better prepare our Nation's children for the 
21st century.
  We have made a huge investment in education at the Federal level, yet 
we are not seeing the positive results each time we add more dollars 
and resources to Federal education programs. I think we all agree to 
some degree of failure at the Federal level, or education would not top 
the list of both parties' legislative agendas. Yet, while we agree that 
reform is necessary, Congress has a hard time coming together on the 
one solution that will give a better future to every child.
  That may be because there is not one solution. Each school is 
different and each child is unique, so how can we find the answer, the 
answer, that will make every school a first-rate institution and help 
every child reach his or her full potential? The Straight A's bill 
recognizes that such an individualized task may be beyond the reach of 
the monolithic, far-removed Federal Government.
  This legislation suggests that we look to those who are most familiar 
with the school systems and who are closer to the students to implement 
education policies and reforms that will make a real difference. 
Instead of making schools fit into a mold of a Federal education 
program, Straight A's lets States and school districts create their own 
programs and use Federal dollars to make them work.
  Straight A's is an option, not a mandate for States. The only 
requirement is results. Each State that participates must sign a 5-year 
performance agreement and a rigorous statewide accountability system 
must be in place to participate. States must report annually to the 
public and the Secretary of Education as to how they have spent their 
funds and on student achievement. The bill provides penalties for 
failure, and it rewards results.
  That does not sound so bad, does it? I would even say it is hard to 
argue against this type of flexibility and change, given the 
shortcomings of our education system under the status quo. But as my 
colleagues know, this bill is not without controversy. Whether it is 
fear of change, a distrust of State government, or healthy skepticism, 
there are a number of Members who are concerned that the flexibility 
offered to States through this bill is too broad.
  Happily, there has been a compromise, and this rule implements a 
reasonable middle ground by limiting to 10 the number of States that 
may part in Straight A's. With adoption of this rule, the Straight A's 
Act will become a pilot program rather than a nationwide policy.
  In addition to this amendment, which is printed in part A of the 
report of the Committee on Rules, an amendment to remedy a direct 
spending issue will be incorporated into the text of the bill when the 
rule is adopted.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. The House will then have the 
opportunity to consider two amendments printed in part B of the 
Committee on Rules report. One is the manager's amendment to be offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), which will be 
debatable for 10 minutes. The other is an amendment to be offered by 
(Mr. Fattah), which will be debatable for 20 minutes.
  Two amendments may not seem very generous, but of the amendments 
filed with the Committee on Rules, only one amendment was denied. And 
it was a Republican amendment, which was not germane to the bill. So I 
think the rule is very fair to the minority and to the Members of this 
House who sought to amend this legislation.
  I should also mention that the rule provides an additional 
opportunity to change the bill through a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions. In addition, to give the Chair flexibility and 
for the convenience of the House, the rule allows the Chair to postpone 
votes during consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 
minutes on a postponed question, if preceded by a 15-minute vote.
  Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that this rule implements a compromise 
that will allow 10 States to escape from the red tape of Federal Rules 
and regulations to implement the education reforms that they guarantee 
will improve student performance. These 10 States may use Federal 
dollars, including Title I funding, as they see fit, to raise academic 
achievement, improve teacher quality, reduce class size, end social 
promotion, or whatever they feel is required in their schools to meet 
their performance goals. And the compromise ensures that States 
continue to address the needs of disadvantaged students.
  With this compromise, we are moving forward with education reform in 
a measured way that builds upon and follows the successful model of the 
Ed-Flex program, which has now been expanded to all States. If the 
Straight A's program proves as popular, we will come back to this body 
and work to give all States the freedom to implement innovative reforms 
and help their students.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this fair rule, which 
finds a middle ground and accommodates virtually all Members who have 
expressed an interest in improving this legislation. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the rule and on the Straight A's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my dear friend, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary 
half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to see my Republican colleagues taking 
apart Federal education programs for disadvantaged children today, 
especially since earlier today the House passed an education bill 
authorizing $8.35 billion for Title I programs. Today's bill, the

[[Page H10687]]

 anti-accountability act, will steer funds away from the high poverty 
areas and gut the accountability standards that passed the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce 2 weeks ago.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the children with the greatest need. If the 
Federal Government does not provide them with some assistance, there is 
no guarantee that they will get it from the States. Specifically, Mr. 
Speaker, this bill will eliminate national education funds targeted 
towards schools in poor neighborhoods and turns them into one big block 
grant with which States can do anything they want, including buy band 
uniforms or build swimming pools.
  If my colleagues believe this money will go towards the poor 
children, let me cite a General Accounting Office study that found that 
45 States give less of their education funds to poor children than the 
Federal Government does. And, Mr. Speaker, those children deserve all 
the help we can give them. Poor children growing up in the United 
States have it bad enough. While their parents struggle to move off 
welfare, many of them are getting poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, their 
neighborhoods are filthy and violence ridden. Now, to add insult to 
injury, the Republican bill dismantles what little educational safety 
net they have left.
  It is very shortsighted, it is dangerous, and I would say it is even 
cruel. In the long run, it will widen the chasm between the rich and 
the poor in this country, and that is very bad for everyone.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill guts teacher training, technology, and school 
safety. It lumps all funds together, diluting their impact and ensuring 
Federal education programs get even less money next year.

                              {time}  1845

  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates any accountability in 
education funds. In other words, States can spend their money on 
anything, accomplish nothing, and no one will suffer except poor 
children.
  I would remind my colleagues that the Federal investment in education 
has worked because schools were held accountable. Mr. Speaker, it 
worked because schools were held accountable. Now is not the time to 
stop.
  Congress has just passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
making schools accountable to parents, teachers, and, most importantly, 
students. This bill scratches all that. It says Congress changed its 
mind and now does not require any proof that schools are spending money 
in a way that benefit children's education.
  The National Coalition for Public Education, the National Education 
Association, and the American Federation of Teachers oppose this bill 
very strongly. They agree that we need to reduce class size and make 
sure that all our children, even those in high-poverty areas, have the 
best possible teachers.
  But this bill will not do that, Mr. Speaker. This bill will turn back 
the clock on years of Federal efforts to direct funds toward low-income 
children, and it should be opposed.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress created some of these Federal education 
programs because many State education programs failed to meet the 
special education needs of neglected and homeless children. Now 
Congress is reversing its efforts away from poor children, the children 
who need it the most.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying a couple things. Let me say 
first, I do not now disagree with a lot of what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) said in terms of these programs and what 
they do, and I think we all need to realize that as we debate this 
legislation.
  I am the one who introduced an amendment at the Committee on Rules to 
reduce this from a full 50-State program to a 12-State pilot program, 
of which six of those 12 States would be able to do Title I as well as 
the other aspects of ESEA.
  Title I is determined for economically disadvantaged students, and 
then it helps those who are academically disadvantaged. That is the 
program that concerns me a lot. I was very worried about even doing 
anything with respect to a pilot on that particular program.
  After some negotiation and resolution, we made it a pilot program for 
10 States, all of which could basically take all the parameters of the 
Straight A's Act and be able to do that. They would be selected by the 
Secretary of Education.
  I think it is important to understand what a pilot program is, 
because I have not been the greatest supporter of the Straight A's 
program from the beginning; and going to even supporting a pilot 
program has not been that easy for me. But a pilot program for me, 
essentially, in this reauthorization would be under a 5-year time 
limit.
  The various States, and there have been 10 or even more governors who 
have asked for this by the way, would have to put together a plan and 
present it to the Secretary of Education in a competitive sense; and 
then the Secretary of Education would make a determination as to which 
States would be able to go into the pilot program and there could be no 
more than 10 States.
  What are they going to look for in that particular plan? The plan 
must help disadvantaged children. And there is an accountability 
measure to all of this which we do not have now in some of these 
programs, which I am going to talk about in a minute; and it must show 
how they are closing the gap between those who are disadvantaged 
presently served under various ESEA programs, Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act programs, and the other students who are there, something 
which does not happen today.
  Now, what do we have today? Why should we even consider making any 
changes whatsoever or why should we take a chance on that? Because I 
consider it to be nothing more, really, than taking a chance.
  Well, under the ESEA, we have first and, I guess, foremost the Title 
I program. That should be familiar to everybody in this chamber. 
Everybody just voted on that. Most, as a matter of fact a large 
majority, voted to what I think was a major improvement in Title I just 
an hour or so ago right here on this floor. That is the aid to 
disadvantaged students. At least that is how it is determined from an 
economic point of view. Then when it goes down to the schools, it takes 
care of those who are academically disadvantaged who may or may not be 
the exact same population.
  But it includes other things. Part B, for example, of Title I is the 
Even Start Family Literacy Program. We have a Migrant Education Program 
in part C. We have a Neglected and Delinquent Children in part D. We 
have an Eisenhower Professional Development to help develop teachers as 
part of this, too. We have education technology. We have safe and drug-
free schools, and the D.A.R.E. program, I believe, comes under that 
part of it. We have the Innovative Education Block Grant, which a lot 
of States obviously like. We have Class Size Reduction. We have 
Comprehensive School Reform. We have the Emergency Immigrant Education. 
We have a Title III of Goals 2000, and a Perkins Vocational Technical 
Training. And we have the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.

  What we do not have here, by the way, is IDEA. That has been excluded 
from what we are dealing with here.
  Now, obviously, if one knows anything about the Federal role in 
education, these are all programs which basically help targeted parts 
of our population who need perhaps special help. The economically 
disadvantaged, the immigrants, the people who are having language 
problems in our country, for example. For the most part, those are the 
kinds of individuals who are being helped by this program.
  The question then arises, have we really helped these kids? And we 
have not really measured that very well. We certainly had the programs 
in place. People are getting paid. People have taken the floor here 
today and said that Title I simply has not worked. I do not agree with 
that. I think Title I has actually helped a number of kids.

[[Page H10688]]

  Do I think Title I can work better? My colleagues better believe I 
think Title I can work better. Do I think these other programs could 
work better? I absolutely believe that each program on here could work 
better.
  So this is a deal where the Federal Government creates a program, 
hands the money and the outlines of the program down to the State and 
then down to the local school districts and the local schools, and they 
have to carry it out; and some place betwixt and between, something 
sometimes falls through the cracks and it does not work that well.
  So a number of people got up and they said, we need to do it 
differently. We can do it differently. Give us that opportunity to do 
it differently. And they came and they came with this amendment.
  Well, I think the Straight A's bill to have all 50 States do this at 
their option personally went too far. That is my own view of it. And I 
believe that we needed to make some changes, and that is why I 
introduced the amendment and we worked down to the 10 States that we 
have now.
  Now, in addition to that, I am also concerned about the 
disadvantaged, as well, because I do not want them to fall through the 
cracks in this. I think these governors and these States are going to 
be able to put together programs that are going to help move some of 
these people. And if they can, God love them if they can do that. We 
will have an improved education situation for our kids. We can all 
learn from that. And that is what pilot programs are all about.
  I am later going to have a colloquy with the chairman of the 
committee; and it is going to state, In addition, the amendment assures 
that if a State includes Title I, part A aid to disadvantaged students 
in its performance agreement, it must ensure that the school districts 
continue to allocate funds to address the educational needs of 
disadvantaged students.
  I want to make sure that language is part of the Record. I wanted it 
to be part of the bill, but for technical reasons it did not work out. 
I want it to be part of the Record here.
  I think if we do all these things, we are taking a chance. Maybe it 
is a chance that some people do not want to take, and maybe they will 
vote against it for that reason. But I think it is a chance that is at 
least worth trying. I do not think any great harm will be done if it 
did not work for one reason or another. Because of all the 
accountability that is in there, I think it will work.
  So, for that reason, I am supportive of the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can tell a lot about the bill by who supports 
it and who opposes it. I would like to read off the list I have of 
people who are supporting it and opposing it.
  The people who support this bill are the Americans for Tax Reform, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Eagle Forum, Educational Policy 
Institute, Empower America, Family Research Council, Home School Legal 
Defense Association, National Taxpayers Union, and the Union of 
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
  My colleagues did not notice too many teachers' organizations there.
  Now these are the people who are opposed: The National Education 
Association, American Federation of Teachers, Council of Chief State 
School Offices, Council of the Great City Schools, National Association 
of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary 
School Principals, National Association of State Boards of Education, 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National 
Governors Association, National PTA, American Jewish Committee, 
American Baptist Joint Committee, Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State, National Urban League, Union of American Hebrew 
Congregations, Service Employees, International Union, and United Auto 
Workers.
  I think we can deduce something by the people for and against this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, in opposing the rule and the bill, 
cited a great number of political organizations and associations that 
have some opinion about the Straight A's proposal. Several of these 
associations are on one side. Others of these political groups and 
associations are on another side. The implication being is that that is 
how we should measure the merits of the legislation before us.
  I think we ought to try something different. I think we ought to 
focus on the children who are ultimately those who are affected most 
directly by the legislation we consider.
  This is an opportunity that we have, passing the Straight A's bill to 
give governors and States a real chance, a chance to snip the rules, 
the regulations, the strings, and the red tape that have bound up these 
organizations, these States, these governors, State legislators, 
superintendents, school boards, and so on and so many, many years and 
made it virtually impossible, certainly difficult, to really help these 
children.
  What we have in Federal law today is program after program after 
program which has developed its own constituency, and we just heard the 
names of them read. Certainly some of these constituency groups have 
positions on a bill like this. Some of their authority is threatened 
because that authority is derived from the laws have been created here 
in Washington with respect to education.
  This is an opportunity to vote for a rule and vote for a bill that 
changes the laws that actually help children for a change.
  I would like to ask the body to consider a letter I just received 
from my governor. It says, ``I am writing to ask you to support the 
Straight A's Act. As the Governor of the State of Colorado, and as the 
father of three children who attend three different public schools, I 
am proud to put my full support behind this legislation.
  ``By passing Straight A's this year, you have the opportunity to 
further public education reform. K-12 education in America is 
predominantly a local issue, and States need the flexibility to promote 
real student achievement in public education.
  ``This legislation would allow the diverse areas, schools, and people 
of Colorado to decide what they need most for their schools. Common 
sense tells us that the needs of Dinosaur Elementary School in rural 
Dinosaur, Colorado, with a total student body of 46, will have 
different needs than the 766-member student body of Oakland Elementary 
School in Denver, Colorado.
  ``This legislation would be an important step in providing for the 
individual needs of our differing public schools. I urge your support 
for the Straight A's Act, which puts children first and realizes that 
local communities know what is best for their local schools.''
  I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to see this kind of liberty 
and this kind of objective be achieved in all 50 States. The reality 
being, all of the Members of the House do not agree on that. But the 
rule allows for a bill to move forward that gives 10 States the chance 
to use liberty and freedom of the Straight A's Act to fix their schools 
and promote quality education, and it is on that basis that I ask 
Members to adopt the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me remind my colleagues that this rule 
is very fair. It not only amends the bill to bring it to a more 
moderate position, but it actually accommodates all but one Member who 
filed amendments with the Committee on Rules.
  There may be an argument about the direction in which the Straight 
A's bill moves other education policy, but there should be no 
controversy over the fairness of this rule.
  No matter what my colleagues' position on the Straight A's approach 
of moving education decisions away from Washington and into the hands 
of the States and local school districts is, today we will all have an 
opportunity to engage in a serious debate about the value of Federal 
education programs

[[Page H10689]]

and the role the Federal Government should play in helping children 
learn. This is a debate that is critical to the future of our Nation.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule, 
participating in today's debate, and working to give our children every 
opportunity to meet their full potential. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
rule and on the Straight A's Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 201, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 529]

                               YEAS--214

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

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     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
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boehner
     Camp
     Cummings
     Dooley
     Fattah
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nadler
     Oxley
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Shuster
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1922

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 338 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2300.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) as the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1922


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2300) to allow a State to combine certain funds to improve the 
academic achievement of all its students, with Mr. Miller of Florida 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a permissive one. It allows 
States and local districts the option of establishing a 5-year 
performance agreement with the Secretary of Education. In return for 
this performance agreement, they will get greater flexibility to use 
their Federal dollars as they determine with vastly slashed paperwork. 
Straight A's puts academic results, rather than rules and regulations, 
at the center of K to 12 programs. It works on the same premise as 
charter schools, freedom in return for academic results.
  Straight A's grants freedom and puts incentives in place for States 
to enable schools to innovate and to educate children as effectively as 
possible. States lose their flexibility in 5 years if they do not meet 
their goals and in 3 years if their student performance declines for 3 
years in a row. On the other hand, States and school districts are 
rewarded if they significantly improve achievement and narrow 
achievement gaps.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, Straight A's creates a relationship with States 
where Uncle Sam is the education investor, not the CEO. Since the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed back in 1965, our 
approach from Washington to aiding schools has been a bit heavy-handed.

[[Page H10690]]

  It has relied on strict regulations of what States and communities 
may do with their Federal dollars and what priorities they must set, 
and that has not worked very well. Evaluations of dozens of ESEA 
programs make clear that the rich-poor achievement gap has not narrowed 
since 1965, that schools are neither safe nor drug free, and that much 
of the professional development money that we have spent has been 
wasted. Straight A's is voluntary. States do not choose this option. 
They will continue to receive funds under the current categorical 
program requirements. They will be protected.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our children to allow States the 
opportunity, the option, of participating in such a program. If 
Congress can agree to this ambitious experiment, then 5 years from now, 
when the next ESEA cycle comes around, we certainly will know a great 
deal more about which visions will best guide the Nation's schools. 
Until then all we are doing is throwing money at a set of sometimes 
broken programs.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), our chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for working out this bill. I think it is one of the most 
innovative and potentially far-reaching bills to come out of committee 
in my 20 years there, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Republicans on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce have decided to take a giant 
step backward in providing for the most disadvantaged public schools 
and their pupils.
  Just 5 hours ago this body passed H.R. 2, a bill to target Federal 
funds to poor, disadvantaged children. That bill was passed with 
overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Now, if we enact H.R. 2300 tonight, it would eviscerate the enhanced 
targeting and accountability provisions contained in that bipartisan 
bill. Despite the majority's claim to the contrary, their high-sounding 
Academic Achievement For All act does nothing to ensure that Federal 
funds will help children improve their scholastic abilities. It does 
nothing to support practices which are proven to raise student 
achievement.
  The bill essentially gives States billions of dollars in the form of 
revenue sharing without accountability for local educational providers 
or for protection to our most disadvantaged students. This bill permits 
States to use Federal funds to support private school vouchers and 
ignores Federal priorities for class size reduction, for teacher 
quality and for professional development. It creates a massive, yes a 
permissive, block grant where governors conceivably can spend Federal 
dollars on virtually anything from swimming pools, band uniforms to 
private school vouchers.
  Even though this bill is designed to please the governors at the 
expense of local school districts, the National Governors' Association 
has sharply criticized this bill's abandonment of poor children. In an 
October 8 letter to Congress the governors wrote, and I quote:
  ``We governors recognize the link between the concentration of 
poverty and low educational achievement.

