[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4063-4071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 800, EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY 
                        PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 100

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility 
     partnerships. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     for a period not to exceed 5 hours. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment printed 
     in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it 
     to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as 
     read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:
       (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in 
     the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on 
     any amendment; and
       (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 100 is a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act of 1999, better known as the Ed-Flex bill. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce now printed in the bill. The Ed-Flex bill is truly bipartisan 
legislation which has the support of Republicans and Democrats alike in 
the House and Senate, as well as the support of all 50 Governors.
  Despite the popularity of Ed-Flex, we have witnessed some try to 
undermine this bipartisan effort by diverting attention away from the 
Ed-Flex bill to other issues which are clearly outside the scope of 
this simple bill. For this reason, the Committee on Rules felt it was 
reasonable to ask Members to preprint their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. The chairman of the Committee on Rules announced 
this preprinting requirement on Thursday, so all Members have been 
properly notified of this policy.
  In addition, the committee felt that placing a reasonable time limit 
on the consideration of the Ed-Flex bill would encourage those who have 
concerns about H.R. 800 to prioritize their amendments and focus on 
constructive changes, rather than partisan tactics. Therefore, the rule 
before us contains a 5-hour time limit on the amendment process, which 
is considerably more generous than the 3-hour time limit requested by 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce itself.
  With the exception of these reasonable parameters designed to focus 
the debate on the issue at hand, the rule is open, in the tradition of 
every other rule reported by the Committee on Rules this year. Let me 
be clear. Any member who has a concern about this legislation may offer 
any amendment on the floor, as long as it is germane and has been 
printed in the Record.
  In addition to the amendment process, the rule provides a final 
opportunity for the minority to make changes to the bill through a 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Further, in the interest of facilitating consideration of this 
popular bill by the House, the rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII, 
requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report. And, for the 
convenience of Members, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes, as 
long as the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  Mr. Speaker, all Americans agree that the education of our Nation's 
children must be a top priority. Education is the foundation on which 
the future of our country rests. While many of our community schools 
are shining examples of success, others are miserably failing in their 
attempts to teach even the most basic skills to our young students.
  Unfortunately, there is no magic pill that we can give our neediest 
schools to bring them up to par, but the very least we can do is to 
remove some of the obstructions which are blocking their path to 
improvement.
  The fact is that the Federal Government has a stranglehold on our 
local schools, and the Ed-Flex bill loosens the government's grip. By 
easing the burden of Federal regulation and clearing away the red tape, 
Ed-Flex allows States to pursue effective school reform. The Ed-Flex 
program is founded on the principle of trust, trust in our State and 
local leaders, who we believe will make good choices for their 
communities.
  Currently, 12 States are participating in the existing Ed-Flex 
demonstration program, including my own State of Ohio. The positive 
results in Ohio and 11 other States strongly suggest that

[[Page 4064]]

