[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9240-9262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, vouchers are a hotly debated topic throughout our 
Nation. The Michigan and California members of this House are very 
aware of this debate, having just had major ballot initiatives on 
private school vouchers recently defeated in their respective States.
  In my home State of Michigan, in fact, our private school voucher 
proposition was opposed by over two-thirds of the Michigan voters, with 
a similar vote in California. The people of those two States, which are 
quite a cross-section of America, have spoken very clearly on this 
issue.
  In committee, all private school voucher provisions were removed from 
the bill with bipartisan support. I believe that the passage of this 
amendment does jeopardize the many months of bipartisan work that have 
gone into producing this legislation. I would hope that the House would 
preserve the bipartisan support for this legislation and reject this 
amendment.

[[Page 9241]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey-Boehner-DeLay 
amendment because school choice is about one thing. It is about 
educational opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their race or 
socioeconomic status. The parents of children trapped in our most 
dangerous and failing schools are having to challenge a status quo that 
opposes those opportunities to them.
  This debate, Mr. Chairman, between the status quo and the needs of 
largely minority students is not new. Decades ago, the defenders of the 
status quo stood in the schoolhouse door and said to some, you may not 
come in. Now, the defenders of the status quo stand in the schoolhouse 
door and say to the grandchildren of many of those same Americans, you 
may not come out.
  I strongly rise in support of the Armey-Boehner-DeLay amendment in so 
much as it is part and parcel of restoring the dream of boundless 
educational opportunity for all Americans.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I do so because the very heart and soul of this bill 
includes not only public school choice in the first year of a failing 
school where students taking their tests in April and finding that they 
are failing that test in the summertime are then afforded immediate 
public school choice that September.
  We are expanding in this bill public school choice, charter schools, 
magnet schools, and then further on in the process, even opening up 
public school choice more than that for schools that go into the school 
improvement category.
  So we have full public school choice. We are looking with new vision 
and new boldness to open up more options and empower our parents to 
make more choices within the public school system.
  But this bill is also about accountability. We are saying for the 
first time in 30 years that schools must be accountable, that failure 
is no longer an option, whether it be for inner city school kids or 
suburban kids, and we are requiring them to take tests, and we are 
saying, we will invest more money to remediate the kids if they fail a 
test, but we want to know where they are with these tests. We are going 
to strengthen accountability.
  This amendment has no accountability in it. We take the money with 
the voucher from the public school to a private school, and then there 
is no accountability there. No test, no trail, no nothing. As a 
student, as somebody who went to Catholic schools, I am not sure that 
we want those Catholic schools having to be accountable to the 
government for curriculum, for testing, for other things.
  So on accountability, this amendment fails. I think in terms of 
public school choice, we are opening that up, I think this amendment 
fails.
  Finally, this amendment would allow us the per-pupil expenditure 
under title I. That would be the whopping figure of about $639 for a 
voucher. Now, we defeated $1,500 in committee. This would be less than 
half that and would really not even get you in the classroom, let alone 
the front door of the school.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge bipartisan defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for just a moment's comment to the previous speaker.
  The amendment does, in fact, have accountability tests in several of 
the crucial academic areas. But, the gentleman is right, we do not ask 
the Catholic schools to be accountable to the government, we ask them 
to be accountable to the parents, the parents that love their child 
enough to find out how the school is doing by my child, care enough 
about the child to move the child, and certainly are more interested in 
that child's well-being than anybody in this government throughout the 
remainder of that child's life. That school will be accountable to that 
parent, and the gentleman can comment on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding, and I thank him for bringing forward this amendment.
  I think the debate and the discussion that I just heard really does 
crystallize the exact debate as to where we need to hold and what 
accountability really is.
  The President's plan originally talked about flexibility, it talked 
about accountability, and the accountability was to the Federal 
Government. What this amendment says is that there is another 
accountability. It is the accountability of schools, teachers, to 
parents. To claim that there is not accountability there, this 
amendment is absolutely false.

                              {time}  1215

  This is empowering parents and will force schools to be accountable 
not to a bureaucrat in Washington, not to a bureaucrat in the 
Department of Education, and not to a bureaucratic test that is 
mandated out of Washington.
  We know a lot about this Department of Education. If we talk about 
accountability, we are talking about holding schools in Holland, 
Michigan, in my district, accountable, when at the same time Congress 
continues to back away from holding the Department of Education 
accountable for their $40 billion that they cannot get a clean audit 
on, and were not willing to allow parents to make the decisions about 
their kids.
  Let us recognize through this process that by empowering parents we 
are moving accountability to exactly where it should be. We are moving 
it away from the Department of Education, we are moving it away from 
Washington, we are moving it away from our State capitals, we are 
moving it around the kitchen table, where parents can make the decision 
as to what school and what school environment most effectively meets 
the needs of their children.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I agree, 
and it has been a priority of mine, to improve American schools; and it 
should be our top priority. I truly believe in the title of this bill, 
which is to leave no child behind. This amendment goes in absolutely 
the opposite direction.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, as has been noted, does improve our 
Nation's schools without vouchers. It includes several additional 
options for students in schools that fail to improve, including public 
school choice, access to after-school supplemental tutoring services.
  In addition, the schools that fail to improve will be subject to 
consequences. That may include turning the school into a charter school 
or a takeover by the State. These provisions ensure that no child will 
be left behind in a failing school, and that scarce educational 
resources will be used effectively and efficiently to improve schools, 
and I want to stress this, for all students, not a small, select few.
  If this amendment passes, our ability to help public schools improve 
will be significantly hindered. It will be taking money away from the 
system; and even worse, the vast majority of the students will be left 
behind in failing public schools.
  How can we in good conscience select a few people from the failing 
schools to receive vouchers and leave the rest of the children behind? 
While, I am not a lawyer; aside from the unfairness of this, I would 
also say that if this amendment were ever to pass and this were in the 
bill, I am very confident that there would be court cases denying this 
because of discrimination and the limitations on the voucher system. 
This would then ultimately become an ``entitlement.''

[[Page 9242]]

  The bottom line is that vouchers will reduce financial support for 
the vast majority to support only a select few and will definitely open 
up significant legal obstacles. I say, leave no child behind.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Armey-Boehner-
DeLay amendment to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
  But before I speak about this amendment, I want to commend President 
Bush for keeping another of his promises by making education reform a 
top priority in his administration.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for 
his hard work on House Resolution 1 in keeping education a priority in 
this 107th Congress. In addition, I want to thank those members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce for their hard work.
  Many of the provisions of H.R. 1 are good, particularly those that 
would increase flexibility for the State and local school districts, 
the families, the parents; reduce the Federal bureaucracy; encourage 
and improve teacher quality; and ensure that the basic math, science, 
and literacy tests are adequately funded.
  H.R. 1 would also allow parents the option of transferring their 
children out of public schools that refuse to improve failing 
performances and to other public schools within the same district, a 
measure I support.
  However, decisions as important as educating our youth should not be 
restricted only to public schools. Lower-income American families 
concerned about the quality and safety of their children in public 
schools should not be left behind. Just as many families who can afford 
it, they should be allowed to send their children to schools of their 
choice, whether it be public, private, or religious.
  National opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans 
support private school choice. The Armey-Boehner-DeLay amendment would 
do just that, if a school fails to make adequate yearly progress for 3 
years in a row.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it 
provides a disingenuous solution to an indisputable problem.
  It is indisputable that there are many children attending subpar 
schools throughout this country, but I want Members to think about the 
solution this amendment proposes. It says that children who go to a 
school where most of the kids fail a test year after year after year 
can eventually leave that school and take a bit of money with them and 
then attend a private school where the same testing will not be 
imposed.
  Now, this amendment says there will be comparable tests, but not the 
same one. See, it is okay to justify people leaving a public school 
with public money to go to a private school because they could not 
perform on a standardized test, but then the amendment says that we 
will not give that same standardized test once the child gets to the 
private school. It only has to be comparable.
  This amendment is an invitation to school fraud, not school choice. 
It will create a marketplace of fly-by-night institutions posing as 
legitimate schools simply to sop up this new Federal voucher that will 
be out there. It will degrade the well-earned reputation of legitimate 
private schools sponsored by religious and other organizations around 
the country.
  The real solution is what is in the underlying bill: evaluate 
schools, find out what they are doing wrong, improve what they are 
doing wrong, and ultimately, replace the managers who will not make the 
changes that will make the schools better.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  My daughter is about to turn 1 year old. It reminds me how fleeting 
childhood is, how brief is that moment in a child's life to have the 
opportunity to get the education that a child needs to have the 
opportunity to live a good life and to have all the opportunities to 
build a better life that we take for granted.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment today really is not for our kids. It is 
not for affluent children growing up in affluent homes. They have 
choice. They can move to the school district of their choice; and if 
they do not like that, they can afford to pay their property taxes and 
pay a tuition for the private school of their choice.
  This amendment is for the majority of kids, our constituents who grow 
up in families where they do not have the luxury that that wealth 
provides. They have the fewest opportunities. They have the most 
disadvantages.
  All this amendment says is if those children are stuck in a school 
that is chronically failing, if they are languishing in a school for 3 
years that is not teaching them, then those parents ought to be free to 
move that child to a school that will work.
  It is amazing to me that opponents of this amendment can say that a 
poor child with few opportunities who is stuck and languishing in a 
school that is not teaching him will force him to stay in that school. 
That is what the opponents are saying. I just do not know how we can do 
that, with good conscience.
  I know there are powerful special interests that have personal stakes 
in maintaining the monopoly that they currently have. They do not want 
any kind of competition to upset what they have going. But frankly, the 
special interests are not the children's interests.
  I just have to ask my colleagues not to block the schoolhouse door 
from the kids who do not have access to the educational opportunities 
that they deserve.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for offering 
this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to think about all those 
kids that are in schools that are failing. There are great public 
schools, but we know there are a lot of schools that are not working. 
There are a lot of kids that are not getting the education they need 
and deserve. This amendment would help the kids who need that help the 
most. I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding 
time to me, Mr. Chairman.
  There has been a lot of talk on the floor about access; but unlike 
public schools, which serve all children, private schools are not 
obligated to accept any student. Students that are the most vulnerable 
and the more difficult and expensive to educate are left out.
  In fact, the Department of Education report shows that if required to 
accept special needs students, 85 percent of the private schools said 
they would not even participate in a voucher program. It is wrong to 
divert critical funding from our public schools, especially when all 
children will not have equal access.
  Now, in the areas, the cities that have had voucher programs like 
Milwaukee and Cleveland, the effectiveness has been inconclusive, at 
best, in terms of the results for the student achievement. However, 
what these cities have shown is that vouchers have led to greater class 
and race segregation in the classrooms, they are draining significant 
financial resources from public schools, and are primarily serving 
students already in the private school system.
  This committee has labored to provide more accountability and more 
public school choice. It is a dramatic step backward to adopt voucher 
amendments. I strongly urge the House to reject them both.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 
the debate time extended by 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?