                              {time}  1930

  In schools with the highest proportion of disadvantaged children, 
students are less likely to achieve at higher levels. We would suggest 
that the Federal Government continue to concentrate Federal funds on 
these schools. Such support is essential, given that the Nation is 
truly committed to the belief that all students can achieve at higher 
levels. Only with a change to continue the targeting of Title I funds 
would the National Governors Association be able to bring bipartisan 
support to the legislation,'' end of the quote, Mr. Chairman, from the 
National Governors Association.
  Mr. Chairman, we need legislation that will help communities by 
raising academic performance through smaller class sizes, by holding 
schools accountable for achieving high academic standards, and by 
helping every school become safe and disciplined, and we need to 
replace dilapidated and crumbling schools.
  The Republican majority calls this bill Straight A's, but those 
closer to and more knowledgeable about the problems of our educational 
system see this bill as a cheap political gimmick designed to provide 
Republicans with 30-second sound bites at campaign time.
  Let us get real, Mr. Chairman. Let us address the serious issues of 
this Nation's educational deficiencies. Let us defeat this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a former 
member of the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I miss the days back on the committee 
with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). I remember when Chairman 
Ford, I remember when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) was my 
chairman, and then I took over as the chairman, and we worked real good 
together. I want to tell my colleagues, as much as I feel that the 
liberal philosophy and even further left than liberal is wrong, and it 
does not work. We have not always been right on our side, and that 
philosophy has not always been wrong.
  I do not know if, in place, this bill will be good or not. I think it 
will be, and I want an opportunity to prove it.
  Now, my colleague on the Committee on Rules a minute ago mentioned, 
look at the groups that support and look at the groups that do not. 
When I was on that committee and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) was there, I asked a question to the President of the NEA, 
because I was upset at him because he represented the union issues and 
not the children. And I asked the President of the NEA, I said, kind of 
an attack, I said, when are you going to start supporting the children 
instead of the union social and liberal issues. And his response was, 
when they start paying my salary. I thought that was terrible.
  Yes, I think we will find the leaders of the unions are opposed to 
this. But I think that we will find the rank and file teachers, the 
administrators, the community where we put the control in their hands, 
are in favor of it. And by the gentleman's very testimony just now in 
the Committee on Rules, I say to the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman does not trust the very people that we allow to teach our 
children, the governors, to make the decisions, the teachers, the 
parents, the administrators. That is where the difference lies. The 
gentleman thinks that someone back here can make that decision better 
because, and not wrongfully, that there is a population that is 
underserved if the government does not do that. But in my opinion, that 
is grossly wasted.
  When I look at the groups that are in support of this measure, they 
represent the children. The children's issues, not the unions, not the 
social issues, not the political issues. And therefore, it tells me 
that this bill has got to be good.
  Let me give my colleagues what I feel. I have three schools coming 
back for the Blue Ribbon award. My wife got very upset with Dan Quayle, 
who is a good friend of mine, when he said teachers are bad, public 
education is bad. My wife is one of those public education people. I 
think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has met her. And she knows 
and I know and the conservatives know and the liberals know that we 
have many, many fine, dedicated teachers and administrators out there, 
more than we have bad. But, in many, many cases it is just not working, 
and we want an opportunity to show that we think we can try to do it 
better.
  A classic example. When I was chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) was the ranking minority member. 
We had two sets of eight groups come in and they each had a fantastic 
program that worked in their district. Now, the old style, the liberal 
style would be to take all 16 of those programs because they are 
represented by Members of Congress and they want that program in their 
district, is to fund all 16 and have the Federal Government lay down 
rules and a lot of paperwork. Our view is to say, because I asked the 
question after

[[Page H10691]]

the hearing, how many of you have any one of the other 15 of these 
groups in your district? They said none. We said, that is the whole 
idea. We want to give you the money so that you can make the decision 
that that program works in Wisconsin or this program works in 
California, we want you to have the ability to do that. And that is the 
idea of our block grant, and we feel that it is much better than 
mandating from Washington, D.C.
  Another example of block granting. Why? People say well, Duke, you 
want to cut education because you are against Goals 2000. I think Goals 
2000 in itself is a marvelous idea, but all the paperwork and the 
bureaucracy is terrible. Let me give a classic example. Goals 2000 we 
made a lot of changes, but in the original form, there were 13 
``wills'' in the bill, and if you are a lawyer you know what that 
means, you will do this. They said it is only voluntary. Well, it is 
only voluntary if you want the money.
  Think about one school putting Goals 2000 forward to a separate 
board, not even the Board of Education, and then it goes to the Board 
of Education and then it goes to the principal, then it goes to the 
superintendent, then it goes to Sacramento to Governor Davis, and he 
has to have a big bureaucracy there to handle all of the schools' 
paperwork coming in for Goals 2000.
  Then, the letter work back and forth, and then where do they send it? 
They send it to the Department of Education, and what do you have to 
have here? A big bureaucracy just to handle that, and that takes money. 
That is why we are only getting 50 cents out of a dollar to the 
classroom. We think by giving a block grant, letting the parents, the 
teachers, the administrators and the community make the decisions on 
what they want to do, it is better than paying all of that bureaucracy 
and wasting about 40 cents on a dollar.
  We do not disagree. My colleagues want to better education; we want 
to better education. I know that my colleagues mean that from the 
bottom of their hearts. We feel that the method is bad.
  Please support us in this and join us. Try to make a difference.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Very simply, the Straight A's Act now with the changes due to the 
rule would allow 10 States to block grant Federal education programs, 
eliminate the Federal role and prioritization in education, undermine 
accountability for increased academic achievement, reduce targeting to 
disadvantaged districts and schools, and jeopardize the existing level 
of future education funding.
  Since the House has spent yesterday and today reauthorizing Title I 
and other programs, the very programs Straight As seeks to block grant, 
I cannot support this legislation.
  One of the major purposes of Federal education programs has been to 
target national concerns and national priorities. This proposal would 
eliminate the focus of Federal education programs that have been 
created to address specific concerns that have evolved with nearly 35 
years of strong bipartisan support. Instead, Federal education funding 
would be placed out on the stump for governors to do with as they 
please. Federal funds could be spent for any purpose the governor could 
identify, resulting in no guaranteed focus on technology, teacher 
training, school safety, and many other important educational policies. 
This proposal would remove the targeting of Federal funds based on 
poverty, which now helps us ensure equitable services for all students.
  The GAO has found that Federal funds are seven times more targeted 
than State educational funds. We should not abandon the success of 
Federal targeting.
  This revenue-sharing approach also lacks sufficient accountability. 
If the Federal Government is going to totally cede educational 
accountability for Federal dollars to the States, States should be 
required to eliminate the most severe injustices in their educational 
system: School financing inequities, toleration of the use of 
uncertified teachers, high class sizes, overcrowded and crumbling 
schools.
  The Federal Government should not enter into a weak performance 
agreement that will do nothing to ensure the most disadvantaged 
children are achieving.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this proposal is another block grant scheme 
that will lead to the defunding of education, not the increased 
investment that is needed. That is not just speculation. That is 
history. Let us go back to 1981, the winter of discontent, when we 
wrote educational policy in this country with chapter 1, which is now 
called Title I again, and chapter 2. And what did we do in chapter 2? 
Not with my vote. In chapter 2, we took many fine programs and dumped 
them into one block grant, and what happened? Those programs lost their 
identity, then they lost their advocacy, and then they lost their 
dollars. That is a fact. All of my Republican colleagues know that, 
those of them who were here in 1981. The funding for chapter 2 
plummeted in a straight line down, and that is what happens when we 
block grant. We have a history of that, let us live with that history, 
let us learn from that history and let us defeat this bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), a member of the committee, on leave, and our 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, we are back at education today and Mr. 
Chairman, again, let me tell my colleagues how proud I am of the things 
we are doing in education. Let me begin by pointing out that one thing 
is settled so that we do not have to argue about it any more, it is a 
matter of fact, not disputed, that since Republicans took control of 
the Congress, Federal education funding has increased by 27 percent. It 
is a matter of fact that this Congress in this year for fiscal year 
2000 again is appropriating more money for education than even what the 
President asked for.
  So, we can get set money aside. The fact is, we are all committed to 
education in America. We all understand its importance, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, and Republicans are willing to commit the dollars. But 
what we are not willing to commit, Mr. Chairman, is programs that are 
ineffective in the lives of children. Mr. Chairman, we have seen too 
much of that. We have had too many times too many hearts broken for 
that.
  I can remember not too many years ago even up until the mid-1970s, 
this Nation was undisputed in its leadership in the world and had been 
forever. The Nation in the world that did most and best by educating 
its young people. This country and the education of our children was 
indeed the envy of the rest of the world.
  But since the mid-1970s, Mr. Chairman, things have not been turning 
out so well. American parents have found themselves a little less 
content, satisfied, happy, and secure. American parents have been 
finding themselves a little more worried, violence in schools, lack of 
discipline, there seems to be a lack of respect, lack of standards, 
lack of learning, lack of comfort, sometimes perceived by parents, lack 
of decency. Things just have not been turning out, and by comparison 
with the rest of the world and our performance scores, our Nation's 
schoolchildren have not been holding up. They have not been doing well.

                              {time}  1945

  What has changed is the Federal Government got involved. We came to 
Washington. We looked out over the land, we talked to the experts, we 
heard the theories, we developed the programs, and then we said we are 
going to impose this program whether it be in Ithaca, New York, or El 
Paso, Texas, exactly the same, and people are going to have to comply.
  The strength of this is amazing. Back home in America in our States, 
in our counties, in our local school districts, in our cities, in our 
communities, all of us working together as we do locally, raise and 
spend and manage $300 billion worth of money to educate our children 
with local, voluntary school boards working with parents and PTAs and 
teachers looking at the children, looking at the schools, looking at 
the needs and making decisions. We do pretty well. $20.8 billion of 
money comes from the Federal Government, and from the Federal 
Government we get not only the money but we get the mandates; we

[[Page H10692]]

get the requirements; we get the dictates; we get the paperwork; and we 
get the frustration.
  It puts me in mind of Armey's Axiom: When one makes a deal with the 
Government, they are the junior partner and pretty soon we have the 
schools run from here.
  Now, the idea just simply has not been working out. Let us just face 
it. It has not worked out in the lives of the children. We have a model 
that we lived with for 200 years of local control, local decision, 
local management, local concern, local care, local instruction and it 
worked; it worked better than anyplace in the world. For about 20 years 
now we have had a model of Federal control from Washington, D.C. that 
has just been hurting our kids bad. Why in the world would we not try 
to get away from that which we now see harming the children's chances 
and go back to that which we know has worked? Why would we not take 
that opportunity? Why not seize it?
  I am proud to say that my governor, the distinguished Governor George 
Bush from Texas, saw that in Texas. He saw even in Texas that the local 
communities could not be compelled to live by the mandates of the 
governor's office in Austin, Texas; that they had to have the 
flexibility in El Paso to do things differently than they did in 
Austin, and in Austin they had to have the flexibility to do things 
differently than they did in Dallas. In Texas today, our children are 
performing at levels we have not seen for years.
  Because why? They are people that know them, live with them, parent 
them, make the decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here, having spent the earlier part 
of the day fixing failed programs under Title I, we are now saying let 
us give a greater latitude to those governors, to those school 
districts, those local communities to simply make the decision to try 
it for yourselves; for a limited period of time try it and see if it 
works.
  If it works, we will renew the contract. If it does not work, we can 
go back to the old way. Well, I will say if we do not dare to take a 
chance in the interest of the children's education, to sacrifice some 
of our control, power and authority centered in this town, to give the 
parents and the teachers and the neighbors and the community leaders a 
chance to teach those babies the way they used to in what I would call 
the good old days, then more is the shame for us and more is the pity 
for the children.
  Let us give it a try. Let us try it. Let us work for the kids. Let us 
get the money out of Washington and let the money follow the children 
in success instead of leaving the money to fund the ill-advised, ill-
conceived and heartless, failed mandates of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my leader on the Democratic side, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by congratulating Republicans 
and Democrats alike for the fine product we just produced 5 hours ago, 
a piece of bipartisan legislation that passed overwhelmingly in the 
House; that tightened up accountability; that improved quality; that 
widened public school choice with some new options for parents; that 
targeted some funds to the poorest and most disadvantaged and most at-
risk children in America. And we came together to do that; after 5 days 
in committee and 47 amendments, two days on the floor and an 
overwhelming vote of bipartisan support of Republicans and Democrats 
working together to try to look out for what was best for our children.
  Well, it took Republicans 40 years to get back into power, 5 years to 
do their first ESEA, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and 5 
hours to then go back and say we do not like what happened there. Now 
we are going to come up and scuttle this bipartisan piece of 
legislation. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, let us not do that. We have just worked so hard on behalf of the 
poorest of the poor children, putting together a solid bill.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) said and talked about that we 
spend $324 billion on education in this country, and I am one Democrat 
that thinks that local control should dominate what we do with that 
money, but out of that $324 billion that we spend, that is locally 
controlled, our parents and our teachers and administrators decide what 
to do with that money and they should, we are saying in a bipartisan 
way, we did 5 hours ago, that $10 billion of that, $9.8 billion of 
that, should have some targeting to children that are most likely to 
drop out of school and fall behind, and then possibly get involved in 
the juvenile justice system and then possibly become incarcerated and 
then that costs us $32,000 per person to incarcerate them; not a good 
deal for the United States; not a good deal for the taxpayers; not a 
good deal for us as the global superpower.
  We are the only global superpower left. We are the global superpower 
in defense. Let us be the global superpower in education and work 
across the aisle to achieve that.
  Now, one of the theories of doing a block grant like this proposal 
throws out there is to say that the governors would do a good job at 
making the decision as to how to spend it. The funny thing is, the 
governors do not like this bill. They do not want to do it. Here is 
what the governors say, and I quote from their letter, the NGA, the 
National Governors Administration, says, quote, ``The governors 
recognize the link between the concentration of poverty and low 
educational achievement. In schools with the highest proportions of 
disadvantaged children, students are less likely to achieve at higher 
levels. We would suggest that the Federal Government continue to 
concentrate Federal funds on these schools. Such support is essential 
given that the Nation is truly committed to the belief that all 
students can achieve at higher levels.''
  Let us keep what we did 5 hours ago. Let us work together as 
Democrats and Republicans on education and hopefully let us defeat this 
bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), our colleague and a senior member of the 
committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us go back and talk about what we not only did on 
the floor today but what we did in the committee. The gentleman is 
right, there was a bipartisan agreement to move the bill through. It is 
interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed 
amendments which broke that bipartisan agreement, but that is really 
not the issue here about what they agreed to and what we agreed to and 
what agreements they broke. Really, this is about the kids.
  So let us take a look at the dialogue that took place on the debate 
of the bill that we passed earlier today. Colleague after colleague 
after colleague talked about the failed 34-year history of Title I, the 
continuing disappointment of the Federal dollars, the $120 billion that 
had been targeted to the most disadvantaged and the poorest students in 
the country. We have not closed the gap. We have left those kids 
behind. What we said today in the bill that we passed earlier is, yes, 
we can tinker around the edges, we can tinker with this $8 billion, but 
for those kids we need to at least try something else and try something 
more innovative than what we have done in the past, because tinkering 
around the edges may not be enough to help those kids.
  I still remember in some of the hearings that we have had in the 
Education at a Crossroads Project. We went to New York City. We went to 
those kids who are in those schools that are failing, and I still 
remember the father coming in and saying, I have had one kid now in 
school for 5 years. Five years ago, there was a program and it was a 5-
year program towards excellence, and the schools are as bad now as they 
were 5 years ago and they may even be worse; and now you are coming in 
and you have another 5-year program for me?
  That is what we have, but not a 5-year program. We have a 34-year 
track record, and the bill that we passed earlier today was tinkering 
around the edges. That is not good enough for our kids. That is not 
good enough for the future of this country. It is at least time to take 
a look at a more innovative approach. That is why we have the

[[Page H10693]]

Straight A's bill in front of us today because we need to get the 
Federal Government to catch up with what is going on in the States.
  What is the approach that we are taking? The approach that we are 
taking is moving away from a bureaucratic program that has a program 
for every identified need, has a set of rules and regulations for every 
program, has a series of applications, has a series of red tape and it 
takes money out of the classroom; it takes innovation and creativity 
away from our local school officials.
  By the way, they are the only ones that happen to know the names of 
the kids in the classroom that we are trying to help. The bureaucrats 
here in Washington do not know the names of those kids that we are 
trying to help. What we do is we tell these local officials if they 
will reach an agreement with us where we give them flexibility to focus 
on the needs in their schools, whether it is to make them safe, whether 
it is to improve technology, whether it is to lower class size, they do 
what is right for their school and then they report back to us on 
performance, because really what we are interested in, I thought we 
were interested in improving the performance of the students rather 
than in mandates, regulations and red tape. That is why we are doing 
the straight A's proposal, to get that innovation and to match the 
needs with the programs that we put in place.
  What do the State education executives say about it? Well, I would 
have preferred to have seen the advantages and flexibility made 
available under Straight A's to every State. The 10-State pilot is a 
fair compromise if it ensures passage of the bill now. Many States are 
already straining to break the bonds of over-regulations, over-
involvement, and overkill on the part of the education bureaucracy.
  Remove those barriers to innovation through passage of H.R. 2300, and 
I think you will find no problem finding 10 States willing to take 
advantage of all that the Straight A's Act has to offer. We cannot wait 
any longer. This is a letter from Lisa Graham Keegan, State of Arizona 
Department of Education. She is the superintendent of public 
instruction.
  The Education Leaders Council, what do they say? Passage of Straight 
A's is critical if we are to build upon existing innovative approaches 
to education reform in the States that are producing success and 
improving student achievement. It is time that Washington recognizes 
that the innovation and the focus of improving our student education is 
taking place at the State level and Washington is still trying to catch 
up with the innovation that is going on at the State level. That is why 
we need to provide this kind of opportunity to some of the States.
  What do the governors have to say? Let us go back and reference what 
the governors' letter says that is being referenced so often. Straight 
A's is aligned with the NGA education policy in many instances. We urge 
the committee to maintain these provisions in the bill as it continues 
through the legislative process. Governors are strongly supportive of 
the provision in the legislation that permits States to determine how 
funds can be distributed to the States.

                              {time}  2000

  NGA policy calls for Federal education dollars to be sent directly to 
the State to enable the State to set priorities, provide greater 
accountability, and better coordinate federally funded activities with 
State and local education reform initiatives.
  It does say the governors do recognize the link between the 
concentration of poverty and low education and achievement. The 
governors recognize that.
  What this bill will do is it will provide the governors more 
opportunity to provide more dollars to the most disadvantaged students 
in their States. This is the welfare reform model where we are saying 
Washington cares more about the disadvantaged in one's State than the 
Governor and the State legislature.
  What did we find out? We heard the same kind of scare tactics when we 
talked about welfare reform. We passed welfare reform. The States 
innovated, and more people are off the welfare rolls now than at any 
time in recent history.
  The States and the governors and legislators care about the people in 
their States. We ought to at least enable 10 States to experiment, to 
move this program back, and to see how we can help the people in those 
10 States. It is about kids. It is about making a difference.
  So we have got the State education officers. We have got the NGA. We 
have got governors who want that kind of flexibility because they want 
to focus dollars on kids and on the classroom. They do not want to 
focus it on bureaucracy.
  That is why we are doing this amendment and why we are doing this 
bill. The emphasis here is on helping kids. It is on moving away from 
process. It is about moving away from bureaucracy. That is why we are 
doing Straight A's, so that we can focus on the kids, that we can make 
a difference, and we can at least begin the process of reform and put 
the Federal Government in a position of supporting reform at the State 
and local level rather than being a barrier to helping kids that need 
help the most.
  Free up the States. Free up our local leaders. Free up those people 
who know the names of the kids in the classroom and who care more about 
them than anyone in this Chamber or anyone in the Department of 
Education. It is about our kids. It is time for change, and it is time 
for reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), my ranking leader, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2300. But, first, a 
high school quiz. Who said: ``war is peace; freedom is slavery; 
ignorance is strength?'' Of course that was George Orwell's Big Brother 
in the classic novel 1984. With the introduction of this legislation 
this evening, I think perhaps we have slipped back into Orwell's 1984 
with this classic doublespeak.
  No sooner do we pass a good bipartisan Title I reauthorization bill 
that targets funding to the most needy and most disadvantaged students 
across the country, then we turn around and bring this legislation that 
would basically act as a bomb and blow up and eviscerate the very 
provisions that we just passed a few short hours ago. The key to the 
Title I funding has been the targeted funding stream to those students 
most at need, this legislation would destroy that goal.
  H.R. 2300 would turn the targeted funding into a block grant, 
effectively turning the Federal Government into the great tax collector 
for States in the form of a Federal revenue sharing program. Well, no 
one likes to collect taxes for any particular reason.
  We can also see where this road would take us. If we just merely act 
as an intermediary, collecting taxes just to turn around to give it 
back to the States, it becomes a very simple question as to why we are 
doing this at all. Why do we not allow the States to collect their own 
taxes and target the money the way they see fit, so there would be no 
role at all for the Federal Government?
  But that is what gets us back to 1965 and the very reason why the 
Federal Government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
It was the fact that some States and localities were not doing an 
effective job of targeting the neediest students across the country, 
that there became a need for the Federal Government to step in, in the 
form of a partnership, and assist with a funding stream that does 
target these disadvantaged school districts.
  The very entities that this is supposed to benefit are also in 
opposition to this legislation. The National Association of State 
Boards of Education is in opposition to it. In fact, they stated, and I 
quote, On bureaucracy: ``Straight A's will result in greater 
bureaucracy and blurred lines of authority.''
  On effective use of funds, they stated: ``Federal resources must be 
targeted to be effective. Federal efforts supplementing State funding 
and State-level initiatives have been successful in assuring equity to 
low-income areas and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. 
Distributing scarce federal funds on a per capita