we extend this program to all 50 States.
  Through the Ed-Flex program, Ohio has been able to apply the good 
intentions of Federal education policies to more children. For example, 
Ohio has enabled more schools to use Federal dollars to implement 
schoolwide programs. Schoolwide programs go beyond helping at-risk 
children and utilize resources to improve the scholastic skills of all 
students.
  In addition, Ohio has used Ed-Flex to expand its use of Eisenhower 
Professional Development Grants, which are designed for math and 
science teacher training. In Ohio, if a school has met its math and 
science training requirements, it can use unexpended Eisenhower funds 
to provide training in other areas, such as reading.
  These commonsense reforms have helped Ohio to realize tangible 
improvements in the education of our children. Last year, Ohio exceeded 
two benchmarks for student performance in both reading and writing. 
Yet, while Ohio moves ahead, other States continue to be mired in 
Federal rules and regulations that stunt forward progress. That is why 
it is so important that we pass the Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act, to give all 50 States the opportunity to maximize resources to 
educate students.
  Not only will Ed-Flex help our States in their efforts to improve 
student performance, it will help Congress assess what Federal 
education policies are burdening States and need to be revamped. This 
information will be crucial as we work on the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year.
  I think some of my colleagues will speak to their concerns about 
accountability during this debate, but it is not fair to give the 
impression that we are handing out money and turning our heads the 
other way. The Ed-Flex program does not simply dissolve Federal 
education law. In fact, there are strings attached to the flexibility 
we are offering to the States through this legislation.
  To be eligible for Ed-Flex, States must develop and implement a Title 
I plan, which includes education content standards, student performance 
standards, and a means of assessing school progress. In addition, 
States must have an accountability system in place to hold localities 
and schools responsible for meeting their education goals.
  We are asking for a credible education plan, and then trusting the 
State and local officials to make good decisions for their communities. 
After all, they are the people who live in those communities, know the 
citizens, and work in the local school systems every day. Let us not 
take the ``flex'' out of Ed-Flex by erecting additional hoops and 
hurdles under the guise of accountability.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
fair and balanced resolution, as well as the underlying legislation 
which will move us toward the shared goal of commonsense education 
reform. All of our 50 Governors have asked us to pass this bill, and 
our schools and children will be better for it.
  Let us move forward together in the spirit of bipartisanship. I urge 
all my colleagues to vote yes on both the rule and the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the snow blanketing the ground outside is enough to make 
us think fondly of baseball spring training which is being conducted in 
summer climes over the South and West. The spring training analogy 
seems appropriate for this rule which is governing the consideration of 
H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act.
  We have been in session for about 2 months, and we have seen a 
procession of open rules on legislation which, frankly, would have been 
well received by the Suspension Calendar. Today the House ends its 
legislative spring training and begins its regular season with a 
significant initiative on education.
  The first pitch from my friends on the other side of the aisle is a 
fast ball under the chin, an unnecessarily restrictive rule severely 
limiting amendments and debate. By clinging to its insistence on 
preprinting amendments in the Congressional Record, the majority on the 
committee is trying to pitch a shutout against Members who have had, 
previously, precious little time to consider a bill which was reported 
by the committee of jurisdiction only 2 days ago, and Members have had 
to contend with that snowstorm that hardly let them into town.
  As a result of a party line vote on the Committee on Rules, the rule 
House Resolution 100 swings and misses by capping debate time at 5 
hours, and including under that cap the time it takes to vote on 
amendments. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about educating our children 
and preparing them for the game of life. We should spend not 5 hours 
but 5 days, if necessary, to ensure that we are doing right by them.
  Last year, Congress took a significant step toward achieving the goal 
of hiring 100,000 new teachers over the next 7 years to help local 
districts reduce class size in the early grades. Thanks to the party 
line vote by the majority, House Resolution 100 commits a crucial error 
by refusing to make in order the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) that 
would authorize the remainder of our commitment to hire 100,000 new 
teachers, to reduce class size, and improve the learning environment.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Federal elementary and secondary education 
programs are set to expire, and the reauthorization of these policies 
is one of the most important tasks any Congress will face. Some Members 
might argue the need to weigh statutory and regulatory provisions 
before we even begin to define what those provisions should be.
  Our side of the aisle will seek to advance amendments which address 
our concerns that the underlying bill is weak on accountability and 
strong on rhetoric.
  It is imperative that any law that weighs the Federal Government's 
long-standing commitment to our Nation's most disadvantaged students 
contain a viable plan for how student achievement will be assessed.
  Of particular concern are the students who benefit from the Title I 
funding. This provision has been successful at ensuring that the Title 
I funds are not spread too thin but go to the districts that really 
need them.
  By waiving this requirement, schools with small percentages of poor 
children will be able to implement a schoolwide program, thereby 
neglecting the special needs of the economically disadvantaged students 
in that school.
  Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which could be improved, and I urge 
Members to vote against this rule so that we might do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this fair rule for 
H.R. 800, the Ed-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. Current law authorizes 
12 States under pilot programs to participate in the Education 
Flexibility Partner Demonstration Program called Ed-Flex.
  Ed-Flex States enjoy greater State and local flexibility in 
determining how to use Federal education funds. H.R. 800 is a bill 
which will expand the program to give all 50 States the option to apply 
for Ed-Flex. In short, Ed-Flex increases local control, reduces 
government red tape, and promotes flexibility with accountability.
  My State, Texas, was one of the first States to win Ed-Flex status. 
Since January of 1996, Texans have incorporated the flexibility granted 
under Ed-Flex for statewide, comprehensive reform programs centered 
around local control and accountability for results.

[[Page 4065]]