[[Page 9243]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey school choice 
amendment. I will tell the Members why. As Members of Congress, we 
already have private school choice, that is, if our children are 
trapped in a failing public school, we have the resources to get them 
out.
  Why is it that the D.C. public schools are not good enough for the 
children of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, but somehow they are good enough 
for the low-income African American kids trapped in these failing 
schools? It defies common sense and logic.
  This is not a complex issue at all. The opponents of school choice 
say it will bankrupt the public schools. The supporters of school 
choice say no, it will cause public schools to improve. Who is right 
there?
  All I can tell the Members is that in Florida in 1998, we passed 
almost the identical law under Governor Jeb Bush. What happened as a 
result? We went from 78 F-rated schools to only four F-rated schools. 
One of the schools in my district, Orlo Vista, went from 30 percent of 
the kids passing the standardized test to 79 percent of the kids 
passing. Another school district, Dixon Elementary, went from 28 
percent of the kids passing to 94 percent in 1 year. It improved public 
schools by competition.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Armey school choice 
amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). At a time when public 
schools are struggling to rebuild antiquated and crumbling school 
facilities and deal with a record enrollment of over 52 million 
students, we should not be considering proposals that divert scarce 
taxpayer dollars from our public school systems to subsidize private 
and religious schools.
  While school vouchers may benefit a small minority of children who 
have the option of attending a private or parochial school, school 
vouchers will ultimately condemn the vast majority of our children to 
an inferior education as a result of the shift in tax dollars from 
public education to private.
  This voucher proposal provides a select few a way out of the public 
school system while abandoning the vast majority of our children to 
underfunded and overcrowded schools. The hardest hit will be low-
income, inner-city children who are already suffering from a lack of 
quality educational opportunity.
  Rather than defunding public schools, we need to be reinvesting in 
public schools. Our children's future success in the Information Age 
will depend on their ability to receive a quality education, and school 
vouchers are a nonanswer to that challenge.

                              {time}  1230

  School vouchers are an attack against public education and an attack 
against our children. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Armey amendment, 
which restores all private school choice provisions back into H.R. 1. 
We are about to start testing our schools to gauge their success at 
educating our children. But what is the impetus for them to change if 
parents cannot take their children to better schools?
  Many of America's children are stuck in failing schools and are being 
deprived of a better future because they have nowhere else to go. This 
amendment provides the means for parents to rescue their children from 
failing schools and send them to institutions that will successfully 
equip them for the future.
  School choice is the heart of this educational reform, and it is 
successful as Milwaukee's school choice program has proven. Yet 
opponents of school choice are kowtowing to teacher unions and thus 
sacrificing the future of our children on the altar of politics.
  Support the Armey amendment and rescue our children from failing 
schools that are depriving them of successful lives.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a sound public school system is the 
backbone of our Nation, and it is the way to prepare all children for 
the high-skill, high-wage jobs that will ensure America's leadership in 
the world marketplace and will prevent at the same time dependency on 
welfare here at home.
  Public education is the backbone of our country. It is why we are a 
great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not 
discriminate, and it must be strengthened, not weakened.
  Why is it that voucher supporters go on and on about our poor-
performing public schools and do not have a plan to make all schools 
the best in the world? Instead, they support vouchers that take 
precious education dollars out of our public school system and give 
them to private and religious schools.
  I have no quarrel with private schools, but we cannot forget that 
private schools are allowed to self-select their student body, while 
public schools educate all students.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak up for public education in America. 
Sure, it is not perfect. Democratic amendments would have helped in 
this bill, amendments that were not made in order. These amendments 
would have improved the public school system by reducing class size and 
repairing old school buildings.
  This amendment does not improve public education. It should be 
defeated. If it passes, then H.R. 1 must be defeated.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the only 
provision that would offer hope to low-income children trapped in 
failing schools.
  The underlying bill will provide, in my opinion, only marginal 
improvement, if any, to public education.
  Public schools are a monopoly, and they face little to no 
consequences for failure.
  If I brought a bill to this floor proposing we put restaurants and 
supermarkets in the control of the government, nobody would support it, 
because everybody knows quality would go down.
  We have a serious quality problem in the public education system in 
many of our poor neighborhoods and inner cities, and we are going to 
just throw a little bit more money at it; a little bit of competition 
would go much, much further to help the problem.
  We have seen what happened in Florida with Governor Jeb Bush's A+ 
program. We need to have it throughout our own whole country. It is the 
best hope for poor families trapped in failing school systems. It is 
not a little more testing, a little more money.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this voucher 
educational amendment. We have the responsibility to educate every one 
of our children. We have the responsibility to make sure that all of 
our children have access to education and not to deny children.
  This does not guarantee that a child will have access to private 
schools. What it will do, it will simply drain our resources from those 
schools most in need of help, while providing minimum benefits to 
students.
  It will raid the system, bleeding and hemorrhaging, when we should be 
funding education at the highest level. I say we have that 
responsibility to

[[Page 9244]]

make sure that every child receive that education. We owe it to our 
children.
  This voucher system will not guarantee that. There are different 
standards that are being proposed. Standards that are being proposed to 
the public schools that are asking us to give a test; at the private 
schools, they will not be held.
  When we talk about accountability, there will be accountability in 
our public schools. When we talk about accountability in our private 
schools, there will not be accountability.
  When we say that the parents have accountability, parents have the 
same accountability to be involved in our public schools, to make sure 
that our public schools are the best schools in the systems. We have 
that responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to vote against the voucher system 
because we want to make sure that every child has access and ability to 
go to school and learn and be all they want, and it can only happen by 
providing assistance, helping our schools become a lot better.
  Let us help our public schools. Let us improve our public schools. 
Let us get involved with public schools. Let us make them the best. Let 
us make sure that everybody has the same quality of life to enjoy, to 
be all they want to be, and we can only do that by affording that every 
child has access to our schools.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), the majority leader, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment. I have no doubt 
that every Member of this body, Mr. Chairman, wants to improve 
education for every child in America. I know people have devoted their 
lives to try to achieve that goal, and there is no doubt that there are 
many great educators, teachers, principals across the country who want 
nothing but the best for our kids.
  Just a couple of days ago I was on PS 3 on Staten Island, a great 
school, great kids, you can see the enthusiasm, not only in themselves 
and their eyes, but the teachers who want the best for those kids. But 
that is not the issue. The issue is not those kids. The issue is not 
getting access to good schools, because that is what we want and we 
guarantee.
  The issue that you have to ask yourself or present to yourself is, if 
your child is going to a failing school day after day, year after year, 
and I want to change that and someone tells you you cannot, that your 
pride and joy, your child, is forced to endure, this offers hope.
  This tells those low-income families out there that they have a 
choice; that they now have an opportunity; that they now will have 
freedom; and that they can now get a better education where they are 
not getting it now.
  The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, to those families who have little 
or no hope and are forced to endure, the families who are working, the 
parents who have two and three jobs just to pay a mortgage or the rent 
or to pay the car bill, they have no choice; all we are saying is give 
those families some hope. Give them that opportunity to send that child 
to a better school.
  I do not know what is so radical about that. What is so bad about 
that? What is so un-American about that? If anything, Mr. Chairman, I 
think what indeed is American is to provide freedom to those who do not 
have it right now.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Rivers), a member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, as a former school board member, I rise in 
opposition to this amendment and to the contention that a voucher 
program will improve public schools.
  Two hundred or 300 years ago in this country, we had a practice, a 
medical practice called bleeding. And the way it worked was when 
someone got sick, we would put leeches on the body and let blood be 
taken out. If they did not get better, we added more leeches and more 
leeches and took out more and more blood. Not surprisingly, not many 
patients got better.
  Now, this procedure was done with all the best of intentions, but a 
lot of patients died, and finally the procedure was abandoned. What 
finally helped patients move forward was new technologies and new 
treatments.
  We devoted effort and resources that ultimately produced 
pharmaceutical breakthroughs. We developed a knowledge of preventive 
behavior, things like better nutrition and healthier lifestyles.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of bleeding the public school patient dry and 
condemning it to never getting better, we should do with education as 
we did in medicine and devote our resources to new technologies, new 
intervention models and preventive programs like Head Start, title I 
and teacher instruction. After all, we want our patient to live.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
find it interesting that those who claim to support the children and 
have an interest in the children are standing up here today in support 
of a system, they are standing up here in support of a system called 
the public school system. Unfortunately, it is a very inconsistent 
system.
  My goal, and I think the goal of those who support this amendment, is 
to support the children, to give the children the best opportunity to 
have the tools that they have been given by God to be developed as much 
as they can be.
  If their parents believed that they can be developed better in a 
different school, other than the one that they live in, then they 
should have that opportunity. This is America. This is the country 
where parents and families should have the ultimate decision and 
opportunity to decide how best to use their resources and to succeed.
  We spend a lot of money on our public schools; and, unfortunately, 
the one that seems to be failing the most are the ones on which we 
spend the most dollars. We would actually save the taxpayers' money and 
save the children if we would direct a small portion of that money 
towards a school choice voucher.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I support the 
children, and I believe my colleagues who support this amendment do as 
well.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. The whole purpose of our debate on this bill, H.R. 1, is to 
reform and improve the public school system.
  We have spent a lot of time in the last few minutes talking about the 
failing schools and how by a voucher system we are going to improve the 
failing schools because we will essentially give parents the choice to 
get out.
  What is wrong with the whole system is that once we identify the 
failing schools, we do not provide enough resources.
  I argue that the tests that we are going to now require of these 
schools is simply going to target the schools that are failing with 
more bad news and insufficient resources to help them build back up and 
to becoming adequate school systems. The whole purpose of the Congress 
ought not to be in a punitive stance to try to punish these schools. 
Listen, this is tax dollars we are talking about, Federal tax dollars, 
that are going into our targeted schools that need help.
  Why should the taxpayers of America be sitting here saying that the 
Congress ought to be giving away their tax dollars to private schools? 
That is the issue. If we have public tax dollars to improve our school 
systems, it ought to be designed to pour money into the failing 
schools, give them qualified teachers, give them the resources they 
need, buy them the textbooks, improve the school structure, so it is a 
friendly environment for the students, give them the technology that 
they need,

[[Page 9245]]

provide them with the total resources of support.
  That is what we need in order to reform our system, not to send these 
dollars out to private schools where there will be absolutely no 
accountability.