[[Page H10694]]

basis will only dilute these limited funds to an ineffectual level.''
  On the Federal role in education, they stated: ``The leadership role 
the Federal Government plays in identifying and promoting national 
priorities cannot be overstated. It would be a mistake to abandon the 
national role in fostering specific educational improvement 
activities.''
  Of course we have already heard the National Governor's Association 
themselves have come out in opposition to this bill.
  One additional reason is given that I cite from the letter that they 
have submitted to us: ``Only with a change to continue the targeting of 
Title I funds as required under current law and the maintenance of the 
above mentioned provisions would the `National Governor's Association' 
be able to bring bipartisan support to the legislation.''
  There is a myriad of reasons, Mr. Chairman, of why this is bad 
legislation for the many reasons at the wrong time. Yes, we can provide 
greater flexibility to the localities. We have taken a step with 
education flexibility passed earlier this year, a measure I was happy 
to support.
  Let us give Ed-Flex a chance to play out and see how well that works 
before we take this great leap into a block grant, Federal revenue 
sharing program. And let us allow the Title I targeted approach to take 
effect with the improved provisions that we just passed a few short 
hours ago. Let us give that a chance first and see if that will help 
our most disadvantaged students throughout the country.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, and I would like to start by asking him if it 
is true that States may include part A of Title I in their performance 
agreement under Straight A's?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Castle, I believe I can speak for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce in this regard: What the gentleman from Delaware has 
indicated is true. States may include part A of Title I as well as 13 
other programs.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin knows, I 
believe it is crucial that if States include Title I, they should 
ensure school districts use those funds to meet the educational needs 
of disadvantaged students.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I agree. As the gentleman knows, there is a 
hold-harmless in the bill, no school district in America will lose 
Title I dollars. Straight A's gives them the flexibility to address the 
needs of those students.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, so the intent of Straight A's is to require 
States to improve academic achievement and narrow achievement gaps 
between students.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, that is why the accountability in Straight 
A's is so high, to ensure that States and school districts target their 
funds as effectively as possible to improve academic achievement.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the accountability provisions 
in the bill. I also believe that it is crucial that we clearly express 
our commitment to needy children in the language of the bill. If States 
include Title I, they must ensure that school districts use those funds 
to help children with the greatest educational needs.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will work to ensure that the 
language of the gentleman from Delaware is included in the final bill 
that is sent to our President.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri). I appreciate this. These are assurances with which I was 
concerned. I appreciate the gentleman's affirmation of where we were 
with respect to that.
  I would also point out just listening to this debate, and I am 
running back and forth to a banking conference at this point, that this 
is a pilot program that we are talking about. We are talking about an 
experiment in which we are trying to determine if there is a better 
methodology of dealing with these programs, of dealing with these 
disadvantaged students than there has been before. That has worked, as 
somebody has pointed out, in welfare reform. It has worked in Ed-Flex. 
Hopefully, it can work in this as well.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, these are the gentlemen who wrote this bill 
still at this late date trying to convince themselves what is in the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who said that the Council of Chief State 
School Officers supported this bill.
  I suppose maybe he has heard from one of the members of the 
organization, but I would like to read from a letter written by the 
executive director, Gordon Ambach from the Council of Chief State 
School Officers.
  I quote, ``On behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers, I 
write to urge you to vote against H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement 
for All Act or Straight A's Act when it comes before the House for 
consideration this week.''
  He also goes on to say, ``We oppose Straight A's because it 
undermines the following essential features of Federal aid to K-12 
education:'' First, ``Targeting of Federal aid to elementary and 
secondary education to national priorities and students in need of 
special assistance to succeed.'' He wants that. He thinks it is 
important.
  ``Governance of education by State education authorities.'' He does 
not want that undermined.
  ``Accountability for Federal aid to elementary and secondary 
education.''
  And it is signed, as I said, by Gordon Ambach, the executive 
director, Council of Chief State School Officers. This is a three-page 
letter. He said a lot more than that.
  The Council of Chief State School Officers is correct. The goal of 
Federal education programs must be to make it easier for students to 
learn rather than making it easier for States to spend Federal dollars.
  Under this bill, if a school district needs a bus barn, a shelter for 
their school buses, and if the State says yes, the district could use 
its Federal education funds to build that bus barn.
  If a school band needs new uniforms, and that school has the ear of 
the governor, Federal dollars can be used to purchase school uniforms. 
That would be perfectly all right.
  But those are local expenditures, not Federal expenditures. Federal 
funding is targeted for the neediest schools and the neediest children 
and those that are under the most duress in the school system, not for 
school uniforms, not for school bus barns. Because the purpose of 
Federal education funds is to fund national education priorities like 
the ones we set for Title I earlier today.
  Educating all of our children well must be a national priority. The 
people who I represent in Congress who live in Sonoma and Marin 
Counties north of San Francisco understand that. In fact, I received a 
post card just today; and it says, make sure that our children are 
taken care of.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), an active member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify any confusion that may 
have existed about my remarks or at least as interpreted by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I referenced the letter from 
the Education Leaders Council, representatives of the leading States 
that are leading the country in reform. I submit the letter for the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page H10695]]

                                    Education Leaders Council,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1999.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         2107 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodling: We are the state school chiefs who 
     oversee the education of over 19 million (1 in 5) in the 
     nations students. You and your colleagues will very shortly 
     begin debate on the Straight A's (Academic Achievement for 
     All Act) legislation that will help us and other states 
     continue to ensure academic excellence for all students and 
     true accountability for results for state education agencies 
     and local school districts.
       Passage of Straight A's is critical if we are to build upon 
     existing innovative approaches to education reform in the 
     states that are producing success in improving student 
     achievement. While we would have preferred to see the 
     flexibility with accountability provided through Straight A's 
     available to every state, we strongly believe that the 
     current compromise, limiting its provisions to 10 pilot 
     states, would represent a major step forward if it ensures 
     passage of the bill now.
       Many states are straining against the inertia created by 
     bureaucratic micro-management and thousands of pages of 
     regulations attached to hundreds of separate programs which 
     may or may not be consistent with state and local priorities. 
     Remove this burden now by passing Straight A's, and we are 
     confident you will have no problem finding ten states ready 
     to take advantage of all it has to offer.
       There is no magic in what our states are doing. The results 
     we seek are simple: measurable academic achievement increases 
     for all students. The original intent of ESEA and title I in 
     particular has been thwarted, not through poor intention, but 
     by a misguided focus on process and regulation over results. 
     We agree that a federal role in education is appropriate in 
     response to national concerns--and the persistent low 
     performance of poor children in this country merits such a 
     response. But we have to move beyond a simple reauthorization 
     of an act that, while well intended, has produced minimal if 
     any gain for these children in thirty years. They deserve 
     better.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gary Huggins,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I apologize again for my voice. I am doing 
the best I can.
  I want to express some frustrations that I had today. This bill is no 
longer, after our management amendment, quite Straight A's anymore. It 
is more like a B, A, and an F, better alternatives for a few. But at 
least we have 10 pilot programs, which is better than nothing.
  Part of my concern is that, as we move to conference committee with 
the Senate, then we might only wind up with one governor picks one 
student for half a day. But we need to continue to move this bill 
forward because at least it gives the opportunity for us to give more 
flexibility in return for accountability, which was the original intent 
of our bill earlier today, which was to provide more flexibility to the 
States in return for accountability.
  But by the time we got done in committee, by the time we got done on 
the floor, we continued to add more and more things that reduced the 
flexibility but kept the accountability measures in.
  This bill would help rectify that. That is why this bill, Straight 
A's, has been supported by, among other groups, American Association of 
Christian Schools, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Education Policy 
Institute, Family Resource Council, Hispanic Business Roundtable, Home 
School Legal Defense Association, Independent Women's Forum, Jewish 
Policy Center, Professional Educators of Tennessee, the Union of 
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; by the State school officers, 
Arizona Superintendent of Public Education, Georgia State 
Superintendent of Schools, the Michigan Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, the Virginia 
Secretary of Education.
  It is also supported by the following governors: Governor Hull of 
Arizona, Governor Owens of Colorado, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, 
Governor Kempthorne of Idaho, Governor Ryan of Illinois, Governor 
Engler of Michigan, Governor Gilmore of Virginia, Governor Thompson of 
Wisconsin, Governor Geringer of Wyoming, Governor Pataki of New York, 
Governor Keating of Oklahoma, and Governor Guinn of Nevada.
  It is also interesting, as we look for what is our vision as to how 
we approach education, rather than just saying we are going to do more 
of the same only for a little less dollars than the way it is done in 
the past, I would hold forth what our current leading candidate for 
President, Governor Bush, said in his education speech to New York, not 
the parts that the media picked up, but the fundamentals of it.

                              {time}  2015

  And let me quote from that. ``Even as many States embrace education 
reform, the Federal Government is mired in bureaucracy and mediocrity. 
It is an obstacle, not an ally. Education bills are often rituals of 
symbolic spending without real accountability, like pumping gas into a 
flooded engine. For decades, fashionable ideas have been turned into 
programs with little knowledge of their benefits for students or 
teachers. And even the obvious failures seldom disappear.''
  On the next page he said, ``I don't want to tinker with the machinery 
of the Federal role in education. I want to redefine that role 
entirely. I strongly believe in local control of schools and 
curriculum. I have consistently placed my faith in States and schools 
and parents and teachers, and that faith in Texas has been rewarded.''
  He also said, ``I would promote more choices for parents in the 
education of their children. In the end, it is parents, armed with 
information and options, who turn the theory of reform into the reality 
of excellence. All reform begins with freedom and local control. It 
unleashes creativity. It permits those closest to children to exercise 
their judgment. And it also removes the excuse for failure. Only those 
with the ability to change can be held to account.''
  He also said, contrary to public opinion, that he always says that 
the Republican Congress is just too conservative, he also said what we 
did earlier today was too liberal, because what he favored as a reform 
to Title I was to ``give parents with children in failing schools, 
schools where the test scores of Title I children show no improvement 
over 3 years, the resources to seek more hopeful options. This would 
amount to a scholarship of about $1,500 a year.''
  He said with regard to charter schools that we need someone bold 
enough to say, ``I can do better. And all our schools will aim higher 
if we reward that kind of courage and vision.''
  I hope my Republican colleagues and those on the Democratic side of 
the aisle that are open to real school reform will support me and my 
colleagues in support of the Straight A's, which would give our 
governors real flexibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the full speech given by 
Governor George Bush, and the list of groups and individuals who 
support Straight A's:

Governor George W. Bush--A Culture of Achievement, New York, New York, 
                            October 5, 1999

       It is an honor to be here--and especially to share this 
     podium with Rev. Flake. Your influence in this city--as a 
     voice for change and a witness to Christian hope--is only 
     greater since you returned full-time to the Allen AME Church. 
     I read somewhere that you still call Houston your hometown, 
     30 years after you moved away. As governor of Texas, let me 
     return the compliment.
       We are proud of all you have accomplished, and honored to 
     call you one of our own. It's been a pleasure touring New 
     York these past few days with Governor Pataki. Everywhere 
     I've gone, New York's old confidence is back--thanks, in 
     large part, to a state senator who challenged the status quo 
     six years ago. From tax cuts to criminal justice reform to 
     charters, your agenda has been an example to governors around 
     the country.
       It is amazing how far this city has come in the 21 years 
     since the Manhattan Institute was founded. You have won 
     battles once considered hopeless. You have gone from winning 
     debating points to winning majorities--and I congratulate 
     you.
       Last month in California, I talked about disadvantaged 
     children in troubled schools. I argued that the diminished 
     hopes of our current system are sad and serious--the soft 
     bigotry of low expectations.
       And I set out a simple principle: Federal funds will no 
     longer flow to failure. Schools that do not teach and will 
     not change must have some final point of accountability. A 
     moment of truth, when their Title I funds are divided up and 
     given to parents, for tutoring or a charter school or some 
     other hopeful option. In the best case, schools that failing 
     will rise to the challenge and regain the confidence of 
     parents. In the worst case, we will offer scholarships to 
     America's neediest children.
       In any case, the Federal Government will no longer pay 
     schools to cheat poor children.
       But this is the beginning of our challenge, not its end. 
     The final object of education reform is not just to shun 
     mediocrity; it is to

[[Page H10696]]

     seek excellence. It is not just to avoid failure; it is to 
     encourage achievement.
       Our Nation has a moral duty to ensure that no child is left 
     behind.
       And we also, at this moment, have a great national 
     opportunity--to ensure that every child, in every public 
     school, is challenged by high standards that meet the high 
     hopes of parents. To build a culture of achievement that 
     matches the optimism and aspirations of our country.
       Not long ago, this would have seemed incredible. Our 
     education debates were captured by a deep pessimism.
       For decades, waves of reform were quickly revealed as 
     passing fads, with little lasting result. For decades, 
     funding rose while performance stagnated. Most parents, 
     except in some urban districts, have not seen the collapse of 
     education. They have seen a slow slide of expectations and 
     standards. Schools where poor spelling is called 
     ``creative.'' Where math is ``fuzzy'' and grammer is 
     optional. Where grade inflation is the norm.
       Schools where spelling bees are canceled for being too 
     competitive and selecting a single valedictorian is 
     considered too exclusive. Where advancing from one grade to 
     the next is unconnected to advancing skills. Schools where, 
     as in Alice in Wonderland, ``Everyone has won, and all must 
     have prizes.''
       We are left with a nagging sense of lost potential. A sense 
     of what could be, but is not.
       It led the late Albert Shanker, of the American Federation 
     of Teachers, to conclude: ``Very few American pupils are 
     performing anywhere near where they could be performing.''
       This cuts against the grain of American character. Most 
     parents know that the self-esteem of children is not built by 
     low standards, it is built by real accomplishments. Most 
     parents know that good character is tied to an ethic of study 
     and hard work and merit--and that setbacks are as much a part 
     of learning as awards.
       Most Americans know that a healthy democracy must be 
     committed both to equality and to excellence.
       Until a few years ago, the debates of politics seemed 
     irrelevant to these concerns. Democrats and Republicans 
     argued mainly about funding and procedures--about dollars and 
     devolution. Few talked of standards or accountability or of 
     excellence for all our children.
       But all this is beginning to change. In state after state, 
     we are seeing a profound shift of priorities. An ``age of 
     accountability'' is starting to replace an era of low 
     expectations. And there is a growing conviction and 
     confidence that the problems of public education are not an 
     endless road or a hopeless maze.
       The principles of this movement are similar from New York 
     to Florida, from Massachusetts to Michigan. Raise the bar of 
     standards.
       Give schools the flexibility to meet them. Measure 
     progress. Insist on results. Blow the whistle on failure. 
     Provide parents with options to increase their influence. And 
     don't give up on anyone.
       There are now countless examples of public schools 
     transformed by great expectations. Places like Earhart 
     Elementary in Chicago, where students are expected to compose 
     essays by the second grade.
       Where these young children participate in a Junior Great 
     Books program, and sixth graders are reading ``To Kill a 
     Mockingbird.'' The principal explains, ``All our children are 
     expected to work above grade level and learn for the sake of 
     learning * * * We instill a desire to overachieve. Give us an 
     average child and we'll make him an overachiever.''
       This is a public school, and not a wealthy one. And it 
     proves what is possible.
       No one in Texas now doubts that public schools can improve. 
     We are witnessing the promise of high standards and 
     accountability. We require that every child read by the third 
     grade, without exception or excuse. Every year, we test 
     students on the academic basics. We disclose those results by 
     school. We encourage the diversity and creativity of 
     charters. We give local schools and districts the freedom to 
     chart their own path to excellence.
       I certainly don't claim credit for all these changes. But 
     my state is proud of what we have accomplished together. Last 
     week, the federal Department of Education announced that 
     Texas eighth graders have some of the best writing skills in 
     the country. In 1994, there were 67 schools in Texas rated 
     ``exemplary'' according to our tests. This year, there are 
     1,120. We are proud, but we are not content. Now that we are 
     meeting our current standards, I am insisting that we elevate 
     those standards.
       Now that we are clearing the bar, we are going to raise the 
     bar--because have set our sights on excellence.
       At the beginning of the 1990s, so many of our nation's 
     problems, from education to crime to welfare, seemed 
     intractable--beyond our control. But something unexpected 
     happened on the way to cultural decline. Problems that seemed 
     inevitable proved to be reversible. They gave way to an 
     optimistic, governing conservatism.
       Here in New York, Mayor Giuliani brought order and civility 
     back to the streets--cutting crime rates by 50 percent. In 
     Wisconsin, Governor Tommy Thompson proved that welfare 
     dependence could be reversed--reducing his rolls by 91 
     percent. Innovative mayors and governors followed their 
     lead--cutting national welfare rolls by nearly half since 
     1994, and reducing the murder rate to the lowest point since 
     1967.
       Now education reform is gaining a critical mass of results.
       In the process, conservatism has become the creed of hope. 
     The creed of aggressive, persistent reform. The creed of 
     social progress.
       But many of our problems--particularly education, crime and 
     welfare dependence--are yielding to good sense and strength 
     and idealism. In states and cities around the country, we are 
     making, not just points and pledges, but progress. We are 
     demonstrating the genius for self-renewal at the heart of the 
     American experiment.
       Of course want growth and vigor in our economy. But there 
     are human problems that persist in the shadow of affluence. 
     And the strongest argument for conservative ideals--for 
     responsibility and accountability and the virtues of our 
     tradition--is that they lead to greater justice, less 
     suffering, more opportunity.
       At the constitutional convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin 
     argued that the strength of our nation depends ``on the 
     general opinion of the goodness of government.'' Our Founders 
     rejected cynicism, and cultivated a noble love of country. 
     That love is undermined by sprawling, arrogant, aimless 
     government. It is restored by focused and effective and 
     energetic government.
       And that should be our goal: A limited government, 
     respected for doing a few things and doing them well.
       This is an approach with echoes in our history. Echoes of 
     Lincoln and emancipation and the Homestead Act and land-grant 
     colleges. Echoes of Theodore Roosevelt and national parks and 
     the Panama Canal. Echoes of Reagan and a confrontation with 
     communism that sought victory, not stalemate.
       What are the issues that challenge us, that summon us, in 
     our time? Surely one of them must be excellence in education. 
     Surely one of them must be to rekindle the spirit of learning 
     and ambition in our common schools. And one of our great 
     opportunities and urgent duties is to remake the federal 
     role.
       Even as many states embrace education reform, the federal 
     government is mired in bureaucracy and mediocrity.
       It is an obstacle, not an ally. Education bills are often 
     rituals of symbolic spending without real accountability--
     like pumping gas into a flooded engine. For decades, 
     fashionable ideas have been turned into programs, with little 
     knowledge of their benefits for students and teachers. And 
     even the obvious failures seldom disappear.
       This is a perfect example of government that is big--and 
     weak. Of government that is grasping--and impotent.
       Let me share an example. The Department of Education 
     recently streamlined the grant application process for 
     states. The old procedure involved 487 different steps, 
     taking an average of 26 weeks. So, a few years ago, the best 
     minds of the administration got together and 
     ``reinvented'' the grant process. Now it takes a mere 216 
     steps, and the wait is 20 weeks.
       If this is reinventing government, it makes you wonder how 
     this administration was ever skilled enough and efficient 
     enough to create the Internet. I don't want to tinker with 
     the machinery of the federal role in education. I want to 
     redefine that role entirely.
       I strongly believe in local control of schools and 
     curriculum. I have consistently placed my faith in states and 
     schools and parents and teachers--and that faith, in Texas, 
     has been rewarded.
       I also believe a president should define and defend the 
     unifying ideals of our nation--including the quality of our 
     common schools. He must lead, without controlling. He must 
     set high goals--without being high-handed. The inertia of our 
     education bureaucracy is a national problem, requiring a 
     national response. Sometimes inaction is not restraint--it is 
     complicity. Sometimes it takes the use of executive power to 
     empower others.
       Effective education reform requires both pressure from 
     above and competition from below--a demand for high standards 
     and measurement at the top, given momentum and urgency by 
     expanded options for parents and students. So, as president, 
     here is what I'll do. First, I will fundamentally change the 
     relationship of the states and federal government in 
     education. Now we have a system of excessive regulation and 
     no standards. In my administration, we will have minimal 
     regulation and high standards.
       Second, I will promote more choices for parents in the 
     education of their children. In the end, it is parents, armed 
     with information and options, who turn the theory of reform 
     into the reality of excellence.
       All reform begins with freedom and local control. It 
     unleashes creativity. It permits those closest to children to 
     exercise their judgment. And it also removes the excuse for 
     failure. Only those with the ability to change can be held to 
     account.
       But local control has seldom been a priority in Washington. 
     In 1965, when President Johnson signed the very first 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act, not one school board 
     trustee, from anywhere in the country, was invited to the 
     ceremony. Local officials were viewed as the enemy. And that 
     attitude has lingered too long.
       As president, I will begin by taking most of the 60 
     different categories of federal education grants and paring 
     them down to five: improving achievement among disadvantaged 
     children; promoting fluency in English; training and 
     recruiting teachers;