  Governor George W. Bush eagerly sought Ed-Flex status and has worked 
with local educators for the authority to design programs which meet 
and address local need. Texas also has implemented a system which 
ensures that there is accountability with concrete results in return 
for this increased flexibility. As Governor Bush said, ``Texans can run 
Texas.'' I believe that each of my colleagues would feel the same way 
about their respective States and their districts.
  Although there is still room for improvement, tremendous gains in 
performance can be documented for students in Texas. In a State with 
students of diverse ethnicities and socio-economic statuses, the 
across-the-board improvement in student performance is, indeed, 
something that we should be proud of.
  Yesterday, during testimony before the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), former Governor and now current 
U.S. Congressman, indicated that all 50 Governors are in favor of 
receiving this Ed-Flex status.
  This simply is a bill that allows all 50 States to do what they 
believe is necessary to run their own programs in their own States. I 
believe it is an admission that the one-size-fits-all rulemaking 
bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. is broken. Republicans trust local 
school boards, not Washington bureaucrats.
  What works in my home district in Dallas, Texas is not necessarily 
the most effective program for a school district here in the 
Washington, D.C. area, in Northern Virginia, or in Maryland.
  The combination of Ed-Flex and an effective accountability program 
allows all States to focus on a foundation, a curriculum that features 
English language, mathematics, science, social studies, geography, and 
government.
  I am proud of the improvements which have come about as a result of 
Ed-Flex; flexibility with accountability. This program is good for 
everyone who has an opportunity to participate.
  Today, we are talking about this rule that would allow the 
opportunity to debate how States are going to utilize their own 
education programs. I will tell my colleagues that there are others on 
the other side who want to debate about putting more rules and 
regulations and dollars to this equation.
  But the bottom line is that what we have got to do is to give local 
school districts, local States those controls, not tell them how to do 
things, and not put dollars out there which would drive them to the 
decision making that Washington would like to make instead of what they 
would like to make locally. I stand in support of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, during our appearance before the Committee on 
Rules yesterday, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and I asked that 
our class size reduction amendment be made in order. Unfortunately, the 
committee failed to do so.
  This restrictive rule that was reported now makes it necessary to 
defeat the previous question in order for our class size reduction 
amendment to even be considered.
  Our amendment would establish a 6-year authorization for the Clinton-
Clay-Wu class size reduction initiative. This would build on the 1-
year, $1.2 billion down payment on the initiative that was included in 
last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act. That funding, however, will 
only support the hiring of 30,000 teachers for the 1999-2000 school 
year.
  Now it is time, Mr. Speaker, to lock in the remainder of the funding 
so that school districts across America can count on receiving the full 
complement of 100,000 teachers needed to achieve the initiatives goal.
  Mr. Speaker, some critics, without evidence or documentation, 
continue to boisterously shout that the 30,000 teachers will be 
unqualified to teach. This is a sad commentary for those who prefer to 
build prisons than to build schools and to hire guards than to hire 
teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, the goal of the Clinton-Clay-Wu class size reduction 
initiative is to help schools improve student achievement by adding 
additional highly qualified teachers to the work force to ensure that 
class size is reduced to not more than 18 children per class in the 
early grades.
  Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that every child receives a teacher's 
personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further learning, and 
is prepared to read independently by the end of the third grade.
  Ample research demonstrates that reducing class size boosts student 
achievement considerably. The Department the Education data shows that 
students in smaller classes in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana, and 
Tennessee outperform their counterparts in larger classes. A study in 
Tennessee's project STAR found that students in smaller classes in 
grades K through 3 earn much higher scores on basic skill tests.
  Based on this solid record of achievement, the Clinton-Clay-Wu class 
size reduction initiative should be expanded by granting it a full 7-
year authorization to ensure class size reduction in grades K through 3 
to an average of just 18 students.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this effort, to defeat the 
previous question, and allow a vote on the Clinton-Clay-Wu class size 
reduction amendment.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my good friend, the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out some interesting 
statistics. There are 16,000 school districts in the United States. If 
we say there are seven schools to each one of those school districts, 
that gives us about 112,000 schools. That gives us less than one 
teacher per school.
  Of course highly qualified was mentioned. California's great 
experience has been they spent $1 billion last year. They are going to 
spend $1.2 billion this year for their 23,000 teachers.
  Now what happened with those 23,000 teachers? Of course they could 
not get a lot of qualified teachers. So the poorer school districts who 
need the best teachers, what did they get? Totally unqualified people 
in the classroom.
  So I just wanted to point out that what we are talking about here 
when we talk about 100,000 for 16,000 school districts and 112,000 
schools minimum, it is less than one per school.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
time. The Ed-Flex bill certainly has many features in it. The issue is 
not whether we are for that or against it, but it is that there are 
other important issues to make it better.
  Last week, all of the school systems were reporting out how their 
schools fared in the fourth grade and whether it went up. Indeed, as 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) indicated, 
California did not do so well. But I suspect their investment in 
teachers is not to be pooh-poohed to suggest that we should not do it.
  Certainly we need that 100,000 teachers more that the President has 
indicated and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has indicated and 
that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) has tried to put before the 
Committee on Rules, and they ruled that it would be a nongermane 
amendment. It is not nongermane to education. Good teachers indeed are 
essential just as good doctors are good for health, just as good 
engineers are for constructing buildings.
  I cannot conceive that one would think that putting 100,000 teachers, 
although that is not sufficient to speak to all the schools, would not 
be an appropriate action, and we would not embrace it where the 
American people want it.
  So voting for Ed-Flex is indeed a good thing. But this amendment, 
however, this rule that does not allow germane amendments is the wrong 
thing.

[[Page 4066]]