                              {time}  1245

  I oppose this amendment because it is a cop-out. It is a surrender. 
We ought to be saying we are committed, as the President has said, no 
child will be left behind in the public school system. Keep them there. 
Improve these failing schools. Add the resources so that every child 
can have real opportunity in America.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to help dispel this myth that 
school choice is going to destroy our public schools.
  The evidence shows that existing schools, the programs that 
participate in them, whether they are vouchers, charter schools or tax 
credits, have had a significant and positive impact on both the public 
schools and the children that they assist.
  Time and again, from Wisconsin to Florida, schools and cities with 
choice have larger improvements on their standardized test scores than 
similar schools that do not face competition. While choice gives 
parents the ability to choose where their children go to school, it 
also gives failing schools the incentive to improve.
  This is a win-win situation for all children, but especially poor 
children who do not have the means to switch to better schools as some 
parents do today.
  I believe that school choice has, at its heart, just one simple idea, 
and that is quality education for everyone. As the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the speaker before me, just said, no child should 
be left behind. It is a concept that I will continue to work for as a 
public official, as a parent, and as a grandparent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile 
amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note first that this 
amendment represents blazing guns of an ambush of what was supposed to 
have been a bipartisan compromise. This is a partisan ambush, this 
amendment.
  We agreed several years ago that a good alternative to public 
schools, if one wanted to test them out and try to make them more 
accountable or more innovative, was charter schools. Charter schools 
was supposed to be the alternative, and not vouchers.
  Vouchers are a waste. Vouchers are fraud really. It misleads parents 
in the most frustrating situations. Nobody wants vouchers except 
frustrated parents in inner-city communities who want to have a better 
education for their children, and they have been sold this bill of 
goods. They have been swindled into thinking that vouchers are the 
answer.
  Most of them think that vouchers are going to pay the full tuition. 
They are not told that vouchers will only pay a small part of it. I 
think at most vouchers, under this system, will be able to contribute 
maximum of $1,500 in some situations, in most situations less. Tuition 
is far greater than that. The parents do not know.
  There was a woman who came before the committee who testified from 
New York. She thought she would get $8,000 per child through the 
voucher system because New York estimates it costs $8,000 per child in 
the public school system. She will not get anything near $8,000 if her 
child is in this voucher system. It is a fraud. It is a swindle. 
Frustrated parents are being victimized by high-pressure publicity 
about vouchers.
  The best way to go is charter schools. That is the noble compromise. 
Charter schools. But they do not want to go that way because charter 
schools need money for building and construction. They need the money 
for capitalization. They need the same kind of effort that we need for 
public schools. They need resources.
  This is a shortcut to get away from providing adequate resources for 
public education. We want to make everybody accountable except the 
States, the cities, and the Federal Government to provide resources. 
This is not the answer. Resources are the answer. We should be honest 
with parents and tell them that.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the majority leader for 
yielding, but even more so for bringing this amendment to us.
  As everyone here knows, this portion of the President's plan was 
taken out of the bill by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
What the majority leader is proposing to do here is restore what really 
is the heart and core of the President's Leave No Child Behind 
proposal.
  In fact, if one looks closely at the way the President had proposed 
even the testing provisions, those testing provisions are predicated on 
this particular provision that is here before us now. Because real 
accountability is a matter, not of government taking tests and telling 
us what the answers are, but it is a matter of empowering the parents 
who love their children more than anybody here in this city, and by 
empowering those parents to place their child, when armed with the data 
derived from testing, into a school that earns their confidence and 
offers more promise and more hope for their child. That is what we 
should be about.
  Mr. Chairman, just the latest reports crossed our desk within the 
last few days. Now, there are some who I suppose would not want to read 
them for the data that is contained. These are reports about voucher 
programs that exist in a variety of cities in New York and Dayton and 
D.C.
  Here is what the latest report says: ``After 2 years, African 
American students who used a voucher to enroll in a private school 
scores 6.3 percentage points higher than African American students who 
remained in public schools.'' That is in New York.
  If one goes to Charlotte, here are the results in Charlotte: ``After 
1 year, the results show that students who used a scholarship to attend 
a private school scored 5.9 percentile points higher on the math 
section of the ITBS than comparable students who remained in public 
schools. Choice students scored 6.5 percentile points higher than their 
public school counterparts in reading after 1 year.''
  In the District of Columbia, the results are also the same. The 
report says that the results ``represented a net positive swing of 17 
percentile points from 1 year to the next. An additional year of 
private schooling, in other words, is estimated to produce a staggering 
gain of about 0.9 standard deviation.''
  Remarkable gains in academic achievement from students who attend 
private schools with the help of vouchers, much the way the author of 
this amendment envisions.
  Then there is the other report that crossed our desk. I imagine most 
Members did not want to read this. This is the one from the Program on 
Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. This report 
suggests that the most obvious explanation for these findings is that 
an accountability system with vouchers as the sanction for repeated 
failure really motivates schools to improve. That is, the prospect of 
competition and education reveals competitive effects that are normally 
observed in the marketplace. Free market schooling is a good idea, and 
it should be applied to those who suffer from the worst effects of 
failing schools.
  This is the core provision of the President's bill. Failure to 
restore it really leaves little for us to support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises Members that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, has the right to 
close on this debate.

[[Page 9246]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want all my colleagues to hear and understand 
that, make no mistake about it, this is a make-or-break amendment. It 
is a make-or-break amendment as to whether all children in America will 
get access to a quality education or not. It is a make-or-break 
amendment as to whether we are going to have a truly bipartisan bill or 
whether this is going to be straight down party lines and the same old 
partisan thing.
  I urge strong opposition to this amendment for two very important 
reasons: it is bad policy, and it is so deceptive that it borders on 
the fraudulent. It is bad policy because this amendment would propose 
to strip-mine public resources away from public schools and give them 
to private institutions. I think that is wrong.
  It is deceptive because, right out here on the House steps, I was 
asked by someone, Why will you not support vouchers? I want to take a 
voucher and go to a private school. I asked that person, Well, are you 
in poverty? Because if you are not, then you are not going to be 
eligible for this program.
  I want my colleagues to know something else. Under the program as 
authorized, one would get $1,500. Under the program that is probably 
appropriate, one is going to get $500 or $600. That will pay for 
perhaps 10 percent of a parochial education. It would probably pay for 
less than 5 percent of a fully loaded private education in my hometown.
  It is very, very deceptive to think that this measure will create any 
real choices for the people that we are talking about today. It is 
deceptive. It is wrong.
  I urge all my colleagues to maintain the best bipartisan bill we can 
and oppose this amendment today.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a great Nation. We should be so proud of 
ourselves. We have taken so seriously as a Nation, as a government, as 
State governments, local governments, local school boards, principals, 
superintendents, teachers, and parents our sacred trust. The most 
important thing we do in our culture is teach our children.
  It is so important to us, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
providing for our children's education. We spend hundreds of millions 
of man hours, legislating, dictating, describing, proscribing, 
mandating, determining what these little ones will get in the 
classroom, organizing our unions, administering our schools, electing 
our school boards, writing our regulations to make sure that we know 
that they will get exactly what we think is best for their children.
  It works out pretty good for most of us. There is a couple of ugly 
spots here, 6,000 chronically failed schools registered with the 
Department of Education right now, 6,000 schools that never seem to get 
it right, 6,000 schools worth of children where all of our attention, 
all our billions, all our mandating and proscribing, legislating and 
posturing is not doing them much good. But they are there. We try not 
to notice that part.
  See, Mr. Chairman, there is an awful lot of school choice going on in 
America. Talk to any relocation office in any business in America, and 
they will tell us, when they decide between Dallas, Texas and Chicago, 
Illinois, the schools available for their employees is one of their 
first and most important considerations. It makes a difference where we 
create the jobs, how good the schools are, and we move on that basis.
  Talk to any realtor, and they will tell us one of the first things 
mom and dad ask about when they look about moving in a neighborhood is 
what are the schools like here, what are the schools like there. They 
never choose to buy the house, when they are free to choose, where the 
schools are bad. They always buy them where the schools are good.
  Good for you, mom and dad. We love our babies. When we can, we do 
choose the better school. Talk to an awful lot of people that have got 
the ways and means, and they take their children out of that public 
school. They may put them in private school. Lord, have mercy, they put 
them in religious schools. Holy mackerel. Can one imagine a government 
that will tolerate people putting their children where they are 
teaching the Bible? But they do it if they can afford it because it is 
important to them, and they love their babies, and they want it done 
right, and that is what they believe.
  Sometimes they get so frustrated with the alternatives, they teach 
their children at home. They do it. They are free to choose. We applaud 
them. Well, we have got some people here that just do not seem to have 
that good job, the college education that allows them to teach their 
own children, the opportunity for a better chance to move. They are 
stuck, and they are stuck in those schools that are registered with the 
Department of Education right now, as they have been for 10 years, as 
schools that are chronic failures.
  What we have said with this amendment, for the most distressed 
children in those most distressed schools, take your title I money 
which is allocated for distressed students, and let the parents find 
the better place. We walked away from these children in every regard. 
We never fix those schools. They are always there.
  This bill says, Mom, after your baby has been there for 3 years, you 
have a chance to do what the rich folks do. Move your child.
  Where is the heart? We give a lot of respect to ourselves. We brag 
about our good intentions. We give a great deal of deference to the 
unions. We pay a lot of regard to the school board, and we respect and 
love the teachers. But in the end, there is not a school in America 
that is about any one of them. The school is not about the kid. The 
school is about nothing.

                              {time}  1300

  I tell my colleagues that there is no mother in America that should 
be made to say to her baby, look, I know that school will never get it 
right, you have been there for 3 years and it is not getting any 
better, but you have got to go back. To say to your child, I know you 
had an act of violence committed against you in that school, I know you 
are frightened, but you have got to go back.
  I would not say that. There is nobody in this Chamber that would say 
that to their child. But here we are saying, if we vote against this 
amendment, we are telling that heartbroken mother that has to look at 
our baby and say, honey, go back and make the best of it, because that 
is all I am able to do, that we have nothing to offer her.
  Now, I know that mother, I have talked to that mother. I have seen 
that mother when she has looked at her baby and said, honey, there is 
nothing I can do, I just cannot find it. And I have seen that mother 
when she has gotten just a little tiny scholarship, one that did not 
pay it all but one that said to her, if I get a second job, I can make 
up the difference and I can put my baby in a better school.
  And I have seen that mother look at her baby with the love that 
mothers have for their children, and I have seen her say, honey, we 
have just gone from despair to hope because somebody is willing to 
share.
  I do not ask much from this Chamber. I am not asking for a great 
deal. I am just saying for that most concerned mother, that most 
distressed child, stuck in the most failed school, chronically, for 3 
years, and feels frightened, scared, neglected and abused, that today 
has no hope whatsoever, give them that chance to choose as we have 
chosen, to take their baby from harm's way and put their baby in front 
of a ray of hope with loving teachers.
  And if those teachers be nuns, that is fine with me. Because the nuns 
know something that most of the public schools should learn, and that 
is, that if you love a child, you can discipline a child; and if you 
love and discipline a child, you can teach a child; and you can grow 
from a baby, boy, a man, who will be happy and successful in their own 
life and a blessing in the lives of others.
  This amendment is about that dream. If there is a mother in this 
Chamber who does not hold that dream for their baby first, then let 
that mother vote ``no'' on this amendment.

[[Page 9247]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, America does something that no other country in the 
world does: It makes a commitment to a child born in this Nation that 
we will provide them a public education. A free education. We have been 
doing it throughout most of the history of this country, and we have 
done a remarkable job. Not a perfect job, not a job that is acceptable 
to all of us, but we have done a remarkable job. No other country in 
history has attempted to do what we do here, to take children from any 
background, to take children of any status and say we commit to them 
that we are going to provide them an education.
  What has been the result of that basic foundation of American 
society? The basic foundation of American society. The result is the 
greatest economy in the history of the world; more patents, more 
inventions than any country in the world, the freest country in the 
world, the greatest democracy in the world, a public discourse, and 
more tolerance than any other country in the world. That is not to 
suggest the landscape in America is perfect; that it does not have its 
problems; that we do not have our pockets of trouble. We do. We do.
  But to come along now and to suggest that we are going to start 
draining the resources from the public school education system in this 
country so that we can hold out to somebody the idea that they are 
going to go and take that $500, and they are going to get a private 
school education is simply to mislead those individuals. It is simply 
to mislead those individuals. The harm it does is in draining the 
resources that are necessary.
  We recognize in this legislation, the President of the United States 
recognizes in this legislation, Democrats recognize in this 
legislation, and Republicans recognize in this legislation that there 
are schools that are failing. We make a commitment to fix the failing 
schools; not run away from them, not leave children behind in those 
schools, but to fix those schools. That is our obligation. That is the 
bedrock of this Nation. That is what distinguishes us in so many ways. 
We should not give up on that now and turn tail and run.
  In this bill we provide the resources so that we can fix those 
schools. That is what this President has said he wanted to do. This 
Congress took him at his word. Those resources were put into this 
legislation. And now we are going to find out, because governors are on 
notice and school boards are on notice and parents are on notice.
  We should not give up on a system that has done something that no 
other country in the world has done, and has given us what America 
enjoys and benefits from today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed 
in House Report 107-69.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 16.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Armey:
       After part C of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 421 of the bill, 
     add the following:

                  PART D--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FUND

     SEC. 431. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FUND.

       Title IV is amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``PART D--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FUND

     ``SEC. 4411. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to determine the 
     effectiveness of school choice in improving the academic 
     achievement of disadvantaged students and the overall quality 
     of public schools and local educational agencies.