[[Page H10697]]

     encouraging character and school safety; and promoting 
     innovation and parental choice. Within these divisions, 
     states will have maximum flexibility to determine their 
     priorities.
       They will only be asked to certify that their funds are 
     being used for the specific purposes intended--and the 
     Federal red tape ends there.
       This will spread authority to levels of government that 
     people can touch. And it will reduce paperwork--allowing 
     schools to spend less on filing forms and more on what 
     matters: teachers' salaries and children themselves.
       In return, we will ask that every state have a real 
     accountability system--meaning that they test every child, 
     every year, in grades three through eight, on the basics of 
     reading and math; broadly disclose those results by school, 
     including on the Internet; and have clear consequences for 
     success and failure. States will pick their own tests, and 
     the federal government will share the costs of administering 
     them.
       States can choose tests off-the-shelf, like Arizona; adapt 
     tests like California; or contract for new tests like Texas. 
     Over time, if a state's results are improving, it will be 
     rewarded with extra money--a total of $500 million in awards 
     over five years. If scores are stagnant or dropping, the 
     administrative portion of their federal funding--about 5 
     percent--will be diverted to a fund for charter schools.
       We will praise and reward success--and shine a spotlight of 
     shame on failure.
       What I am proposing today is a fresh start for the federal 
     role in education. A pact of principle. Freedom in exchange 
     for achievement. Latitude in return for results. Local 
     control with one national goal: excellence for every child.
       I am opposed to national tests, written by the federal 
     government.
       If Washington can control the content of tests, it can 
     dictate the content of state curricula--a role our central 
     government should not play.
       But measurement at the state level is essential. Without 
     testing, reform is a journey without a compass. Without 
     testing, teachers and administrators cannot adjust their 
     methods to meet high goals. Without testing, standards are 
     little more than scraps of paper.
       Without testing, true competition is impossible. Without 
     testing, parents are left in the dark.
       In fact, the greatest benefit of testing--with the power to 
     transform a school or a system--is the information it gives 
     to parents. They will know--not just by rumor or reputation, 
     but by hard numbers--which schools are succeeding and which 
     are not.
       Given that information, more parents will be pulled into 
     activisim--becoming participants, not spectators, in the 
     education of their children. Armed with that information, 
     parents will have the leverage to force reform.
       Information is essential. But reform also requires options. 
     Monopolies seldom change on their own--no matter how good the 
     intentions of those who lead them. Competition is required to 
     jolt a bureaucracy out of its lethargy.
       So my second goal for the federal role of education is to 
     increase the options and influence of parents.
       The reform of Title I I've proposed would begin this 
     process. We will give parents with children in failing 
     schools--schools where the test scores of Title 1 children 
     show no improvement over three years--the resources to seek 
     more hopeful options. This will amount to a scholarship of 
     about $1,500 a year.
       And parents can use those funds for tutoring or tuition--
     for anything that gives their children a fighting chance at 
     learning. The theory is simple. Public funds must be spent on 
     things that work--on helping children, not sustaining failed 
     schools that refuse to change.
       The response to this plan has been deeply encouraging. Yet 
     some politicians have gone to low performing schools and 
     claimed my plan would undermine them.
       Think a moment about what that means. It means visiting a 
     school and saying, in essence, ``You are hopeless. Not only 
     can't you achieve, you can't even improve.'' That is not a 
     defense of public education, it is a surrender to despair. 
     That is not liberalism, it is pessimism. It is accepting and 
     excusing an educational apartheid in our country--segregating 
     poor children into a work without the hope of change.
       Everyone, in both parties, seems to agree with 
     accountability in theory. But what could accountability 
     possibly mean if children attend schools for 12 years without 
     learning to read or write? Accountability without 
     consequences is empty--the hollow shell of reform. And all 
     our children deserve better.
       In our education reform plan, we will give states more 
     flexibility to use federal funds, at their option, for choice 
     programs--including private school choice.
       In some neighborhoods, these new options are the first sign 
     of hope, of real change, that parents have seen for a 
     generation.
       But not everyone wants or needs private school choice. Many 
     parents in America want more choices, higher standards and 
     more influence within their public schools. This is the great 
     promise of charter schools--the path that New York is now 
     beginning. And this, in great part, is a tribute to the 
     Manhattan Institute.
       If charters are properly done--free to hire their own 
     teachers, adopt their own curriculum, set their own operating 
     rules and high standards--they will change the face of 
     American education. Public schools--without bureaucracy. 
     Public schools--controlled by parents. Public schools--held 
     to the highest goals. Public schools--as we imagined they 
     could be.
       For parents, they are schools on a human scale, where their 
     voice is heard and heeded. For students, they are more like a 
     family than a factory--a place where it is harder to get 
     lost. For teachers, who often help found charter schools, 
     they are a chance to teach as they've always wanted. Says one 
     charter school in Boston: ``We don't have to wait to make 
     changes. We don't have to wait for the district to decide 
     that what we are doing is within the rules . . .
       So we can really put the interests of the kids first.''
       This morning I visited the new Sisulu Children's Academy in 
     Harlem--New York's first charter school. In an area where 
     only a quarter of children can read at or above grade level, 
     Sisulu Academy offers a core curriculum of reading, math, 
     science, and history. There will be an extended school day, 
     and the kids will also learn computer skills, art, music and 
     dance. And there is a waiting list of 100 children.
       This is a new approach--even a new definition of public 
     education. These schools are public because they are publicly 
     funded and publicly accountable for results. The vision of 
     parents and teachers and principals determines the rest. 
     Money follows the child. The units of delivery get smaller 
     and more personal. Some charters go back to basics--some 
     attract the gifted--some emphasize the arts.
       It is a reform movement that welcomes diversity, but 
     demands excellence. And this is the essence of real reform.
       Charter schools benefit the children within them--as well 
     as the public school students beyond them. The evidence shows 
     that competition often strengthens all the schools in a 
     district. In Arizona, in places where charters have arrived--
     teaching phonics and extending hours and involving parents--
     suddenly many traditional public schools are following suit.
       The greatest problem facing charter schools is practical--
     the cost of building them. Unlike regular public schools, 
     they receive no capital funds. And the typical charter costs 
     about $1.5 million to construct. Some are forced to start in 
     vacant hotel rooms or strip malls.
       As president, I want to fan the spark of charter schools 
     into a flame. My administration will establish a Charter 
     School Homestead Fund, to help finance these start-up costs.
       We will provide capital to education entrepreneurs--
     planting new schools on the frontiers of reform. This fund 
     will support $3 billion in loan guarantees in my first two 
     years in office--enough to seed $2,000 schools. Enough to 
     double the existing number.
       This will be a direct challenge to the status quo in public 
     education--in a way that both changes it and strengthens it. 
     With charters, someone cares enough to say, ``I'm 
     dissatisfied.''
       Someone is both enough to say, ``I can do better.'' And all 
     our schools will aim higher if we reward that kind of courage 
     and vision.
       And we will do one thing more for parents. We will expand 
     Education Savings Accounts to cover education expenses in 
     grades K through 12, allowing parents or grandparents to 
     contribute up to $5,000 dollars per year, per student. Those 
     funds can be withdrawn tax-free for tuition payments, or 
     books, or tutoring or transportation--whatever students need 
     most.
       Often this nation sets out to reform education for all the 
     wrong reasons--or at least for incomplete ones. Because the 
     Soviets launch Sputnik. Or because children in Singapore have 
     high test scores. Or because our new economy demands computer 
     operators.
       But when parents hope for their children, they hope with 
     nobler goals. Yes, we want them to have the basic skills of 
     life. But life is more than a race for riches.
       A good education leads to intellectual self-confidence, and 
     ambition and a quickened imagination. It helps us, not just 
     to live, but to live well.
       And this private good has public consequences. In his first 
     address to Congress, President Washington called education 
     ``the surest basis of public happiness.'' America's founders 
     believed that self-government requires a certain kind of 
     citizen.
       Schooled to think clearly and critically, and to know 
     America's civic ideals. Freed, by learning, to rise, by 
     merit. Education is the way a democratic culture reproduces 
     itself through time.
       This is the reason a conservative should be passionate 
     about education reform--the reason a conservative should 
     fight strongly and care deeply. Our common schools carry a 
     great burden for the common good. And they must be more than 
     schools of last resort.
       Every child must have a quality education--not just in 
     islands of excellence. Because, we are a single Nation with a 
     shared future. Because as Lincoln said, we are ``brothers of 
     a common country.''
       Thank you.
                                  ____



                    groups who support straight a's

       60 Plus; ALEC; American Association of Christian Schools; 
     Americans for Tax Reform; Association of American Educators

[[Page H10698]]

     (branch offices in LA, OK, KS, KY, PA, IO, TN); Citizens for 
     a Sound Economy; Eagle Forum; Education Policy Institute; 
     Empower America; Family Research Council; Hispanic Business 
     Roundtable; Home School Legal Defense Association; 
     Independent Women's Forum; Jewish Policy Center; National 
     Taxpayers Union; Professional Educators of Tennessee; 
     Republican Jewish Coalition; State Senators of Texas; Texas 
     Education Agency; Toward Tradition; Traditional Values 
     Coalition; and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 
     America.


          chief state school officers who support straight a's

       Arizona Superintendent of Public Education--Lisa Graham 
     Keegan; Commissioner of Education in CO--William Moloney; 
     Georgia State Superintendent of Schools--Linda Schrenko; 
     Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction--Arthur Ellis; 
     Pennsylvania Secretary of Education--Eugene Hickok; and 
     Virginia Secretary of Education--Wil Bryant.


                   governors who support straight a's

       Arizona--Jane Hull; Colorado--Bill Owens; Florida--Jeb 
     Bush; Idaho--Dirk Kempthorne; Illinois--George Ryan; 
     Michigan--John Engler; Virginia--Jim Gilmore; Wisconsin--
     Tommy Thompson; Wyoming--Jim Geringer; New York--Pataki; 
     Oklahoma--Keating; and Nevada--Guinn.

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me this time, and I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 
2300.
  I was a State superintendent of my State school for 8 years. I do not 
know what the Education Leaders Council is. I never came in contact 
with that in my 8 years. I do know what the Chief State School Officers 
group is. That is all 50 Chief State School Officers, and they are 
opposed to it. I do know what the 50 governors are, because I worked 
with them. I also worked with the Education Commission of the States; 
that includes the governors, the States and the legislators.
  Let me remind my colleagues that this is not about a Republican 
agenda or a Democratic agenda. But apparently the last names I heard 
read off were all off Republican lists. That is not what this is about, 
my fellow colleagues. It is about all the children in America, all 53 
million of them going to public schools from all 50 States.
  We need to remind ourselves that good policy is good politics. It is 
not the reverse. And tonight I am hearing a lot of politics trying to 
be turned into policy. And it bothers me greatly. I came to this 
Congress to help make education a national priority, not to make it a 
political issue, as it was before I came. And I am sorry to say it does 
not look like it is improving.
  The Republican leadership has labeled this bill the Straight A's 
bill. But as someone who knows something about good education policy, 
and I think I know a little bit, I can tell my colleagues that this 
bill should be called the Straight F's bill. The Straight F's bill 
because it fails our children, it fails our schools, and it fails the 
taxpayers in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the New Democratic Coalition, I have 
strongly supported flexibility in Federal education programs as long as 
we have accountability. And as a long-time education reformer, I 
strongly support innovation that will improve education for all of our 
children. However, this bill fails to meet those standards in several 
ways.
  But let me insert here that my State of North Carolina has been an 
education reform leader for a number of years, and we have done it 
within the system that we have because we hold people accountable. And 
if we do not hold them accountable, it will not work. Block grants will 
not work, dropping them in governors' laps who are there for short 
periods of time and then are gone.
  The Straight F's bill fails our schools by undermining our national 
commitment to education. The Straight F's bill fails our children by 
eliminating the targeting of funds to the highest poverty areas in this 
country, children who have the greatest need to get help. And the 
Straight F's bill fails our taxpayers by doing away with accountability 
standards, by taking funding that this Congress has appropriated for 
specific education purposes and turned it into a blank check for our 
States' governors. And even the governors understand that and have said 
that they do not want that.
  North Carolina's governor, Jim Hunt, has been a strong voice for 
education in our State and this country. But governors' terms do not 
last very long. It is either 4 or 8 years. Children are there for 12 to 
13 years, and we need people who are committed and policies in place to 
make sure they get an education.
  Mr. Chairman, I call on this Congress to reject House bill 2300. We 
should reverse course and support school construction, teacher 
training, technology upgrades, after-school care, year-round schools, 
school resource officers, character education, and class size reduction 
initiatives that will improve education for all of our children.
  Earlier today we passed a good education bill. We did it in the way 
it should be done; we did it on a bipartisan basis. And tonight we are 
trying to undo every bit of that with a partisan bill, and I suggest we 
ought to defeat it and defeat it now.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), an active member of our committee.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  In response to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would merely 
point out that I agree with him; that there are a handful of governors 
around this country who lack the confidence in their administrations 
and in their education systems to design a system that is in the best 
interests of their children. And for those few governors, they do 
indeed rely upon this Congress to make decisions for them.
  But for the vast majority of governors, their ideas are very 
different. They ran for office on the notion that they could improve 
schools. In fact, when we look around America today, the greatest 
accomplishments in school reform do not come from people here in 
Washington, I hate to say, they are coming from the 50 individual 
governors who are closer to the people, more responsive to those who 
elect them, and in a far more capable position to design education 
programs that meet the needs of the children they understand and know 
best.
  I met with a bunch of schoolchildren this morning who were here 
visiting, and I asked some of those students, I said, let us pretend 
that you are the principal of your school. What would you spend the 
Federal money that comes back to your school on. One little girl said 
computers, another little girl said, well, she would buy more furniture 
for her classroom, desks and chairs and so on. Another said we should 
buy more books. Another said, well, we need more space.
  And I use that example to show that even in a roomful of children, 
who are in classrooms every day, their ideas, as third graders, about 
what is important, varies dramatically. The same is true for all 50 
States. It makes no sense, therefore, for people here in Washington to 
assume that we magically have the answer for all 50 States in the 
Union, that what is good for New York City is good for Fort Collins, 
Colorado.
  I am here to tell my colleagues that New York City may be a great 
place, but we do not want their schools. There may be good examples 
that we can borrow; there may be great things New York could find out 
in our part of the country. But to assume a child in Atlanta is the 
same as a child in Detroit is the same as a child in Denver is the same 
as a child in Seattle is the kind of thinking that we are trying to 
move out of this city, frankly.
  At that meeting with those children we handed out little 
constitutions, and one of the amendments in the Constitution I would 
like to remind Members of is amendment 10. Let me just read it; it is 
real quick. ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people.''
  It is the spirit of the 10th amendment that drives this legislation 
for us today. Because I think our founders were right. I think they are 
right even to this day; that States should be trusted, specifically 
when we are talking about the issues that are not even mentioned in the 
Constitution, like education, to deliver the services that are closest 
to the people and closest to the States.
  In fact, I would defy any of the Members here to take this 
constitution and

[[Page H10699]]

find in it where the Federal Government has specifically been given the 
authority to manage my child's school back in Fort Collins, Colorado. 
It is not here. I will leave a copy here. I invite anybody tonight to 
come and point that out for us. And I would venture to say that by the 
end of the evening this Constitution will still be sitting there.
  I served 9 years in the State Senate back in Colorado; served on the 
education committee. And let me tell my colleagues how frustrating it 
is, because we agonized and worked every day to try to help the 
children in our schools, to try to get dollars to their classrooms, to 
try to treat the teachers like real professionals, and the 
superintendents and principals like professional managers, because we 
knew that if we could empower those professionals, we could do more to 
help children. And it was so frustrating at the end of the day to 
realize that our hands were tied by the rules of Washington, D.C.
  In fact, I have heard my colleagues stand up and praise the work we 
did earlier today. Earlier today, we passed this set of laws; 495 pages 
of new laws passed today. And that is what my colleagues on the 
opposite sides of the aisle are celebrating. Here is what we are 
proposing now. We are proposing 23 pages of new laws. Very different 
kind of laws, laws that represent academic liberty, managerial freedom 
for States, for superintendents, for principals.
  Which should we pick? Is this one my colleagues' idea of quality 
education in America, or is this? I know what principals back home in 
my State will say. They want less rules, fewer regulations, more 
freedom, and more liberty. They are willing to take the accountability 
that goes along with it, and the only regret I have is that only 10 
States will have the opportunity.
  Let me just point out that the governor of Pennsylvania wrote to the 
Congress in favor of Straight A's, as well as the Education Leaders 
Council, a large group of school executives, has written in favor of 
Straight A's. These are the leaders who represent 25 percent of the 
students around America.
  Finally, let me finish with this. This is an optional program. Ten 
States are going to have an opportunity to choose to be exempt from 
these rules and regulations under Straight A's. What in the world is 
this Congress afraid of? With all due respect, I trust governors to 
manage the education of my children. I do not trust people in 
Washington.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  Later on, we will have a chance to vote on the only Democratic 
amendment to this bill. It will not make this bill one that is 
supportable in many respects, because there are still major issues that 
divide us. But I want to take some time to just discuss the issue that 
I am going to raise in my amendment.
  The thrust of the bill, which I think sincerely is offered by my 
colleagues, many of whom I serve with on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, is that what we need to do is give States more 
flexibility, give them some money, and let them figure how to disburse 
it because they know best how to educate their children. I think that 
theory needs to be analyzed.
  We need to look at what States are doing with the money they now 
control, and have total control of, and what their doing in response to 
the needs of disadvantaged children.
  What is going on in 49 out of our 50 States in this country is that 
there is a wide disparity between what is being spent in one school 
district in our States and in other school districts in our States. In 
fact, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of school districts have filed 
suit in either State or Federal Court challenging these school finance 
systems. And more than the majority of States, some 37 States are in 
various stages of litigation. We have seen the State court of Michigan 
and Ohio and a number of other States, New Jersey, rule the school 
finance systems unconstitutional because they take disadvantaged 
students and they give them sometimes as much a third less, or a third, 
of what they give other school districts.

                              {time}  2030

  That is that we have disparities that range from $8,000 per pupil in 
some of our States to many of them $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 per pupil 
per year. When we add that up in the aggregate by classroom, let me 
give my colleagues a sense of what those numbers mean.
  In Philadelphia, the City is spending $70,000 less per classroom than 
in the average suburban school district surrounding the City. The 45 
suburban school districts are spending on average $70,000 more per 
classroom. Over the K-12 experience of a kid's educational life, we are 
talking about upwards of an $800,000 differential being spent in one 
classroom versus the other.
  Some may have seen the story in the Washington Post looking at high 
schools in Illinois 30 minutes apart describing those two schools in 
terms of their circumstances, one with no chemistry equipment in the 
lab, no financial connection to the Internet, very little by way of 
library books; the other with three gymnasiums, 12 tennis courts, 
functional computers in every classroom. And on and on and on the story 
went.
  Well, that was about Illinois. But my colleagues know and I know that 
we can find schools that meet those descriptions in any State in our 
country. In States who control more than 90 percent of the money, as 
many of my colleagues on the Republican side keep reminding us, they 
every day have funding formulas that put disadvantaged families in 
rural America and in urban America at a disadvantage.
  We have 216 rural districts in Pennsylvania that have filed suit 13 
years ago challenging the school finance system. There are children who 
started in kindergarten in those school districts that have now 
graduated from high school in those districts, and the supreme court in 
our State has yet to find it appropriate to rule on it, as has been the 
case in some other States.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that before we give States 
flexibility we demand some accountability. My amendment will offer them 
that opportunity.
  Think about the Congress. We all get paid the same amount of money. 
Think about the NFL. They have a strict set of guidelines in terms of 
salary caps, the spread of the field, the number of people on each 
team, and then they can go compete. We have poor people who we are 
asking them to compete without giving them the resources to compete.
  I think that it is a time now for the Federal Government to step in 
and say, look, they can have the Federal dollars, but the first thing 
they need to do is equalize their per-pupil expenditure, and if they 
are telling us that money does not matter, then equalize their 
achievement; and if they can equalize their achievement, then they do 
not have to equalize their expenditure. But they cannot have it both 
ways. If money matters, then give every kid a fair opportunity.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) a hard-working, active member of the committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, a late comedian, a gentleman by the name of Flip 
Wilson, used to use a line I recall. He used to say all the time ``the 
devil made me do it'' as the tag line. Do my colleagues recall that? I 
think they do. I can hear the laughter.
  Well, for the past 30 years or more public schools in the United 
States, when challenged about what their problems were, when challenged 
to explain why they were not being able to produce the results that we 
asked them for, have essentially used the same line ``the devil made me 
do it.'' But, in fact, in this case the devil was the Federal 
Government.
  We heard it all the time from them, every time we turned around. I 
cannot accomplish this. We cannot do this. Why not? Because of the 
Federal rules, the Federal regulations they impose upon us that block 
our ability to actually accomplish the ultimate goal.
  We have all heard it. Certainly, when I taught in public schools for 
8 years it was the common statement being made in the faculty lounges 
in the districts in which I taught. It is prevalent in every school 
district in America, the Federal Government made me do it.