  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule because we can go 
back to the Committee on Rules, make that amendment in order, so indeed 
we can have more teachers, more qualified teachers. The assumption that 
we want to have anything other than qualified teachers again escapes me 
as any rational approach to improve the education system.
  So having 100,000 teachers is germane to reducing the classes. 
Reducing the classes is germane indeed to having quality education. 
Quality education is indeed what all America wants for their families.
  To suggest that every Governor wants this Ed-Flex, I mean, I do not 
understand why they would not want it. But also to suggest that they 
would not want 100,000 teachers again is absurd. They want more 
teachers, qualified teachers, because they understand that teachers are 
essential, qualified teachers are essential in the mix if indeed we are 
to have quality education.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, Representatives Clay 
and Wu in opposing this rule--a rule that does not permit an amendment 
I have filed to be considered.
  My amendment would have given States the flexibility to hire more 
teachers to help reduce class sizes.
  While we passed class size reduction legislation in the last 
Congress, the appropriation was only for one year, and not the full 
seven year program we had proposed.
  Consequently, school districts across the country are unable to plan 
long-term for class size reduction because they do not know whether 
there will be funding for the new teachers beyond the one year.
  My amendment would have made clear that the funding for these 
teachers was for the full seven years.
  Mr. Speaker, schools across the Nation are struggling because student 
enrollments are dramatically increasing.
  Evidence demonstrates that there is a direct correlation between 
class size and learning ability.
  Students in smaller classes, especially in early grades, make greater 
educational gains.
  More importantly, they maintain those gains over time.
  Smaller classes are most advantageous for poor, minority, and rural 
community children.
  However, all children will benefit from smaller classes.
  Class size reduction funds for seven years will help States and local 
school districts recruit, train, and hire 100,000 additional, well-
prepared teachers in order to reduce the average class size to 18 in 
grades 1 through 3.
  We need more teachers.
  It is so critical to maintaining and improving our education system.
  Education is the key to the future.
  In some parts of the country and in my State, classroom sizes are as 
high as 36 students--much too large for a teacher to provide 
individualized attention.
  This is especially troubling when the students are in their early 
developmental stages--grades one through three.
  Because 90 percent of our children attend public schools, we must 
strengthen and improve those schools.
  Across the Nation, we have an all-time record school enrollment of 
52.2 million students today.
  The strain on school systems and the impact on learning will be felt 
for years to come.
  I urge defeat of this rule and support for a rule that would allow an 
amendment to continue our commitment to reducing class sizes.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield as much time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I 
would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) and the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) who made a 
very eloquent statement earlier about this issue.
  This is a bipartisan goal that we have. As the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) said, all 50 Governors want to have this kind of 
flexibility. We have Democrats and Republicans alike supporting this. 
We have the President saying that he wants to sign this measure. Yet, 
based on what we have witnessed over the last several days, our 
distinguished colleagues in the other body on the other side of the 
aisle have decided to totally politicize this and claim that we are not 
in fact doing the things that the American people want us to do.
  Unfortunately, we are seeing this same sort of issue come to the 
forefront here. This is a modified open rule. No matter what my 
colleagues try to call it, it is a modified open rule. It is modified 
so that we do not get to the point where we see complete politicization 
of a bipartisan issue.

                              {time}  1145

  Now, every germane amendment is in order, and we have, in fact, had 
over 20 amendments that have been filed. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is very ably going to deal with those 
amendments, and I think that this is clearly the right thing for us to 
do.
  As we look at the kinds of constraints that Washington has heretofore 
imposed on States, it is amazing that there are 14,000 Federal 
administrators in State agencies that are creating 50 million hours of 
work. The bipartisan goal here, again, is to try to provide at least a 
modicum of relief.
  All of us like the idea of increasing the number of teachers in 
schools. No one is opposed to that. And the funding for that has 
already been provided in the omnibus appropriations bill that was put 
into place and passed last year. But the authorization of that will be 
handled during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
consideration. And, again, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
will deal with that. This is not the place to do it, and that is why we 
did not provide waivers to make a nongermane amendment in order.
  Now, some have also raised questions, I know, about the 5-hour cap on 
the time. The request of the committee was that we have a 3-hour 
outside time limit, and we expanded that to 5 hours. It seems to me 
that that is the right thing to do.
  My very good friend from South Boston, in conversations we have had, 
raised concerns about the snowstorm. I realize that that has created a 
challenge for more than a few Members on both sides of the aisle. But 
as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said in her opening statement, 
I announced last Thursday that we would quite possibly have a 
preprinting requirement in this measure. And we do have amazing 
technology today. It is known as the web. We communicate through e-
mail. And a ``Dear Colleague'' letter went out informing Members of the 
fact that we were most likely going to be doing this. And so we had a 
litany of amendments that were filed, and every single germane 
amendment is, in fact, in order.
  So this does continue our pattern of very fair rules, and I believe 
it does give every Member the opportunity to participate in debate. I 
am proud of the rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to correct a statement made by the chairman of the full 
committee. There are not 112,000 public elementary schools in this 
country. There are only 61,000. And the money from this bill will be 
targeted for grades K through 3.
  So we are not talking about 112,000 schools that this money will go 
to.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to first of 
all thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my Republican 
colleague who joined with me in crafting this legislation 8 months ago. 
The gentleman from Delaware and I have worked very hard in a bipartisan 
Democrat-Republican way of trying to get this legislation brought 
before this body, and I am honored that we have it here before the 
entire 435 Members here this morning.
  I also want to say that this is bipartisan legislation not only in 
that a Democrat and Republican have drafted it, but that the President 
of the United

[[Page 4067]]