     ``SEC. 4412. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to make competitive awards to 
     eligible entities to carry out and evaluate, through 
     contracts or grants, not more than 5 research projects that 
     demonstrate how school choice options increase the academic 
     achievement of students, schools, and local educational 
     agencies.

     ``SEC. 4413. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``For purposes of this part an eligible entity is--
       ``(1) a State educational agency;
       ``(2) a county agency;
       ``(3) a municipal agency;
       ``(4) a local educational agency;
       ``(5) a nonprofit corporation; or
       ``(6) a consortia thereof.

     ``SEC. 4414. APPLICATIONS.

       ``Each eligible entity desiring an award under this part 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary that shall 
     include--
       ``(1) a description of the proposed research project, 
     including a designation from which local educational agency 
     or agencies eligible students will be selected to participate 
     in a choice program;
       ``(2) a description of the annual costs of the project;
       ``(3) a description of the research design that the 
     eligible entity will employ in carrying out the project;
       ``(4) a description of the project evaluation that will be 
     conducted by an independent third party entity, including--
       ``(A) the name and qualifications of the independent entity 
     that will conduct the evaluation; and
       ``(B) a description of how the evaluation will measure the 
     academic achievement of students participating in the 
     program, parental satisfaction and the effect of the project 
     on the schools and agencies designated in paragraph (1);
       ``(5) a description of how the eligible entity will ensure 
     the participation of students selected for the control group;
       ``(6) a description of the assessment that the eligible 
     entity will use to assess annually the progress of 
     participants in the research project in grades 3 through 8 in 
     mathematics and reading and how it is comparable to 
     assessments used by the agency or agencies described under 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(7) an assurance that the eligible entity will assess all 
     students that are participating in the program or in the 
     control group at the beginning of the project;
       ``(8) an assurance that the eligible entity will report 
     annually to the Secretary on the impact of the project on 
     student achievement, including a discussion of the meaning 
     and an attestation of validity of the achievement data;
       ``(9) an assurance that, if the number of students applying 
     to participate in the project is greater than the number of 
     students the project can serve, participants will be selected 
     by lottery;
       ``(10) a description of how the amount that will be 
     provided directly to students for tuition, fees, 
     transportation, or supplemental services will be determined;
       ``(11) an assurance that schools participating under this 
     part will abide by the nondiscrimination requirements set 
     forth in section 4419;
       ``(12) an assurance that eligible students receiving 
     assistance under this part will not be defined by reference 
     to religion and that grants will be allocated on the basis of 
     neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor 
     religion, and will be made available to children attending 
     secular and nonsecular institutions on a nondiscriminatory 
     basis; and
       ``(13) an assurance that no private school will be required 
     to participate in the project without its consent.

     ``SEC. 4415. PRIORITIES.

       ``In awarding grants under this program, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to applications that--
       ``(1) provide students and families with the widest range 
     of educational options;
       ``(2) target resources to students and families that lack 
     the financial resources to take advantage of available 
     educational options;
       ``(3) are of sufficient size to have a significant impact 
     on the public and private schools of the community that the 
     project serves;
       ``(4) propose using rigorous methodologies and third party 
     evaluators with experience in evaluating school choice 
     proposals; and
       ``(5) propose serving students of varying age and grade 
     levels.

[[Page 9248]]



     ``SEC. 4416. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--A grantee may reserve up to 10 percent 
     of its award for research and evaluation activities, of which 
     not more than 2 percent may be used for administrative 
     purposes.
       ``(b) Grants to Students.--A grantee shall use at least 90 
     percent of its award to provide grants to eligible students, 
     who shall use the grants to--
       ``(1) pay the eligible educational expenses, including 
     tuition, fees, and transportation expenses required to attend 
     the school of their choice, but in no event more than $5,000 
     per student; or
       ``(2) purchase supplemental educational services.
       ``(c) Assistance.--All grants provided to students under 
     this part shall be considered assistance to students rather 
     than to schools.

     ``SEC. 4417. ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.

       ``For purposes of the activities funded under this part, an 
     eligible student is defined as a student who--
       ``(1) is eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch subsidy 
     under the National School Lunch program; and
       ``(2) attended a public elementary or secondary school or 
     was not yet of school age in the year preceding participation 
     in this program.

     ``SEC. 4418. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each grantee receiving an award under 
     this program shall, beginning with the second year of the 
     project, report annually to the Secretary regarding--
       ``(1) the activities carried out during the preceding 12 
     months with program funds; and
       ``(2) the results of the assessments given to students 
     participating in the program and students selected for the 
     control group.
       ``(b) Performance Reports.--In addition, each grantee 
     shall, in the third year of the research project, report 
     annually to the Secretary regarding--
       ``(1) the academic performance of students participating in 
     the project; and
       ``(2) parental satisfaction; and
       ``(3) changes in the overall performance and quality of 
     public and private elementary and secondary schools affected 
     by the project, as well as other indicators such as teacher 
     quality, innovative reforms, or special programs.
       ``(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees an annual report on 
     the findings of the reports submitted under subsections (a) 
     and (b), and include the comments of the independent review 
     panel in accordance with section 4420(c)(2).

     ``SEC. 4419. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       ``(a) In General.--A private school participating in the 
     scholarship program under this part shall not discriminate on 
     the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in carrying 
     out the provisions of this part.
       ``(b) Applicability and Construction With Respect to 
     Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, subsection (a) shall not apply to a private 
     school that is controlled by a religious organization if the 
     application of subsection (a) is inconsistent with the 
     religious tenets of the private school.
       ``(2) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With 
     respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to prevent a parent from 
     choosing, or a private school from offering, a single-sex 
     school, class, or activity.
       ``(3) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to 
     require any person, or public or private entity to provide or 
     pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing 
     or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of 
     facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding 
     sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed 
     on any person or individual because such person or individual 
     is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to 
     a legal abortion.
       ``(c) Children With Disabilities.--Nothing in this part 
     shall be construed to alter or modify the provisions of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this part shall be construed 
     to prevent any eligible institution which is operated by, 
     supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious 
     organization from employing, admitting, or giving preference 
     to, persons of the same religion to the extent determined by 
     such institution to promote the religious purpose for which 
     the private school is established or maintained.
       ``(2) Sectarian purposes.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to prohibit the use of funds made available under 
     this part for sectarian educational purposes, or to require a 
     private school to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or 
     other symbols.

     ``SEC. 4420. INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     independent review panel to advise the Secretary on technical 
     and methodological issues and in overseeing the activities 
     funded under this part.
       ``(b) Membership.--The Secretary shall appoint members of 
     the independent review panel from among qualified individuals 
     who are--
       ``(A) specialists in school choice research, as well as 
     experts in statistics, evaluation, research, and assessment; 
     and
       ``(B) other individuals with technical expertise who will 
     contribute to the overall rigor and quality of the 
     evaluations.
       ``(c) Powers.--The independent review panel shall consult 
     with and advise the Secretary--
       ``(1) to ensure that the evaluations funded under this part 
     adhere to the highest possible standards of quality with 
     respect to research design and statistical analysis; and
       ``(2) to evaluate and comment on the degree to which annual 
     reports submitted in accordance with section 4418 meet the 
     requirements under paragraph (1) with such comments included 
     with the report submitted to the appropriate Congressional 
     committees.

     ``SEC. 4421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we will have the votes on both 
these amendments later. I fully expect and hope with all my heart that 
this Chamber will have the heart to pass amendment No. 15. But should 
this Chamber simply not rise to that occasion, if we should find a lack 
of love in this body with respect to that amendment, I would offer this 
amendment.
  This amendment solves the concerns we have about the money and 
introduces $50 million worth of new money to set up five demonstration 
programs where school systems can voluntarily decide would they like to 
try a choice program, a scholarship program, and families within those 
school districts can voluntarily decide would they like to participate. 
The amendment allows a chance to study the success of children who have 
this opportunity, to see if they do better when their parents exercise 
that influence over their educational life.
  We have had a lot of debate. I have heard an awful lot of opinion. 
There are a great many people that oppose the opportunities of freedom 
and choice in public education, who think my arguments are full of hot 
air; and there are a lot of arguments I heard against my great ideas 
that I think are hogwash. But in an academic setting, the logical thing 
to do is put it to the test. Let us have five small demonstration 
projects, $50 million worth of new money, and an opportunity to see the 
one question that we need to see: Does it work for the children? 
Because in the end, Mr. Chairman, it does not matter, except that it 
works for the children.
  Again, I will say if education in America is not for the children, 
education in America is lost. Do we dare, do we dare test an idea on 
behalf of children in America, an idea that says, little one, we dare 
to respect your parents?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the previous 
amendment and to this small $50 million project. Vouchers are simply 
bad business. It is bad policy for our Nation's schools.
  It is ironic that the sponsors of this legislation are fighting for 
voucher provisions while the title of the bill is Leave No Child 
Behind. If we take dollars continually out of the public school system, 
we are going to leave many, many children behind.
  My objection to the voucher plans are multilayered and logical. 
First, there is an important question of accountability for the public 
expenditure of public money.
  Secondly, the dollar amount that the President requests would average 
about only $1,500 per student to spend on alternative education. This 
is far

[[Page 9249]]