[[Page H10700]]

  Well, sometimes that claim was accurate. Sometimes it was not. It 
certainly could be backed up with a great deal of empirical evidence.
  My colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) used the 
condensed version, but this is about half of the ESEA, the Elementary 
Secondary Education Act, and this is what they were referring to. These 
are the rules and regulations that will be over a thousand pages, by 
the way, when we get down with ESEA. This is only half of what we 
passed so far. It started out in 1965 at about 32 pages. It has grown 
in the 34 years since then to over a thousand.
  Many, many claims are made on this floor, many of them that are 
incredibly audacious sometimes. We all know it. But the one thing I 
have yet to hear in the debate on education is a claim by anyone on our 
side or their side that over the last 30 years education in this 
country has improved. No one dares say that because they and I both 
know, everyone knows, that that is not accurate, that, in fact, 
educational attainment levels have plummeted in the last 35 years to a 
point where we now have literacy rates in the United States lower than 
some Third World nations.
  We have incredible problems in our schools. This is something that we 
can all agree on. There was something else that we could all agree on 
it seemed like when we were actually debating Title I in our committee, 
and that was that Title I had been essentially a failure.
  Certainly we have heard that from people from all over the United 
States. We even heard it from members of the committee, from their side 
of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for one. I 
know what is currently law, and that law is not working. This was a 
Member of their side.
  So when we come to them with a proposal to change that situation, 
when we say we know that education in America is not doing well, we 
know that attainment levels are plummeting, and we know that our 
program to fix it is not working and has not worked for 35 years, here 
is a way to change that, everybody gets very self-conscious about it.
  But, after all, what are we trying to replace it with? What do we, in 
fact, know that does work? When we look out there across the land, what 
can we point to with any degree of semblance of any degree of success? 
It is, in fact, diversity. It is, in fact, the charter school movement. 
It is where we allow children in public schools to select from a 
variety of public schools.
  These things are working. Student achievement levels are increasing 
in those areas. It is because of diversity, exactly what this bill 
intends to give States.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we just finished reauthorizing Title I. We also, by two 
votes, rejected private school vouchers.
  Now we consider this bill, which will essentially waive all of the 
valuable provisions in Title I and send for the first time targeted 
money for low-income public schools, students of public schools to 
private schools, as vouchers.
  This kind of bill requires us to focus on what the Federal role of 
education really ought to be. That Federal role is to do what the 
States will not do.
  For example, the historic role of the Federal Government came in 1954 
when many States were segregating student by race, separate and 
inherently unequal schools existed, and the Federal Supreme Court 
intervened. That is why they intervened.
  We also found years ago the disabled students were not getting an 
education, millions of students no education at all. That is why we 
passed Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. And now, because of 
Federal intervention, disabled students enjoy an opportunity to get an 
education.
  We also found years ago that poor students were not being properly 
funded. We found that there was an egregious gap in funding between 
rich and poor neighborhoods. Low-income citizens routinely failed to 
get reasonable funding. That is why we passed Title I, to target funds 
to poor students because States and localities just will not do it.
  The Title I bill we just passed had enough loopholes in it. For 
example, school districts for the first time can spend all of their 
money on transportation. We failed to put a limit on the money they 
could spend on transportation. And because we liberalized the school-
wide programs where a majority of the students do not even have to be 
poor, we have a situation that targeted money, money targeted to low-
income students' education can now be spent on transportation, which 
does not help their education, and a majority of the people benefitting 
do not even have to be poor.
  This bill makes matters even worse. It allows States to waive the 
little targeting that we had in Title I and allows money to be sent to 
private schools for the first time. That is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, if we really trusted States and localities to properly 
fund education for low-income students, we would not need Title I in 
the first place. But we do need Title I. And, therefore, we do not need 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, how much time has each side remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) has 20\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 27\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  A few minutes ago, the very articulate gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) challenged us rhetorically to cite the basis in the 
Constitution for the Federal education laws which are block granted 
and, I believe, functionally repealed by this bill.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that there is indeed an important 
constitutional basis for these Federal education laws. It is the 
relevant part of the 14th Amendment that says that no State shall deny 
any person life, liberty, or property without equal protection of the 
law.
  The theory of giving local decision-makers more flexibility to do the 
right thing is alluringly attractive. We all know and trust and admire 
certain local decision-makers in our districts, and we know that they 
are capable of making excellent judgments, as they do every day. But 
that alluring theory runs head-long into the harsh reality of history 
in this country, and the history of this country is this:
  The children living in poor neighborhoods have historically had much 
lower levels of educational opportunity. They have gone to school in 
facilities that are very often segregated by race, that are very often 
inferior in their physical plan, that have larger class size, very 
often that have less qualified teachers, less access to technology, and 
fewer of the positive attributes that successful schools have.
  Thirty-five years ago this Congress made a judgment to do something 
about that, to bring more equal protection to those children who did 
not have and do not have a lot of clout in the State legislatures, who 
do not have and did not have the ability to make immense campaign 
contributions to people running for governor or the State legislature, 
and we made a judgment that says that we would put a modest amount of 
money into reading teachers, for tutors, for facilities in the Title I, 
Part A program.
  We made a judgment that some of those children should have the chance 
to get an even start by going to school before kindergarten. And we 
looked at children that were the sons and daughters of migrant workers 
and understood that when they went to one school in September and 
another one in October and another one in December and another one in 
February that they have a special educational problem.
  Later on we made a judgment that putting police officers and teachers 
in front of third- and fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in the safe 
and drug-

[[Page H10701]]

free school program made sense. This is not an imposition of Federal 
will upon local decision-makers. This is the proper establishment of a 
national policy that says that all children have the equal protection 
of the law that the 14th Amendment guarantees them.

                              {time}  2045

  Frankly, it is an effort that falls far short of what we really ought 
to do. Because we really ought to have a viable school construction 
program that takes children out of trailers and hallways and puts them 
in a good facility. We should enact the President's initiative to put 
100,000 qualified teachers in classrooms in every community in America. 
We should, as many Republican Members of this House have said, have met 
our obligation and fully fund the IDEA. What we did today with over 300 
votes was reaffirm our historical commitment to assuring equal 
protection under the law for all of our children.
  What this proposal does is to abandon that commitment. That 
commitment is not a Democratic or Republican commitment. It is not 
liberal or conservative. It is not regional. It is part of the 
essential sense of who we are and what we are as a people. Let us not 
abandon our historical commitment to the children of this country. Let 
us reject this legislation. Let us reaffirm what over 300 of us did 
earlier today and stand by our commitment for equal protection under 
the law.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time. It is good to sit here on the floor and hear 
this debate and hear it affirmed on this floor that we all, Republican 
and Democrat alike, agree that we want to see our children educated in 
a better fashion across this country, that we all agree that this 
Congress can have a role in that, but yet we disagree at some point, I 
think, on some parts of how we get to the solution here to this 
problem.
  If I sit here correctly and understand the underlying premise of the 
opposition to this bill, it is based on the presumption that Washington 
knows better than the parents and the teachers and the administrators 
and the city officials and the State officials around this country. I 
believe that argument is wrong, because I think that this bill is best 
served under these circumstances by providing the grants that have been 
talked about.
  The Straight A's bill is a measure that does give to these States and 
the local education officials an opportunity to take more control over 
their own system. This bill is about flexibility and accountability 
which I believe are two very important principles in the education of 
our young children. It provides the flexibility to our students and our 
teachers and our administrators to learn but yet it holds them to a 
standard of accountability. Once this 5-year agreement is in place with 
the Department of Education, and as I would reiterate to those that are 
listening to this debate, that this is a pilot program that will be in 
10 States only. Once this is in place, each local and State school 
district participating would be held to a strict standard, requirement 
for improving student achievement. In this agreement it states that 
they would have to put in place a system that evaluates student 
performance, that gives us concrete results that we can measure by.
  One of the more important aspects of this bill is that once the State 
and local districts have the flexibility to use the Federal funds as 
they see fit, improvements will be made. Whether that problem is 
raising academic achievement or improving teacher quality or reducing 
class size or putting technology in the classroom, this legislation 
frees up the State and local authorities to use the Federal funds to 
improve their school systems just as they know best.
  As my colleague from Michigan said, we would be better served if we 
let those people who know our students by name make the decisions, have 
the flexibility, yet hold them to a strict standard of accountability 
in spending these additional funds. I say, let us give this experiment 
a chance to work, let us compare the results that we get, and I think 
in the end when you award that right of educating the students, that 
you will see an improvement under the Straight A's Act.
  I simply urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
allowing me this time to speak.
  As I said earlier today, I knew the love fest was going to be over as 
soon as this bill hit the floor and the honeymoon would be over and we 
would be into the same unbipartisan cooperation that we usually are in.
  The gentleman who just spoke said that our preconceived notion was 
that Washington knows best. I do not know who he is speaking for 
because I do not think he is speaking for anybody on our side. No one 
on our side has ever said that Washington knows best. That is their 
theme, not ours. The fact is that they miss the point. When you 
eliminate the programs that they eliminate and if you look at the 
programs they eliminate, some of them are programs that that side of 
the aisle has never liked to begin with. Even though I believe that 
very seriously they think they are doing the best for a majority of the 
population, they do not understand that much of this Federal money was 
targeted to special populations that were ignored by the local 
education agency. They were not populations that were being taken care 
of. The only one that I am grateful that they left out of here was IDEA 
which at least they realized in that instance that that is a special 
population that needed to be targeted, needed to be focused. But that 
is the point of this super-block grant that they are putting together, 
is that it does not focus on those special populations.
  Let me make it very simple for my colleagues. Let us say we are 
talking about Title I and we are talking about appropriating money on 
the basis of the poverty population of a school. Initially we said that 
a school receiving funds had to be 75 percent, then we reduced it, we 
just had an argument over 40 or 50 percent, that then if there was that 
amount of poverty population in the school, they could use the money 
then schoolwide.
  Let me explain how this works and it would work to the same degree on 
the idea of block-granting all of these programs. If you have, to make 
it real simple, 100 students in a school, and you gave that school $100 
and four of that population, of that 100 population were the qualified 
disadvantaged that you needed to target, well, if you gave them all the 
money, each one of them would get $25. But, now, if you gave it to the 
whole school, each one of the school would get $1. How do you justify 
spreading the money that thin and really think that it is going to do 
any good for those four students that really needed it?
  That is the problem with this whole proposition that they are coming 
forth with, is that they ignore the fact that the only reason the 
Federal Government is involved in these programs at all is because 
there were court cases that proved that local education agencies were 
not addressing these issues on a local basis. So in that regard, no, 
the locals did not know best. They did not know best. And it is not 
that Washington knew best but Washington knew that there was something 
that they had to do to force the local education agency to accept their 
responsibility of educating migrant children, of educating children 
with disabilities, of educating children that came from a disadvantaged 
backround.
  When I entered kindergarten, there were none of these programs. As a 
result, over 50 percent of the kids that entered kindergarten with me 
never graduated high school when I did. They had dropped out. The 
result of this block grant is going to be the same thing that happened 
before, is the ignoring of those special populations.
  The fact is that you can stack all the pieces of paper that you want 
to and talk about all the regulations that exist here from Washington 
for the use of these moneys. I call it accountability and it is 
taxpayers' dollars and we should make them accountable for it. But the 
fact is that if you look at the State regulations, they are 10 times, 
20 times the amount of regulations that the Federal Government puts 
out.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H10702]]

Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today not as a partisan Republican 
or Democrat but as one that is very partisan to our children and their 
education. I rise to take issue, not to make an argument, to make a 
point, on two comments that have been made, one by the majority and one 
by the minority. One comment was that this was a cheap trick, designed 
to create 30-second soundbites. Well, it is not cheap. It is 13 to 14 
billion Federal dollars that are invested in these 14 programs and our 
children. The majority said that it is time that we take a chance. You 
are never taking a chance when you invest dollars in children.
  I do not think everyone that has talked about this bill has read the 
23 pages that are in it. And so for just a second, I want to give a 
perspective to all of us. This bill is really not about block grants. 
If you read it, it is a request for proposal. It says that up to 10 
governors, Democrat or Republican, it does not matter, whichever 
governors come first, up to 10 governors can apply to have the 
flexibility to use the money in 14 programs across their school 
district in return for improving performance. And then you need to read 
the performance measures that it asks for, because here is where it 
targets the disadvantaged and the most needy. If you read the 
description for the performance, it says, first of all, every system 
must rate their children at basic, at proficient and at advanced and 
then on an annual basis, grade to grade, must compare the improvement. 
That is part of the 5-year contract. That is part of the 3-year 
measurement where they can lose the funds if they decline. And then, 
secondly, it provides rewards. It provides rewards for those systems 
that close the gap by greater than 25 percent from their least 
proficient to their most proficient students.
  I just left Governor Hunt of North Carolina who was referred to a 
minute earlier. I left him where he received accolades because he put a 
reward system in his State for those teachers who became certified and 
improved themselves and saw measurable improvement in their children. 
That is no difference than what this particular bill does. To close the 
achievement gap, you do not do it by raising the top advanced students. 
You do it by raising the bottom. To take the hypothesis that this does 
not address the most needy children is to presume a public school 
system would meet performance by lowering its best rather than 
uplifting its worst. That on the face of it is an insult to local 
educators.
  I do understand the fear of change. But change is not taking a 
chance. There are three groups of people in this Congress: There are 
those that would tear this down, tear it down because it is a change. 
There are those that would tear down the Federal Department of 
Education because they do not like it and I do not agree with them, 
either. And then there is a third group, which is really all of us, 
that care about kids and do not want to tear anything down.
  And so at the risk of going past my time, I want to close with a poem 
and challenge both sides to decide which they want to be:

     I saw a bunch of men tearing a building down.
     With a heave and a ho and a yes, yes, well,
     They swung a beam and a side wall fell.
     And I asked the foreman:
     Are these men as skilled
     As the ones you would hire if you had to build?
     He said, oh, no, not these.
     The most common of labor is all I need.
     For I can destroy in a day or two
     What it takes a builder 10 years to do.
     And so I ask myself as I walk my way
     Which of these roles am I going to play?
     Am I going to go around and build
     On firm and solid ground,
     Or am I going to be the one that tears down?

  I submit we build with H.R. 2300.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, tonight we are seeing the naked fist of the 
Republican education philosophy. The education guerilla warfare is 
over. This is a full scale invasion under way at this point. The tanks 
are in the streets, the dive bombers are in the air, and the big guns 
are booming. The Republican objective is the obliteration of the 
Federal role in education. That is what this is all about. Couple this 
bill with the fact that there is an appropriations bill floating around 
which has skipped over the House of Representatives and some kind of 
conference is taking place and it is coming back to us with deep cuts 
in the budget of the Department of Education as well as cuts in many of 
the innovative programs that have been proposed and passed in the last 
few years, and you will understand that this is part of a larger, grand 
design.

                              {time}  2100

  Straight A's means total destruction. Ed-Flex and Teacher Empowerment 
were probes; they were probes to establish beach-heads and to get us 
sucked in. But this is it. Straight A's tells the full story.
  Now, we were criticized a few moments ago. Somebody said we have not 
even read the bill. Well, we know what came out of committee, and we 
know what the debate in committee was like. I understand there has been 
a drastic change because the extremism of the bill that came out of 
committee was too great to be digested even by the Republican majority. 
So we have a cutback, and 10 percent is being proposed, but it does not 
matter. It is a juggernaut into the Federal role in education.
  This is it. As my colleagues know, if we pass this, then it is all 
over in terms of Federal role. It would just be downhill from here on.
  Straight A's is the beginning of a final solution to what the 
Republicans perceive to be the Federal nuisance in education. I do not 
know why that irrational perception persists, that the Federal 
Government is the problem. How can the Federal Government be the 
problem when the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the 
funds? If it only provides 7 percent of the funds, it only has 7 
percent of the power. Ninety-three percent of the power resides with 
the State and local governments to make decisions about what happens 
with our schools, and if our schools are in bad shape, if education 
needs improvement greatly because over the years things that should 
have been changed and were not changed, things that should have been 
happening did not happen, it is the State and local governments that 
have to be blamed. The Department of Education has played a limited 
role, and it should continue to play that role.
  Specific language of this bill is almost irrelevant. It is the real 
intent, because the overriding intent is what is really dangerous. It 
destroys the checks and balances between the Federal Government and the 
State and local government. What is wrong with having a Federal role 
which is only 7 percent of the power and decision-making to help check 
the power and decision-making at the State and local level? For years 
and years the State and local governments had full reign on what 
happened in elementary and secondary education, and we drifted 
backwards steadily.
  Where would we be in this high-tech world as we are moving toward a 
cyber-civilization? Where would we be if we strictly had the old State 
and local government participation only? Many of the most important 
innovations and the most important things that have happened in State 
and local education have been prompted, have been stimulated, by the 
small participation that we have had from the Federal Government. What 
is wrong with shared power? Why are we obsessed with not having the 
Federal Government participate in sharing the power and decision-making 
about education?
  We are ignoring the opportunity, as my colleagues know, for some real 
changes here. A few minutes ago the speaker said that change is being 
proposed and we do not want to go along with change. Well, this is 
destructive change. This is change in the wrong direction. What we are 
ignoring is the opportunity right here to make some constructive and 
some creative changes.
  We ought to be talking about where we are going toward this new 
cyber-civilization in the next millennium. We ought to be talking about 
what we need to do to bring our schools up to par, to be prepared to 
provide a full-scale education to every youngster, not just in reading 
and writing and arithmetic, but also in computer literacy.
  We ought to be talking about how we are going to maintain leadership 
in the

[[Page H10703]]

world where we are now the leading computer power, and our economy is 
way ahead of all the other economies because of our computerization, 
and that, as my colleagues know, that stroke of genius, collective 
genius, we should be proud of and build on it.
  But instead of building on that, we come with the old cliches about 
the Federal Government has no responsibility in education because, 
after all, the Federal Constitution, the Constitution has nothing about 
Federal responsibility for education. The Constitution says nothing 
about Federal responsibility for roads or highways.
  As my colleagues know, the Morrill Act, which established the land 
grant colleges, there is nothing in the Constitution that said they 
should do that, but thank God they did, that we have a system of land 
grant colleges which allowed agriculture to blossom and we become the 
agriculture power that we are in the world.
  The transcontinental railroad, the Federal Government, the 
Constitution, said nothing about building railroads, but the Federal 
government paid for the building of transcontinental railroads.
  The GI bill, which allowed every GI who wanted to go to school, to 
higher education, to be able to get an education after World War II, 
Constitution did not say we had to do that.
  The Constitution does not dictate what is in the interests of the 
American people. It is the Members of Congress; it is their vision, 
their foresight that has to guide where we are going, and right now we 
ought to be going toward an omnibus bill for education which looks at 
all aspects of it and comes forward in what we need to go into this 
cyber-civilization that we are going into, what kind of education do 
our kids need, not this quibbling about getting the Federal Government 
out of education. It is childish, it is juvenile, but it is dangerous, 
it is very dangerous.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I can remember before I got 
here, sitting at home watching this institution at work, passing some 
of the legislation that they did, thinking why did we do it again? It 
did not work last time, and it did not work the time before. Boy, if I 
were there, I would change it.
  I have learned since I have gotten here how difficult it is to get 
people to release the power here, to actually rely on individuals that 
are closer to the problems to play a part of the solutions. It has been 
an eye-opening experience.
  Since I have been here, I have had an opportunity to spend time in 
schools, to meet with teachers, to talk about the problems, to hear 
firsthand, to ask questions and to hear them say when I ask, Why do you 
do it that way?, their answer is: Because you make me, you Washington.
  Let me make my point, if I could.
  I heard earlier that the purpose of Federal dollars was for Federal 
initiatives. I would tell my colleagues that I have a huge difference 
with the gentlewoman that said that. The purpose of Federal dollars is 
the same as State dollars and local dollars as it relates to education. 
It is to help our kids learn. It is to supply the resources so teachers 
can teach. It is to make sure that the tools are there.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that we cannot 
trust governors. I guess that means we cannot trust school boards or 
parents or anybody in the school system because they all play a part.
  This program is voluntary. This program is voluntary. States will 
choose to pick whether they want to participate or not.
  I truly believe that every person in this institution is after the 
same goal, and that is to increase the learning and knowledge of our 
students in this country.
  So what is the difference, quite simply? We have heard it tonight. It 
is over who holds the power. Some want to hold it here; some of us want 
to return it home to teachers and to parents and to educators. That is 
a huge difference. It is a difference that clearly, I think, makes a 
difference in the education of our children.
  It is startling to know that over half the paperwork required of the 
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in Raleigh is required 
by the Federal Government for only 6.8 percent of the overall funding. 
That is certainly not equitable.
  The single most important investment that we can make in this country 
is in our children. Congress has made sure that enough money is set 
aside for education. Now let us just make sure that it gets to the 
classrooms. Let us make sure that under Straight A's our kids have the 
computers, have the resources, that more teachers are in the classroom, 
that schools are safer, and that we guarantee academic results.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and trust parents 
and teachers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I think all of us 
can agree that the key to improved education is increased 
accountability. The real question is what do we mean by that? The usual 
response from the education establishment is that increased 
accountability has to mean increased Federal mandates, specific program 
dictates, basically jumping through specific bureaucratic hoops. But 
that emphasis on process has failed our schools and our children 
miserably.
  States recognize, as people on the ground in the trenches, so to 
speak, recognize this, including my State of Louisiana: we are 
requiring schools and districts to demonstrate annual progress toward 
meeting actual performance standards; and as a result, those schools 
that are meeting their goals and those schools that are not have been 
identified, and my district, St. Tammany, is leading the way, scores 
demonstrably better than other schools, and they are a model in my 
area.
  We need to piggyback on that concept, and the choice is clear. 
Congress can support these successful State efforts and improve 
academic achievement by allowing States to use Federal dollars more 
effectively rather than insisting on simple bureaucratic hoop jumping, 
and that is what the debate is about, what does accountability mean, 
jumping through certain hoops or achieving bottom line results?
  Results matter. Results mean educating our kids, and we need to focus 
on those results.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  Today is a crossroads day, a pivotal day. It is a crossroads because 
today we become either partners or obstacles to reform. State after 
State, governor after governor, Republican and Democrat, has shown us 
the promise and potential of a merging American education reform. Their 
stories are exciting; their stories are optimistic.
  Thomas Jefferson called the States laboratories of democracy. It is 
much more than that. The States are not just engaged in experiments; 
they are engaged in a race, a race for education, a race towards 
excellence.
  The governors, the best governors from around the Nation, are looking 
at each other. They are looking to other States, seeing what is 
working, copying it, benchmarking it, adopting it, refining it, 
improving it, always pushing further down the track.
  Each experiment moves us down the track and brings us all up so that 
no one is left behind, not the inner-city youth, not the tribal school 
student.
  I want to close with this troubling thought. As my colleagues know, 
so many of us came from State and local government, Mr. Chairman. But 
yet many of us here today are poised to say that we do not trust our 
former colleagues. There must be something sacred or divine in the 
water out here in Washington. Suddenly, when we are sworn in, we become 
all knowing; we become the repositories of all that is good in 
education. Somehow we have made that change.
  Obviously that is absurd.
  Today, I say it again: we are at a crossroads. We can either be 
partners for reform or obstacles to reform.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker who is on his way; 
so, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Let me say why I think we ought to vote this down.