States has indicated to the National Governors' Association that he 
strongly supports it; that 50 governors, many Democrats and Republicans 
and independents, all support this legislation.
  I do want to reflect on the debate about this rule and the 5 hours on 
this rule. I think what our ranking member the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) said, using the baseball analogy, is absolutely 
accurate. We are in the first inning on education here, and I think 
that the gentlewoman's statement to the Republicans who run the 
Committee on Rules is a fair one.
  If we are going to debate Ed-Flex, and I have worked very hard on it 
for 8 months, I would hope that the Committee on Rules would come 
forward with five more bills over the next 5 and 6 and 7 months to 
adequately discuss the quality of teachers in this country; to 
adequately discuss, with floor time, school construction and the 
bonding issue and the safety in our schools, of ceilings falling down 
on children; to adequately discuss after-school programs; to adequately 
discuss the role that the Chicago public schools in reform is playing 
as a role model for other public schools.
  We could discuss and work in a bipartisan way, and I hope we do. I 
worry that we might not, but I hope we do. I hope we do not emulate 
what the Senate is mired down in. I hope we will work together in a 
host of these different areas over the ensuing 20 months.
  Now, what brings us to this legislation today? Abraham Lincoln, I 
think, said it very, very well 130 years ago. He said, ``Every American 
son and daughter, to the best that the rules and the laws can avail it, 
is entitled to a fair start in the race of life.'' A fair start in the 
race of life for every American son and daughter.
  When we look at our public school system, we have some great schools 
and great teachers, and we have some schools that are not performing 
well enough for so many of our children. This Congress needs to come 
together, with Democrats and Republicans working together on fair rules 
and new legislation, to address the number one issue in America today: 
reforming and boldly improving public education.
  This Ed-Flex bill is an old value and a new idea. The old value is 
local control. It is embracing the concept of teachers and parents and 
local communities controlling what goes on in our schools. And the new 
idea is flexibility. The status quo has not worked, so we are not 
giving out reams of paperwork and all kinds of data that the schools 
have to send back to Washington, D.C. We will not handcuff the schools 
with new regulations, but we have a rope, not a string of 
accountability, but a rope of accountability tied to student 
performance. And that is a strong rope.
  How did we get here? Well, we looked at 12 States, 12 States that 
have had this program, this flexibility, for 4\1/2\ years. States like 
Texas and Maryland and Ohio are doing a very good job with this 
program, and we will talk more about their success. If the other 38 
States can live up to the eligibility and assessment requirements that 
we outline in this bill, that are tougher than current law for 
eligibility and assessment, tougher than current law, then the other 
States will be eligible.
  Finally, there is a very, very sensitive nexus coming together here, 
a sensitive synergy between sensibility and between accountability. We 
think we have worked hard for the last 8 months for an old value, a new 
idea, a third way of coming together to change the status quo and to 
boldly and creatively reform our public education system. I hope that 
my colleagues will support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me 
such a generous amount of time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Sanibel Island, Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I rise in 
support of this fair, modified open rule. This is a very targeted 
bipartisan bill, and this rule provides ample opportunity for debate 
and amendment. It is not all there is to be said on the subject of 
education, but it is a very excellent place to start on a targeted 
basis.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, or Ed-Flex as we 
call it, is a step towards local control, away from the dictates of 
Washington. We all know education is a priority interest in our Nation 
today. It needs to be. We are not doing as well as we need to be. But 
education is not about what Washington does. It is about teaching 
students. It is about students learning. Ed-Flex will empower our 
school districts with the ability to undertake more effective and 
innovative reform measures and do what works best for them in their 
schools.
  For too long schools districts have had to operate within the 
confines of Federal programs, which often act as an obstruction, 
despite our best intentions here, but an obstruction rather than an 
aid. While I would prefer to remove these restrictions all together, 
providing a waiver process for all States is at least an incremental 
step in the right direction. Ed-Flex will extend to all 50 States the 
option to waive certain Federal and State regulations in exchange for 
increased accountability and results. Accountability. That is what 
Americans are asking for.
  It seems to me that the best people to determine what our kids need 
are not Federal bureaucrats but the folks down at the district level 
who are directly accountable to parents and involved at the front 
lines. During the past 3 decades, Washington has attempted to 
micromanage our schools, without very much success, it seems.
  There is a role for the Federal Government to play in public 
education, I agree, but it must be very balanced and it must be very 
careful. Ed-Flex will give our local districts the opportunity to make 
the most of Federal and State resources by giving them the freedom to 
tailor existing Federal programs to the specific needs of their 
students.
  At the same time, we do not have to exchange flexibility for 
accountability. States that wish to participate will have to provide 
clear achievement objectives and then produce solid academic outcomes. 
We remove the red tape, not the accountability in this piece of 
legislation.
  I am encouraged by the results of the States that are already 
participating in Ed-Flex, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged 
students. Something is working here. It is my hope that we will agree 
to extend this opportunity for success to all our schools and to all 
Americans. They deserve it.
  There is a wide variety of opinion and debate on education, and there 
will certainly be times when Republicans and Democrats, liberals and 
conservatives have legitimate disagreements. This should not be one of 
those times.
  We have a good rule today to get this issue on the floor and to get 
this matter underway so it is available to our students sooner rather 
than later. Other issues, that obviously we wish to address, we have 
assurances from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that he 
will be bringing them forward, and we look forward to those as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  As my colleagues know, I am a cosponsor of Ed-Flex. I support Ed-Flex 
because it provides local school districts with flexibility and freedom 
from unnecessary Federal regulation.
  I also believe in assisting schools and school districts so that they 
have the resources to exercise that flexibility. Real flexibility, not 
the illusion of flexibility. That is why the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Clay) and I are offering our amendment to the Ed-Flex bill. 
Basically, to put more education into Ed-Flex.
  Our amendment will establish an additional 6-year authorization to 
reduce class size by hiring 100,000 qualified teachers. Last year 
Congress made a downpayment on the administration's plan to hire 
100,000 new teachers over a period of 7 years in order to reduce 
average class size to 18 students in grades 1 through 3. But that was 
only a downpayment.