from enough money. We would be better off fixing the schools that are 
failing so that all of the students would benefit, not just a handful 
here and a handful there.
  Third, the results from current voucher plans are mixed. I heard the 
other side talk about how great they were and everybody were winners. 
For example, a State-sponsored independent review of Cleveland's 
voucher program found there was no significant advancement made between 
the students who used the vouchers and students who did not. So this 
panacea that we are talking about may not be what we hear on this other 
side.
  Lastly, a serious question of the constitutionality of using public 
money for religious schools surfaces in this debate, Mr. Chairman. We 
would be much better off using this time to discuss proven, effective 
ways to educate our children, like the Harriet Tubman School in Newark 
that I know about, and the Ann Street School in Newark that are public 
schools that are working so that we can lower class size, improve 
teaching quality, and have more Federal resources for improving the 
physical structure of our schools. We want to have school 
modernization.
  As a former teacher, I strongly oppose vouchers.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for yielding 
me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the Armey-DeLay-
Watts-Lipinski amendment to H.R. 1. This amendment creates a school 
choice demonstration research program that would research how effective 
school choice is in improving the academic performance of low-income 
disadvantaged students.
  I first became interested in school choice in 1979, when, as chairman 
of the Chicago City Council's Education Committee, African American 
Aldermen brought this issue to my attention. They told me that the only 
true way to reform the poorly performing schools was to provide for 
school choice.
  The heightened national popularity for school choice has led more and 
more school districts and more and more State legislatures to consider 
various parental choice proposals. This amendment would allow five 
educational agencies to voluntarily participate in school choice 
research programs. I stress that the amendment builds upon the success 
of current school choice programs, not by taking funds away from public 
schools, but by authorizing new funds.
  This amendment will allow some students to move from failing schools 
to safe and academically sound schools. I do sincerely believe that the 
competition that choice will provide will motivate the public school 
system to do a better job across the board for the well-being of all 
students.
  Vote for this amendment and my colleagues will be able to bear 
witness to disadvantaged students succeeding because of school choice.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
voucher proposal that has just been addressed, and also to the pilot 
proposals that are with us right now.
  We have to ask ourselves why would we have a pilot program? And when 
we have pilot programs, we do want to demonstrate that there is merit 
to them. And we often want to demonstrate that there is merit in going 
beyond a particular community or a particular charismatic leader who 
puts together a program.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my colleagues that if we are really 
trying to bring the pilot to scale that is being proposed here today, 
we have to look at the communities and the communities in which they 
will realistically be brought to scale.
  If I can offer San Diego for a moment, we surveyed the number of 
private school slots available in San Diego, and we surprisingly found 
a realistically good number: 1,666 slots. Out of that, 1,300 were 
religious schools. The rest were identified as nonreligious, but we are 
looking at a unified school district of 132,000 students. Yes, it 
sounds innocent to have a pilot program; but would we ever be able to 
bring that up to scale? You can probably demonstrate that it has merit. 
I do not question that. You can do that in select areas.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to go beyond that. We are trying to truly 
leave no child behind. Bringing a pilot program to scale in communities 
that really do not have the resources is unrealistic; and I believe it 
is unfair to the population that we are trying to reach.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
this amendment be extended by 5 minutes on each side.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each side will control 5 additional 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong, strong support of 
the Armey-DeLay-Watts-Lipinski amendment to H.R. 1. Given the 
importance of education to our Nation's future prosperity and security, 
I think it is vital, absolutely vital, to try new, competitive 
approaches to improving the education of all schools, but particularly 
public education in this country. If we want to be sure we are leaving 
no children behind, we must at the very least research the 
effectiveness of school choice programs.
  We need to study whether they improve the academic performance of 
low-income disadvantaged students; or whether they do not. In my 
judgment, instituting a national school choice pilot program is a 
modest but important step. This program in no way reduces our current 
commitment to public education. I believe it enhances it.
  For years Congress has debated the benefit of school voucher 
programs, yet there is insufficient evidence on the cost-benefit of 
these programs. Today we have an opportunity to establish five 
demonstration programs that allow us to measure the performance of 
students who receive these choice scholarships.
  Why would anyone oppose an opportunity to scientifically measure 
choice benefit programs? Why would we oppose it? Measure it. We may be 
right; we may be wrong. Measure it. We need this amendment to pass in 
order to have this opportunity.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendments on vouchers. I speak as a representative of South Texas, a 
representative who has served on local school boards, on the Texas 
State Board of Education, and now here in the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  I want to talk about the myths and facts about school vouchers. 
School vouchers are going to hurt the vast majority of kids who get 
left behind in the public schools. I am talking about students in 
special population programs that include bilingual education students, 
limited English proficiency students. I am talking about migrant 
students who need special programs. I am talking about the challenged 
and disabled students and the gifted and talented students not given 
challenging programs and trained teachers in their field, teachers who 
are not teaching in their major of study.
  There are many myths about vouchers, and in the area that I come from 
in South Texas, $1,500 does not pay a year of private school attendance 
in the private schools that I have in South Texas.
  Many of these schools charge tuition fees far more than the $1,500 
average that is being offered. The American public has consistently 
opposed voucher proposals. Not one single statewide voucher proposal 
has passed. One does not need to be a nuclear scientist to figure this 
out. Every poll in the past 30 years has shown that the public is 
opposed to vouchers.

[[Page 9250]]

  When President Bush came in, he listened to hundreds of leaders in 
education throughout the country; and he learned very quickly that 
vouchers were not the answer to raise the level of education 
attainment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues that we all get together and 
oppose the two amendments regarding vouchers.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), a sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago I stood here on the 
floor of the House and voted for an amendment that would have given 
opportunity scholarships to parents whose kids were in failing schools. 
Regrettably, that did not pass.
  I do not know how many boys and girls since then have been failed by 
poor schools. I do not know how many dropouts would be graduating today 
with a good education had those scholarships been there to help them.
  Today we have an opportunity to offer parents a choice and students a 
chance. This amendment sets up five demonstration programs with 
parental choice which would help kids get out of violent and failing 
schools which have a monopoly on many of our children. Children in 
failing schools deserve better than the status quo.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that their constituents support 
parental choice. Once more, African Americans overwhelmingly support 
parental choice, three out of four in some polls. So, too, should my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle support the modest proposal to 
allow parents to choose what school works best for their children.
  Frederick Douglass said, ``Some people know the importance of 
education because they have it.'' He said, ``I know the importance of 
education because I did not have it.''
  Let us not force some kids to come to that sad reality. Let us pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, give 
parents a choice and give students a chance.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman on the other side of the aisle 
refer to this money as new money. Well, this is not new money. This is 
money that is not being appropriated for the modernization of our 
schools, it is not being appropriated for smaller classrooms so there 
can be better discipline and the children can get more personal 
attention. It is not being appropriated for more teacher recruitment or 
mentoring or professional development so that all of the things that we 
know really would improve the education of our children in public 
schools could be done. Those are the things that work.
  That is what my colleagues tell us vouchers will do, is get those 
kinds of circumstances, yet they are unwilling to make the commitment 
in our public schools to see that happen. They would rather privatize 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had privatized education before. It was pre-
Horace Mann. What we got as a result was some very exclusive people 
that could afford an education and many who could not. One of my 
colleagues on the other side said the only hope for America is this 
voucher program passing.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is close to correct. What hope is 
in this country is a free public education for all Americans, whatever 
their social and economic background. That is where we ought to be 
focusing our attention. False hope is a solution that gives out too 
little money to pay for tuition, that selects only a few and gives them 
that too little money, that does not guarantee them a place in any 
particular school, that does not have them go to a school that has 
standards to which they are held. Just because at Yale the President is 
preaching mediocrity in education is a virtue does not mean we have to 
fulfill that promise here.
  In 10 different voucher petitions across this country, the concept 
did not just get beat, it got hammered. When the American public 
understands that these voucher proposals do not pay for full tuition, 
do not guarantee them a school where they want to go, and does not 
fulfill the promise, they vote against it.
  If we want hope for our children, let us make sure that all of our 
public schools have all of the resources they need to do the things 
that we know work: Modernize the buildings that they are in; give them 
smaller classrooms; give them good teachers with good recruitment and 
good professional development programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this voucher proposal.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I have to ask my colleagues: What do we 
have to fear? This is a program of $50 million of new money, and the 
money will not come from any public schools, that says let us pick out 
five cities in America and let us give them a chance to try private 
school choice. And then let us study the issue. Let us study what 
happens in those five cities, and let us learn from it. That is all it 
is. It is very simple.
  The bill that we have before us aims to improve public education. I 
think it is a bold plan. I think it will in fact improve public 
education. What do we have to fear in allowing five cities an 
opportunity to try private school choice to empower parents?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. What do we have to lose by actually modernizing our 
schools? But my colleagues were not willing to do that. What do we have 
to lose by having more classrooms?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is the bill 
we have before us will improve public schools. And we have got all 
types of innovations that will help public schools, but we should not 
fear this.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I am still waiting to hear the answer. What does the 
gentleman fear about modernizing the public schools that exist? What 
does the gentleman fear about making smaller classrooms in the public 
schools that exist?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all of that will in 
fact happen under the bill that we have before us; but I do not think 
that we have anything to fear with an amendment like this.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I can answer the question 
what do we have to lose. Primarily what we have to lose is this 
country's basic commitment to the little red schoolhouse. That is what 
America was built on. As communities organized, they formulated the 
public community school. It opened the doors of opportunity.
  And as the slaves were freed, and even before so, they knew that 
education was a key element to their success, and they moved themselves 
to the little red schoolhouses and other schoolhouses that were 
promoted by local governments. As immigrants came, they were able to 
improve their status in life as we opened the doors of education.
  Mr. Chairman, what this legislation does, and what the Cox amendment 
does that wants to cut $3.5 billion, it takes away our serious 
commitment to education.
  I believe in public schools and private schools. You can get a good 
education in private schools; but you can get a very good education in 
public schools. What we should be focusing on now is smaller class 
sizes, increased teacher salaries, and recognizing that every one of 
our children can learn.
  Mr. Chairman, why not an amendment to increase parental involvement? 
Do not give up on your public

[[Page 9251]]

schools. Get involved in the State boards of education and your local 
boards. Get involved in the local PTAs, but if you begin to dismantle 
the public school system, what we are built on, what the European 
greatness is built on, what the South American greatness is built on, 
we do not see them abandoning their public schools, then we begin to 
undermine and misrepresent to the American public that we can siphon 
off $2 and $3 and get a good education.



  Mr. Chairman, I am offended by the advertisements that are on 
television that show that single parents can open the doors of 
opportunity for their children with a voucher worth about $10.
  What we need to do is invest in our public schools: Build beautiful, 
brilliant public schools; recruit excellent teachers; have smaller 
class sizes, and again to analyze.
  If we look at existing voucher programs, we can study all we want. 
The Milwaukee program exists. We do not need any pilot programs to know 
whether vouchers work. We need an actual commitment to closing the 
digital divide, of enhancing the teaching and the intellect of our 
young people, of putting them all in the same boat. When they are all 
in the same boat, that boat rises together.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that we spend our time doing this. I 
know the intentions are good, but I believe our commitment to America's 
greatness is a commitment to America's public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to public school vouchers 
because they are not the solution to fixing public schools. Vouchers 
divert scarce funds away from public schools--which 90% of all students 
in this country attend. Siphoning off limited public school funds from 
low-performing schools leaves the children in those schools with even 
fewer resources. Further, vouchers benefit those students already 
attending private schools. Almost no private schools have tuition rates 
lower than the amounts provided by vouchers.
  Vouchers will only be an experiment, not something that we know will 
improve the education of our children. We need to understand what makes 
a school successful, and not simply assume that market forces of 
performance bonuses and penalties will make the necessary difference in 
our schools.
  Those who look at what makes a good school, whether it is public or 
private, have noticed that they have a lot in common. A successful 
school has high academic standards and a challenging curriculum for all 
children; a safe and orderly environment; qualified teachers; and 
parent involvement.
  If we want to improve our nation's schools, we should provide 
resources to reduce classroom size, facilitate academic training for 
teachers, create mental health clinics, and boost parent involvement in 
their child's education.
  There is a long tradition in the United States that supports the 
notion of a free public education for all of our nation's children. By 
instituting school vouchers we would be placing a price tag on the cost 
of education for those in our society who are least able to afford the 
penalty.
  I am a vocal advocate on the behalf of our nation's children, because 
they are also our nation's future. As leaders of this great nation must 
keep our focus on what is best for our children--by rejecting the idea 
of public vouchers.
  School vouchers are not a fix for what is wrong with our nation's 
education system. School vouchers to some may seem like a relatively 
benign way to increase the options that poor parents have for educating 
their children. In fact, vouchers pose s serious threat to values that 
are vital to the health of American democracy. These programs subvert 
the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and 
threaten to undermine our system of public education.
  The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is the largest public 
school system in Texas and the seventh largest in the United States. 
Our schools are dedicated to giving every student the best possible 
education through an intensive core curriculum and specialized, 
challenging instructional and career programs. HISD is working hard to 
become Houstonians' K-12 school system of choice, constantly improving 
and refinishing instruction and management to make them as effective, 
productive, and economical as possible.
  As long as there exist a disparity in funding among school districts 
within states, and a disparity of education funding K-12 among the 
states there will continue to be disparities in the education of 
disadvantaged youth especially taking into consideration the 
socioeconomic limitations of these communities to augment the 
educational experience of their children. This must and should be 
acknowledged by the education reform legislation that we pass and send 
to the President's desk. We know the realities of education in the 
United States are that many children are left behind, not at the 
discretion of the teacher, school district, parent or child, but under 
the pressures presented by a lack of adequate funding and teacher 
training.
  The fact that this bill is actually increasing the budget expenditure 
for education should not make us forget that the budgets for education 
in the past were woefully underfunded. This pattern of underfunding 
education has existed not only in the budget for education, but in the 
smaller specific appropriations measures designed to address reduced 
and free lunch, support the education of individuals with disabilities, 
and compensation for teachers.
  I would like to encourage my colleagues to reject school vouchers for 
our nation's children and vote against any vouchers being added to this 
bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, not too long ago a gentleman was testifying in front of 
a committee here in this Congress, a gentleman by the name of Al 
Shanker, late president of the AFT, American Federation of Teachers. 
When asked by the committee why the AFT was not doing more to help 
children, why was it not doing more to bring about reform, he said 
something that was very candid and was almost incredible. He said, when 
children start paying union dues, I will start representing the 
interests of children.
  Now, everybody got upset about that. A lot of people attacked him. I 
said right on, because of course he was being very honest. That is 
exactly what the AFT and the NEA care about. They are unions.
  Now, would it not be nice to have this debate framed on the basis of 
our true feelings about this issue and why we are going to vote one way 
or the other on vouchers, on school choice? Is it because we really 
have the interest of kids at heart, or is it because we know the 
system, the NEA, the AFT, the PTA, the NASB and all the other 
organizations I have listed there on that chart, we know they are 
opposed to vouchers but in our hearts do we not believe, every single 
one of us in here, in our hearts do we not believe that giving those 
kids an opportunity, a key to the lock that may be on the door to stop 
them from getting a good quality education, is where we should be? That 
is what we should be casting a vote on here, not the system.
  Mr. Chairman, I have right here, this is title XX of the U.S. Code, 
3,200 pages of school law that Federal Government has passed, and we 
are going to add another 1,000 pages to it pretty soon.
  We are going to probably pass another part of this adding another 
1,000 pages. All of it to do what? To tell schools how to be good 
schools, how to provide quality education; 4,000 pages of rules. This 
does not count the regulations. We could not even fill this room with 
all the regulations written about it when we could do one thing instead 
to actually provide true accountability, and that is to pass this one 
amendment. It could take the place of all the rest of this because we 
put accountability into the right hands, into the hands of parents. 
They will make the decision about what is the good school, not us.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of the two vouchers proposals that 
are before us today. In our committee on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, we, I thought, came to an agreement where we were not 
going to put forward these kinds of projects. Obviously, this is not 
what is occurring