[[Page H10704]]

  First, the Straight A's does not ensure that dollars will reach the 
classroom. These dollars can be spent in any fashion that the local 
district would want it to be spent, and apparently that is the aim of 
those who are promoting this. But that is not what is best policy for 
this Nation. Our dollars ought to be spent on national problems that 
are not being addressed at the local level. This is not just a big fund 
where we just supplement the resources of local communities.
  In addition to that, Straight A's undermines our commitment to the 
neediest children, the most educationally disadvantaged. If we do not 
target this money to those in the needy areas, the money will never get 
there. That is history; it will repeat itself.
  Now I have heard over and over during this debate a lot of cliches, 
but I have not heard many logical recommendations for addressing the 
problems of our neediest children educationally. We keep hearing the 
cliche: let the people closer to the problem make the decisions. That 
is meaningless according to the legislation that is consistently 
proposed. If they wanted the people closest to the situation to make 
the decision, then they would give the money directly to the local 
school districts instead of transferring it through the governors of 
the States.

                              {time}  2115

  I keep hearing them talk about kids trapped in bad schools. Well, 
they do not give a damn about kids trapped in bad schools; their record 
indicates that. They are opposed to educating those kids in bad 
schools. They want to use this money to send kids to parochial schools; 
and the parochial schools, we do not know whether they are good or bad, 
because they do not test their kids. And they do not test their kids, 
and they do not have any assessments or any value system for whether or 
not one is achieving educationally.
  I keep hearing this cliche about government is the problem, and I 
keep hearing it from people who are part of this government. I have 
been here 31 years. During that 31-year period, Republicans controlled 
the White House 20 years. The last 5 years, they have controlled the 
House and the Senate. They are the government, so if the problem is 
government, it is their problem, not the problem of the local school 
districts.
  So I say to my colleagues that this is a bad bill, a very bad bill, 
and we ought to reject it summarily.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in total opposition to the 
Academic Achievement for All Act, H.R. 2300. I must admit that the 
other side has a tremendous ability of making names sound good. If one 
listens to the names, how can one be opposed to this? The AAA. When one 
is on the highway, and one is looking for help, what does one look for? 
They look for the AAA. They come there to rescue; they come to give 
assistance; they get to you when you need someone, when you are someone 
in need. So the AAA sounds like a great title for this bill.
  But what does the AAA do here? We now have this H.R. 2300 which 
eliminates the following Federal education programs, turns them into 
block grants, without any kind of adequate accountability: Title I 
compensatory education to help disadvantaged children, eliminated; 
class size reduction, eliminated; safe and drug-free schools, 
eliminated; Goals 2000, eliminated; Eisenhower Professional Development 
Training for Teachers, one of our great presidents and generals, named 
after him because of what he exemplifies, eliminated; vocational 
education, eliminated; emergency immigrant education, eliminated.
  But what does it do? It gives flexibility to States. It allows 
governors to do what they want to do because they know best, it says. 
What will it do? It will allow vouchers for private schools.
  So what we are saying is the defederalization of the 7 percent that 
the Federal Government had, and it dilutes targeting for special needs 
populations. It would result in significant funding shifts among 
localities. It would weaken accountability of Federal funds. The reason 
that the Federal Government became involved in education was because we 
found that the States turned their backs on those who were most in 
need. That is why the Federal Government came in and said we should 
have Title I programs, we should have Goals 2000. We ought to have 
School-to-Work so that we can have youngsters who are not going to 
college to be prepared for work.
  So what does this do in one fell swoop? It takes it all out. What 
would it do? It would allow the use of public funds for private school 
voucher programs. It assumes that there are no legitimate national 
education priorities. When the Sputnik went up back in the late 1950s, 
early 1960s, when Russia was ahead of us in science and technology, our 
government came together and said we will have a national defense 
program. What was the national defense program? It was to put money in 
education so that we could put out engineers, so that we could put out 
scientists, so that we could beat the Russians to the moon; and we did, 
because we had a Federal national priority.
  Now we are saying we have no longer any need for national priorities; 
we have no more a need for the government to focus on specific problems 
that we see in our society and say we need to overcome that, since the 
States are derelict in their responsibility. So along comes the AAA; 
and the AAA says, just let the governors do the right thing. We know 
they will do the right thing because, of course, to become a governor, 
one has to be right, right? Wrong. Governors before took the funds and 
did not distribute them properly.
  Federal funds make up a minute 7 percent of total school revenues 
compared to State and local contributions; and these Federal resources 
must be targeted, that is the reason that we say the Federal Government 
should not dictate overall education policy. But there are some 
specific areas that we feel that the Federal Government wants to see 
more accountability, wants to see us engaged, and this bill just 
blindly trades flexibility for greater accountability. We have to hold 
people accountable.
  So as we move into the new millennium and we see these tricky names 
coming up, the AAA, we are finding that this is going in the wrong 
direction; and I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 2300.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2300 
because I believe, as many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
have said quite eloquently, including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and others, this 
bill simply abdicates our responsibility to help ensure educational 
excellence for all children.
  I had the chance not long ago to visit a model early childhood center 
in my State and met one of the young stars there at the center, Ellen. 
Ellen, just 4 years old, has already mastered many of the technological 
tools that pervade our work places and our classrooms today. She sat 
with me as she e-mailed her mother and her mother e-mailed her back.
  Over the past few days, we have spent countless hours, Mr. Chairman, 
debating and deliberating the importance of a national commitment to 
education, to the point where the Republican leadership now feels that 
we can just abandon our responsibility to America's children. I am 
somewhat confused because earlier today we voted on an amendment 
offered by the majority leader, and now hours later, we are voting on 
something that would simply nullify all that many of my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle voted on much earlier today. I realize that both 
the majority leader and the majority whip would prefer to see States go 
there own way, regardless of the consequences. But what I find strange 
is that this bill completely violates the whole notion of local control 
because it takes power from parents and schools and centralizes it in 
State capitals.
  I am confident the Speaker has spent enough time in classrooms in 
talking with parents and teachers around this Nation to know that 
Americans simply do not see the things the way many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle see them tonight. I would ask that he 
encourage all of his colleagues to do the right thing, not abdicate 
this responsibility, do what is right for all

[[Page H10705]]

of our kids so that all young people will have the same opportunity 
that Ellen has and all of my friends in America who enjoy Social 
Security and Medicare can be assured that all working people in the 
21st century will have an education. That is what we are seeking to do 
on this side. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side do not want 
to do that.
  Let us not run from our responsibilities now. Our future depends on 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to have had some responsibility as in 
relationship to this committee's activities during the last 4\1/2\ 
years. I am very proud because we have done so many wonderful things. 
We reauthorized IDEA. It is too early to say how well we did. We will 
not know because unfortunately, the Department was very, very late in 
getting any regulations out. Hopefully, we have improved the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  I am extremely proud that we have been able to get $2 billion more 
for that program. We pleaded and pleaded and pleaded for years; and 
finally, we now are getting a little bit closer to the commitment we 
made to local school districts as far as financing IDEA. We reformed 
the entire Jobs program, a disaster, a disaster. No way could anyone 
get anything worthwhile in order to make their life better because of 
the job training programs that were there. We brought the Vocational 
Education Program into the 21st century.
  In higher education, we put our emphasis on quality teachers. And, I 
am also happy to say that we increased Pell grants dramatically in that 
whole program. Child nutrition, this committee moved the child 
nutrition bill that gives every youngster out there a greater 
opportunity for good nutrition. Ed-Flex, 50 States can now have Ed-
Flex. Teachers Empowerment Act saying, you have reduced your class 
size. If you have done that, then we want you to make sure that the 
teachers you have are better qualified to teach, and if you need 
special ed teachers, we want you to do that. And yes, Title I.
  For the first time today, the first time today, Title I no longer 
will be a block grant program. Now, in 1994 we tinkered a little, 
because we realized it was a disaster, we realized it needed something 
done, but it was still pretty much a pure block grant program. As long 
as one could show the auditor where those dollars were going, it did 
not matter what one did; and one had no responsibility to show anybody 
that there was any accountability, that there was any achievement gap 
that was changed because of the money one received from the Federal 
Government. Hopefully, with what we have done today, that will change.
  But let me tell my colleagues, one of the greatest things was, $340 
million more the appropriators are saying for education than the 
President requested. That is pretty outstanding, in my estimation. But 
let me go back to what we are doing now.
  I heard all of these arguments, all of this doom and gloom back in 
1994. The word ``flexibility'' on that side, that was swearing; you do 
not say a terrible word like that. And all of a sudden, in 1994, they 
said, well, maybe we can have a little bit of flexibility. And guess 
what? In 1999, I do not know what happened. All of a sudden everybody 
is for flexibility, and all 50 States now can have flexibility. Is that 
not amazing, how doom and gloom all of a sudden changed to something 
that everybody could support, 50 governors and mobs of people, that is 
not a good term, most of the people in the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, would my colleagues believe that no matter what we 
heard, we are not eliminating any programs. Is that not amazing. We are 
not eliminating any programs in this Straight A's bill, not one. What 
we are saying is, something that I wanted to do for years; I wanted to 
say hey, could I combine a little of these monies with this program and 
this program so I can make one of them work. We could not do that when 
I was a superintendent. One cannot do that now. But now, we have an 
opportunity to say yes, all of the programs remain, the State can 
choose, as a matter of fact, to go Straight A's. If they do not want to 
go Straight A's, the local district can choose.
  But guess what? The accountability, the performance agreement is so 
tough that I have a feeling there will be very, very few States, just 
as in the flexibility. We said six and then we said 12, and really, 
only two took a great advantage of that program to make it work. Now we 
are saying that here are 10 States. Do you have the courage, do you 
have the courage to meet the accountability requirements that are in 
this legislation?

                              {time}  2130

  Your goals must reflect high standards for all students and 
performance gains must be substantial. You must take into account the 
progress of all school districts and all schools and all children. You 
must measure performance in terms of percentage of students meeting 
performance standards such as basic proficiency and advance. As a 
State, you must set goals to reduce achievement gaps between lowest and 
highest performing groups of students, without lowering the performance 
of the highest achieving student; but you have to prove that you have 
done something about that gap that we could not do anything about in 
all of these years in Title I; and, yes, States, you can set other 
goals to demonstrate performance such as increasing graduation and 
attendance rate in addition to assessment data, and you must report on 
student achievement and use of funds annually to the public and to the 
Secretary, and you get a mid-term review, and if you are not doing well 
in that mid-term review you struck out and you lose your eligibility 
and you could lose loss of administrative funds if as a matter of fact 
as a State you did not make everyone live up to these standards and 
these requirements.
  So I am happy to say that by the end of this day hopefully we will be 
giving every child in this country an equal opportunity for an academic 
program that spells success in future lives. I said many times; we 
cannot lose 50 percent of our students as we presently are. We 
positively for their sake and positively for the sake of this country, 
we will not compete in this 21st century unless we can make sure that 
every student is ready to get into the high-tech society and be able to 
succeed in the 21st century. I would encourage everyone to vote for the 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, today we are here to debate the 
centerpiece of our education reform agenda which I introduced earlier 
this year, the Academic Accountability for All Act, known as Straight 
A's.
  We have 129 cosponsors for this landmark legislation, and we have the 
support of many of the nation's Governors and chief state school 
officers too.
  Today we passed H.R. 2, the Students Results Act. In that bill we 
made some important improvements to Title I program, along with other 
programs targeted at disadvantaged students. It is appropriate that we 
now move to Straight A's.
  Straight A's is an option for those States that want to break the 
mold and try something new: more flexibility, in exchange for greater 
accountability than current law. It transforms the federal role from 
CEO to an investor. It is for States that believe they have the 
capacity to improve the achievement of their most disadvantaged 
students. Like welfare programs earlier this decade, where states like 
Wisconsin received waivers to implement ambitious and highly effective 
programs, we should free-up high-performing states to lead the way in 
education.
  Let me assure you we are in no way contradicting or invalidating what 
we have just passed. In fact, most States would likely continue with 
the current categorical structure and operate under the Title I program 
just passed.
  The status-quo education groups here in Washington want to keep 
things the way they are. We have drafted this legislation because of 
what we have heard from Governors, chief state school officers, 
superintendents, principals and teachers from around the country, not 
because of lobbyists in Washington. The people in the trenches want 
real change and they are the people who have made Straight A's what it 
is today.
  Let me share with you what some of them have said. Governor Jeb Bush 
of Florida is in favor of more accountability, in exchange for more 
flexibility. According to the Governor,

       We can increase the impact that federal dollars will have 
     on student learning in our State, if we are provided with 
     more freedom and less one-size-fits-all regulations from the 
     federal government.


[[Page H10706]]


  Paul Vallas, Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools has also 
asked for this flexibility. Chicago Public Schools have been the model 
of many reforms such as ending social promotion. He told my Committee 
earlier this year that they wanted the federal government to be a 
partner, not a puppet master. He said that instead

       What we want is greater flexibility in the use of federal 
     funds coupled with great accountability for achieving the 
     desired results. We in Chicago, for example, would be 
     delighted to enter into a contract with the Department of 
     Education, specifying what we would achieve with our 
     students, and with selected groups of students.
       And we would work diligently to fulfill--and exceed--the 
     terms of such a contract. We would be held accountable for 
     the result.

  Who are we to say you can't improve, you can't reform, you can't 
succeed? Much of what is new in Title I is taken from what States like 
Texas and Florida and cities like Chicago have shown to be effective. 
Why should we ask them to abide by our program requirements, when their 
programs are the ones that are working and improving achievement and 
the federal programs are not?
  For more than three decades the Federal government has sent hundreds 
of billions of dollars to the States through scores of Washington-based 
education programs. Has this enormous investment helped improve student 
achievement? Unfortunately, we have no evidence that it has.
  After thirty years and more than $120 billion, Title I has not had 
the desired effect of closing achievement gaps.
  States now have access to ``Ed-Flex,'' which we passed earlier this 
year in spite of the Administration's initial protests.
  Ed-Flex gives schools and school districts more freedom to tailor 
Federal education programs to meet their needs and remove obstacles to 
reform.
  Ed-Flex, however, was only a first step. Ed-Flex is designed to make 
categorical Federal programs work better at the local level. But States 
still have to follow federal priorities and requirements that may or 
may not address the needs of children in their state. It is time to 
modernize the Federal education funding mechanism investment so that it 
reflects the needs of States and school districts for the 21st century.
  For those States or school districts that choose to participate, 
Straight A's will fundamentally change the relationship between the 
Federal government and the States.
  Straight A's will untie the hands of those States that have strong 
accountability systems in place, in exchange for meeting student 
performance improvement targets. This sort of accountability for 
performance does not exist in current law: states must improve 
achievement to participate in Straight A's. And if they let their 
scores go down for the first three years, they can get kicked out 
before the five year term is up. Nothing happens to States that decline 
for three years in current law.
  States do not even have to report overall performance gains or 
demonstrate that all groups of students are making progress.
  Straight A's frees States to target all of their federal dollars on 
disadvantaged students and narrowing achievement gaps, which could mean 
an additional $5 billion for needy children if all states participated. 
Under current law, States couldn't target more federal dollars for this 
purpose. This legislation also rewards those States that significantly 
narrow achievement gaps with a five percent reward, an incentive that 
does not exist in current law.
  When we pass Straight A's, all students, especially the disadvantaged 
students who were the focus of Federal legislation in 1965, may finally 
receive effective instruction and be held to high standards.
  For too long States and schools have been able to hide behind average 
test scores, and to show that they are helping disadvantaged children 
merely by spending money in the right places. That must come to an end 
when states participate in Straight A's. States and school districts 
must now focus on the most effective way of improving achievement, not 
on just complying with how the federal government says they have to 
spend their money.
  Schools should be free to focus on improving teacher quality, 
implement research-based instruction, and operate effective after-
school programs. Federal process requirements have created huge amounts 
of paperwork for people at the local level, and distract from improving 
student learning.
  I would encourage everyone to listen carefully when people talk about 
accountability: Are they talking about accountability for process--
making sure States and districts meet federal guidelines and 
priorities, the ``check-off'' system, or are they talking about 
accountability for real gains in academic achievement? Will achievement 
gaps close as a result, or will States just have to fill out a lot of 
paperwork about numbers of children served without any mention of 
performance improvements.
  I know that most of you from the other side of the aisle are poised 
to shoot down this opportunity to advance effective education reform in 
the States and local school districts. I hope I can encourage you to 
have an open mind--to think outside the box--and consider this 
important piece of legislation. Listen to the people who are turning 
around low performing schools and districts. They want Straight A's.
  Let's give the States that choose to do so the opportunity to build 
on their successes and improve the achievement of all of their 
students. The federal government can lend a helping hand rather than a 
strangle hold.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control 
over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic 
Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT 
``A's''). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local 
governments to educate children free from federal mandates and 
regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal 
law, STRAIGHT ``A's'' fails to challenge the federal government's 
unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT ``A's'' 
states and local school districts will still be treated as 
administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. 
Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed 
on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name 
of promoting ``civil rights.'' Thus, a school district participating in 
STRAIGHT ``A's'' will still have to place children in failed bilingual 
education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education's 
misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
  The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of 
states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long 
as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the 
American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use 
for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support 
all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order 
to reclaim some of the people's tax monies.
  However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical 
concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted 
under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the 
federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no 
justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. 
After all, federal education money represents the return of funds 
illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and 
communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and 
choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how 
they use what is, after all, the people's money.
  The primary objection to STRAIGHT ``A's'' from a constitutional 
viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ``accountability'' 
stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the 
question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain 
accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state 
tests upon which a participating school's performance is judged. Should 
the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined 
``performance goals,'' they will lose the flexibility granted to them 
under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the 
schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT ``A's'' 
programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to 
the standards set in the state's five-year education plan--yet this is 
supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!
  Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no 
authority to hold states ``accountable'' for their education 
performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools 
are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the 
current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America's families and 
using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental 
control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. 
Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' when the federal 
government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates 
of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
  In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools 
accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 
935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over 
the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to 
$3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, 
public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their 
children.
  The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of 
a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great 
economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer 
sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the 
market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most 
successful. Consumer sovereignty is the