[[Page 4068]]

  Unfortunately, the leadership of this House, when it comes time to 
provide for the remaining 6 years of class size reduction, is leaving 
school districts and education boards across America in budgetary 
limbo. They engage in the politics of parliamentary maneuver rather 
than passing this urgent priority. They employ the tactics of 
obstruction rather than the healing of true bipartisanship.
  To borrow a phrase from Martin Luther King, Jr., ``When the children 
of America come back to this House to redeem our promissory note for a 
good education,' the House leadership would stamp it 'insufficient 
funds'.'' Smaller classes improve classroom discipline and order.
  Smaller classes promote quality learning time. Smaller classes 
improve student performance. We all know that. But as we debate, 
schools across America are drawing up budgets for next year. They are 
determining the quality of education that our children will have for 
that year. These young children will have only one pass at getting a 
first-rate education. They will have only one chance to go through 
first grade. They will only have one chance to go through second grade. 
They will have only one chance to go through third grade. A year lost 
in a child's life is a year lost forever. While we are debating 
parliamentary procedure, they are losing their chance for a better 
education.

                              {time}  1200

  So when America's schoolchildren come to redeem our promise, let us 
make good on it. I urge my colleagues to vote now for smaller class 
size, before we spend any more of our children's precious and 
irreplaceable time. I urge my colleagues to vote no against the 
leadership's parliamentary blockade. I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
in favor of our children. Let us have a full and fair debate on class 
size reduction today.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the 
subcommittee and coauthor of this bill along with the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. CASTLE. Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentlewoman 
from Ohio for yielding me this time and for the opportunity to debate 
this bill. I would also like to thank all the staff that has worked 
very hard on this bill. We have done it under a fairly intense 
schedule. We are pleased to have it to the floor today. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has eased the way to this in so many 
ways, and we are very appreciative of that. Of course my fellow 
cosponsor, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) whose words I 
listened to very carefully and with which I agree. I am sure the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) probably feels this way, too, but 
if we debated education every week, I would be happy here and if we 
cannot bring these issues up today, perhaps we could bring them up some 
other time. The bottom line is that it is very important to all of us.
  I have never been one of those who believes that Republicans are 
totally right in education and Democrats are totally wrong on 
education. It is my belief that virtually everybody in this Chamber 
would like to improve the education of our young people in this 
country. My view is that this piece of legislation, which I think has 
been a little bit overemphasized as being more complex than it is, this 
bill of education flexibility, is a relatively simple measure by which 
we are giving to the States and the local districts the ability to work 
together so that when some Federal programs come up which have 
complexities or have administrative problems or paperwork problems, 
they can step in and make decisions as to how to manage it differently. 
That is what it is really all about. That is why all 50 governors, 
remember, two of them are Independents, the rest are Democrats and 
Republicans, that is why all 50 governors in this country support it as 
it is. And it is why most of the education groups in this country 
support it as it is.
  Now, we have heard discussions today about more teachers. That is a 
legitimate discussion. We already, by the way, supply a lot of teachers 
under title I at the Federal level which some people do not realize, 
but in terms of more teachers, yes, that is a discussion that we should 
have. I frankly do not think it should be on this bill. It truly is not 
germane to this simple bill that everybody wants to get passed that 
really has nothing to do with this in particular. It has something to 
do with education, sure, and we will do that on an appropriation bill 
or on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The same thing with title I, to help disadvantaged students, 
particularly lower income students. Again, I have a tremendous amount 
of sympathy for that. The reason I like the ed flex bill is it has 
probably been the first measure in the 12 States which have done this 
as a pilot project in which we have seen true measurable improvement in 
title I outcomes. That has happened in Texas and Maryland. That is a 
wonderful bottom line that I think that we need to focus on and to make 
part of the ed flex package as we send it on to the President of the 
United States.
  There is an amendment for after-school programs. I am one who is 
advocating after-school programs, but unfortunately this is not the 
place for that. So we are dealing with a relatively simple bill.
  I cannot tell you what happened in the Senate. I mean, it is all 
tangled up there. It is too bad that it is. We are dealing with a bill 
which helps the people we want to help, the children of our country, 
and gives them a greater opportunity in terms of their education. It is 
and should be a clean, stand-alone education flexibility bill.
  I was just on a conference call with some governors. They repeated 
that. They want maximum flexibility. We have 23 amendments. We are 
going to work out two or three or four of them. But frankly a lot of 
the others are restrictive in their nature. Instead of introducing 
flexibility, they are trying to remove areas from flexibility and 
trying to remove from the local school districts and the States the 
ability to carry out educating kids as best they can. My view is that 
while these in some instances are perfectly good, in most cases they do 
not apply here. I hope we would all pay attention to that.
  I think the rule is fair. It did give 5 hours to debate all of these 
amendments, some of which are duplicative, anyhow, and they had to be 
published in advance. That is fine. We know what they are. I think it 
is a rule which we should all be able to support. But I do not want 
this day to be divisive. I want us to go out of here with this bill 
passed at 6 o'clock tonight or whatever the heck it is going to be, 
having said together that we did something good for the children of 
America. That is what this bill is all about. Yes, we will debate all 
these amendments, but I hope when it is all said and done we will 
continue to pull together as Republicans and Democrats for the children 
of the country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will make in order an amendment offered in the Committee on 
Rules by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu). This amendment will provide funding to schools to help 
hire new teachers and reduce classroom size for grades one through 
three.
  Virtually all experts in the field of education agree that one of the 
single most important things that we can do to improve the education of 
our children is to reduce classroom size. This amendment will help 
schools do just that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we 
can consider this worthy legislative initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment and extraneous 
materials for the Record.