[[Page 9252]]

before us today, and I am saddened because the people that I represent 
in my district, the 31st Congressional District, most of whom are low-
income, bilingual, Asian and Latino students, are crying out right now 
for education as a priority.
  No deja ningun estudiante detras (do not leave any student behind), 
and that means those children I represent in my district. Those 
children want better schools. They want smaller class size. They want 
parental involvement. Those initiatives are not before us in this 
education proposal, and I have to say that in my first year or first 
few months here as a Member of the committee I thought that perhaps 
there could be an agreement on a bipartisan level here, and I thought 
that we would be able to realize that reality here on the floor.
  I see what is happening that somehow Members on the other side have 
become captive to another voice, and that voice is saying ``deja estos 
ninos, dejalos.'' That means ``leave these kids behind.'' And I am 
saying that the American public, the American public, those voters that 
I represent, do not want to be left behind. They want to see a better 
tomorrow. They want to see more funding for our schools that are 
crippled right now, that do not have adequate teachers, that do not 
have enough textbooks, that do not have maybe one single computer in 
their classroom.
  In my district, L.A. Unified, where maybe 30 students are there in 
the fourth grade learning English but do not have the luxury of taking 
home a book because there are not enough supplies and materials to do 
that, private schools is not the answer. There are not enough private 
or parochial schools in my district to facilitate the room. We cannot 
even find land that is not contaminated to build a school, and my 
colleagues probably have heard about that debacle in Los Angeles, the 
Belmont Learning Center. We need to expand educational opportunities 
for all. That is the American dream for my constituents. That is the 
American dream para todos los ninos (for all children).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this choice amendment 
vehemently oppose five demonstration projects, and instead they want a 
lot of new Federal programs and money for careful education reform. 
There is just one little flaw in that approach, and that flaw is that 
we have been passing new Federal education programs for careful 
education reform over the last 35 years.
  We have been tinkering with the public education system over the last 
35 years. We have been increasing money at the Federal and State and 
local level over the last 35 years, and student achievement has been 
declining over those same last 35 years.
  There are some other constants in those 35 years. American public 
education remains an enormous monopoly. It used to be the second 
biggest monopoly on earth after the Soviet state. Now it is the biggest 
monopoly.
  What is another constant? That parents, poor parents, have no choice 
about where to send their kids to school.
  Mr. Chairman, after 35 years of failure, why do we not simply try 
something fundamentally new, in a careful, pilot-demonstration-project 
sort of way?
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) asked for an amendment 
for increased parental involvement. This is it. What better way to get 
increased parental involvement than, once and for all, to empower 
parents over the system, the education bureaucracy? This is empowering 
parents.
  So let us try something new and try to turn that declining student 
achievement around.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very special day in the House of 
Representatives when those who support this amendment are overwhelmed 
with compassion for the parents of low-income children. That is not the 
case when we bring a tax bill to the floor and they refuse to make 
their tax credit refundable so low-income families can have it. That is 
not the case on a normal day on this floor, when no legislation to 
provide health insurance to the 44 million uninsured people of America 
is brought to this floor.
  That compassion is sorely lacking when there has been a commitment by 
the majority not to move a bill to raise the minimum wage of many of 
those parents that we are talking about today. This is a very special 
day when compassion for those families seems to come to the forefront. 
A year-long, a life-long commitment to that compassion would defeat 
this amendment and pass legislation that would provide health care and 
housing and jobs and real opportunity for those families we hear about 
from the proponents of the amendment. Defeat this amendment for real 
compassion.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the important point here is that we are 
trying to find ways to improve public school systems. I sat for 2 years 
with the gentleman from Michigan talking about dollars to the 
classroom.
  They are right, we have to get the dollars to the classroom. Let us 
remember that the Federal dollars are only about 7 or 8 percent of the 
total budget. Ninety-two percent comes from the local district.
  We ought to have confidence in the local school districts to provide 
the education that these youngsters need.
  Why do we want to spend this limited amount of Federal dollars that 
we are trying to allocate to these poor districts and spend it out in 
the private sector, into private schools? If the private entities want 
to participate in the education of our poor, disadvantaged children, 
they can do it now. They can take State dollars. They can go in and 
take local dollars. There is no prohibition. They are free to do it, 
and they are welcome to do it. They can experiment all they want to. 
They can set up demonstration projects, but for heaven's sakes do not 
take the limited Federal dollars that we are trying to allocate for 
these poor districts.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, here I am again. There is a great song by Johnny Cash 
and Ray Charles, a song titled, ``I am Like a Crazy Old Soldier 
Fighting a War on My Own.'' I feel that way sometimes on this question 
of scholarships for children.
  I fight this fight, it seems, every year. Sometimes we win. Sometimes 
we lose. A couple of years ago, we got it through the House, we got it 
through the Senate, got it to the President. Bless his little old 
heart, he could not find it in his heart to sign that legislation. It 
would have given an opportunity to some youngsters here in D.C.
  I keep asking myself, why do I keep fighting this fight? It is not 
about children in my district. Certainly it is not my children in my 
family. It is mostly about children I will probably never see, but it 
is about some youngsters I have seen working with the Washington 
Scholarship Fund. I, for several years now, have kept 15 or so little 
ones on scholarship, managed to get folks to chip in and watch them, 
watch the brightness in their mamas' eyes when they see the hope, the 
chance to get a little guy out.
  I remember one little fellow, Kenny. He came to us. Darryl Green 
brought him over and introduced him. Poor little guy was scared half to 
death, over weight, unhappy, shy. We got him a scholarship. He got out 
of the school where he was frightened. He got into another school. The 
nuns were a little tough on him I heard, but they loved him and he 
learned.
  I saw him about a year later. He was the life of the party. He was a 
happy boy. I saw school choice work in that child's life.

[[Page 9253]]

  I also saw it work when he got a scholarship from the best private 
high school in Washington, D.C., a high school that people from his 
neighborhood rarely get a chance to attend. Probably got a lot of 
congressional children there, but they do not have very many people 
from Kenny's neighborhood. I have seen his mama watch her boy have 
something she never thought she had in her life, a chance.
  We saw Ted Forstmann and John Walton try the same idea all over 
America, and we saw the families line up, the parents line up. I saw 
the disappointment in one mama's eyes in Chicago and right here in 
D.C., when the money that Forstmann and Walton brought to town was not 
enough and there just was one scholarship short for her child.
  We saw the sadness and, bless his heart, I saw Ted Forstmann reach 
into his own wallet and bring out enough money so that baby could have 
a scholarship, too. We saw it work in those lives.
  We saw it work when Virginia Gilder tried it in Albany, New York. We 
saw it work in California. We saw it work in Milwaukee. Wherever we 
have seen children with a chance, we have seen it work in the lives of 
the children. But it is more than that. We have seen the schools 
improve, as one superintendent said, when they had a choice program, 
privately funded.
  His exact words were, we have to get better or we will lose our 
children. It is a wake-up call for some of those 6,000 schools up there 
that are always on the Education Department's list of failed schools. 
It is a chance.
  Now, since none of these programs I am talking about were sponsored 
by the government, we are free to ignore them, pretend they are not 
there. Do not look at the evidence. Do not accept the facts. They are 
something special. We do not need to pay regard to that evidence. We 
can keep our opinions pure and free from any adulteration from facts 
and keep our allegiances strong to those who fear freedom and choice 
and prefer control and mandating.
  Yes, my heart is in this. It is not an idea with me. It is about 
children, children that capture the heart, children whose faces shine 
because they got a chance, and mothers with hope. And I am tired. I am 
tired of the baloney. I am tired of the hogwash. I am tired about the 
masquerade. I am tired of the fear.
  Hope is a wonderful thing. I have seen it work in the lives of babies 
and children. I have seen it work to the improvement of schools.
  Fear is a horrible thing. I am hoping this time it will be different. 
I am hoping this time when we take that card out of our pocket and we 
face an amendment on this one very small effort, shucks, this 
government even in the Education Department itself will waste $50 
million before the sun sets on this day. We know that. One small 
effort, where we would find it impossible to ignore the facts of the 
matter. That is what the fear is about.