[[Page H10707]]

means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.
  When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive 
to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, 
otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their 
children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may 
use their credit to improve their schools by helping to finance the 
purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular 
activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students 
may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their 
children.
  It is the Family Education Freedom Act, not STRAIGHT ``A's'', which 
represents the education policy best suited for a constitutional 
republic and a free society. The Family Education Freedom Act ensures 
that schools are accountable to parents, whereas STRAIGHT ``A's'' 
continues to hold schools accountable to bureaucrats.
  Since the STRAIGHT ``A's'' bill does give states an opportunity to 
break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the 
federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. 
However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule 
step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government's 
usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives 
states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. 
Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional 
government and parental control of education by defunding all 
unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America's 
parents so that they may once again control the education of their 
children.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
2300, the so-called ``Academic Achievement for All Act.'' With this 
bill, the Republican majority takes a step backward by eliminating our 
federal commitment to education and washing the federal government's 
hands of its responsibility to our nation's students.
  H.R. 2300 would establish a pilot program to allow ten states to use 
federal funds designated for programs like Safe and Drug Free Schools, 
Literacy Challenge Fund, and Title I funds, for virtually anything they 
deem ``educationally relevant.'' This essentially amounts to the block 
granting of Title I funds, which are critically important to the 
disadvantaged students in my district.
  Title I of ESEA has done more for our nation's poor children than any 
other program. The possibility that this money may never reach our 
neediest students could have a devastating and lasting effect on their 
future. H.R. 2300, however, would allow states to give away federal 
funds specifically targeted for schools and students with the greatest 
need and give them to more affluent and wealthier school districts. 
This is just plan wrong.
  The proponents of H.R. 2300 claim that state flexibility from federal 
requirements will focus more funding and attention on the needs of low-
income and minority students. But the track record of most states, in 
the use of their own dollars suggests that low-income students lose, 
not gain, when states are not directed to do so. A 1998 GAO report 
which focused on state and federal efforts to target poor students 
found that, in 45 of the 47 states studied, federal funds were more 
targeted at low-income students than were state funds. The report 
further found that combining federal and state funds as proposed by 
this bill, would decrease the likelihood that the funding would reach 
the neediest students.
  Mr. Chairman, no one is arguing against promoting high academic 
standards for all children. But in order to accomplish this we need to 
target limited resources to children with the greatest need. The truth 
is that only a strong federal role in reduction will assure that all 
children have equal access to a quality education.
  Instead of weakening educational progress by promoting legislation 
such as H.R. 2300, I hope that my colleagues will work in a bipartisan 
way to strengthen accountability provisions to ensure that states are 
held responsible for the achievement of all their students, regardless 
of their income.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived and 
counterproductive bill.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2300, 
the so-called Academic Achievement for all Act (Straight A's Act).
  For the past two days, Members from both sides of the aisle have 
worked together on the House floor to pass H.R. 2, the Student results 
Act. This bill strengthens Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. We were able to pass a bi-partisan bill that is good for 
our nation's children. Before the ink is even dry, the Majority party 
is seeking to overturn the improvements that we joined together to 
pass.
  The Straight A's Act is plain and simple, a blank check without 
safeguards. The bill would block grant nearly \3/4\ of federal 
education programs including Title I, Eisenhower Professional 
Development for Teachers, and the Class-Size Initiative. I shudder to 
imagine how many students will fall through the cracks.
  Under this scheme, gone would be the focus on specific national 
concerns of federal education programs that have evolved over thirty-
five years with strong bipartisan support. Gone would be the targeting 
of funds based on identified need which now helps assure services for 
students who need them.
  I agree with the proponents of the legislation that we need to 
provide more control and flexibility to the local level, which is why I 
worked to secure passage of the Education Flexibility Act. Ed Flex 
lifts burdensome and unneeded federal regulations to provide local 
schools flexibility and the opportunity for innovation. Let us continue 
on the path of passing common-sense legislation that meets these goals 
without cheating our nation's school children. H.R. 2300 is not the 
answer. I urge Members to vote against the bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act. This legislation is nothing 
less than a block grant program that gives states a ``blank check'' for 
billions of dollars, without accountability or protection of our most 
disadvantaged students.
  I cannot support legislation that attempts to educate our children on 
the backs of poor students.
  H.R. 2300 would allow states to convert part of all Federal aid into 
private school vouchers; and it would allow states to take funding for 
poor schools and give it to the most affluent students; and it would 
allow states to take funds appropriated specifically for special needs 
students, and use it for the general student population.
  H.R. 2300 guts the very core of Title I, the nation's $8 billion 
flagship program for our poorest students, by allowing States to 
distribute funds in a way that the governors and State legislatures 
decide, instead of by need and poverty-based allocation procedures.
  And this bill would eviscerate other federal programs targeted at 
disadvantaged students. For instance, class size reduction allocations 
are based largely on the number of poor children in each district. 
Similarly, criteria for State allocation of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
funds to local education agencies include ``high-need factors'' such as 
high rates of drug use or student violence.
  Most Federal education programs were created specifically to serve 
disadvantaged groups, after Congress found that States and localities 
were not meeting the needs of those groups on their own. Today, the GAO 
still finds that State funding formulas are significantly less targeted 
on high-need districts and children than are Federal formulas. We must 
not give these States the opportunity to take money away from their 
poorest children.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 2300 will strike our national 
priorities, despite overwhelming public support for these area. For 
example, national leadership by Congress to reduce class size in the 
early grades, tackle youth and drug alcohol abuse, provide professional 
development for teachers, and enhance technology in the schools have 
already reaped rewards. H.R. 2300 would allow the States to ignore 
these important priorities.

  Moreover, I find it ludicrous that the Republican Majority would pass 
this Super-flex bill after a four day mark-up H.R. 2. H.R. 2, as 
amended by the Committee, maintains targeting requirements to serve 
poorest schools, first, increase funding for Title I schools, requires 
parent report cards to help parents hold schools accountable, requires 
all teachers to become fully accountable, prohibits use of Title I 
funds for private vouchers, requires all states to have rigorous 
standards and assessments, and makes permanent the comprehensive, 
research based educational school reform program that helps communities 
overhaul struggling schools.
  H.R. 2300 eviscerates these reforms.
  The Republicans have attempted to pass bock grants before, most 
recently with its Dollars to the Classroom legislation. However, their 
Block grants have failed because they lack accountability and they lead 
to decreased funding.
  For example, in 1981, Congress consolidated 26 programs into a single 
block grant (now Title VI of ESEA). Since then, funding for Title VI 
has dwindled, falling 63 percent in real terms since 1981. Today, the 
program has no accountability, no focus, and can demonstrate no success 
in improving educational achievement. And the Republicans want to do it 
all over again with H.R. 2300.
  The Republican Majority's emphasis on block granting, eliminating 
oversight and accountability, and eliminating targeting, flies in the 
face of the ``Academic Achievement for All'' that the Majority purport 
to want. Only a strong federal role in education will assure that all 
children have equal access and equal opportunity to quality education.
  While Super-flex may be a bonanza for governors, it excludes local 
school district participation. The Council of Great City Schools,

[[Page H10708]]

which represents the country's largest and most diverse public schools, 
strongly opposes H.R. 2300:

       The bill repeals from current law virtually all critical 
     local decision-making authority regarding the use and focus 
     of the super flex funding, allowing the States to dictate 
     local uses of funds based upon their political judgment at 
     the moment . . . [It allows] . . . the State's chosen 
     priority, to the exclusion of local school district 
     priorities such as reading, math, science, or special needs 
     children. A state could decide to use all these federal funds 
     for private school vouchers, if allowed under State law.

  The public wants us to improve education. They want us to promote 
high academic standards for all children, reduce class size, target 
resources to children with the greatest need, and enhance public 
accountability and oversight.
  This bill shamefully abandons these standards and our commitment to 
education, and leaves disadvantaged schools and school children to fend 
for themselves.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2300.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this legislation. This bill is the very height of hypocrisy.
  This legislation comes from a party who tried to eliminate the U.S. 
Department of Education in 1995.
  This is the same party who is proposing $1.3 billion in cuts to 
priority education funding for this fiscal year.
  These are the same people who have a two tiered agenda for federal 
education programs: to block grant programs and then cut the block 
grants. They may offer these proposals under the guise of education 
reform, and reducing federal oversight of education, but don't be 
fooled.
  This bill represents a fundamental lack of understanding the purpose 
of the important federal role in education. The federal role is not at 
all what the proponents of the so called Academic Achievement for All 
Act would have you believe.
  The federal role is not to dictate specific standards or some 
sinister plot to take over our local schools. The U.S. Department of 
Education doesn't want control over our local schools as some members 
would have you believe.
  The federal role in education is to meet needs and build capacity in 
areas that are not met by state and local funding. Their role is an 
important one to recognize these areas of unmet needs from their unique 
national perspective. The Department is able to take a small investment 
and target it effectively to these areas of need where the funds can 
truly make a difference.
  Proponents of the Academic Achievement for All Act would eviscerate 
states and localities from their responsibility to target funds to our 
most needy young students; and they plan to do this without meaningful 
accountability measures.
  The Academic Achievement for All Act is a misguided attempt to hand 
virtually all funding for federal education programs over to the states 
to decide how to spend this money.
  Historically, I am sorry to say, states and localities have often not 
stepped up to the plate in their responsibility to address funding 
disparities for schools in disadvantaged communities.
  In short, this legislation is a thinly veiled step in the Republican 
party's assault on our public education system. I urge my colleagues to 
support all children's rights to quality public education regardless of 
their economic means by opposing this very bad bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage my colleagues to 
support H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A's). 
I believe that the era of one-size-fits-all federal education 
regulations is a relic of the past. Across America we see success 
stories in schools that have been empowered to make their own decisions 
without federal interference. Educating children does not work with a 
``one-size-fits-all'' approach. Teachers in local classrooms understand 
children better than anyone in Washington.
  Straight A's would allow schools to spend federal education dollars 
on the things that will most improve America's education programs, 
rather than leaving these decisions up to a Washington bureaucrats. 
With this legislation schools can establish accountability, hire new 
teachers, and provide better facilities--all under local control.
  Mr. Chairman, I support accountability and local control in 
education. Let's give parents and educators more control over our 
children's future. I urge my colleagues to support the Academic 
Achievement for All Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in 
part A of House Report 106-408, is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment, and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2300

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Academic Achievement for All 
     Act (Straight A's Act)''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to create options for States and 
     communities--
       (1) to improve the academic achievement of all students, 
     and to focus the resources of the Federal Government upon 
     such achievement;
       (2) to improve teacher quality and subject matter mastery, 
     especially in math, reading, and science;
       (3) to empower parents and schools to effectively address 
     the needs of their children and students;
       (4) to give States and communities maximum freedom in 
     determining how to boost academic achievement and implement 
     education reforms;
       (5) to eliminate Federal barriers to implementing effective 
     State and local education programs;
       (6) to hold States and communities accountable for boosting 
     the academic achievement of all students, especially 
     disadvantaged children; and
       (7) to narrow achievement gaps between the lowest and 
     highest performing groups of students so that no child is 
     left behind.

     SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Program Authorized.--Not more than 10 States may, at 
     their option, execute a performance agreement with the 
     Secretary under which the provisions of law described in 
     section 4(a) shall not apply to such State except as 
     otherwise provided in this Act.''.
       (b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers, 
     and local schools and districts notice and opportunity to 
     comment on any proposed performance agreement prior to 
     submission to the Secretary as provided under general State 
     law notice and comment provisions.
       (c) Approval of Performance Agreement.--A performance 
     agreement submitted to the Secretary under this section shall 
     be considered as approved by the Secretary within 60 days 
     after receipt of the performance agreement unless the 
     Secretary provides a written determination to the State that 
     the performance agreement fails to satisfy the requirements 
     of this Act before the expiration of the 60-day period.
       (d) Terms of Performance Agreement.--Each performance 
     agreement executed pursuant to this Act shall include the 
     following provisions:
       (1) Term.--A statement that the term of the performance 
     agreement shall be 5 years.
       (2) Application of program requirements.--A statement that 
     no program requirements of any program included by the State 
     in the performance agreement shall apply, except as otherwise 
     provided in this Act.
       (3) List.--A list provided by the State of the programs 
     that it wishes to include in the performance agreement.
       (4) Use of funds to improve student achievement.--A 5-year 
     plan describing how the State intends to combine and use the 
     funds from programs included in the performance agreement to 
     advance the education priorities of the State, improve 
     student achievement, and narrow achievement gaps between 
     students.
       (5) Accountability requirements.--If a State includes any 
     part of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 in its performance agreement, the State shall include 
     a certification that the State has done the following:
       (A)(i) developed and implemented the challenging State 
     content standards, challenging State student performance 
     standards, and aligned assessments described in section 
     1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965; or
       (ii) developed and implemented a system to measure the 
     degree of change from one school year to the next in student 
     performance;
       (B) developed and is implementing a statewide 
     accountability system that has been or is reasonably expected 
     to be effective in substantially increasing the numbers and 
     percentages of all students who meet the State's proficient 
     and advanced levels of performance;
       (C) established a system under which assessment information 
     may be disaggregated within each State, local educational 
     agency, and school by each major racial and ethnic group, 
     gender, English proficiency status, migrant status, and by 
     economically disadvantaged students as compared to students 
     who are not economically disadvantaged (except that such 
     disaggregation shall not be required in cases in which the 
     number of students in any such group is insufficient to yield 
     statistically reliable information or would reveal the 
     identity of an individual student);
       (D) established specific, measurable, numerical performance 
     objectives for student achievement, including a definition of 
     performance considered to be proficient by the State on the 
     academic assessment instruments described under subparagraph 
     (A);
       (E) developed and implemented a statewide system for 
     holding its local educational agencies and schools 
     accountable for student performance that includes--
       (i) a procedure for identifying local educational agencies 
     and schools in need of improvement, using the assessments 
     described under subparagraph (A);
       (ii) assisting and building capacity in local educational 
     agencies and schools identified as in need of improvement to 
     improve teaching and learning; and

[[Page H10709]]

       (iii) implementing corrective actions after no more than 3 
     years if the assistance and capacity building under clause 
     (ii) is not effective.
       (6) Performance goals.--
       (A) Student academic achievement.--Each State shall 
     establish annual student performance goals for the 5-year 
     term of the performance agreement that, at a minimum--
       (i) establish a single high standard of performance for all 
     students;
       (ii) take into account the progress of students from every 
     local educational agency and school in the State;
       (iii) are based primarily on the State's challenging 
     content and student performance standards and assessments 
     described under paragraph (5)(A);
       (iv) include specific annual improvement goals in each 
     subject and grade included in the State assessment system, 
     which must include, at a minimum, reading or language arts 
     and math;
       (v) compares the proportions of students at the ``basic'', 
     ``proficient'', and ``advanced'' levels of performance (as 
     defined by the State) with the proportions of students at 
     each of the 3 levels in the same grade in the previous school 
     year;
       (vi) includes annual numerical goals for improving the 
     performance of each group specified in paragraph (5)(C) and 
     narrowing gaps in performance between the highest and lowest 
     performing students in accordance with section 10(b); and
       (vii) requires all students in the State to make 
     substantial gains in achievement.
       (B) Additional indicators of performance.--A State may 
     identify in the performance agreement any additional 
     indicators of performance such as graduation, dropout, or 
     attendance rates.
       (C) Consistency of performance measures.--A State shall 
     maintain, at a minimum, the same level of challenging State 
     student performance standards and assessments throughout the 
     term of the performance agreement.
       (7) Fiscal responsibilities.--An assurance that the State 
     will use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that 
     will ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, 
     Federal funds paid to the State under this Act.
       (8) Civil rights.--An assurance that the State will meet 
     the requirements of applicable Federal civil rights laws.
       (9) Private school participation.--
       (A) Equitable participation.--An assurance that the State 
     will provide for the equitable participation of students and 
     professional staff in private schools.
       (B) Application of bypass.--An assurance that sections 
     14504, 14505, and 14506 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8894, 8895, and 8896) shall 
     apply to all services and assistance provided under this Act 
     in the same manner as they apply to services and assistance 
     provided in accordance with section 14503 of such Act.
       (10) State financial participation.--An assurance that the 
     State will not reduce the level of spending of State funds 
     for elementary and secondary education during the term of the 
     performance agreement.
       (11) Annual report.--An assurance that not later than 1 
     year after the execution of the performance agreement, and 
     annually thereafter, each State shall disseminate widely to 
     parents and the general public, submit to the Secretary, 
     distribute to print and broadcast media, and post on the 
     Internet, a report that includes--
       (A) student academic performance data, disaggregated as 
     provided in paragraph (5)(C); and
       (B) a detailed description of how the State has used 
     Federal funds to improve student academic performance and 
     reduce achievement gaps to meet the terms of the performance 
     agreement.
       (e) Special Rule.--If a State does not include any part of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     in its performance agreement, the State shall--
       (1) certify that it has developed a system to measure the 
     academic performance of all students; and
       (2) establish challenging academic performance goals for 
     such other programs using academic assessment data described 
     in paragraph (5).
       (f) Amendment to Performance Agreement.--A State may submit 
     an amendment to the performance agreement to the Secretary 
     under the following circumstances:
       (1) Reduce scope of performance agreement.--Not later than 
     1 year after the execution of the performance agreement, a 
     State may amend the performance agreement through a request 
     to withdraw a program from such agreement. If the Secretary 
     approves the amendment, the requirements of existing law 
     shall apply for any program withdrawn from the performance 
     agreement.
       (2) Expand scope of performance agreement.--Not later than 
     1 year after the execution of the performance agreement, a 
     State may amend its performance agreement to include 
     additional programs and performance indicators for which it 
     will be held accountable.
       (3) Approval of Amendment.--An amendment submitted to the 
     Secretary under this subsection shall be considered as 
     approved by the Secretary within 60 days after receipt of the 
     amendment unless the Secretary provides a written 
     determination to the State that the performance agreement if 
     amended by the amendment would fail to satisfy the 
     requirements of this Act, before the expiration of the 60-day 
     period.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Eligible Programs.--The provisions of law referred to 
     in section 3(a) except as otherwise provided in subsection 
     (b), are as follows:
       (1) Part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (2) Part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (3) Part C of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (4) Part D of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (5) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (6) Section 3132 of title III of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (7) Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (8) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (9) Section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriation Act of 1999.
       (10) Comprehensive school reform programs as authorized 
     under section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 and described on pages 96-99 of the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference included 
     in House Report 105-390 (Conference Report on the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998).
       (11) Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (12) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
       (13) Sections 115 and 116, and parts B and C of title I of 
     the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Technical Education Act.
       (14) Subtitle B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act.
       (b) Allocations to States.--A State may choose to 
     consolidate funds from any or all of the programs described 
     in subsection (a) without regard to the program requirements 
     of the provisions referred to in such subsection, except that 
     the proportion of funds made available for national programs 
     and allocations to each State for State and local use, under 
     such provisions, shall remain in effect unless otherwise 
     provided.
       (c) Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this Act to 
     a State shall be used for any elementary and secondary 
     educational purposes permitted by State law of the 
     participating State.

     SEC. 5. WITHIN-STATE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The distribution of funds from programs 
     included in a performance agreement from a State to a local 
     educational agency within the State shall be determined by 
     the Governor of the State and the State legislature. In a 
     State in which the constitution or State law designates 
     another individual, entity, or agency to be responsible for 
     education, the allocation of funds from programs included in 
     the performance agreement from a State to a local educational 
     agency within the State shall be determined by that 
     individual, entity, or agency, in consultation with the 
     Governor and State Legislature. Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State 
     constitution or State law.
       (b) Local Input.--States shall provide parents, teachers, 
     and local schools and districts notice and opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed allocation of funds as provided under 
     general State law notice and comment provisions.
       (c) Local Hold Harmless of Part A Title 1 Funds.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a State that includes part 
     A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 in the performance agreement, the agreement shall 
     provide an assurance that each local educational agency shall 
     receive under the performance agreement an amount equal to or 
     greater than the amount such agency received under part A of 
     title I of such Act in the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year in which the performance agreement is executed.
       (2) Proportionate reduction.--If the amount made available 
     to the State from the Secretary for a fiscal year is 
     insufficient to pay to each local educational agency the 
     amount made available under part A of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to such agency 
     for the preceding fiscal year, the State shall reduce the 
     amount each local educational agency receives by a uniform 
     percentage.

     SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Nonparticipating State.--
       (1) In general.--If a State chooses not to submit a 
     performance agreement under this Act, any local educational 
     agency in such State is eligible, at its option, to submit to 
     the Secretary a performance agreement in accordance with this 
     section.
       (2) Agreement.--The terms of a performance agreement 
     between an eligible local educational agency and the 
     Secretary shall specify the programs to be included in the 
     performance agreement, as agreed upon by the State and the 
     agency, from the list under section 4(a).
       (b) State Approval.--When submitting a performance 
     agreement to the Secretary, an eligible local educational 
     agency described in subsection (a) shall provide written 
     documentation from the State in which such agency is located 
     that it has no objection to the agency's proposal for a 
     performance agreement.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in this section, and to 
     the extent applicable, the requirements of this Act shall 
     apply to an eligible local educational agency that submits a 
     performance agreement in the same manner as the requirements 
     apply to a State.
       (2) Exceptions.--The following provisions shall not apply 
     to an eligible local educational agency:
       (A) Within state distribution formula not applicable.--The 
     formula for the allocation of funds under section 5 shall not 
     apply.
       (B) State set aside shall not apply.--The State set aside 
     for administrative funds in section 7 shall not apply.

[[Page H10710]]

     SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided under 
     subsection (b), a State that includes part A of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the 
     performance agreement may use not more than 1 percent of such 
     total amount of funds allocated to such State under the 
     programs included in the performance agreement for 
     administrative purposes.
       (b) Exception.--A State that does not include part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     in the performance agreement may use not more than 3 percent 
     of the total amount of funds allocated to such State under 
     the programs included in the performance agreement for 
     administrative purposes.
       (c) Local Educational Agency.--A local educational agency 
     participating in this Act under a performance agreement under 
     section 6 may not use for administrative purposes more than 4 
     percent of the total amount of funds allocated to such agency 
     under the programs included in the performance agreement.

     SEC. 8. PERFORMANCE REVIEW.

       (a) Mid-Term Performance Review.--If, during the 5 year 
     term of the performance agreement, student achievement 
     significantly declines for 3 consecutive years in the 
     academic performance categories established in the 
     performance agreement, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, terminate the agreement
       (b) Failure To Meet Terms.--If at the end of the 5-year 
     term of the performance agreement a State has not 
     substantially met the performance goals submitted in the 
     performance agreement, the Secretary shall, after notice and 
     an opportunity for a hearing, terminate the performance 
     agreement and the State shall be required to comply with the 
     program requirements, in effect at the time of termination, 
     for each program included in the performance agreement.
       (c) Penalty for Failure To Improve Student Performance.--If 
     a State has made no progress toward achieving its performance 
     goals by the end of the term of the agreement, the Secretary 
     may reduce funds for State administrative costs for each 
     program included in the performance agreement by up to 50 
     percent for each year of the 2-year period following the end 
     of the term of the performance agreement.