  Previous Questions for Rules on H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility 
                        Partnership Act of 1999

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

[[Page 4069]]

       ``Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider the following amendment by 
     Representative Clay of Missouri or Representative Wu of 
     Oregon. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for a division of the question. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the amendments.''
                                  ____

       At the end of the bill (H.R. 800, as reported) add the 
     following:

     SEC. 5. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.

       Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                     ``PART E--CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

     ``SEC. 6601. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Class Size Reduction Act 
     of 1999'.

     ``SEC. 6602. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds as follows:
       ``(1) Rigorous research has shown that students attending 
     small classes in the early grades make more rapid educational 
     progress than students in larger classes, and that these 
     achievement gains persist through at least the elementary 
     grades.
       ``(2) The benefits of smaller classes are greatest for 
     lower achieving, minority, poor, and inner-city children. One 
     study found that urban fourth-graders in smaller-than-average 
     classes were \3/4\ of a school year ahead of their 
     counterparts in larger-than-average classes.
       ``(3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with 
     more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction 
     and less on other tasks, cover more material effectively, and 
     are better able to work with parents to further their 
     children's education.
       ``(4) Smaller classes allow teachers to identify and work 
     more effectively with students who have learning disabilities 
     and, potentially, can reduce those students' need for special 
     education services in the later grades.
       ``(5) Students in smaller classes are able to become more 
     actively engaged in learning than their peers in large 
     classes.
       ``(6) Efforts to improve educational achievement by 
     reducing class sizes in the early grades are likely to be 
     more successful if--
       ``(A) well-prepared teachers are hired and appropriately 
     assigned to fill additional classroom positions; and
       ``(B) teachers receive intensive, continuing training in 
     working effectively in smaller classroom settings.
       ``(7) Several States have begun a serious effort to reduce 
     class sizes in the early elementary grades, but these actions 
     may be impeded by financial limitations or difficulties in 
     hiring well-prepared teachers.
       ``(8) The Federal Government can assist in this effort by 
     providing funding for class-size reductions in grades 1 
     through 3, and by helping to ensure that the new teachers 
     brought into the classroom are well prepared.

     ``SEC. 6603. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to help States and local 
     educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000 
     additional teachers over a 7-year period in order to--
       ``(1) reduce class sizes nationally, in grades 1 through 3, 
     to an average of 18 students per classroom; and
       ``(2) improve teaching in the early grades so that all 
     students can learn to read independently and well by the end 
     of the third grade.

     ``SEC. 6604. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this part, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
     $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $1,700,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, $1,735,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $2,800,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       ``(b) Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year the Secretary--
       ``(A) shall make a total of 1 percent available to the 
     Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs) and the outlying areas for activities that meet the 
     purpose of this part; and
       ``(B) shall allot to each State the same percentage of the 
     remaining funds as the percentage it received of funds 
     allocated to States for the previous fiscal year under 
     section 1122 or section 2202(b), whichever percentage is 
     greater, except that such allotments shall be ratably 
     decreased as necessary.
       ``(2) Definition of state.--In this part the term `State' 
     means each of the several States of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(c) Within State Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment 
     under this section shall distribute the amount of the 
     allotted funds to local educational agencies in the State, of 
     which--
       ``(A) 80 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such 
     local educational agencies in proportion to the number of 
     children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district 
     served by such local educational agency and are from families 
     with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by the Office 
     of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance 
     with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size 
     involved) for the most recent fiscal year for which 
     satisfactory data is available compared to the number of such 
     individuals who reside in the school districts served by all 
     the local educational agencies in the State for that fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such 
     local educational agencies in accordance with the relative 
     enrollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and private 
     nonprofit elementary schools and secondary schools in the 
     school districts within the boundaries of such agencies.
       ``(2) Award rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the 
     award to a local educational agency under this section is 
     less than the starting salary for a new teacher in that 
     agency, the State shall not make the award unless the local 
     educational agency agrees to form a consortium with not less 
     than 1 other local educational agency for the purpose of 
     reducing class size.