                              {time}  1345

  The fear is that if we really have a government program where we 
really give it a legitimate test and it is run through the Department 
of Education, we will not be able to ignore the fact that it works in 
the schools and it works for the children. That is a mighty frightening 
thing, to be afraid of the truth, should it come out. Of course, if one 
is afraid of freedom, one should fear the truth.
  So I ask my colleagues, all of them: we have a chance today to vote 
on this. Take this card out of your pocket and look at that card. For 
once, just once in our lives in a congressional career, put the special 
interests aside, put the idealogical high-boundness aside, put the 
institutional considerations aside. Just once, just give me a vote for 
the kids, just once. Let us put the kids ahead of all the rest of us. 
That is what this is about. It is only about the children. Bless their 
little hearts. They try so hard and we can be so damnably callous.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of 
closing the debate, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to follow my colleague 
from Texas, because we could not be any more different, I guess.
  I have two children that went to public schools and they did very 
well. They did not come to D.C., but they went to schools in my own 
district in urban Houston.
  This is a good bipartisan bill. It raises the authorization levels to 
amounts that we hope to be able to match, and I hope that next year we 
will do it and this year, with the appropriations.
  Vouchers go the opposite way of the intent of this bill. It takes 
money away from public schools. Public education is not a monopoly. We 
as parents already have that choice. The statement I heard that there 
has been a monopoly for 35 years and the failure of the public school 
system is outrageous. Who do we think has been running this country for 
the last 35 years? The 95 percent of the people who went to public 
schools in this country. The product of our public schools are the ones 
who run it.
  This amendment is a slap in the face of thousands of educators and 
parents who believe in public schools every day and work hard. I have 
been to every public school in my district and I will take my 
colleagues to the depths of the inner city in Houston and show them 
quality education in the public schools.
  There is another country western song my colleague may remember. The 
teachers and the parents and everyone who works hard every day to make 
our public schools work, they may want to say, ``take this job and 
shove it.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since coming to Congress my goal has 
been to ensure that the federal government is a better partner in 
building more livable communities. Access to quality public education 
is a key component of a community that is safe, healthy and 
economically secure.
  The public knows and has demonstrated at the ballot box and public 
opinion surveys that not only the federal government must make 
investment in our public schools its top priority, but providing 
private school vouchers undercutting precious resources for our public 
schools is not the way to improve education.
  Unlike public schools, which serve all children, private schools are 
not obligated to accept any student. Students who are most vulnerable 
and are often more difficult and expensive to educate are left out. In 
fact, a Department of Education report showed that if required to 
accept special needs students, 85% of private schools said they would 
not participate in a voucher program. When all students do not have 
equal access to education, it is work to divert critical funding from 
our public schools.
  In the two cities that have voucher programs, Milwaukee and 
Cleveland, their effectiveness has been inconclusive. Milwaukee's 
program, after 10 years, has shown little or no improvement in student 
achievement relative to comparable public school students. However, 
what these cities have shown is that vouchers have led to greater class 
and race segregation in classrooms, they are draining significant 
financial resources from public schools, and are primarily serving 
students already in the private school system. In Milwaukee, two-thirds 
of voucher recipients were already in private schools or just beginning 
kindergarten, in Cleveland, three-fourths of recipients were already 
enrolled in private schools or just beginning kindergarten.
  The Committee has labored to provide more accountability and more 
public school choice in this legislation. Reject the amendments for 
vouchers--they are a step in the wrong direction on both counts.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the foundation upon which 
every American child's future is based begins with a quality education. 
This amendment provides a vehicle to ensure this ideal becomes a 
reality. Every child deserves a good education, not just those whose 
parents can afford to send them to a different school.
  In the past, the solution to America's education problem has been to 
simply throw money at it. While the federal government has spent 
billions of dollars on education, there are still countless children 
trapped in failing school systems. This amendment acknowledges that 
money alone does not provide for a quality education, but instead 
requires strengthening the framework of America's schools; in other 
words, fundamental reform.

[[Page 9254]]

  To achieve this vision for reform, it is essential to close the 
achievement gap and provide disadvantaged students with the same 
opportunities as other children. In recent years, society has 
increasingly forgotten those children who have not been afforded the 
basic needs with which to fulfill their dreams. It is unacceptable that 
in the twenty-first century nearly 70 percent of inner city and rural 
fourth-graders cannot read at a basic level. Illiteracy has far-
reaching consequences that affect social development and opportunities 
for successful employment.
  Many lawmakers, including myself, want to involve parents more on 
education. Why shouldn't parents have the right to send their children 
to the school of their choice? Students need opportunity and parents 
need options. This amendment is the first step in giving parents choice 
and students hope. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are against 
this type of parental choice. Let me address three of their concerns.
  First, parental choice opponents say this option would take federal 
funds away from the public schools that most need the money. Let me be 
clear--the last thing we want to do is take money away from public 
schools that need to improve. This amendment does not take money away 
from public schools; instead, the amendment includes an additional 
authorization of $50 million to fund the demonstration projects and the 
related research. $50 million is a small price to pay for the 
opportunity to test the effectiveness of this type of parental choice.
  Second, parental choice opponents say we don't know if private school 
choice contributes to improved education, either for those who go to 
the private school or for those left in the public school. Let's change 
that; let's increase our level of knowledge. Let's do a demonstration 
that will provide the research data we need to make this determination. 
If there is any possibility that this type of parental choice will 
improve education, then can we afford not to try?
  Intuitively, of some disadvantaged students transfer from a failing 
public school to a private school, and the failing public school still 
receives the same funding, the result is increased per student funding 
and smaller class sizes in the public school. Therefore, school choice 
should contribute to improvements in education, not only for students 
who transfer to a private school, but also for the students remaining 
in the public school. Let's test this theory to make sure it really 
happens. This amendment provides the accountability, measuring, and 
research we can rely on to make future parental choice program 
decisions.
  Finally, parental choice opponents claim that the majority of the 
American people are against private school choice. Even if that is 
true, don't we have the obligation to provide a voluntary demonstration 
project for those who support private school choice; those who don't 
have any other choices? This amendment provides for up to five 
demonstration projects. The projects are completely voluntary. 
Therefore, we may have five demonstration projects going, on a first 
come, first served basis. On the other hand, if no one wants the 
private school choice option, we will have zero demonstration projects 
going. Let's not base our entire policy on what opponents say the 
majority believes, if we have another option. This amendment provides 
that option.
  The political reality is that H.R. 1 will not pass if complete 
private school choice is included in the bill. However, the other part 
of the political reality is that H.R. 1 may not pass if some type of 
private school choice is not included. This amendment is our last 
chance to include private school choice to make final passage of H.R. 1 
more likely. We need education reform. We need to pass an elementary 
and secondary reauthorization bill. We need H.R. 1. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment; it might make the difference 
between education success and education failure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in House 
Report 107-69.


                  Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Akin

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Akin:
       In section 104 of the bill, at the end of section 
     1111(b)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 104), add the 
     following:
       ``(L) be tests of objective knowledge, based on measurable, 
     verifiable, and widely accepted professional testing and 
     assessment standards, and shall not assess the personal 
     opinions, attitudes, or beliefs of the student being 
     assessed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to deal with this 
question of accountability. We have talked about it. Of course the 
reason that testing is in the bill is because we care about 
accountability. I do think there is a problem and that is that there is 
no way to have accountability without objective test questions. So our 
amendment simply requires that the test questions be objective, that 
they be based on measurable and verifiable data.
  In other words, if we had five educated people take a look at a 
particular test question and they read it over, what they would say is 
that the answer is clearly A and it is not B, C, or D. So that is the 
purpose of this amendment, is simply to say, if we want accountability, 
we need objective questions.
  Now, there are some questions that appear in tests sometimes, one 
might think that they are all objective, but some are not. Here is an 
example. Do you think that this is a good story, or how interesting did 
you think the story was? Those are subjective questions and we are 
saying that those are not a good basis for trying to do accountability. 
They are not objective. These questions did actually appear on some 
various tests from different States.
  Our amendment goes also to a second point, and that is that the 
amendment prohibits the assessing of personal opinions, attitudes or 
beliefs. I do not believe there is anybody who thinks it is reasonable 
for us to be testing a kid and measuring them up or down based on what 
their religious persuasion is or their political persuasion or things 
that are personal attitudes or beliefs, and so we do prohibit that type 
of question.
  The amendment also allows for a full range of testing strategies.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask 
the gentleman whether or not his amendment would prohibit essay tests.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to prohibit essay, short 
answer or any other types of questions on the test.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for that response.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. We have no opposition to this amendment with the 
gentleman's explanation that he just gave that there is no intent here 
to prohibit essay or short responses on test questions, and we support 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 9255]]


  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time. I welcome the fact that we are able to find some 
agreement amidst what could be contentious, because when we discuss the 
issue of education reform in any district with someone of any political 
party, the one thing that keeps coming up is the notion of 
accountability. Yesterday, this House went on record saying that we 
would have sufficient measurements of accountability.
  What the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, does with this amendment 
is reaffirm the objective criteria which should be the watchword for 
this.
  The Federal Government should not micromanage nor try to evaluate 
feelings, perceptions, opinions. What we seek to do here is use 
objective criteria to maintain that sense with this House on the record 
with this amendment, and I welcome this unanimity, if you will, with 
reference to the amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri 
for bringing the amendment to our attention. I urge its passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) for yielding me the time.
  I want to take us back to yesterday's key vote on maintaining the 
testing provisions in this bill that really are the guts, the soul of 
this bill, in terms of accountability, in terms of trying to fairly and 
objectively measure these children's performances, find out the 
weaknesses, and then remediate those weaknesses.
  We had a strong bipartisan vote yesterday to maintain these tests. 
But I think many of us, as the author of this amendment must have, many 
of us have reservations about these tests. I want to continue to say as 
we go forward that one, these tests need to be diagnostic in nature. 
They should not be high stakes tests, they should not drive teachers to 
necessarily always teach to a test; they need to be motivated and 
aligned with standards so that we find and remediate problems that 
children have and try to help them solve those problems so that they 
can be promoted to the next grade level. Diagnostic is key in all of 
this, and I hope we work on this in conference.
  The second concern for me will be the appropriation level. This 
authorization is good, it is healthy, and we are going to have a vote 
later on on the Cox amendment, and we are going to see in this body how 
many members, when they talk about their concern for the poor, their 
concern for title I students, their compassion, their compassionate 
conservatism, we are going to really see if they want to spend this 
money on new ideas to remediate children, or if really they would 
rather spend the money on repealing the estate tax for the wealthiest 
people. We want to reform the estate tax, but there are a lot of people 
that would repeal it for everybody. So that will be a key amendment, 
and that will be a key as to how we allocate our resources around here 
in the future.
  So again, to conclude, diagnostic tests that help children and do not 
result in high-stakes teaching to tests, and sufficient appropriations 
to match this authorization level opposition to the Cox amendment later 
on that would cut $2 billion out of this authorization level.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment and one 
that I am encouraged will be adopted, because it does make absolutely 
clear and moves us in the direction of insisting upon testing that is 
objective in nature, that which relies on, or is oriented toward 
academic skills and proficiency on core academic subjects. It 
underscores the reality that I think we all need to be aware of, and 
that is that testing does have a direct impact on curriculum 
ultimately, and if we are capable of narrowing the content of testing 
to those skills that are the subjective components of classroom 
learning, it makes it more likely that curriculum will not be simply 
built only according to the tests.
  But ultimately, this testing data needs to be useful to someone. It 
needs to be useful either to the government, which is what H.R. 1 that 
is before us suggests, or it will be useful to parents, and which the 
amendments that will be voted on a little later and perhaps maybe in 
another time from now, we will be able to get closer to the President's 
vision and his Leave No Child Behind plan that parents will have the 
ability to use this important testing data to choose a school that that 
is in the best interest of their child.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume just to say that we have no opposition to this, 
but I would like just for a second to follow up on what the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, because I think as we try to determine 
the role, the proper role, if you will, for testing, I think that the 
gentleman from Indiana made some very good points. We ought not to be, 
and I think that the concern of people who voted against testing in 
many instances, in talking to them, was that we were trying to use 
tests for things that they were not properly designed for.
  The States are controlling this, but I think they clearly have to 
start thinking about, does this test accurately give us a picture that 
allows us to make some assessments, or is that an improper use of that 
exam, and what vehicles could we use to do the diagnostic work that the 
gentleman talked about so that we could then concentrate the resources 
on a child that is struggling with math or with reading and get that 
child up to speed.