     SEC. 9. RENEWAL OF PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Notification.--A State that wishes to renew its 
     performance agreement shall notify the Secretary of its 
     renewal request not less than 6 months prior to the end of 
     the term of the performance agreement.
       (b) Renewal Requirements.--A State that has met or has 
     substantially met its performance goals submitted in the 
     performance agreement at the end of the 5-year term may 
     reapply to the Secretary to renew its performance agreement 
     for an additional 5-year period. Upon the completion of the 
     5-year term of the performance agreement or as soon 
     thereafter as the State submits data required under the 
     agreement, the Secretary shall renew, for an additional 5-
     year term, the performance agreement of any State that has 
     met or has substantially met its performance goals.

     SEC. 10. ACHIEVEMENT GAP REDUCTION REWARDS.

       (a) Closing the Gap Reward Fund.--
       (1) In general.--To reward States that make significant 
     progress in eliminating achievement gaps by raising the 
     achievement levels of the lowest performing students, the 
     Secretary shall set aside sufficient funds from the Fund for 
     the Improvement of Education under part A of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to grant a 
     reward to States that meet the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (b) by the end of their 5-year performance 
     agreement.
       (2) Reward amount.--The amount of the reward referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be not less than 5 percent of funds 
     allocated to the State during the first year of the 
     performance agreement for programs included in the agreement.
       (b) Conditions of Performance Reward.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), a State is eligible to receive a reward under this 
     section as follows:
       (1) A State is eligible for such an award if the State 
     reduces by not less than 25 percent, over the 5-year term of 
     the performance agreement, the difference between the 
     percentage of highest and lowest performing groups of 
     students that meet the State's definition of ``proficient'' 
     as referenced in section 1111(b)(1)(D)(i)(II) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (2) A State is eligible for such an award if a State 
     increases the proportion of 2 or more groups of students 
     under section 3(d)(5)(C) that meet State proficiency 
     standards by 25 percent.
       (3) A State shall receive such an award if the following 
     requirements are met:
       (A) Content areas.--The reduction in the achievement gap or 
     approvement in achievement shall include not less than 2 
     content areas, one of which shall be mathematics or reading.
       (B) Grades tested.--The reduction in the achievement gap or 
     improvement in achievement shall occur in at least 2 grade 
     levels.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Student achievement gaps shall 
     not be considered to have been reduced in circumstances where 
     the average academic performance of the highest performing 
     quintile of students has decreased.

     SEC. 11. STRAIGHT A'S PERFORMANCE REPORT.

       The Secretary shall make the annual State reports described 
     in section 3 available to the House Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor and Pensions not later than 60 days after 
     the Secretary receives the report.

     SEC. 12. APPLICABILITY OF TITLE XIV OF THE ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

       To the extent that provisions of title XIV of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are 
     inconsistent with this Act, this Act shall be construed as 
     superseding such provisions.

     SEC. 13. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT.

       To the extent that the provisions of the General Education 
     Provisions Act are inconsistent with this Act, this Act shall 
     be construed as superseding such provisions, except where 
     relating to civil rights, withholdling of funds and 
     enforcement authority, and family educational and privacy 
     rights.

     SEC. 14. APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect home 
     schools whether or not a home school is treated as a private 
     school or home school under State law.

     SEC. 15. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING NON-RECIPIENT, NON-
                   PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, 
     encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect 
     of any private, religious, or home school, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a private school or home school 
     under State law.

     SEC. 16. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purpose of this Act:
       (1) All students.--The term ``all students'' means all 
     students attending public schools or charter schools that are 
     participating in the State's accountability and assessment 
     system.
       (2) All schools.--The term ``all schools'' means all 
     schools that are participating in the State's accountability 
     and assessment system.
       (3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the same meaning given such term in section 
     14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

     SEC. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect with respect to funds 
     appropriated for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2000.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in part B of that report. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-408.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Fattah

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Fattah:
       Page 22, line 20, redesignate section 16 as section 17 and 
     insert after line 9 the following:

     SEC. 16. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY.

       (a) Educational Equity.--Notstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act no State shall receive Federal funds for its 
     performance agreement under programs specified in section 4 
     unless the State certifies annually to the Secretary that--
       (1) per pupil expenditure in the local educational agencies 
     in the State are substantially equal, taking into 
     consideration the variation in cost of serving pupils with 
     special needs and the local variation in cost of providing 
     education services; or
       (2) the achievement levels of students on reading and 
     mathematics assessments, graduation rates, and rates of 
     college-bound students in the local educational are 
     substantially equal to those of the local educational 
     agencies with the highest per pupil expenditures.
       (b) Guidelines.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     National Academy of Sciences, shall develop and publish 
     guidelines not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to define the terms ``substantially 
     equal'' and ``per pupil expenditures.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 338, the gentleman from

[[Page H10711]]

Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that I will offer to every 
education bill that I have the opportunity to offer this amendment to, 
because I think that this is the fundamental issue that needs to be 
addressed in our country. If tomorrow the Federal Government did not 
put a penny into education or if we doubled our appropriations, we need 
State governments to provide an equal playing field for children in 
their States. There is no excuse in America today for us to be spending 
three times as much on one first grader in a public school 30 minutes 
away from a public school in which we are spending a third less.
  We have that situation in my home State. We have it in 49 out of our 
50 States. We have litigation going on in close to 40 States in our 
country, where literally almost a thousand school districts, mostly 
rural and urban districts, have been fighting in State courts, in some 
cases for decades, for relief. We have seen the Supreme Court of Ohio, 
we have seen action in the New Jersey court and in Kentucky, we have 
seen in Michigan courts rule these property tax-based school systems 
unconstitutional. We have seen the rulings in New Hampshire and in 
Vermont where they ruled them unconstitutional, where the Court has 
stepped in to say that children should be given a fair opportunity and 
that there is nothing so cosmically special about one child as another 
that we should be spending twice as much or three times as much on one 
kid's education than another.
  I ask my colleagues to begin to consider a country in which we gave 
every young person an equal opportunity, where we eliminated this 
circumstance in which we have in many of our districts young people who 
are not given the books, nor the teachers, nor the technology. They are 
not offered the curriculum in order for them to achieve. Yet we come 
and we try to put a Band-Aid on it, either through Title I or through 
AAA. The 6 or 7 pennies out of every dollar that is spent by the 
Federal Government is never going to deal with the disparity that 
exists in our States, which ranges from a thousand dollars per pupil, 
to in many States $5,000 and $6,000; and in one of our States the 
disparity is $8,000 between what is being spent in the poorest school 
district per pupil and what is being spent in the wealthiest.
  Now tonight, I am not sure that the votes will add up for this 
amendment that I offer, but I promise that this Congress will not be 
able to skirt this issue, because every single opportunity I am going 
to raise it. I think it is critical to the debate.
  We talk class size. Well, class size is a function of money. If we 
are spending $70,000 more per classroom in a city district versus a 
suburban district, we can cut the class size in half in that city 
district.
  We talk about school construction. Where are the school buildings 
falling apart? Are they falling apart in the districts where we are 
spending in some States, like in Texas, $20,000 per pupil, or are they 
falling apart in the State of Texas in the districts where we are 
spending $2,500 per pupil?
  School construction, class size, technology in the classroom, all of 
these issues get back to the fundamental question, and that is, are 
States going to even the playing field?
  Now, we can wait for State courts to act, and we can acknowledge even 
the action now that is starting to take hold in Federal court, when the 
State of Kansas, dozens of school districts got together in rural 
Kansas and filed a suit that the Justice Department or the Federal 
Government has just added its voice to as a party to that suit and said 
they are right; that the funding system in Kansas discriminates against 
poor children in rural Kansas.
  Look at the situation in New York State where the disparity is a 
great one. We have now had the Justice Department add its voice to that 
suit. Or the Congress could act; not in forcing States to equalize 
their distribution of school aid but using as a carrot Federal aid to 
encourage States to move in that direction.
  My amendment, simply put, states that States would have 3 years to 
move towards a substantially equal per-pupil expenditure. It would help 
rural districts. It would help urban districts. For the wealthiest 
districts in our States, I would say today it would help those 
districts because we cannot have a country where some of the children 
have everything in the world to look forward to and others have very 
little to look forward to. That is an explosive mix that, going into 
the next century, does not bode well.
  We have books in the school libraries in Philadelphia, and this was 
played on ABC News Tonight and we should all be embarrassed because 
Philadelphia is the birthplace of this country of ours, that say that 
Gerald Ford is the last President of the United States. We have a book 
in one of our schools that says Nelson Mandela died in prison 15 years 
ago. We have books that do not represent any of the knowledge that is 
currently part of the educational system that we would want. We have a 
chemistry lab in Chicago in which there is no equipment at all, 30 
minutes from a school that has everything we could ever want for our 
children.
  We need to think about these disparities, think about giving young 
people a fair chance. If we want to give States more flexibility, if we 
think States have these rights, let us have States be more responsible. 
Let us have them take the dollars that they are now spending and give 
an equal playing field to the children that we represent and that they 
have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to provide them 
an equitable education.
  I want to thank the Chair. I want to thank the ranking member of my 
committee and the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
claim time in opposition?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, although let me 
say I am in a great deal of sympathy to the author's intent. There are 
some problems that I am sure he would never intend in States like mine 
where actually because we have equalized or tried to equalize the 
formula in a declining population in some of our inner cities it could 
inadvertently actually take funds away from them. I know he did not 
intend that.
  Let me speak for a few minutes on the importance of this bill, 
because I am worried that by putting this amendment into it it would 
put too much freight into what we are trying to accomplish, and I think 
the underlying goals of this bill are so critical for making our 
education system the best it can possibly be in this Nation.
  For 3 decades, the Federal Government has been sending money to the 
States through scores of Washington-based programs; but all the 
studies, the evaluations, the reports, show little or no academic 
benefit. Straight A's would reverse this unfortunate situation by 
focusing on the Federal Government's efforts on academic results 
instead of rules and regulations.
  I want to share with my colleagues a letter that I received from a 
principal in Delta Middle School in Muncie, near Muncie, Indiana, from 
Patrick Mapes. ``The monies given to schools have such strict 
guidelines that it cannot be used where it is needed most. The poverty, 
diversity in a corporation like ours has students participating in 
different title programs at the elementary grades and then they are 
left with no support once they come to the middle school, because our 
corporation on whole would not qualify. The first Federal regulation 
that hinders schools is the amount of restrictions on how to spend 
monies that you are qualified to receive. We know our needs and need 
the flexibility to fund and address these needs.''
  Patrick Mapes is a dedicated principal. He wants to do what is right 
and what is best for the children in his school. Straight A's will give 
the States the option to implement initiatives that work according to 
what they need, as well as help raise the academic

[[Page H10712]]

standards, improve teacher quality, reduce class size, end social 
promotion, and put technology in the classroom.
  I visited a school in inner-city Indianapolis, School 109, that 3 
years ago had only 12 percent of its students passing the Indiana 
standard test on math and English. This last year they had 77 percent 
of their children pass. They were an inner-city school, just below the 
50 percent poverty-wide threshold.
  I went in and I asked, what happened? They told me the principal had 
given the teachers the flexibility to do what they needed in their 
classroom. He started by giving them keys to the school so they could 
come in after hours and work, or on Saturdays and work.
  I about fell out of my chair when they told me the previous principal 
had not given them a key and from 3:00 to 8:00 they were in the 
building, and then they were locked out and could not come in and 
prepare for their students.
  Then the principal backed them up and told the teachers when they get 
into problems with the parents, he will be there with them.
  The teachers decided they wanted to pool their extra money and 
instead of getting two teachers aides which would have helped two of 
them, they pooled it together and got one more teacher, effectively 
reducing their class size.
  This is a microcosm of how flexibility could work, backed up by good 
administration, backed up by senior teachers who were frankly 
embarrassed when only 12 percent of their students knew math and 
English at the third grade level, and they got the job done.

  They still have the same mix. They have a lot of minority students. 
They have poor students, but they were able to transform that school 
and serve those children.
  So I think this bill is critical in letting all of our States, we are 
going to start with a test of 10 but eventually I hope all of our 
States, participate in this flexibility, the Straight A's program. As I 
said at the beginning, I am very, very sympathetic to the author's 
intent of this amendment, but I think it would put too much freight 
into the bill, and so I reluctantly would rise in opposition to it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, in my 1\1/2\ minutes, I will say this: that 
one of the problems of the inequities in education is the disparity 
among the teaching faculty in the various schools.

                              {time}  2145

  In California, over 30,000 teachers are not certified or are teaching 
out of their field. During field hearings that we had in North Carolina 
recently, I asked one of the educational officials of the State what 
percentage of teachers there in that State were not certified or were 
teaching out of their field. He replied, ``Too many, and most of them 
are concentrated in our poorest school districts.''
  Mr. Chairman, our poorest school districts have the greatest 
concentration of bus stop teachers, ancient textbooks, and dilapidated 
buildings. As a matter of fact, I have been in school buildings where a 
Federal judge would not let us keep prisoners in that building. I know 
because we had to close down our jail in Flint, Michigan, because a 
Federal judge said it was unfit for human habitation. Yet, that jail is 
in much better shape than many of the school buildings that I have been 
in in our poor school districts.
  We need some type of equalization. We have to try to address that and 
encourage the States to do that.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to praise the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for this amendment.
  We have heard during the course of this argument today on this bill 
and other bills that we are throwing too much money at education, that 
it does not matter how much we spend per child, that there are other 
factors at play.
  Well, this amendment really tests that theory. Because if it does not 
matter how much we spend on education, let us split it. Let us split it 
evenly. Then we do not have to argue who is getting too much.
  What we hear time and time again is people sort of patting us on the 
shoulder, saying it does not matter how much one spends per child, 
there are other factors at play. But if we look at their school 
district, they are spending more money per child on their kids. If it 
does not matter how much one spends per student, then there should be 
no argument against equalizing the spending. The argument against 
equalization comes invariably from people who come from districts where 
they spend more on their children for learning.
  Every child in this country is worth the same. Every child in this 
country should have the same level of education. I think the amendment 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) goes in that direction. 
It is a good amendment. It should be adopted by the House.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to conclude by saying that the public may 
have the impression that this is kind of like the golden arches at 
McDonald's where, all across the country, public schools are the same 
and the same inputs; and, therefore, any time there is a disparity of 
outputs, it has something to do with the individual children involved 
or their families or their community when, in reality, what we have is 
a system in which, in the poorest districts, in the most disadvantaged 
circumstances, in urban and rural America, the State governments, with 
the flexibility that they have, have decided that the poorest kids need 
to get the least amount of resources. Time after time, in 49 States, 
that is the story, not just in Democratic districts, but in Republican 
districts.
  In Pennsylvania, 216 rural school districts filed suit years ago 
challenging our funding system. We have seen these suits in Kentucky 
and all across the land.
  I am suggesting that the Congress use the carrot of Federal dollars 
to insist that States create a more equal playing field. I hope that my 
colleagues would support this amendment. I will guarantee to my 
colleagues this amendment will be before us again.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that, in the State of 
Pennsylvania, we have the best equalization formula for the basic 
education grants that any State has had, and we have had it for years 
and years and years. Where the litigation is, and I agree with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) it should be, is in the 
special programs where their equalization is not proper, and that is 
where it is.
  But I also want the City of Brotherly Love to step up to the plate. I 
hate to use that term after, I am assuming, that all of those people at 
that football game were from Maryland and from New Jersey and from 
Delaware who are clapping and cheering when someone is lying on the 
ground who may never ever walk again. So I am assuming they were not 
from Pennsylvania and certainly not from the City of Brotherly Love. 
But we do have the best equalization formula when it comes to basic 
grants.
  But let me tell my colleagues some other things that are a problem. 
When I began teaching, that equalization formula said that the poor 
district that I taught in got 70 percent of all of their funds from the 
State. The next district where I was principal, they got 30 percent 
because they were a much more affluent district. Then when I went to 
the next school district, which is poorer, they got about 50 percent. 
So the equalization formula works out fine for the basic grant.
  But look at the amendment. This really causes me all sorts of 
problems. It goes just the opposite direction of flexibility. It holds 
States hostage to have equal funding across all school districts or 
have equal test scores across all school districts.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) knows I do not care 
whether Upper Saint Claire has $9,000 per student or $5,000 per 
student. There are not many districts in my school district that are 
going to compete with Upper Saint Claire. Every parent has a

[[Page H10713]]

master's degree or a Ph.D. I am not that fortunate, and so it would not 
matter what I did. I am not going to be able to compete, I will 
guarantee my colleagues, with Upper Saint Claire.
  But what the amendment does, it says it is okay to dumb down. The 
amendment says, under this amendment, one could potentially reward 
States that have all their school districts performing at a low level 
just as long as they are even. A low level. It is fine.
  Well, certainly we do not want that. In fact, in Title I, we kept 
stressing over and over and over and over again we want every child to 
achieve way beyond what they are presently achieving and particularly 
the low-income children and the disadvantaged educationally.

  So I would hope that all of our people in the Congress of the United 
States would understand that we cannot set an equalization formula from 
Washington, D.C.
  I was a little worried. I heard someone say that they have some 
sympathy for it. Then I realized that one could be governor of a State 
sometime and one could have some sympathy and, all of a sudden, 
discover, hey, one cannot meet that equalization formula that we have 
set in Washington, D.C.
  But under this amendment, as I said, one could potentially reward 
dumb downing, because all one has to do is make sure that they are 
performing at the same level. Now, no one says what that level is. That 
level could be the lowest level possible.
  We want every student to achieve more. They can do more. We do not 
demand enough. We should insist that they do it. But let us not get 
into the business of trying to set an equalization formula from 
Washington, D.C. It cannot work. It should not work.
  Therefore, I would hope that everyone would vote against the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               AYES--183

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

                               NOES--235

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     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 (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brady (TX)
     Camp
     Hall (OH)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Lipinski
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meehan
     Scarborough
     Shuster
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2214

  Messrs. GREENWOOD, MOORE, McHUGH, QUINN, BEREUTER, SPRATT and Mrs. 
THURMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CLEMENT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 530, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman 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. 2300) to allow 
a State to combine certain funds to improve the academic achievement of 
all its students, pursuant to House Resolution 338, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.

                              {time}  2215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

[[Page H10714]]

  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. Clay

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CLAY. 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. Clay moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2300 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     promptly report the bill to the House, in a manner that 
     addresses the need to help communities to reduce class size, 
     to modernize our Nation's crumbling and overcrowded public 
     schools, and to ensure that the teachers are highly 
     qualified.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, this motion asks that we recommit this bill 
for the purpose of addressing the real education priorities of parents, 
of teachers, and of local communities. It calls for the House to scrap 
this ill-conceived and this misguided bill and pass legislation to 
reduce class sizes in the early grades, to repair crumbling and 
overcrowded schools, and to ensure all teachers are fully qualified.
  Rather than gutting the hard work we accomplished today by passing 
increased accountability and targeting of funds to poor schools, we can 
build on H.R. 2 by addressing the priorities in this motion. Reducing 
class size is one of the most important investments we can make to 
improve student achievement.
  Last year we made a down payment to hire 100,000 new teachers by 
passing the Clinton/Clay Class Size Reduction Act. Too many of our 
schools have 30 or more children pressed desk-to-desk in classrooms. 
This is unacceptable. We all know and studies confirm that children 
learn better in small early classes.
  Today, over one-third of our public schools are dilapidated and in 
need of replacement or major modernization. For years Democrats have 
been demanding action on this urgent education priority, but the 
majority continues to block action.
  It is a national shame, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most hallowed 
institutions in our Nation, the public schoolhouse, has been allowed to 
fall into such disrepair. We think our children deserve the right to 
attend schools in a safe, well-maintained building that is capable of 
using modern educational technology.
  The Rangel school modernization bill helps communities address this 
urgent priority by allowing the issuance of interest-free bonds. We 
should act now to pass the Rangel school construction bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage everyone to read the bill. They do not 
have to send the bill back to committee because what the bill does is 
everything the gentleman asks us to do.
  The bill says, as long as they can raise academic achievement, they 
can improve teacher quality, they can reduce class size, they can end 
social promotion, they can put technology in the classroom. Everything 
they are talking about the bill does. So it does not do any good to 
send it back to committee to do what we have already done in the bill.
  What we are saying here is that every child deserves an opportunity 
to have a quality education.
  I am proud that my side of the aisle has put an additional $340 
million in education. I am proud that my side of the aisle has 
increased funding for special education, something we have tried to do 
for years so that we can relieve the pressure on local school districts 
so that they can modernize, so that they can reduce class size and do 
all of those things.
  But all that we have to do in this bill is show that we can raise 
academic achievement for all children and we can do everything the 
gentleman wants us to do in this motion to recommit to send back to the 
committee.
  So I encourage everybody to vote against the motion to recommit. We 
are doing exactly what he want us to do.
  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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 217, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 531]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (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
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     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
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle

[[Page H10715]]


     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
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Camp
     Cannon
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meehan
     Minge
     Scarborough
     Shuster
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2238

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall 531 I was in the Chamber with my 
voting card in the machine before the vote was called. I intended to 
vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 208, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 532]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     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
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     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
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     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
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Camp
     Hall (OH)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Lipinski
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meehan
     Scarborough
     Shuster
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2256

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

                          ____________________