     ``SEC. 6605. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives funds under this part shall use such funds to carry 
     out effective approaches to reducing class size with highly 
     qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for 
     both regular and special-needs children, with particular 
     consideration given to reducing class size in the early 
     elementary grades for which research has shown class size 
     reduction is most effective.
       ``(b) Class Reduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such local educational agency may 
     pursue the goal of reducing class size through--
       ``(A) recruiting, hiring, and training certified regular 
     and special education teachers and teachers of special-needs 
     children, including teachers certified through State and 
     local alternative routes;
       ``(B) testing new teachers for academic content knowledge, 
     and to meet State certification requirements that are 
     consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 
     and
       ``(C) providing professional development to teachers, 
     including special education teachers and teachers of special-
     needs children, consistent with title II of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) Restriction.--A local educational agency may use not 
     more than a total of 15 percent of the funds received under 
     this part for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to 
     carry out activities described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     of paragraph (1), and may not use any funds received under 
     this part for fiscal year 2004 or 2005 for those activities.
       ``(3) Special rule.--A local educational agency that has 
     already reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer 
     children may use funds received under this part--
       ``(A) to make further class-size reductions in grades 1 
     through 3;
       ``(B) to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades; 
     or
       ``(C) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality, 
     including professional development activities.
       ``(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--A local educational agency 
     shall use funds under this part only to supplement, and not 
     to supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of 
     such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under 
     this part.
       ``(d) Prohibition.--No funds made available under this part 
     may be used to increase the salaries of or provide benefits 
     to (other than participation in professional development and 
     enrichment programs) teachers who are, or have been, employed 
     by the local educational agency.
       ``(e) Professional Development.--If a local educational 
     agency uses funds made available under this part for 
     professional development activities, the agency shall ensure 
     the equitable participation of private nonprofit elementary 
     and secondary schools in such activities. Section 6402 shall 
     not apply to other activities under this section.
       ``(f) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency 
     that receives funds under this part may use not more than 3 
     percent of such funds for local administrative expenses.

     ``SEC. 6606. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this part--
       ``(1) may be up to 100 percent in local educational 
     agencies with child-poverty levels of 50 percent or greater; 
     and
       ``(2) shall be no more than 65 percent for local 
     educational agencies with child-poverty rates of less than 50 
     percent.
       ``(b) Local Share.--A local educational agency shall 
     provide the non-Federal share of a project under this part 
     through cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, except 
     that if an agency has allocated funds under section 1113(c) 
     to one or more schoolwide programs under section 1114, it may 
     use those funds for the non-Federal share of activities under 
     this program that benefit those schoolwide programs, to the 
     extent

[[Page 4070]]

     consistent with section 1120A(c) and notwithstanding section 
     1114(a)(3)(B).

     ``SEC. 6607. REQUEST FOR FUNDS.

       ``Each local educational agency that desires to receive 
     funds under this part shall include in the application 
     submitted under section 6303 a description of the agency's 
     program under this part to reduce class size by hiring 
     additional highly qualified teachers.

     ``SEC. 6608. REPORTS.

       ``(a) State.--Each State receiving funds under this part 
     shall report on activities in the State under this section, 
     consistent with section 6202(a)(2).
       ``(b) School.--Each school receiving assistance under this 
     part, or the local educational agency serving that school, 
     shall produce an annual report to parents, the general 
     public, and the State educational agency, in easily 
     understandable language, regarding student achievement that 
     is a result of hiring additional highly qualified teachers 
     and reducing class size.''.

  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, the fact is that defeating the previous question for the 
purpose of adding the 100,000 teachers amendment would be futile. It is 
not germane. And the rule amendment is not allowed under the rules of 
the House.
  I urge my colleagues to focus on the issue at hand, which is the ed 
flex bill and the rule governing its consideration. All Members should 
vote ``yes'' on the previous question.
  I would like to remind my colleagues of the strong bipartisan support 
of the ed flex bill. H.R. 800 has the support of, in addition to many 
Members on the other side of the aisle, the National School Board 
Association, the Association of School Administrators, the Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Education Association, and once again all 50 
governors.
  I urge my colleagues to set politics aside and think of the kids who 
need us to open the doors to a better future through education. Let us 
move forward together to respond to the needs of our States, our local 
communities, but most importantly our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable rule so 
we can move expeditiously toward passage of the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
modified closed rule for H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act. I believe that this rule prevents the introduction of 
an important amendment, the Clay-Wu amendment for class size reduction.
  Last year by making a $1.2 billion appropriation, Congress made a 
commitment to our schools to reduce class size over the next 7 years. 
We also committed ourselves to hiring 100,000 more teachers to make 
that goal of smaller classes a reality. By not allowing this amendment 
to be considered in this modified rule, we are not keeping our promise.
  This amendment resolves that Congress should set aside the necessary 
funds to continue on our quest to hire 100,000 new teachers. This was 
an important aspect of the Unified Democratic Agenda that was 
introduced last week. We cannot renege on our promise to our children.
  The Ed Flex Bill purports to boost the academic achievement of our 
children. By removing certain federal programs, state and local 
agencies would be able to reform and improve education. However, 
without an initiative to decrease class sizes and to hire more teachers 
through this amendment, no amount of local reform will ensure effective 
learning.
  This amendment would allow us to continue our commitment to the 
education of our children by setting aside at least $1.2 billion again 
to hire more teachers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this modified 
closed rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 217, 
nays 198, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No 36]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     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
     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
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland

[[Page 4071]]


     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

     Archer
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Capps
     Coble
     Conyers
     Dooley
     Frost
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     McCrery
     Minge
     Ney
     Owens
     Reyes
     Roukema
     Sherman
     Taylor (NC)

                              {time}  1230

  Messrs. GORDON, BISHOP, and ROTHMAN, and Ms. BERKLEY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 36, I was 
unavoidably detained in my congressional district due to weather 
constraints. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this 
vote to pass H. Res. 100.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 36, on ordering the 
previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 800, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________