                              {time}  1400

  The test does not necessarily tell us that, so we would hope that in 
this consideration of the proper role of testing that the States would 
think that through, because obviously, as we see around the country, 
there are many communities, many parents, many educators who are very, 
very concerned about the valid use of testing.
  I certainly believe that is a key component of the accountability 
provisions of this law, and I think this amendment helps us in that 
regard.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for his 
amendment, and thank him for his willingness to work with Members on 
both sides of the aisle to bring about an amendment that gets us to 
truly objective tests, that provides safeguards to make all of us as 
policymakers more comfortable with the steps we are taking in this 
bill.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
for his amendment, because if we truly want to measure objective 
improvements, then testing must be done on an objective basis.
  Is it not common sense to require test questions which measure what a 
student knows, rather than how he feels? Requiring a student to share 
personal opinions, attitudes, and beliefs does little to measure how he 
is doing and what he has learned in school.
  Most troubling is that subjective test questions lack a verifiable 
right answer. Who determines what the correct answer is?
  Here is an example: After reading a paragraph on a test, how would 
one answer this question: ``Do you think this is a good story? You have 
three choices. A is yes, B is no, and C is I don't know.'' Would we get 
the right answer?
  This question actually took place on a test, and it tells us nothing 
about the student's knowledge or understanding of the subject.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and require testing to 
cover only objective knowledge.

[[Page 9256]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed 
in House Report 107-69.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       In section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by section 
     106 of the bill, insert after paragraph (5) the following and 
     redesignate any subsequent provisions accordingly:
       ``(6) Additional notification.--Not less than once each 
     year, each State educational agency shall provide the 
     Secretary with the name of each school identified for school 
     improvement under this subsection.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering to H.R. 1 
would require that the State educational agencies make known in the 
form of a report to the Department of Education those schools that 
States identify as not making adequate progress in educating our 
children.
  The Department of Education would then be required to send a report 
to Congress with this same information. This information would be a 
valuable resource, both to the Department of Education in carrying out 
its responsibilities, and, of course, to Congress in determining the 
level of funding needed.
  A school enters an improvement status when it fails to meet those 
State targets for improving student performance. These targets, of 
course, vary from State to State. Once identified for improvement, 
schools, with support from their districts, are given assistance and 
resources to improve student achievement.
  The number of title I schools across the country identified as 
needing improvement may be over 8,000. I say they may be, because we do 
not actually know which schools the States have identified as failing 
our children. Numbers alone do not tell us how long individual schools 
have been in improvement status.
  Under current law, the Department of Education is prevented from 
gathering this valuable information, which greatly hampers them in 
determining the needs of a low-performing school so they can better 
support State and local reform efforts.
  Instead of this creating more work for the local educational agency, 
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, actually relieves them of the burdensome 
task of having to respond to individual requests from the many programs 
that use this information. In effect, it streamlines the efforts of all 
who are involved in the effort to provide the best education to our 
children.
  Specific information on those schools identified is important so that 
we can assess which schools are not meeting State improvement goals. 
The information will also provide a baseline for determining the number 
of schools that improve.
  Mr. Chairman, $23 billion is a large amount of money, so it is 
imperative that in this body we are responsible and fully aware as to 
how this money improves our local schools and, of course, if it exceeds 
our expectations.
  The President's plan involves great accountability. This amendment is 
only an extension of that principle. This amendment is insistent upon 
requiring that all schools be held accountable by name. Individual 
schools will no longer hide behind an anonymous number. If we are 
sincere in wanting to ``leave no child behind,'' we must first know 
those children who are at risk.
  This is by no means an effort by the Federal Government to garner 
greater control of the local schools. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is about 
facilitating access to very important information.
  So this is a simple idea and a very simple amendment. It shines the 
light of day on those schools in greatest need. My amendment lifts the 
veil on those schools that are found to be failing and enables the 
Department of Education and, yes, the United States Congress, to 
address those needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We have no opposition 
to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in House 
Report 107-69.


               Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted as part E of title 
     VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by 
     section 801 of the bill, insert after section 8520 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 8521. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE; 
                   USE OF AMERICAN-MADE STEEL.

       ``(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       ``(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       ``(c) Use of American-Made Steel.--A school system 
     receiving financial assistance under this Act for 
     construction shall use American-made steel for such 
     construction and shall comply with the requirements of the 
     Buy American Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition not otherwise taken.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have been offering buy-American 
amendments in this Congress for a number of years. I believe this is a 
good bill; and I want to commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and one of the fine leaders on our side of the 
aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for a good 
bill.
  Certainly there can be some improvements. However, there are some 
concerns that I have and some recommendations that I want to make. I 
want to make this to the Republican leadership, even though I know 
there

[[Page 9257]]

are other complicating issues that would surround the issue of 
construction.
  I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens) are exactly right. We in Congress have built 
a number of prisons, and I do not demean the Congress for such action. 
But, Mr. Chairman, we have put but little money into construction of 
school facilities.
  I do not believe we have to put a ton of money into it, Mr. Chairman. 
It could be a 20 percent participatory matching thing if local money 
and State money is available. But I think in conference or in some 
mechanism, the Republican leadership should look at that issue.
  What the Traficant amendment says is that, number one, on any funds 
expended under this bill, it is the sense of Congress that when making 
purchases, they shall buy and we should buy American-made products. But 
it also says that a notice shall be given of same by the Secretary when 
awards are made.
  There is one last provision. It deals with the hope and what I think 
is the righteousness of placing some construction money in with 
attachments, even if it is just 10 percent, 15 percent, for those hard-
pressed communities that cannot afford to build new schools, where they 
have trailers outside, Mr. Chairman.
  It says when they make such construction, if they receive money under 
this bill, they shall use American-made steel in such construction.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant), has a very good amendment. We certainly do not have 
any problem with it. Certainly I support the buy-American amendments 
that the gentleman from Ohio has offered over the years.
  To the extent some money in this bill could be used for school 
construction, I certainly do not have any problem with the gentleman's 
amendment and will accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, on an unrelated issue I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention later today to offer an 
amendment to allow for a Straight A's pilot program to give States 
additional flexibility to demonstrate how they could achieve better 
student performance by replacing Federal programs with innovative 
programs at the State or local level.
  However, I will not be offering the DeMint Straight A's amendment 
today. Yesterday, I met with the President and the Vice President, and 
we agreed that the State and local flexibility provision will remain a 
top priority for the final bill, but that this important idea would be 
best served if I withdraw the amendment at this time or did not offer 
it.
  I want to thank the President for his assurance that he will use all 
the resources available to him to make sure that Straight A flexibility 
for States and local school districts is a part of the final education 
reform bill.
  I also shared with the President that without the Straight A's 
language, I would be unable to support the current bill on the floor 
today. While I am reluctant to not vote for the bill, I feel I must, 
given the absence of key education reform provisions on flexibility and 
choice.
  It is my hope and expectation that this important Straight A's 
flexibility provision will be included in the House-Senate conference 
bill. Mr. Chairman, Straight A's is a good education reform policy, and 
the pilot program is worthy of inclusion in the final education 
package.
  The DeMint Straight A's amendment would have allowed seven States and 
25 local school districts the option of entering into a performance 
agreement with the Secretary of Education. Under approved, results-
oriented contracts, State and local school districts would be able to 
combine funds from a few or all of the eligible Federal formula grant 
programs that they administer at the State level and would be free from 
most of the administrative costs of those individual programs.
  In exchange for this flexibility, participating States and local 
schools would have to meet their performance objectives for improving 
student academic achievement.
  Mr. Chairman, this House has already passed an even less restrictive 
version of Straight A's last year, so most of us have already confirmed 
that we believe the flexibility provided in Straight A's is exactly 
what America needs.
  I know we all want the same outcome: excellent schools all across the 
country which provide all children access to a solid education. In 
order for that to happen, we cannot continue the status quo. We need to 
declare failure as unacceptable, challenge the status quo, and provide 
the mechanisms necessary for positive change to occur.
  This amendment would not have required any State or school district 
to participate. It would be a pilot program to give a few States and 
local school districts around the country the opportunity to break the 
mold, to be innovative in their approach to education.
  Under Federal law, all they run into is red tape. This would give 
them the open door to truly meet the needs of their students and work 
to close the achievement gap in the manner that best suits their State 
and local districts.
  The bottom line is that States and local schools must show that their 
students are learning, not that the bureaucrats are checking the right 
boxes to continue Federal funds. The freedom would be refreshing.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), my distinguished friend.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) for yielding me the time.
  We on our side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, support the sense of the 
Congress amendment to both buy American steel and also conform to the 
Buy American Act.
  We wish we would have had the opportunity to have a school 
construction amendment on the floor so that this amendment would even 
mean more.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the colloquy that just took place with 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), I want to continue to 
say that I strongly support this bipartisan bill.
  However, with the inroads towards removing some flexibility at the 
local level and delivering dollars directly to the classroom yesterday 
with the Tiberi amendment, I am glad that we will not go any further on 
the DeMint amendment and that this conference, I hope, will not go any 
further.
  I think if we continue to go through a Straight A's sloganeering, 
bumper sticker approach that we will lose bipartisan support for this 
bill left and right and that the tight middle that has held this 
bipartisan agreement together could erode very quickly.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close with these comments. I have 
served with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, now for a number of terms. 
The gentleman is one of the more distinguished Members from the State 
of Ohio.
  I say to the gentleman from Ohio, I am making an appeal to the 
gentleman. I do not care if it is 10 percent, 15 percent, I think it is 
not just good for America, it is good for Democrats, it is good for 
Republicans, it is good for all of our schools to have at some point in 
conference some money put in for construction.
  I know there are other issues concerned with it, but we need to 
handle those issues, even if it is just a 10 percent commitment. But 
when the local tax people, the local residents are raising taxes to 
build schools and some of

[[Page 9258]]

them are impoverished, like in my community, and when the States are 
willing to help, we should be a participant in that process.
  There should be no trailers outside of schools that are dangerous to 
our children.
  Mr. Chairman, with the fine job the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
has done, I am going to support the bill; and I commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  I am asking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to give that 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
on his amendment. No one in America wants their child to go to a bad 
school. We know the difficulties of building new school buildings 
across the country are very different.
  In our home State of Ohio, the State government was never involved in 
the building of school buildings until recently. As the gentleman 
knows, in Ohio, the State government now has a pool of funds to help 
needy districts build the school buildings they need.
  I and many of our colleagues have believed for some time that 
allowing school construction to remain the purview of local school 
districts and States is the appropriate role for them and not the 
appropriate role for us.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would like to say is to 
qualify for that money, my impoverished city, the major city, 
Youngstown, already hard-strapped, did go ahead and raise $134 million. 
They destroyed every other option they had. Certainly, some 
participatory construction money from the Federal Government would not 
hurt us. After all, we are building prisons in those same cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman and his leadership just to 
consider that. It may not need to be a big percentage, but I think in 
good faith there should be some participatory involvement by the 
Federal Government in the construction of safe schools.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey);
  Amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey);
  Amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra);
  Amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood);
  Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns); 
and
  Amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the second vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Armey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 273, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--155

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--273

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy

[[Page 9259]]


     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     John
     Moakley
     Tanner
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1442

  Messrs. SAXTON, DeFAZIO, FARR of California, ISSA and Mrs. NAPOLITANO 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered By Mr. Armey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 241, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Tanner
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1500

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time during 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each further 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 236, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                               AYES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom

[[Page 9260]]


     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1510

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


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Norwood

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 181, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--246

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)

[[Page 9261]]


     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Moakley
     Sherwood
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1519

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


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 361, 
noes 67, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               AYES--361

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--67

     Bachus
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bryant
     Cannon
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Graham
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Manzullo
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1529

  Messrs. CANNON, DUNCAN, HAYWORTH, JENKINS and COX changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FORD, BROWN of Ohio and KENNEDY of Minnesota changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 9, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior

[[Page 9262]]


     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Armey
     Barton
     Crane
     Dreier
     Flake
     Kolbe
     Paul
     Shadegg
     Stark

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baker
     Cubin
     Gilman
     Hutchinson
     John
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1537

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, I was unavoidably delayed 
during the vote on the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 1. Accordingly, I 
was unable to vote on rollcall No. 140. If I had been present I would 
have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________