Summary:

All articles in House section

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT
(House of Representatives - July 20, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5856-H5919] TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 253 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the commmittee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order, as an original bill, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill. Under this fair and balanced rule, 12 amendments are made in order, 6 offered by Democrats and 6 offered by Republicans. That means Members from both sides of the aisle will have equal opportunity to amend this bill. The rule makes in order a number of minor amendments as well as an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) which reflects bipartisan compromise on a number of issues and a substitute amendment offered by a Democrat member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. All 12 amendments are printed in the Committee on Rules report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments are not subject to amendment or a demand for a division of the question. {time} 1215 All points of order against the amendments are waived. In addition to the amendment process, the minority will have another opportunity to change the Teacher Empowerment Act through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule allows for orderly and timely consideration of the bill by allowing the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it follows a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, we can all remember our favorite teacher who made school more interesting and learning more exciting. These special individuals had a lasting impact on us and contributed in a major way to our attitudes toward school and our development as young people. We cannot underestimate the value and influence of a good teacher, and our investment in teachers should reflect their worth. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes teachers as perhaps the most important determinant in our children's academic success, and the bill seeks to enhance student performance through funding programs to improve teachers' skills. Specifically, H.R. 1995 streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' program to give States and localities more flexibility in their use of these funds to advance teachers' professional development. Ninety-five percent of these funds will be distributed to local districts where those who are most familiar with the needs of their local schools will play a greater role in determining how the money is used to provide teachers with the tools to improve student learning. Some of my colleagues oppose the consolidation of government programs and may fear local control. But given the failure of a bloated education bureaucracy and the micromanagement of education by the Federal Government, it is hard to understand any aversion to the reasonable changes this legislation envisions. It is time to challenge the status quo and move our education dollars to the local level to give school boards, principals, and teachers some flexibility to use these dollars as they see fit. That does not mean we are giving away Federal dollars, turning our heads the other way and hoping for the best. The Teacher Empowerment Act actually increases accountability to parents and taxpayers by providing public access to information about the qualification of teachers and the average statewide class size. Additionally, [[Page H5857]] local districts and schools will be measured by performance indicators and goals set by their State and accepted by the Federal Government. The remaining 5 percent of funds available through the Teacher Empowerment Act may be used for a variety of purposes, including oversight of local programs and assistance for schools that are failing to raise student achievement. The funding flexibility this legislation provides will help local education agencies to recruit, reward, and retain the very best teachers. For example, the bill encourages States to develop innovative programs that promote tenure reform, teacher testing, alternative routes to teacher certification, merit-based teacher performance systems, and bonus pay for teachers in subject areas where there is a shortage of qualified candidates. One criticism of the bill that I would like to address is the administration's concern that this legislation undermines the President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program. In fact, the bill requires funds to be used to hire teachers to reduce class size. It is true that this requirement is not a Federal mandate, like the President's proposal. It may be waived, but only if it is in the best interest of the students to do so. For example, the requirement could be waived in cases where reducing class size would mean relying on underqualified teachers or inadequate classrooms. This is exactly the type of common sense flexibility we need to insert into our Federal education policies. In addition to teacher training and education class size, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues an emphasis on basic academic skills, including math and science programs. This is an area in which a lack of qualified teachers is evident in the poor performance of U.S. students, whose achievement is falling behind that of children in other developed countries. Under the bill, localities must continue to expend the same amount on math and science programs as they would under the existing Eisenhower program, with limited exceptions. Along those lines, I am pleased that the Teacher Empowerment Act will allow for continued funding of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, which is located at Ohio State University. The ENC serves as the Nation's repository of ``K'' through 12 instructional materials in math and science education. Its collection of almost 15,000 curriculum resources is the most extensive in the Nation and provides a reliable resource for any teacher interested in professional or curriculum development. Since its creation in 1992, the ENC has distributed almost 4 million CD-ROMs and print publications, and its Web site received over 14 million hits just last year. This program's success in collecting and disseminating information on the best practices in math and science education deserves our continued support. In addition to math and science, the Teacher Empowerment Act also places an emphasis on technology by encouraging school districts to train teachers in the use of technology and its application in the classroom. The legislation also promotes reading and writing skills by extending the authorization of the Reading Excellence Act and providing a separate authorization for the National Writing Project. Mr. Speaker, this legislation promotes smaller classes, encourages innovation through local control, and emphasizes basic academic skills to improve student performance. But, most importantly, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the value of the individuals who interact with and provide guidance to our children on a daily basis. The ability of teachers to connect with children and peak their interest in learning is a gift that some have, but more commonly it is skill that teachers must learn. This legislation invests in teachers by giving them access to the tools they need to make a positive impact on our students' success. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his great work, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, which will allow the House to debate, improve upon, and pass the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is a good rule and an important bill, which takes another step forward in meeting our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year the Congress passed funding to help hire 100,000 new teachers across the entire country, and parents from Montana to Massachusetts cheered. Now my Republican colleagues are going back on that promise to American parents and making it open season on the funding of new teachers. Schools can now dip into the money for any program remotely related to education, and the only thing that we will lose is more teachers. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Boston public schools saying that, under this bill, it will lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocation. And we just cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about other parts of the country, but we in Massachusetts want our students to get every possible advantage we can give them, particularly smaller classes. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It will actually make our classes larger. The administration opposes this bill and for good reason. This bill fails to guaranty American students small class sizes of 18 students in the early grades, when they are particularly in need of a teacher's attention. We all know that once a class reaches about 35 to 45 students, it really does not matter too much whether a teacher is qualified or not. No matter how good they are, they spend most of their time policing and not enough time teaching. Although the bill provides an enormous amount of money, it does not target that money towards the neediest areas where our children are suffering the most. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has a proposal that will help fund the new teachers for areas with big class sizes. It will also give the areas that cannot find certified teachers the funding to recruit and train new teachers. The amendment that the gentleman from California offers also provides almost twice the teachers as the other bill. But this rule will only allow 40 minutes of debate on the Martinez substitute instead of the traditional 60 minutes. And to make matters worse, well over half the amendments authored by the Democrats were not allowed under this rule, while nearly every single amendment authored by a Republican was allowed. Mr. Speaker, from what I hear, those Democratic amendments are very good, so good that they probably would have passed. And that is probably the reason they are not allowed anywhere near this House floor today. The base text of this bill needs as much help as it can get, and some of those Democratic amendments would have helped this bill a great deal. But, apparently, that is not what my Republican colleagues wanted. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) corrects the superintendent, because, of course, in the manager's amendment, in the en bloc amendment, no public school loses any money. No public school loses any money. And I might also remind the gentleman that there was only one amendment offered in committee. Only one amendment. I do not know where all the others were, but there was only one offered in committee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. [[Page H5858]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer my dear friend. There was only one amendment. It was an en bloc amendment that contained all the amendments. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter of the Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools. Dear Mr. Moakley: I understand that the Teacher Empowerment bill passed two weeks ago by the Education and the Workforce Committee will be considered on the House floor as early as Tuesday, July 20, 1999. I am urging you to oppose this bill unless the well- targeted Class Size Reduction program is removed from the block grant and retained in its current form. I estimate that Boston would lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocations under the current bill. Sincerely, Thomas Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today after the adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that. At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap continues to widen all over the country. For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for closing the gap between majority students and minority students and between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students can learn under our system. We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal money ought to be used for that. This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their core subject. {time} 1230 It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the students which the money is designed to help. I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing. As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, we have some great school districts around the country and some great, great schools, but we also have some very serious problems. So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out there. Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is it allows for that flexibility. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since the American public in poll after poll has indicated that Federal assistance to education is a number one priority, every major education bill which comes to the floor should come with an open rule. The opportunity to discuss education policies and programs should not be constricted and oppressed as they are in this rule. The opportunity to let the voters hear a full debate must always be encouraged. What the Republican majority is doing is supporting this antidemocratic, piecemeal approach in the hope that they will accomplish the ultimate attempt of the Republican majority to move us to a situation where the role of the Federal Government in education is abolished. They are really still pursuing the goal of abolishing the role of the Federal Government, and a block grant is their desired result. This is the second beachhead for the block grant. Ed flex was the first one. This is the second one. By eliminating the President's initiative for a reduction in classroom size, it is one more step to move the Federal Government out of education and allow for a total block grant to go to the States with the Governors having an opportunity to use the money as they see fit. This rule is crafted to limit debate, maximize confusion and vigorously promote the perverted Robin Hood mentality which will take resources concentrated in our present Federal policy toward poor schools and spread it for other purposes while authorizing no significant new funding. Our committee does not demand new funding to take care of the education needs that have been identified by the American voters. [[Page H5859]] Educationally, this is a Robin Hood operating in reverse. It is going to eliminate Federal priorities, throw away accountability, and it will pilfer the money from the poor. It will take from the poorest schools where education policy presently directs money and spread it out and not provide any new resources. We have a budget surplus now. Why do we not make a demand on some portion of that surplus for education instead of robbing from the poor to take care of needs that are definitely there? We need to modernize our schools, we need to secure our schools, we need money for school construction; across the board all of the efforts to improve education are honorable, but they need resources. You do not solve the problem by taking resources from the areas where you have the greatest need. The core of the festering problem in education is in the poorest schools in rural areas and in big cities. What we are doing with this bill is moving toward a maneuver which will rob those schools in favor of spreading the money and making it appear that we have done something for education here in Washington. This is not the appropriate move. It is going to lead to a block grant where we lose Federal involvement altogether. The Federal Government is only involved to the tune of 7 to 8 percent at this point. It is not injuring schools in any way. Let us keep the Federal Government involved by protecting the President's class size initiative in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my friend from New York that this does not touch title I which is a massive program which I and many others favor, because many States did not in fact pay enough attention to the lower income areas of this country. Some States deliberately wiped out their property tax so that minorities would not have sufficient schools and went to private schools, and because of that the Federal Government stepped in and said those who are in low- income areas are going to need some help; just like as we had special- needs kids around this country that led to the development of IDEA. There is no question that there is a role, some role, for the Federal Government in education. The question is, is fundamentally who do we trust the most? This rule gives us the flexibility to debate a number of the different options and to really highlight again today the differences as to how the bulk of education should be run in this country, not the exceptions. We are not abandoning what we are putting into low-income students or into IDEA. But what we are saying is that rather than say, we know best here on the floor of this House what the school districts in my district in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country should do, some of them work to lower their class size and some of them rather than getting it down to 18 might want to have 19 in the class size and have better teachers for effectiveness. Others may want and need more teachers in IDEA which is the biggest financial drain in the local school districts because they cannot take care of many of these students that the courts have ordered them and Congress has ordered them to take care of. Each school district has their own funding flexibilities, each State has their own funding flexibilities and priorities they have to work. Who are we to say that they have to go a certain direction? Once again, let me repeat, this bill, while there are nuances in the additional spending proposed in the 100,000 new teachers and other programs, does not touch the basic funding mechanisms of which we have tried to put into low-income students. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OWENS. The gentleman said who are we to emphasize one thing over another? Most of the experts agree on few things in education, but they do agree that small class sizes in the early grades are essential to promoting reading and other subjects. Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, all of these things are a balance; that in fact research shows that teacher quality. Now, if the class size is 30 versus 18, but the class size differential, 19 or 20 compared to the teacher quality; depending whether you have computer access in your schools, if the schools are falling down, if you have inadequate textbooks and the parents cannot afford the textbooks. Different schools have different problems. I agree that if there is a wide disparity, but at the margins, and what I have seen in my district, in foundations around our country and so on is that we have seen, compared to the past, an amazing advancement in the local school boards and in particular State education associations in trying to improve the quality of education. We need to give them more flexibility. And when they fail, we step in like we did with title I and IDEA. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from New York did not give anybody the impression that somehow or other there is a magic pill out there that if you reduce class size, all of a sudden you are going to have better instruction and the child is going to do better. If I am a parent and I have a choice between 25 students in the classroom and a quality teacher or 17 students in the classroom and what they have done in California and have people who are not capable of teaching, I want 25 in the classroom and a quality teacher. The most important thing that every researcher ever said is that next to the parent, the most important factor for learning is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We do not want to ever lose sight of that. Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the great things about the thing we have put together in this bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time here on this very important legislation today. I rise, Mr. Speaker, and will support the Martinez amendment which will devote some more resources to education that we badly need. I also will support the underlying bipartisan bill that emphasizes a reduction in class size and an emphasis on the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. Now, I applaud some on the Republican side for this bipartisan bill because I know that 3 or 4 years ago, there were some on that side that advocated reducing the Department of Education to rubble and now we are emphasizing in a bipartisan way reducing the class sizes in America and putting emphasis on the quality of the teacher that stands in front of those students. I think this is a bipartisan bill, a Democratic-Republican bill, for two reasons: It emphasizes the right goals that all American parents and teachers and students agree with, and, that is, generally, in the earliest grades, 1 through 3, that when we have smaller class sizes, 18 or 20, we are more effective in making sure those children get off to the right start and get up to speed in their reading skills. Secondly, the delivery mechanism is right in this bipartisan bill. It does not loosely structure a block grant that you can spend money on anything. It tightly targets the spending for the State and the local school to choose between two things, a reduction in class size or quality teachers. I think that those are [[Page H5860]] both equally important goals and I would encourage my colleagues to support Martinez and support the underlying bipartisan bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act because it promotes teacher quality, reduces class size and sends dollars directly to the classroom. In light of the third annual math and science study scores, I am concerned that we are not focusing enough on math and science education. Therefore, I am especially pleased that this legislation promotes and strengthens math and science teacher training through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education. Located at the Ohio State University, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collects, catalogs and disseminates K-12 curriculum materials and resources in mathematics and science and provides teachers with a variety of services, including a technical help desk and reference service, print publications, and 12 demonstration sites located throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, the Eisenhower Clearinghouse is not a one-size- fits-all program. This program is available to teachers all across the country 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, there are no forms to fill out, applications to file or enrollment fees to pay. Because of this flexibility, our Nation's math and science teachers made Eisenhower National Clearinghouse's website one of the most visited education sites, receiving over 14 million hits. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whose work I very much admire for his response. {time} 1245 Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse is a valuable resource to all teachers nationwide, has done a great service with respect to providing our Nation's teachers with quality math and science resources. In fact, the Committee on Education and the Workforce intends to further highlight the mission and positive results of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse as it moves to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a program that deserves our strong support, and I thank the chairman very much for his time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and watched the process go forward. In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal involvement to end racial segregation. In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those struggling schools up in whatever way we could. Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the highest quality education in the least restrictive learning environment. Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's teaching corps. I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals the national commitment to reduction in class sizes. As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and carefully tailored in its means. Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman for whom the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order now finds himself opposing this fair rule. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to the floor to respond. We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has that money. The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and empower the classroom. That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear that the intent of the Republican majority is to eliminate the Federal role in education. They do not question, however, the ability of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the content of legislation. I want to read from the President's letter on this bill: [[Page H5861]] H.R. 1995 abolishes a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction and replaces it with a block grant that fails to guarantee that any funding will be used for hiring new teachers to reduce class size. Moreover, the block grant could be used simply to replace State or local funding instead of increasing overall investment in our public schools. If the Congress sends me H.R. 1995 in its current form, I will veto it in order to protect our Nation's commitment to smaller classes and better schools. There are some speakers who keep insisting that there is nothing wrong with the bill in terms of protecting the reduction in the classroom size initially, but definitely this leaves it wide open. It pushes the Federal priority aside and leaves the decision open for local education officials. As my colleagues know, most local education officials will seize the opportunity to spend the money as they want to spend it. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a very serious and important debate about improving the quality of teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later today. I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public schools across the country. But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000- teacher shortage over the next 10 years. This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment. Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern is misplaced. The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that could do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of Wisconsin under SAGE. We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on class size reduction. There are other States across the country implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio. As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is also contained in the chairman's amendment. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am simply in awe of the collective wisdom that exists in Washington, D.C., especially in Congress, and I look at these things from a very maybe simple perspective of having, one, been one that was raised in an impoverished neighborhood and went to schools that were not quite as excellent or elegant as the schools on the other side of town. But the situation still remains today the same as it did then. The question is, and we get into this debate, and we get so focused that we sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest. We say class size reduction as if class size reduction is the most important part, or we say teacher quality as if teacher quality was the most important part. I come from a different perspective, that I believe that both are. I guess we do not all keep up with the studies, and I am not too sure that I rely on studies all the time, but more recently, in just the last couple of weeks, there was a study that came out that showed that class size reduction in and of itself does a great deal of good for students because there is that one-on-one ability. And remember this, that the target area is that K through 6 to begin with, and we would like to expand it beyond that, but K through 6. And as I remember when I went to school, the teachers that were certified to teach K through 6 were generally certified teachers that have been through the training that was necessary to become qualified teachers, and they taught all subjects. {time} 1300 We did not have, and we still do not have, by and large, in most places in the country in K through 6 a segregated class for math and a segregated class for science and a segregated class for this and that and the other. These teachers are teaching all subjects to the classes. But more importantly, they are developing cognitive ability for those students so that when they get into the grades when those classes are separated, and I think we ought to remember that when those instructional classes, math, science, and the rest are in individual classes, they are in the upper grades. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about those earlier grades with the certified teachers. More recently, a study showed that class size reduction and where those students were in that smaller class size, whether or not that teacher was qualified in any particular subject, that those students benefited as much as did the kids that were in small class sizes with teachers that were certified in specific subject matter. So really, it only amounts to the fact of who do we target in this bill? We target the more needy. In their bill, the way the funding formula would begin, before we were able to get concession from them for hold harmless, and then beyond the hold harmless, it still has the faulty funding formula that draws money away from those areas where the children really need it. [[Page H5862]] Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, there is nothing in this bill that says that class size reduction cannot be a part for the schools that the gentleman is mentioning. My understanding is that a school district can decide that class size reduction is absolutely the most important. Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond by saying that the bill is not a bad bill, but it is just a little bit lacking, and that is where we would like to improve the bill to the point that it really targets the most needy. Let me say, when they say in the bill that the highest priority is class size reduction and there is no separate funding for it, they really do not give it a priority. So it leaves it up to the locals to decide where they are going to spend the money, whether they determine that they need it for class size reduction or they need it for teacher training. And I have nothing against either, because I believe that both go hand in hand, one with the other. But we ought to at least do it in a way that says to them, do the class size reduction, get the qualified teachers, show us which way we really need to spend the money before we authorize it being spent, rather than leaving it. Now, I know we always say that locals know best. Well, I wonder, if the locals know best, then why did the Federal Government get involved in this at all? The Federal Government got involved in these programs because locals did not make the decisions that were necessary to take care of the children with disabilities, to take care of bilingual problems, to take care of disadvantaged students, and that is where the Federal programs came up with Title I and other programs. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill. A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K through 6 several times. In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I do have great confidence in local control. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I referred to K through 6, I was referring to the fact of my own experience in grammar school that we had teachers that were qualified in all subjects and they taught all subjects, and K through 6 in most parts of the country today, not that our bill was inclusive of K through 6, but that is the situation that actually exists, and I think we ought to deal with the realities that are actually out there. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I will remind my colleagues that this rule is fair and balanced. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules, 6 are offered by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. This equal treatment is appropriate for consideration of a bill that has bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both the rule and the underlying Teacher Empowerment Act which relies on the principles of teacher quality, smaller class size, accountability, and local control to improve our children's education. But, teachers are central to today's debate, which is appropriate. Perhaps more than any other factor in education, teachers are key to academic achievement. By investing in our teachers through this legislation, we are strengthening our most valuable education resource. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 187, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 315] YEAS--227 Aderholt Archer Armey Bachus Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Coburn Collins Combest Cook Cox Crane Crowley Cubin Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Eshoo Everett Ewing Fletcher Foley Fossella Fowler Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Greenwood Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (MT) Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Istook Jenkins Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kasich Kelly Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (OK) Manzullo McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Myrick Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Reynolds Riley Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Souder Spence Stearns Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Tiahrt Toomey Traficant Upton Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NAYS--187 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Berkley Berry Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Bonior Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Capps Capuano Carson Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Condit Conyers Costello Coyne Cramer Cummings Danner Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doyle Edwards Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Forbes Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green (TX) Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hill (IN) Hilliard Hinojosa Hoeffel Holt Hooley Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson John Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kildee Kilpatrick Kleczka Klink LaFalce [[Page H5863]] Lampson Larson Lee Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McGovern McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (MN) Phelps Pickett Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Schakowsky Scott Serrano Sherman Shows Sisisky Skelton Slaughter Snyder Spratt Stabenow Stenholm Strickland Stupak Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thurman Tierney Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wise Woolsey Wu Wynn NOT VOTING--19 Berman Calvert Cardin Coble Cooksey Engel English Hinchey Holden Kennedy Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) McDermott Ortiz Peterson (PA) Stark Towns Watt (NC) {time} 1334 Mr. SHERMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 253 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1995. {time} 1334 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if someone is a parent and someone has an opportunity to have their child in a classroom with 25 other students with a quality teacher, or if someone is a parent and they have the opportunity to have their child in a classroom of 18 children with someone who is not qualified to teach, who would they choose? Well, it is very obvious. They would choose the quality teacher. All of the studies would indicate that next to the parent, and I repeat next to the parent, the determining factor as to whether a child does well or poorly in school has a great deal to do, more than anything else, with the quality of that clas

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT
(House of Representatives - July 20, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5856-H5919] TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 253 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the commmittee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order, as an original bill, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill. Under this fair and balanced rule, 12 amendments are made in order, 6 offered by Democrats and 6 offered by Republicans. That means Members from both sides of the aisle will have equal opportunity to amend this bill. The rule makes in order a number of minor amendments as well as an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) which reflects bipartisan compromise on a number of issues and a substitute amendment offered by a Democrat member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. All 12 amendments are printed in the Committee on Rules report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments are not subject to amendment or a demand for a division of the question. {time} 1215 All points of order against the amendments are waived. In addition to the amendment process, the minority will have another opportunity to change the Teacher Empowerment Act through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule allows for orderly and timely consideration of the bill by allowing the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it follows a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, we can all remember our favorite teacher who made school more interesting and learning more exciting. These special individuals had a lasting impact on us and contributed in a major way to our attitudes toward school and our development as young people. We cannot underestimate the value and influence of a good teacher, and our investment in teachers should reflect their worth. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes teachers as perhaps the most important determinant in our children's academic success, and the bill seeks to enhance student performance through funding programs to improve teachers' skills. Specifically, H.R. 1995 streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' program to give States and localities more flexibility in their use of these funds to advance teachers' professional development. Ninety-five percent of these funds will be distributed to local districts where those who are most familiar with the needs of their local schools will play a greater role in determining how the money is used to provide teachers with the tools to improve student learning. Some of my colleagues oppose the consolidation of government programs and may fear local control. But given the failure of a bloated education bureaucracy and the micromanagement of education by the Federal Government, it is hard to understand any aversion to the reasonable changes this legislation envisions. It is time to challenge the status quo and move our education dollars to the local level to give school boards, principals, and teachers some flexibility to use these dollars as they see fit. That does not mean we are giving away Federal dollars, turning our heads the other way and hoping for the best. The Teacher Empowerment Act actually increases accountability to parents and taxpayers by providing public access to information about the qualification of teachers and the average statewide class size. Additionally, [[Page H5857]] local districts and schools will be measured by performance indicators and goals set by their State and accepted by the Federal Government. The remaining 5 percent of funds available through the Teacher Empowerment Act may be used for a variety of purposes, including oversight of local programs and assistance for schools that are failing to raise student achievement. The funding flexibility this legislation provides will help local education agencies to recruit, reward, and retain the very best teachers. For example, the bill encourages States to develop innovative programs that promote tenure reform, teacher testing, alternative routes to teacher certification, merit-based teacher performance systems, and bonus pay for teachers in subject areas where there is a shortage of qualified candidates. One criticism of the bill that I would like to address is the administration's concern that this legislation undermines the President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program. In fact, the bill requires funds to be used to hire teachers to reduce class size. It is true that this requirement is not a Federal mandate, like the President's proposal. It may be waived, but only if it is in the best interest of the students to do so. For example, the requirement could be waived in cases where reducing class size would mean relying on underqualified teachers or inadequate classrooms. This is exactly the type of common sense flexibility we need to insert into our Federal education policies. In addition to teacher training and education class size, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues an emphasis on basic academic skills, including math and science programs. This is an area in which a lack of qualified teachers is evident in the poor performance of U.S. students, whose achievement is falling behind that of children in other developed countries. Under the bill, localities must continue to expend the same amount on math and science programs as they would under the existing Eisenhower program, with limited exceptions. Along those lines, I am pleased that the Teacher Empowerment Act will allow for continued funding of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, which is located at Ohio State University. The ENC serves as the Nation's repository of ``K'' through 12 instructional materials in math and science education. Its collection of almost 15,000 curriculum resources is the most extensive in the Nation and provides a reliable resource for any teacher interested in professional or curriculum development. Since its creation in 1992, the ENC has distributed almost 4 million CD-ROMs and print publications, and its Web site received over 14 million hits just last year. This program's success in collecting and disseminating information on the best practices in math and science education deserves our continued support. In addition to math and science, the Teacher Empowerment Act also places an emphasis on technology by encouraging school districts to train teachers in the use of technology and its application in the classroom. The legislation also promotes reading and writing skills by extending the authorization of the Reading Excellence Act and providing a separate authorization for the National Writing Project. Mr. Speaker, this legislation promotes smaller classes, encourages innovation through local control, and emphasizes basic academic skills to improve student performance. But, most importantly, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the value of the individuals who interact with and provide guidance to our children on a daily basis. The ability of teachers to connect with children and peak their interest in learning is a gift that some have, but more commonly it is skill that teachers must learn. This legislation invests in teachers by giving them access to the tools they need to make a positive impact on our students' success. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his great work, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, which will allow the House to debate, improve upon, and pass the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is a good rule and an important bill, which takes another step forward in meeting our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year the Congress passed funding to help hire 100,000 new teachers across the entire country, and parents from Montana to Massachusetts cheered. Now my Republican colleagues are going back on that promise to American parents and making it open season on the funding of new teachers. Schools can now dip into the money for any program remotely related to education, and the only thing that we will lose is more teachers. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Boston public schools saying that, under this bill, it will lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocation. And we just cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about other parts of the country, but we in Massachusetts want our students to get every possible advantage we can give them, particularly smaller classes. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It will actually make our classes larger. The administration opposes this bill and for good reason. This bill fails to guaranty American students small class sizes of 18 students in the early grades, when they are particularly in need of a teacher's attention. We all know that once a class reaches about 35 to 45 students, it really does not matter too much whether a teacher is qualified or not. No matter how good they are, they spend most of their time policing and not enough time teaching. Although the bill provides an enormous amount of money, it does not target that money towards the neediest areas where our children are suffering the most. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has a proposal that will help fund the new teachers for areas with big class sizes. It will also give the areas that cannot find certified teachers the funding to recruit and train new teachers. The amendment that the gentleman from California offers also provides almost twice the teachers as the other bill. But this rule will only allow 40 minutes of debate on the Martinez substitute instead of the traditional 60 minutes. And to make matters worse, well over half the amendments authored by the Democrats were not allowed under this rule, while nearly every single amendment authored by a Republican was allowed. Mr. Speaker, from what I hear, those Democratic amendments are very good, so good that they probably would have passed. And that is probably the reason they are not allowed anywhere near this House floor today. The base text of this bill needs as much help as it can get, and some of those Democratic amendments would have helped this bill a great deal. But, apparently, that is not what my Republican colleagues wanted. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) corrects the superintendent, because, of course, in the manager's amendment, in the en bloc amendment, no public school loses any money. No public school loses any money. And I might also remind the gentleman that there was only one amendment offered in committee. Only one amendment. I do not know where all the others were, but there was only one offered in committee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. [[Page H5858]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer my dear friend. There was only one amendment. It was an en bloc amendment that contained all the amendments. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter of the Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools. Dear Mr. Moakley: I understand that the Teacher Empowerment bill passed two weeks ago by the Education and the Workforce Committee will be considered on the House floor as early as Tuesday, July 20, 1999. I am urging you to oppose this bill unless the well- targeted Class Size Reduction program is removed from the block grant and retained in its current form. I estimate that Boston would lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocations under the current bill. Sincerely, Thomas Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today after the adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that. At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap continues to widen all over the country. For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for closing the gap between majority students and minority students and between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students can learn under our system. We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal money ought to be used for that. This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their core subject. {time} 1230 It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the students which the money is designed to help. I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing. As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, we have some great school districts around the country and some great, great schools, but we also have some very serious problems. So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out there. Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is it allows for that flexibility. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since the American public in poll after poll has indicated that Federal assistance to education is a number one priority, every major education bill which comes to the floor should come with an open rule. The opportunity to discuss education policies and programs should not be constricted and oppressed as they are in this rule. The opportunity to let the voters hear a full debate must always be encouraged. What the Republican majority is doing is supporting this antidemocratic, piecemeal approach in the hope that they will accomplish the ultimate attempt of the Republican majority to move us to a situation where the role of the Federal Government in education is abolished. They are really still pursuing the goal of abolishing the role of the Federal Government, and a block grant is their desired result. This is the second beachhead for the block grant. Ed flex was the first one. This is the second one. By eliminating the President's initiative for a reduction in classroom size, it is one more step to move the Federal Government out of education and allow for a total block grant to go to the States with the Governors having an opportunity to use the money as they see fit. This rule is crafted to limit debate, maximize confusion and vigorously promote the perverted Robin Hood mentality which will take resources concentrated in our present Federal policy toward poor schools and spread it for other purposes while authorizing no significant new funding. Our committee does not demand new funding to take care of the education needs that have been identified by the American voters. [[Page H5859]] Educationally, this is a Robin Hood operating in reverse. It is going to eliminate Federal priorities, throw away accountability, and it will pilfer the money from the poor. It will take from the poorest schools where education policy presently directs money and spread it out and not provide any new resources. We have a budget surplus now. Why do we not make a demand on some portion of that surplus for education instead of robbing from the poor to take care of needs that are definitely there? We need to modernize our schools, we need to secure our schools, we need money for school construction; across the board all of the efforts to improve education are honorable, but they need resources. You do not solve the problem by taking resources from the areas where you have the greatest need. The core of the festering problem in education is in the poorest schools in rural areas and in big cities. What we are doing with this bill is moving toward a maneuver which will rob those schools in favor of spreading the money and making it appear that we have done something for education here in Washington. This is not the appropriate move. It is going to lead to a block grant where we lose Federal involvement altogether. The Federal Government is only involved to the tune of 7 to 8 percent at this point. It is not injuring schools in any way. Let us keep the Federal Government involved by protecting the President's class size initiative in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my friend from New York that this does not touch title I which is a massive program which I and many others favor, because many States did not in fact pay enough attention to the lower income areas of this country. Some States deliberately wiped out their property tax so that minorities would not have sufficient schools and went to private schools, and because of that the Federal Government stepped in and said those who are in low- income areas are going to need some help; just like as we had special- needs kids around this country that led to the development of IDEA. There is no question that there is a role, some role, for the Federal Government in education. The question is, is fundamentally who do we trust the most? This rule gives us the flexibility to debate a number of the different options and to really highlight again today the differences as to how the bulk of education should be run in this country, not the exceptions. We are not abandoning what we are putting into low-income students or into IDEA. But what we are saying is that rather than say, we know best here on the floor of this House what the school districts in my district in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country should do, some of them work to lower their class size and some of them rather than getting it down to 18 might want to have 19 in the class size and have better teachers for effectiveness. Others may want and need more teachers in IDEA which is the biggest financial drain in the local school districts because they cannot take care of many of these students that the courts have ordered them and Congress has ordered them to take care of. Each school district has their own funding flexibilities, each State has their own funding flexibilities and priorities they have to work. Who are we to say that they have to go a certain direction? Once again, let me repeat, this bill, while there are nuances in the additional spending proposed in the 100,000 new teachers and other programs, does not touch the basic funding mechanisms of which we have tried to put into low-income students. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OWENS. The gentleman said who are we to emphasize one thing over another? Most of the experts agree on few things in education, but they do agree that small class sizes in the early grades are essential to promoting reading and other subjects. Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, all of these things are a balance; that in fact research shows that teacher quality. Now, if the class size is 30 versus 18, but the class size differential, 19 or 20 compared to the teacher quality; depending whether you have computer access in your schools, if the schools are falling down, if you have inadequate textbooks and the parents cannot afford the textbooks. Different schools have different problems. I agree that if there is a wide disparity, but at the margins, and what I have seen in my district, in foundations around our country and so on is that we have seen, compared to the past, an amazing advancement in the local school boards and in particular State education associations in trying to improve the quality of education. We need to give them more flexibility. And when they fail, we step in like we did with title I and IDEA. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from New York did not give anybody the impression that somehow or other there is a magic pill out there that if you reduce class size, all of a sudden you are going to have better instruction and the child is going to do better. If I am a parent and I have a choice between 25 students in the classroom and a quality teacher or 17 students in the classroom and what they have done in California and have people who are not capable of teaching, I want 25 in the classroom and a quality teacher. The most important thing that every researcher ever said is that next to the parent, the most important factor for learning is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We do not want to ever lose sight of that. Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the great things about the thing we have put together in this bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time here on this very important legislation today. I rise, Mr. Speaker, and will support the Martinez amendment which will devote some more resources to education that we badly need. I also will support the underlying bipartisan bill that emphasizes a reduction in class size and an emphasis on the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. Now, I applaud some on the Republican side for this bipartisan bill because I know that 3 or 4 years ago, there were some on that side that advocated reducing the Department of Education to rubble and now we are emphasizing in a bipartisan way reducing the class sizes in America and putting emphasis on the quality of the teacher that stands in front of those students. I think this is a bipartisan bill, a Democratic-Republican bill, for two reasons: It emphasizes the right goals that all American parents and teachers and students agree with, and, that is, generally, in the earliest grades, 1 through 3, that when we have smaller class sizes, 18 or 20, we are more effective in making sure those children get off to the right start and get up to speed in their reading skills. Secondly, the delivery mechanism is right in this bipartisan bill. It does not loosely structure a block grant that you can spend money on anything. It tightly targets the spending for the State and the local school to choose between two things, a reduction in class size or quality teachers. I think that those are [[Page H5860]] both equally important goals and I would encourage my colleagues to support Martinez and support the underlying bipartisan bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act because it promotes teacher quality, reduces class size and sends dollars directly to the classroom. In light of the third annual math and science study scores, I am concerned that we are not focusing enough on math and science education. Therefore, I am especially pleased that this legislation promotes and strengthens math and science teacher training through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education. Located at the Ohio State University, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collects, catalogs and disseminates K-12 curriculum materials and resources in mathematics and science and provides teachers with a variety of services, including a technical help desk and reference service, print publications, and 12 demonstration sites located throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, the Eisenhower Clearinghouse is not a one-size- fits-all program. This program is available to teachers all across the country 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, there are no forms to fill out, applications to file or enrollment fees to pay. Because of this flexibility, our Nation's math and science teachers made Eisenhower National Clearinghouse's website one of the most visited education sites, receiving over 14 million hits. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whose work I very much admire for his response. {time} 1245 Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse is a valuable resource to all teachers nationwide, has done a great service with respect to providing our Nation's teachers with quality math and science resources. In fact, the Committee on Education and the Workforce intends to further highlight the mission and positive results of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse as it moves to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a program that deserves our strong support, and I thank the chairman very much for his time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and watched the process go forward. In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal involvement to end racial segregation. In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those struggling schools up in whatever way we could. Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the highest quality education in the least restrictive learning environment. Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's teaching corps. I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals the national commitment to reduction in class sizes. As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and carefully tailored in its means. Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman for whom the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order now finds himself opposing this fair rule. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to the floor to respond. We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has that money. The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and empower the classroom. That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear that the intent of the Republican majority is to eliminate the Federal role in education. They do not question, however, the ability of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the content of legislation. I want to read from the President's letter on this bill: [[Page H5861]] H.R. 1995 abolishes a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction and replaces it with a block grant that fails to guarantee that any funding will be used for hiring new teachers to reduce class size. Moreover, the block grant could be used simply to replace State or local funding instead of increasing overall investment in our public schools. If the Congress sends me H.R. 1995 in its current form, I will veto it in order to protect our Nation's commitment to smaller classes and better schools. There are some speakers who keep insisting that there is nothing wrong with the bill in terms of protecting the reduction in the classroom size initially, but definitely this leaves it wide open. It pushes the Federal priority aside and leaves the decision open for local education officials. As my colleagues know, most local education officials will seize the opportunity to spend the money as they want to spend it. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a very serious and important debate about improving the quality of teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later today. I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public schools across the country. But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000- teacher shortage over the next 10 years. This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment. Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern is misplaced. The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that could do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of Wisconsin under SAGE. We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on class size reduction. There are other States across the country implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio. As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is also contained in the chairman's amendment. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am simply in awe of the collective wisdom that exists in Washington, D.C., especially in Congress, and I look at these things from a very maybe simple perspective of having, one, been one that was raised in an impoverished neighborhood and went to schools that were not quite as excellent or elegant as the schools on the other side of town. But the situation still remains today the same as it did then. The question is, and we get into this debate, and we get so focused that we sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest. We say class size reduction as if class size reduction is the most important part, or we say teacher quality as if teacher quality was the most important part. I come from a different perspective, that I believe that both are. I guess we do not all keep up with the studies, and I am not too sure that I rely on studies all the time, but more recently, in just the last couple of weeks, there was a study that came out that showed that class size reduction in and of itself does a great deal of good for students because there is that one-on-one ability. And remember this, that the target area is that K through 6 to begin with, and we would like to expand it beyond that, but K through 6. And as I remember when I went to school, the teachers that were certified to teach K through 6 were generally certified teachers that have been through the training that was necessary to become qualified teachers, and they taught all subjects. {time} 1300 We did not have, and we still do not have, by and large, in most places in the country in K through 6 a segregated class for math and a segregated class for science and a segregated class for this and that and the other. These teachers are teaching all subjects to the classes. But more importantly, they are developing cognitive ability for those students so that when they get into the grades when those classes are separated, and I think we ought to remember that when those instructional classes, math, science, and the rest are in individual classes, they are in the upper grades. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about those earlier grades with the certified teachers. More recently, a study showed that class size reduction and where those students were in that smaller class size, whether or not that teacher was qualified in any particular subject, that those students benefited as much as did the kids that were in small class sizes with teachers that were certified in specific subject matter. So really, it only amounts to the fact of who do we target in this bill? We target the more needy. In their bill, the way the funding formula would begin, before we were able to get concession from them for hold harmless, and then beyond the hold harmless, it still has the faulty funding formula that draws money away from those areas where the children really need it. [[Page H5862]] Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, there is nothing in this bill that says that class size reduction cannot be a part for the schools that the gentleman is mentioning. My understanding is that a school district can decide that class size reduction is absolutely the most important. Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond by saying that the bill is not a bad bill, but it is just a little bit lacking, and that is where we would like to improve the bill to the point that it really targets the most needy. Let me say, when they say in the bill that the highest priority is class size reduction and there is no separate funding for it, they really do not give it a priority. So it leaves it up to the locals to decide where they are going to spend the money, whether they determine that they need it for class size reduction or they need it for teacher training. And I have nothing against either, because I believe that both go hand in hand, one with the other. But we ought to at least do it in a way that says to them, do the class size reduction, get the qualified teachers, show us which way we really need to spend the money before we authorize it being spent, rather than leaving it. Now, I know we always say that locals know best. Well, I wonder, if the locals know best, then why did the Federal Government get involved in this at all? The Federal Government got involved in these programs because locals did not make the decisions that were necessary to take care of the children with disabilities, to take care of bilingual problems, to take care of disadvantaged students, and that is where the Federal programs came up with Title I and other programs. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill. A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K through 6 several times. In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I do have great confidence in local control. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I referred to K through 6, I was referring to the fact of my own experience in grammar school that we had teachers that were qualified in all subjects and they taught all subjects, and K through 6 in most parts of the country today, not that our bill was inclusive of K through 6, but that is the situation that actually exists, and I think we ought to deal with the realities that are actually out there. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I will remind my colleagues that this rule is fair and balanced. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules, 6 are offered by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. This equal treatment is appropriate for consideration of a bill that has bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both the rule and the underlying Teacher Empowerment Act which relies on the principles of teacher quality, smaller class size, accountability, and local control to improve our children's education. But, teachers are central to today's debate, which is appropriate. Perhaps more than any other factor in education, teachers are key to academic achievement. By investing in our teachers through this legislation, we are strengthening our most valuable education resource. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 187, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 315] YEAS--227 Aderholt Archer Armey Bachus Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Coburn Collins Combest Cook Cox Crane Crowley Cubin Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Eshoo Everett Ewing Fletcher Foley Fossella Fowler Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Greenwood Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (MT) Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Istook Jenkins Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kasich Kelly Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (OK) Manzullo McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Myrick Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Reynolds Riley Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Souder Spence Stearns Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Tiahrt Toomey Traficant Upton Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NAYS--187 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Berkley Berry Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Bonior Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Capps Capuano Carson Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Condit Conyers Costello Coyne Cramer Cummings Danner Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doyle Edwards Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Forbes Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green (TX) Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hill (IN) Hilliard Hinojosa Hoeffel Holt Hooley Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson John Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kildee Kilpatrick Kleczka Klink LaFalce [[Page H5863]] Lampson Larson Lee Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McGovern McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (MN) Phelps Pickett Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Schakowsky Scott Serrano Sherman Shows Sisisky Skelton Slaughter Snyder Spratt Stabenow Stenholm Strickland Stupak Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thurman Tierney Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wise Woolsey Wu Wynn NOT VOTING--19 Berman Calvert Cardin Coble Cooksey Engel English Hinchey Holden Kennedy Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) McDermott Ortiz Peterson (PA) Stark Towns Watt (NC) {time} 1334 Mr. SHERMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 253 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1995. {time} 1334 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if someone is a parent and someone has an opportunity to have their child in a classroom with 25 other students with a quality teacher, or if someone is a parent and they have the opportunity to have their child in a classroom of 18 children with someone who is not qualified to teach, who would they choose? Well, it is very obvious. They would choose the quality teacher. All of the studies would indicate that next to the parent, and I repeat next to the parent, the determining factor as to whether a child does well or poorly in school has a great deal to do, more than anything else, with the quality of that classroom teacher. In California,

Summary:

All articles in House section

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT
(House of Representatives - July 20, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5856-H5919] TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 253 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the commmittee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order, as an original bill, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill. Under this fair and balanced rule, 12 amendments are made in order, 6 offered by Democrats and 6 offered by Republicans. That means Members from both sides of the aisle will have equal opportunity to amend this bill. The rule makes in order a number of minor amendments as well as an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) which reflects bipartisan compromise on a number of issues and a substitute amendment offered by a Democrat member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. All 12 amendments are printed in the Committee on Rules report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments are not subject to amendment or a demand for a division of the question. {time} 1215 All points of order against the amendments are waived. In addition to the amendment process, the minority will have another opportunity to change the Teacher Empowerment Act through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule allows for orderly and timely consideration of the bill by allowing the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it follows a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, we can all remember our favorite teacher who made school more interesting and learning more exciting. These special individuals had a lasting impact on us and contributed in a major way to our attitudes toward school and our development as young people. We cannot underestimate the value and influence of a good teacher, and our investment in teachers should reflect their worth. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes teachers as perhaps the most important determinant in our children's academic success, and the bill seeks to enhance student performance through funding programs to improve teachers' skills. Specifically, H.R. 1995 streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' program to give States and localities more flexibility in their use of these funds to advance teachers' professional development. Ninety-five percent of these funds will be distributed to local districts where those who are most familiar with the needs of their local schools will play a greater role in determining how the money is used to provide teachers with the tools to improve student learning. Some of my colleagues oppose the consolidation of government programs and may fear local control. But given the failure of a bloated education bureaucracy and the micromanagement of education by the Federal Government, it is hard to understand any aversion to the reasonable changes this legislation envisions. It is time to challenge the status quo and move our education dollars to the local level to give school boards, principals, and teachers some flexibility to use these dollars as they see fit. That does not mean we are giving away Federal dollars, turning our heads the other way and hoping for the best. The Teacher Empowerment Act actually increases accountability to parents and taxpayers by providing public access to information about the qualification of teachers and the average statewide class size. Additionally, [[Page H5857]] local districts and schools will be measured by performance indicators and goals set by their State and accepted by the Federal Government. The remaining 5 percent of funds available through the Teacher Empowerment Act may be used for a variety of purposes, including oversight of local programs and assistance for schools that are failing to raise student achievement. The funding flexibility this legislation provides will help local education agencies to recruit, reward, and retain the very best teachers. For example, the bill encourages States to develop innovative programs that promote tenure reform, teacher testing, alternative routes to teacher certification, merit-based teacher performance systems, and bonus pay for teachers in subject areas where there is a shortage of qualified candidates. One criticism of the bill that I would like to address is the administration's concern that this legislation undermines the President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program. In fact, the bill requires funds to be used to hire teachers to reduce class size. It is true that this requirement is not a Federal mandate, like the President's proposal. It may be waived, but only if it is in the best interest of the students to do so. For example, the requirement could be waived in cases where reducing class size would mean relying on underqualified teachers or inadequate classrooms. This is exactly the type of common sense flexibility we need to insert into our Federal education policies. In addition to teacher training and education class size, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues an emphasis on basic academic skills, including math and science programs. This is an area in which a lack of qualified teachers is evident in the poor performance of U.S. students, whose achievement is falling behind that of children in other developed countries. Under the bill, localities must continue to expend the same amount on math and science programs as they would under the existing Eisenhower program, with limited exceptions. Along those lines, I am pleased that the Teacher Empowerment Act will allow for continued funding of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, which is located at Ohio State University. The ENC serves as the Nation's repository of ``K'' through 12 instructional materials in math and science education. Its collection of almost 15,000 curriculum resources is the most extensive in the Nation and provides a reliable resource for any teacher interested in professional or curriculum development. Since its creation in 1992, the ENC has distributed almost 4 million CD-ROMs and print publications, and its Web site received over 14 million hits just last year. This program's success in collecting and disseminating information on the best practices in math and science education deserves our continued support. In addition to math and science, the Teacher Empowerment Act also places an emphasis on technology by encouraging school districts to train teachers in the use of technology and its application in the classroom. The legislation also promotes reading and writing skills by extending the authorization of the Reading Excellence Act and providing a separate authorization for the National Writing Project. Mr. Speaker, this legislation promotes smaller classes, encourages innovation through local control, and emphasizes basic academic skills to improve student performance. But, most importantly, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the value of the individuals who interact with and provide guidance to our children on a daily basis. The ability of teachers to connect with children and peak their interest in learning is a gift that some have, but more commonly it is skill that teachers must learn. This legislation invests in teachers by giving them access to the tools they need to make a positive impact on our students' success. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his great work, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, which will allow the House to debate, improve upon, and pass the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is a good rule and an important bill, which takes another step forward in meeting our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year the Congress passed funding to help hire 100,000 new teachers across the entire country, and parents from Montana to Massachusetts cheered. Now my Republican colleagues are going back on that promise to American parents and making it open season on the funding of new teachers. Schools can now dip into the money for any program remotely related to education, and the only thing that we will lose is more teachers. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Boston public schools saying that, under this bill, it will lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocation. And we just cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about other parts of the country, but we in Massachusetts want our students to get every possible advantage we can give them, particularly smaller classes. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It will actually make our classes larger. The administration opposes this bill and for good reason. This bill fails to guaranty American students small class sizes of 18 students in the early grades, when they are particularly in need of a teacher's attention. We all know that once a class reaches about 35 to 45 students, it really does not matter too much whether a teacher is qualified or not. No matter how good they are, they spend most of their time policing and not enough time teaching. Although the bill provides an enormous amount of money, it does not target that money towards the neediest areas where our children are suffering the most. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has a proposal that will help fund the new teachers for areas with big class sizes. It will also give the areas that cannot find certified teachers the funding to recruit and train new teachers. The amendment that the gentleman from California offers also provides almost twice the teachers as the other bill. But this rule will only allow 40 minutes of debate on the Martinez substitute instead of the traditional 60 minutes. And to make matters worse, well over half the amendments authored by the Democrats were not allowed under this rule, while nearly every single amendment authored by a Republican was allowed. Mr. Speaker, from what I hear, those Democratic amendments are very good, so good that they probably would have passed. And that is probably the reason they are not allowed anywhere near this House floor today. The base text of this bill needs as much help as it can get, and some of those Democratic amendments would have helped this bill a great deal. But, apparently, that is not what my Republican colleagues wanted. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) corrects the superintendent, because, of course, in the manager's amendment, in the en bloc amendment, no public school loses any money. No public school loses any money. And I might also remind the gentleman that there was only one amendment offered in committee. Only one amendment. I do not know where all the others were, but there was only one offered in committee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. [[Page H5858]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer my dear friend. There was only one amendment. It was an en bloc amendment that contained all the amendments. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter of the Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools. Dear Mr. Moakley: I understand that the Teacher Empowerment bill passed two weeks ago by the Education and the Workforce Committee will be considered on the House floor as early as Tuesday, July 20, 1999. I am urging you to oppose this bill unless the well- targeted Class Size Reduction program is removed from the block grant and retained in its current form. I estimate that Boston would lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocations under the current bill. Sincerely, Thomas Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today after the adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that. At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap continues to widen all over the country. For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for closing the gap between majority students and minority students and between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students can learn under our system. We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal money ought to be used for that. This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their core subject. {time} 1230 It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the students which the money is designed to help. I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing. As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, we have some great school districts around the country and some great, great schools, but we also have some very serious problems. So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out there. Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is it allows for that flexibility. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since the American public in poll after poll has indicated that Federal assistance to education is a number one priority, every major education bill which comes to the floor should come with an open rule. The opportunity to discuss education policies and programs should not be constricted and oppressed as they are in this rule. The opportunity to let the voters hear a full debate must always be encouraged. What the Republican majority is doing is supporting this antidemocratic, piecemeal approach in the hope that they will accomplish the ultimate attempt of the Republican majority to move us to a situation where the role of the Federal Government in education is abolished. They are really still pursuing the goal of abolishing the role of the Federal Government, and a block grant is their desired result. This is the second beachhead for the block grant. Ed flex was the first one. This is the second one. By eliminating the President's initiative for a reduction in classroom size, it is one more step to move the Federal Government out of education and allow for a total block grant to go to the States with the Governors having an opportunity to use the money as they see fit. This rule is crafted to limit debate, maximize confusion and vigorously promote the perverted Robin Hood mentality which will take resources concentrated in our present Federal policy toward poor schools and spread it for other purposes while authorizing no significant new funding. Our committee does not demand new funding to take care of the education needs that have been identified by the American voters. [[Page H5859]] Educationally, this is a Robin Hood operating in reverse. It is going to eliminate Federal priorities, throw away accountability, and it will pilfer the money from the poor. It will take from the poorest schools where education policy presently directs money and spread it out and not provide any new resources. We have a budget surplus now. Why do we not make a demand on some portion of that surplus for education instead of robbing from the poor to take care of needs that are definitely there? We need to modernize our schools, we need to secure our schools, we need money for school construction; across the board all of the efforts to improve education are honorable, but they need resources. You do not solve the problem by taking resources from the areas where you have the greatest need. The core of the festering problem in education is in the poorest schools in rural areas and in big cities. What we are doing with this bill is moving toward a maneuver which will rob those schools in favor of spreading the money and making it appear that we have done something for education here in Washington. This is not the appropriate move. It is going to lead to a block grant where we lose Federal involvement altogether. The Federal Government is only involved to the tune of 7 to 8 percent at this point. It is not injuring schools in any way. Let us keep the Federal Government involved by protecting the President's class size initiative in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my friend from New York that this does not touch title I which is a massive program which I and many others favor, because many States did not in fact pay enough attention to the lower income areas of this country. Some States deliberately wiped out their property tax so that minorities would not have sufficient schools and went to private schools, and because of that the Federal Government stepped in and said those who are in low- income areas are going to need some help; just like as we had special- needs kids around this country that led to the development of IDEA. There is no question that there is a role, some role, for the Federal Government in education. The question is, is fundamentally who do we trust the most? This rule gives us the flexibility to debate a number of the different options and to really highlight again today the differences as to how the bulk of education should be run in this country, not the exceptions. We are not abandoning what we are putting into low-income students or into IDEA. But what we are saying is that rather than say, we know best here on the floor of this House what the school districts in my district in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country should do, some of them work to lower their class size and some of them rather than getting it down to 18 might want to have 19 in the class size and have better teachers for effectiveness. Others may want and need more teachers in IDEA which is the biggest financial drain in the local school districts because they cannot take care of many of these students that the courts have ordered them and Congress has ordered them to take care of. Each school district has their own funding flexibilities, each State has their own funding flexibilities and priorities they have to work. Who are we to say that they have to go a certain direction? Once again, let me repeat, this bill, while there are nuances in the additional spending proposed in the 100,000 new teachers and other programs, does not touch the basic funding mechanisms of which we have tried to put into low-income students. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OWENS. The gentleman said who are we to emphasize one thing over another? Most of the experts agree on few things in education, but they do agree that small class sizes in the early grades are essential to promoting reading and other subjects. Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, all of these things are a balance; that in fact research shows that teacher quality. Now, if the class size is 30 versus 18, but the class size differential, 19 or 20 compared to the teacher quality; depending whether you have computer access in your schools, if the schools are falling down, if you have inadequate textbooks and the parents cannot afford the textbooks. Different schools have different problems. I agree that if there is a wide disparity, but at the margins, and what I have seen in my district, in foundations around our country and so on is that we have seen, compared to the past, an amazing advancement in the local school boards and in particular State education associations in trying to improve the quality of education. We need to give them more flexibility. And when they fail, we step in like we did with title I and IDEA. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from New York did not give anybody the impression that somehow or other there is a magic pill out there that if you reduce class size, all of a sudden you are going to have better instruction and the child is going to do better. If I am a parent and I have a choice between 25 students in the classroom and a quality teacher or 17 students in the classroom and what they have done in California and have people who are not capable of teaching, I want 25 in the classroom and a quality teacher. The most important thing that every researcher ever said is that next to the parent, the most important factor for learning is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We do not want to ever lose sight of that. Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the great things about the thing we have put together in this bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time here on this very important legislation today. I rise, Mr. Speaker, and will support the Martinez amendment which will devote some more resources to education that we badly need. I also will support the underlying bipartisan bill that emphasizes a reduction in class size and an emphasis on the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. Now, I applaud some on the Republican side for this bipartisan bill because I know that 3 or 4 years ago, there were some on that side that advocated reducing the Department of Education to rubble and now we are emphasizing in a bipartisan way reducing the class sizes in America and putting emphasis on the quality of the teacher that stands in front of those students. I think this is a bipartisan bill, a Democratic-Republican bill, for two reasons: It emphasizes the right goals that all American parents and teachers and students agree with, and, that is, generally, in the earliest grades, 1 through 3, that when we have smaller class sizes, 18 or 20, we are more effective in making sure those children get off to the right start and get up to speed in their reading skills. Secondly, the delivery mechanism is right in this bipartisan bill. It does not loosely structure a block grant that you can spend money on anything. It tightly targets the spending for the State and the local school to choose between two things, a reduction in class size or quality teachers. I think that those are [[Page H5860]] both equally important goals and I would encourage my colleagues to support Martinez and support the underlying bipartisan bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act because it promotes teacher quality, reduces class size and sends dollars directly to the classroom. In light of the third annual math and science study scores, I am concerned that we are not focusing enough on math and science education. Therefore, I am especially pleased that this legislation promotes and strengthens math and science teacher training through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education. Located at the Ohio State University, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collects, catalogs and disseminates K-12 curriculum materials and resources in mathematics and science and provides teachers with a variety of services, including a technical help desk and reference service, print publications, and 12 demonstration sites located throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, the Eisenhower Clearinghouse is not a one-size- fits-all program. This program is available to teachers all across the country 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, there are no forms to fill out, applications to file or enrollment fees to pay. Because of this flexibility, our Nation's math and science teachers made Eisenhower National Clearinghouse's website one of the most visited education sites, receiving over 14 million hits. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whose work I very much admire for his response. {time} 1245 Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse is a valuable resource to all teachers nationwide, has done a great service with respect to providing our Nation's teachers with quality math and science resources. In fact, the Committee on Education and the Workforce intends to further highlight the mission and positive results of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse as it moves to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a program that deserves our strong support, and I thank the chairman very much for his time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and watched the process go forward. In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal involvement to end racial segregation. In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those struggling schools up in whatever way we could. Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the highest quality education in the least restrictive learning environment. Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's teaching corps. I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals the national commitment to reduction in class sizes. As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and carefully tailored in its means. Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman for whom the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order now finds himself opposing this fair rule. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to the floor to respond. We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has that money. The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and empower the classroom. That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear that the intent of the Republican majority is to eliminate the Federal role in education. They do not question, however, the ability of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the content of legislation. I want to read from the President's letter on this bill: [[Page H5861]] H.R. 1995 abolishes a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction and replaces it with a block grant that fails to guarantee that any funding will be used for hiring new teachers to reduce class size. Moreover, the block grant could be used simply to replace State or local funding instead of increasing overall investment in our public schools. If the Congress sends me H.R. 1995 in its current form, I will veto it in order to protect our Nation's commitment to smaller classes and better schools. There are some speakers who keep insisting that there is nothing wrong with the bill in terms of protecting the reduction in the classroom size initially, but definitely this leaves it wide open. It pushes the Federal priority aside and leaves the decision open for local education officials. As my colleagues know, most local education officials will seize the opportunity to spend the money as they want to spend it. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a very serious and important debate about improving the quality of teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later today. I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public schools across the country. But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000- teacher shortage over the next 10 years. This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment. Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern is misplaced. The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that could do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of Wisconsin under SAGE. We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on class size reduction. There are other States across the country implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio. As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is also contained in the chairman's amendment. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am simply in awe of the collective wisdom that exists in Washington, D.C., especially in Congress, and I look at these things from a very maybe simple perspective of having, one, been one that was raised in an impoverished neighborhood and went to schools that were not quite as excellent or elegant as the schools on the other side of town. But the situation still remains today the same as it did then. The question is, and we get into this debate, and we get so focused that we sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest. We say class size reduction as if class size reduction is the most important part, or we say teacher quality as if teacher quality was the most important part. I come from a different perspective, that I believe that both are. I guess we do not all keep up with the studies, and I am not too sure that I rely on studies all the time, but more recently, in just the last couple of weeks, there was a study that came out that showed that class size reduction in and of itself does a great deal of good for students because there is that one-on-one ability. And remember this, that the target area is that K through 6 to begin with, and we would like to expand it beyond that, but K through 6. And as I remember when I went to school, the teachers that were certified to teach K through 6 were generally certified teachers that have been through the training that was necessary to become qualified teachers, and they taught all subjects. {time} 1300 We did not have, and we still do not have, by and large, in most places in the country in K through 6 a segregated class for math and a segregated class for science and a segregated class for this and that and the other. These teachers are teaching all subjects to the classes. But more importantly, they are developing cognitive ability for those students so that when they get into the grades when those classes are separated, and I think we ought to remember that when those instructional classes, math, science, and the rest are in individual classes, they are in the upper grades. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about those earlier grades with the certified teachers. More recently, a study showed that class size reduction and where those students were in that smaller class size, whether or not that teacher was qualified in any particular subject, that those students benefited as much as did the kids that were in small class sizes with teachers that were certified in specific subject matter. So really, it only amounts to the fact of who do we target in this bill? We target the more needy. In their bill, the way the funding formula would begin, before we were able to get concession from them for hold harmless, and then beyond the hold harmless, it still has the faulty funding formula that draws money away from those areas where the children really need it. [[Page H5862]] Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, there is nothing in this bill that says that class size reduction cannot be a part for the schools that the gentleman is mentioning. My understanding is that a school district can decide that class size reduction is absolutely the most important. Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond by saying that the bill is not a bad bill, but it is just a little bit lacking, and that is where we would like to improve the bill to the point that it really targets the most needy. Let me say, when they say in the bill that the highest priority is class size reduction and there is no separate funding for it, they really do not give it a priority. So it leaves it up to the locals to decide where they are going to spend the money, whether they determine that they need it for class size reduction or they need it for teacher training. And I have nothing against either, because I believe that both go hand in hand, one with the other. But we ought to at least do it in a way that says to them, do the class size reduction, get the qualified teachers, show us which way we really need to spend the money before we authorize it being spent, rather than leaving it. Now, I know we always say that locals know best. Well, I wonder, if the locals know best, then why did the Federal Government get involved in this at all? The Federal Government got involved in these programs because locals did not make the decisions that were necessary to take care of the children with disabilities, to take care of bilingual problems, to take care of disadvantaged students, and that is where the Federal programs came up with Title I and other programs. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill. A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K through 6 several times. In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I do have great confidence in local control. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I referred to K through 6, I was referring to the fact of my own experience in grammar school that we had teachers that were qualified in all subjects and they taught all subjects, and K through 6 in most parts of the country today, not that our bill was inclusive of K through 6, but that is the situation that actually exists, and I think we ought to deal with the realities that are actually out there. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I will remind my colleagues that this rule is fair and balanced. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules, 6 are offered by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. This equal treatment is appropriate for consideration of a bill that has bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both the rule and the underlying Teacher Empowerment Act which relies on the principles of teacher quality, smaller class size, accountability, and local control to improve our children's education. But, teachers are central to today's debate, which is appropriate. Perhaps more than any other factor in education, teachers are key to academic achievement. By investing in our teachers through this legislation, we are strengthening our most valuable education resource. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 187, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 315] YEAS--227 Aderholt Archer Armey Bachus Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Coburn Collins Combest Cook Cox Crane Crowley Cubin Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Eshoo Everett Ewing Fletcher Foley Fossella Fowler Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Greenwood Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (MT) Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Istook Jenkins Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kasich Kelly Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (OK) Manzullo McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Myrick Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Reynolds Riley Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Souder Spence Stearns Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Tiahrt Toomey Traficant Upton Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NAYS--187 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Berkley Berry Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Bonior Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Capps Capuano Carson Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Condit Conyers Costello Coyne Cramer Cummings Danner Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doyle Edwards Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Forbes Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green (TX) Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hill (IN) Hilliard Hinojosa Hoeffel Holt Hooley Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson John Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kildee Kilpatrick Kleczka Klink LaFalce [[Page H5863]] Lampson Larson Lee Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McGovern McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (MN) Phelps Pickett Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Schakowsky Scott Serrano Sherman Shows Sisisky Skelton Slaughter Snyder Spratt Stabenow Stenholm Strickland Stupak Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thurman Tierney Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wise Woolsey Wu Wynn NOT VOTING--19 Berman Calvert Cardin Coble Cooksey Engel English Hinchey Holden Kennedy Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) McDermott Ortiz Peterson (PA) Stark Towns Watt (NC) {time} 1334 Mr. SHERMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 253 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1995. {time} 1334 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if someone is a parent and someone has an opportunity to have their child in a classroom with 25 other students with a quality teacher, or if someone is a parent and they have the opportunity to have their child in a classroom of 18 children with someone who is not qualified to teach, who would they choose? Well, it is very obvious. They would choose the quality teacher. All of the studies would indicate that next to the parent, and I repeat next to the parent, the determining factor as to whether a child does well or poorly in school has a great deal to do, more than anything else, with the quality of that clas

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT
(House of Representatives - July 20, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5856-H5919] TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 253 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the commmittee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order, as an original bill, the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill. Under this fair and balanced rule, 12 amendments are made in order, 6 offered by Democrats and 6 offered by Republicans. That means Members from both sides of the aisle will have equal opportunity to amend this bill. The rule makes in order a number of minor amendments as well as an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) which reflects bipartisan compromise on a number of issues and a substitute amendment offered by a Democrat member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. All 12 amendments are printed in the Committee on Rules report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. These amendments are not subject to amendment or a demand for a division of the question. {time} 1215 All points of order against the amendments are waived. In addition to the amendment process, the minority will have another opportunity to change the Teacher Empowerment Act through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule allows for orderly and timely consideration of the bill by allowing the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it follows a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, we can all remember our favorite teacher who made school more interesting and learning more exciting. These special individuals had a lasting impact on us and contributed in a major way to our attitudes toward school and our development as young people. We cannot underestimate the value and influence of a good teacher, and our investment in teachers should reflect their worth. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes teachers as perhaps the most important determinant in our children's academic success, and the bill seeks to enhance student performance through funding programs to improve teachers' skills. Specifically, H.R. 1995 streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Goals 2000, and the ``100,000 New Teachers'' program to give States and localities more flexibility in their use of these funds to advance teachers' professional development. Ninety-five percent of these funds will be distributed to local districts where those who are most familiar with the needs of their local schools will play a greater role in determining how the money is used to provide teachers with the tools to improve student learning. Some of my colleagues oppose the consolidation of government programs and may fear local control. But given the failure of a bloated education bureaucracy and the micromanagement of education by the Federal Government, it is hard to understand any aversion to the reasonable changes this legislation envisions. It is time to challenge the status quo and move our education dollars to the local level to give school boards, principals, and teachers some flexibility to use these dollars as they see fit. That does not mean we are giving away Federal dollars, turning our heads the other way and hoping for the best. The Teacher Empowerment Act actually increases accountability to parents and taxpayers by providing public access to information about the qualification of teachers and the average statewide class size. Additionally, [[Page H5857]] local districts and schools will be measured by performance indicators and goals set by their State and accepted by the Federal Government. The remaining 5 percent of funds available through the Teacher Empowerment Act may be used for a variety of purposes, including oversight of local programs and assistance for schools that are failing to raise student achievement. The funding flexibility this legislation provides will help local education agencies to recruit, reward, and retain the very best teachers. For example, the bill encourages States to develop innovative programs that promote tenure reform, teacher testing, alternative routes to teacher certification, merit-based teacher performance systems, and bonus pay for teachers in subject areas where there is a shortage of qualified candidates. One criticism of the bill that I would like to address is the administration's concern that this legislation undermines the President's ``100,000 New Teachers'' Class Size Reduction program. In fact, the bill requires funds to be used to hire teachers to reduce class size. It is true that this requirement is not a Federal mandate, like the President's proposal. It may be waived, but only if it is in the best interest of the students to do so. For example, the requirement could be waived in cases where reducing class size would mean relying on underqualified teachers or inadequate classrooms. This is exactly the type of common sense flexibility we need to insert into our Federal education policies. In addition to teacher training and education class size, the Teacher Empowerment Act continues an emphasis on basic academic skills, including math and science programs. This is an area in which a lack of qualified teachers is evident in the poor performance of U.S. students, whose achievement is falling behind that of children in other developed countries. Under the bill, localities must continue to expend the same amount on math and science programs as they would under the existing Eisenhower program, with limited exceptions. Along those lines, I am pleased that the Teacher Empowerment Act will allow for continued funding of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, which is located at Ohio State University. The ENC serves as the Nation's repository of ``K'' through 12 instructional materials in math and science education. Its collection of almost 15,000 curriculum resources is the most extensive in the Nation and provides a reliable resource for any teacher interested in professional or curriculum development. Since its creation in 1992, the ENC has distributed almost 4 million CD-ROMs and print publications, and its Web site received over 14 million hits just last year. This program's success in collecting and disseminating information on the best practices in math and science education deserves our continued support. In addition to math and science, the Teacher Empowerment Act also places an emphasis on technology by encouraging school districts to train teachers in the use of technology and its application in the classroom. The legislation also promotes reading and writing skills by extending the authorization of the Reading Excellence Act and providing a separate authorization for the National Writing Project. Mr. Speaker, this legislation promotes smaller classes, encourages innovation through local control, and emphasizes basic academic skills to improve student performance. But, most importantly, the Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the value of the individuals who interact with and provide guidance to our children on a daily basis. The ability of teachers to connect with children and peak their interest in learning is a gift that some have, but more commonly it is skill that teachers must learn. This legislation invests in teachers by giving them access to the tools they need to make a positive impact on our students' success. I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his great work, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, which will allow the House to debate, improve upon, and pass the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is a good rule and an important bill, which takes another step forward in meeting our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on both measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last year the Congress passed funding to help hire 100,000 new teachers across the entire country, and parents from Montana to Massachusetts cheered. Now my Republican colleagues are going back on that promise to American parents and making it open season on the funding of new teachers. Schools can now dip into the money for any program remotely related to education, and the only thing that we will lose is more teachers. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Superintendent of the Boston public schools saying that, under this bill, it will lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocation. And we just cannot afford it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about other parts of the country, but we in Massachusetts want our students to get every possible advantage we can give them, particularly smaller classes. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It will actually make our classes larger. The administration opposes this bill and for good reason. This bill fails to guaranty American students small class sizes of 18 students in the early grades, when they are particularly in need of a teacher's attention. We all know that once a class reaches about 35 to 45 students, it really does not matter too much whether a teacher is qualified or not. No matter how good they are, they spend most of their time policing and not enough time teaching. Although the bill provides an enormous amount of money, it does not target that money towards the neediest areas where our children are suffering the most. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), has a proposal that will help fund the new teachers for areas with big class sizes. It will also give the areas that cannot find certified teachers the funding to recruit and train new teachers. The amendment that the gentleman from California offers also provides almost twice the teachers as the other bill. But this rule will only allow 40 minutes of debate on the Martinez substitute instead of the traditional 60 minutes. And to make matters worse, well over half the amendments authored by the Democrats were not allowed under this rule, while nearly every single amendment authored by a Republican was allowed. Mr. Speaker, from what I hear, those Democratic amendments are very good, so good that they probably would have passed. And that is probably the reason they are not allowed anywhere near this House floor today. The base text of this bill needs as much help as it can get, and some of those Democratic amendments would have helped this bill a great deal. But, apparently, that is not what my Republican colleagues wanted. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the bill in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) corrects the superintendent, because, of course, in the manager's amendment, in the en bloc amendment, no public school loses any money. No public school loses any money. And I might also remind the gentleman that there was only one amendment offered in committee. Only one amendment. I do not know where all the others were, but there was only one offered in committee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. [[Page H5858]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer my dear friend. There was only one amendment. It was an en bloc amendment that contained all the amendments. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the letter of the Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools. Dear Mr. Moakley: I understand that the Teacher Empowerment bill passed two weeks ago by the Education and the Workforce Committee will be considered on the House floor as early as Tuesday, July 20, 1999. I am urging you to oppose this bill unless the well- targeted Class Size Reduction program is removed from the block grant and retained in its current form. I estimate that Boston would lose 12 to 15 percent of its current allocations under the current bill. Sincerely, Thomas Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today after the adoption of the rule, we will have the debate on what I believe is a historic bill in this sense; that we have been funding the Title I program and Teacher Improvement Program now for several decades, and never during the process of that program did we ever ask that they use this money to hire qualified teachers and that the States, in fact, put a qualified teacher in every classroom. This legislation, both the Martinez substitute and the bipartisan bill, requires both of that. At the same time, it also makes it very clear that we carry out the intent of the ESEA bill, which was to provide Federal assistance to close the gaps between educationally disadvantaged young children and others in our society. Yet as we continue to measure it, the gap continues to widen all over the country. For the first time in the 30-year history of this program, we are asking the school districts be measured and be held accountable for closing the gap between majority students and minority students and between rich students and poor students so that in fact all students can learn under our system. We know that the biggest single factor in the ability of a child to learn in our educational system is the quality of that teacher; yet we find ourselves throughout this country saddled with tens of thousands of teachers that are not qualified to teach in the core subject matters in which they are teaching. This legislation says that the Federal money ought to be used for that. This Federal legislation also preserves the President's program for 100,000 teachers. I would prefer to preserve it as the Martinez substitute, which will be offered later, does. But the fact of the matter is it is also very logical to look at the way the bipartisan bill does this, which says schools must use this money for class size reduction; but if they cannot hire competent teachers, they do not have the facilities to do it properly, then they can use the money until such time to go ahead with teacher development, improvement, and training, all of the things we know are absolutely essential all over this country to improve the professionalism of our teacher core and to make sure they are in fact certified and qualified to teach in their core subject. {time} 1230 It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will be voting for the Martinez substitute. I will also be voting without reservations other than the targeting matters for the bipartisan Goodling substitute that will be offered later this afternoon. I would hope that Members would focus on the issues of teacher quality and accountability, because for far too often, we have put in over $125 billion into this program and we have neither gotten teacher quality out of this program nor have we gotten the accountability of school districts for improvement of the students which the money is designed to help. I would urge Members to consider, certainly on our side of the aisle, voting for the substitute, also voting for the bipartisan legislation. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and congratulate her on the fine job that she is doing. As my friend from Martinez, California, has just said, this is a bipartisan bill. It is very important. At the beginning of the 106th Congress, we established four priorities that we wanted to address. Number one of those items was to improve public education. We all know that as we look at education in this country, we have a superb postsecondary education system, but at the primary and secondary level, we have some great school districts around the country and some great, great schools, but we also have some very serious problems. So as we look at improving public education, what is it that we must do? We have got to provide a little more flexibility to those school districts so that they can address many of the needs that are out there. Now, we saw the much heralded call for 100,000 additional teachers. That is great. It sounds wonderful. But it seems to me as we look at school districts around the country, there are issues other than simply adding teachers that they want to address. And what H.R. 1995 does is it allows for that flexibility. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the others who are working with Democrats to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. I am also proud of the way that we have structured the rule. It, in fact, has an equal number of amendments from our friends on the Democratic side and an equal number of Republican amendments. I think that with the kind remarks that have been made by Democrats here in support of the committee work, although yesterday afternoon I have to admit there was kind of an interesting debate and it is not unanimous. There are some who frankly want to still have more Federal involvement in the area of education and they want to involve themselves in micromanaging it. We want to provide flexibility. This bill does that. The rule allows for a free-flowing debate. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, since the American public in poll after poll has indicated that Federal assistance to education is a number one priority, every major education bill which comes to the floor should come with an open rule. The opportunity to discuss education policies and programs should not be constricted and oppressed as they are in this rule. The opportunity to let the voters hear a full debate must always be encouraged. What the Republican majority is doing is supporting this antidemocratic, piecemeal approach in the hope that they will accomplish the ultimate attempt of the Republican majority to move us to a situation where the role of the Federal Government in education is abolished. They are really still pursuing the goal of abolishing the role of the Federal Government, and a block grant is their desired result. This is the second beachhead for the block grant. Ed flex was the first one. This is the second one. By eliminating the President's initiative for a reduction in classroom size, it is one more step to move the Federal Government out of education and allow for a total block grant to go to the States with the Governors having an opportunity to use the money as they see fit. This rule is crafted to limit debate, maximize confusion and vigorously promote the perverted Robin Hood mentality which will take resources concentrated in our present Federal policy toward poor schools and spread it for other purposes while authorizing no significant new funding. Our committee does not demand new funding to take care of the education needs that have been identified by the American voters. [[Page H5859]] Educationally, this is a Robin Hood operating in reverse. It is going to eliminate Federal priorities, throw away accountability, and it will pilfer the money from the poor. It will take from the poorest schools where education policy presently directs money and spread it out and not provide any new resources. We have a budget surplus now. Why do we not make a demand on some portion of that surplus for education instead of robbing from the poor to take care of needs that are definitely there? We need to modernize our schools, we need to secure our schools, we need money for school construction; across the board all of the efforts to improve education are honorable, but they need resources. You do not solve the problem by taking resources from the areas where you have the greatest need. The core of the festering problem in education is in the poorest schools in rural areas and in big cities. What we are doing with this bill is moving toward a maneuver which will rob those schools in favor of spreading the money and making it appear that we have done something for education here in Washington. This is not the appropriate move. It is going to lead to a block grant where we lose Federal involvement altogether. The Federal Government is only involved to the tune of 7 to 8 percent at this point. It is not injuring schools in any way. Let us keep the Federal Government involved by protecting the President's class size initiative in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my friend from New York that this does not touch title I which is a massive program which I and many others favor, because many States did not in fact pay enough attention to the lower income areas of this country. Some States deliberately wiped out their property tax so that minorities would not have sufficient schools and went to private schools, and because of that the Federal Government stepped in and said those who are in low- income areas are going to need some help; just like as we had special- needs kids around this country that led to the development of IDEA. There is no question that there is a role, some role, for the Federal Government in education. The question is, is fundamentally who do we trust the most? This rule gives us the flexibility to debate a number of the different options and to really highlight again today the differences as to how the bulk of education should be run in this country, not the exceptions. We are not abandoning what we are putting into low-income students or into IDEA. But what we are saying is that rather than say, we know best here on the floor of this House what the school districts in my district in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country should do, some of them work to lower their class size and some of them rather than getting it down to 18 might want to have 19 in the class size and have better teachers for effectiveness. Others may want and need more teachers in IDEA which is the biggest financial drain in the local school districts because they cannot take care of many of these students that the courts have ordered them and Congress has ordered them to take care of. Each school district has their own funding flexibilities, each State has their own funding flexibilities and priorities they have to work. Who are we to say that they have to go a certain direction? Once again, let me repeat, this bill, while there are nuances in the additional spending proposed in the 100,000 new teachers and other programs, does not touch the basic funding mechanisms of which we have tried to put into low-income students. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OWENS. The gentleman said who are we to emphasize one thing over another? Most of the experts agree on few things in education, but they do agree that small class sizes in the early grades are essential to promoting reading and other subjects. Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, all of these things are a balance; that in fact research shows that teacher quality. Now, if the class size is 30 versus 18, but the class size differential, 19 or 20 compared to the teacher quality; depending whether you have computer access in your schools, if the schools are falling down, if you have inadequate textbooks and the parents cannot afford the textbooks. Different schools have different problems. I agree that if there is a wide disparity, but at the margins, and what I have seen in my district, in foundations around our country and so on is that we have seen, compared to the past, an amazing advancement in the local school boards and in particular State education associations in trying to improve the quality of education. We need to give them more flexibility. And when they fail, we step in like we did with title I and IDEA. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that the gentleman from New York did not give anybody the impression that somehow or other there is a magic pill out there that if you reduce class size, all of a sudden you are going to have better instruction and the child is going to do better. If I am a parent and I have a choice between 25 students in the classroom and a quality teacher or 17 students in the classroom and what they have done in California and have people who are not capable of teaching, I want 25 in the classroom and a quality teacher. The most important thing that every researcher ever said is that next to the parent, the most important factor for learning is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We do not want to ever lose sight of that. Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McKEON. The beauty of this bill is that we can have both, because we do the class size reduction, unless they do not have the adequate space or do not have the adequate teachers. Then we give them the ability to enhance the education of the teacher. This is the beauty of this bill, is we can have our cake and eat it, too. That is one of the great things about the thing we have put together in this bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time here on this very important legislation today. I rise, Mr. Speaker, and will support the Martinez amendment which will devote some more resources to education that we badly need. I also will support the underlying bipartisan bill that emphasizes a reduction in class size and an emphasis on the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. Now, I applaud some on the Republican side for this bipartisan bill because I know that 3 or 4 years ago, there were some on that side that advocated reducing the Department of Education to rubble and now we are emphasizing in a bipartisan way reducing the class sizes in America and putting emphasis on the quality of the teacher that stands in front of those students. I think this is a bipartisan bill, a Democratic-Republican bill, for two reasons: It emphasizes the right goals that all American parents and teachers and students agree with, and, that is, generally, in the earliest grades, 1 through 3, that when we have smaller class sizes, 18 or 20, we are more effective in making sure those children get off to the right start and get up to speed in their reading skills. Secondly, the delivery mechanism is right in this bipartisan bill. It does not loosely structure a block grant that you can spend money on anything. It tightly targets the spending for the State and the local school to choose between two things, a reduction in class size or quality teachers. I think that those are [[Page H5860]] both equally important goals and I would encourage my colleagues to support Martinez and support the underlying bipartisan bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Teacher Empowerment Act because it promotes teacher quality, reduces class size and sends dollars directly to the classroom. In light of the third annual math and science study scores, I am concerned that we are not focusing enough on math and science education. Therefore, I am especially pleased that this legislation promotes and strengthens math and science teacher training through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education. Located at the Ohio State University, the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse collects, catalogs and disseminates K-12 curriculum materials and resources in mathematics and science and provides teachers with a variety of services, including a technical help desk and reference service, print publications, and 12 demonstration sites located throughout the Nation. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, the Eisenhower Clearinghouse is not a one-size- fits-all program. This program is available to teachers all across the country 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, there are no forms to fill out, applications to file or enrollment fees to pay. Because of this flexibility, our Nation's math and science teachers made Eisenhower National Clearinghouse's website one of the most visited education sites, receiving over 14 million hits. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whose work I very much admire for his response. {time} 1245 Mr. GOODLING. The gentlewoman is correct. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse is a valuable resource to all teachers nationwide, has done a great service with respect to providing our Nation's teachers with quality math and science resources. In fact, the Committee on Education and the Workforce intends to further highlight the mission and positive results of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse as it moves to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this is a program that deserves our strong support, and I thank the chairman very much for his time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me, and I oppose this rule for the reasons outlined by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). This debate today is going to revisit a fundamental debate about values that we have had frequently in the last 40 years in the history of American education. For nearly the first 200 years of our country's history, the role of the Federal Government in public education was passive, some would even say negligent, as we sat on the sidelines and watched the process go forward. In the late 1950's, we had a choice between being passive in the face of racial segregation or being activist to try to end it, to create equality of educational opportunity. Slowly, painfully, grudgingly the courts, the Congress, the Executive Branch choose activist Federal involvement to end racial segregation. In the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting on the sidelines as poor children systematically attended poorer schools, and we collectively made an activist choice to enact the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to lend some assistance to lift those struggling schools up in whatever way we could. Also in the 1960's we faced a choice between sitting and watching as children with a disability were frozen out of the mainstream education process, who found that their needs for speech therapists or special teachers often wound up at the bottom of the local school board's priority list, behind AstroTurf for the football field, behind trips to Disney World for the board of education, and we enacted the IDEA that created in Federal law a Federal right for every child to have the highest quality education in the least restrictive learning environment. Today, I believe we are facing the same choice all over again with respect to the issue of quality of learning for every child in every setting in the primary grades. Last year a majority of us chose to take the activist position that we should encourage the reduction of class sizes by adding 100,000 teachers, qualified teachers, to this country's teaching corps. I believe the choice before us today is whether we should simply be a Federal subsidy or a national priority. Make no mistake about it. The bill that will be before us today is well intentioned, but it repeals the national commitment to reduction in class sizes. As the debate unfolds, we will be able to outline the reasons for that, but I would urge my colleagues to reject this rule on the grounds it is exclusive of good ideas and to ultimately reject the bill because I believe it steps away from that fundamental commitment to an activist Federal Government that is principled in its pursuits, but limited and carefully tailored in its means. Please oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman for whom the Committee on Rules made two amendments in order now finds himself opposing this fair rule. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules in permitting two of my amendments. I would note for the Record it rejected a third that would have promoted the teaching of holocaust education. I regret that that was the fact. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard recently one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that the new majority tried to turn the Department of Education into a pile of rubble, and that brought me to the floor to respond. We have before us today a very fair rule and a very powerful piece of education legislation which would return power to the teacher. Now let me tell my colleagues that the last thing for 40 years on the education feeding chain has been the teacher and the student. I chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service. In the Department of Education there are 5,000 employees of which 3,000 are located in the City of Washington, and those employees in the Department of Education are earning between 50 and $110,000 on average. Show me a teacher in my district that has that money. The balance of the 2,000 Department of Education employees are located in regional offices. We are saying, put the money, put the power, put the emphasis. We only spend 5 percent of Federal money; the total amount in education comes from the Federal level. We are saying, put that money in the classroom with the students, not in Washington, not with bureaucrats, and empower the teacher, empower the student, and empower the classroom. That is why we are offering this legislation today. That is why I ask for support for this rule and for this particular piece of legislation. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear that the intent of the Republican majority is to eliminate the Federal role in education. They do not question, however, the ability of the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze the content of legislation. I want to read from the President's letter on this bill: [[Page H5861]] H.R. 1995 abolishes a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction and replaces it with a block grant that fails to guarantee that any funding will be used for hiring new teachers to reduce class size. Moreover, the block grant could be used simply to replace State or local funding instead of increasing overall investment in our public schools. If the Congress sends me H.R. 1995 in its current form, I will veto it in order to protect our Nation's commitment to smaller classes and better schools. There are some speakers who keep insisting that there is nothing wrong with the bill in terms of protecting the reduction in the classroom size initially, but definitely this leaves it wide open. It pushes the Federal priority aside and leaves the decision open for local education officials. As my colleagues know, most local education officials will seize the opportunity to spend the money as they want to spend it. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, after this rule passes, we are going to have a very serious and important debate about improving the quality of teachers, administrators, and superintendents in our school system across the country. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, as it will hopefully be amended by the chairman's amendment later today. I also have to admit, however, that I have not been the most enthusiastic supporter on the committee to the piecemeal approach to breaking down the ESEA reauthorization this year into component parts. I feel that it was important to do the ESEA reauthorization all together in a comprehensive way recognizing the need of improving teacher, principal, and administrator quality in our schools, placing heavy emphasis on class size reduction, focusing emphasis on accountability and standards, but also recognizing the serious challenge we face in infrastructure needs that exist in our public schools across the country. But if we are going to piecemeal this, I think this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, is a very good first start in the area of improving teachers', principals', and administrators' quality in our schools. Based on the hearings that we have had in the committee throughout the course of the year, Mr. Speaker, we face a serious challenge with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and a roughly 2,000- teacher shortage over the next 10 years. This bill concentrates on quality improvement. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that is going to be offered later today to expand Troops to Teachers to other qualified individuals who are looking for a career change and who want to contribute their talents to teaching will hopefully help in the area of the shortage problem as well. I encourage my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment. Now there is going to be some controversy in the course of the day in regards to the lack of a separate funding stream to support the President's initiative of hiring 100,000 additional teachers. I believe, given the language of the underlying bill, that that concern is misplaced. The bill does require that class size reduction be given a top priority. This is entirely consistent with the Ed-flex legislation that was passed earlier in the year and that the President signed into law which allows local school districts to have the flexibility to apply for waivers and use the money for other priority needs that they have, such as professional development programs. We could go out and hire an additional 100,000 new teachers, but if they are unqualified, that could do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of class size reduction. My own State of Wisconsin has implemented the SAGE program back in 1993 for class size reduction in K through third grades. We have had a recent study coming out of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee showing the drastic improvement of student test scores in those classes that have had reduced class sizes in the State of Wisconsin under SAGE. We had hearings on class reduction in the course of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, one in particular highlighting the successes of the STAR program that was implemented in Tennessee on class size reduction. There are other States across the country implementing class size reduction programs, and I would hope that it would be a collective goal for all school districts to work for class size reduction and a better teacher-pupil ratio. As my colleagues know, this bill recognizes and balances the twin goals of class size reduction and the importance of getting qualified teachers into the classroom. That is why I want to commend the gentleman (Mr. Miller) for his strong teacher quality language that is also contained in the chairman's amendment. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very good bill. It is a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can stand up and take credit for and feel good about, including the President of the United States. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the chairman's amendment and also at the end of the day to support the underlying bill. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am simply in awe of the collective wisdom that exists in Washington, D.C., especially in Congress, and I look at these things from a very maybe simple perspective of having, one, been one that was raised in an impoverished neighborhood and went to schools that were not quite as excellent or elegant as the schools on the other side of town. But the situation still remains today the same as it did then. The question is, and we get into this debate, and we get so focused that we sometimes cannot see the trees for the forest. We say class size reduction as if class size reduction is the most important part, or we say teacher quality as if teacher quality was the most important part. I come from a different perspective, that I believe that both are. I guess we do not all keep up with the studies, and I am not too sure that I rely on studies all the time, but more recently, in just the last couple of weeks, there was a study that came out that showed that class size reduction in and of itself does a great deal of good for students because there is that one-on-one ability. And remember this, that the target area is that K through 6 to begin with, and we would like to expand it beyond that, but K through 6. And as I remember when I went to school, the teachers that were certified to teach K through 6 were generally certified teachers that have been through the training that was necessary to become qualified teachers, and they taught all subjects. {time} 1300 We did not have, and we still do not have, by and large, in most places in the country in K through 6 a segregated class for math and a segregated class for science and a segregated class for this and that and the other. These teachers are teaching all subjects to the classes. But more importantly, they are developing cognitive ability for those students so that when they get into the grades when those classes are separated, and I think we ought to remember that when those instructional classes, math, science, and the rest are in individual classes, they are in the upper grades. We are not talking about that here. We are talking about those earlier grades with the certified teachers. More recently, a study showed that class size reduction and where those students were in that smaller class size, whether or not that teacher was qualified in any particular subject, that those students benefited as much as did the kids that were in small class sizes with teachers that were certified in specific subject matter. So really, it only amounts to the fact of who do we target in this bill? We target the more needy. In their bill, the way the funding formula would begin, before we were able to get concession from them for hold harmless, and then beyond the hold harmless, it still has the faulty funding formula that draws money away from those areas where the children really need it. [[Page H5862]] Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is, there is nothing in this bill that says that class size reduction cannot be a part for the schools that the gentleman is mentioning. My understanding is that a school district can decide that class size reduction is absolutely the most important. Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond by saying that the bill is not a bad bill, but it is just a little bit lacking, and that is where we would like to improve the bill to the point that it really targets the most needy. Let me say, when they say in the bill that the highest priority is class size reduction and there is no separate funding for it, they really do not give it a priority. So it leaves it up to the locals to decide where they are going to spend the money, whether they determine that they need it for class size reduction or they need it for teacher training. And I have nothing against either, because I believe that both go hand in hand, one with the other. But we ought to at least do it in a way that says to them, do the class size reduction, get the qualified teachers, show us which way we really need to spend the money before we authorize it being spent, rather than leaving it. Now, I know we always say that locals know best. Well, I wonder, if the locals know best, then why did the Federal Government get involved in this at all? The Federal Government got involved in these programs because locals did not make the decisions that were necessary to take care of the children with disabilities, to take care of bilingual problems, to take care of disadvantaged students, and that is where the Federal programs came up with Title I and other programs. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond to the distinguished ranking member to a couple of things he said. I appreciate, and I would like to say that before the world, the fact that we did work together on a bipartisan bill. We ran into a glitch along the road, but this was a bipartisan bill, and my hope is that with final passage today, the world will know it is a bipartisan bill. A couple of things the gentleman talked about. The gentleman mentioned reducing the class size K through 3, but then he used K through 6 several times. In the bill that we have, it says reduce class sizes nationally in grades 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. So the difference is the substitute is a Federal mandate that says nationally reduce class size 1 to 3 to an average of 18 students. And then as to the gentleman's question about who do we trust more, local or Federal Government, well, I spent 9 years on a school board. I do have great confidence in local control. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when I referred to K through 6, I was referring to the fact of my own experience in grammar school that we had teachers that were qualified in all subjects and they taught all subjects, and K through 6 in most parts of the country today, not that our bill was inclusive of K through 6, but that is the situation that actually exists, and I think we ought to deal with the realities that are actually out there. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I will remind my colleagues that this rule is fair and balanced. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the Committee on Rules, 6 are offered by Democrats and 6 by Republicans. This equal treatment is appropriate for consideration of a bill that has bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both the rule and the underlying Teacher Empowerment Act which relies on the principles of teacher quality, smaller class size, accountability, and local control to improve our children's education. But, teachers are central to today's debate, which is appropriate. Perhaps more than any other factor in education, teachers are key to academic achievement. By investing in our teachers through this legislation, we are strengthening our most valuable education resource. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 187, not voting 19, as follows: [Roll No. 315] YEAS--227 Aderholt Archer Armey Bachus Baker Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bereuter Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brady (TX) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Coburn Collins Combest Cook Cox Crane Crowley Cubin Cunningham Davis (FL) Davis (VA) Deal DeLay DeMint Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Eshoo Everett Ewing Fletcher Foley Fossella Fowler Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Granger Green (WI) Greenwood Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hansen Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill (MT) Hilleary Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Isakson Istook Jenkins Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kasich Kelly Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (OK) Manzullo McCollum McCrery McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon Metcalf Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Myrick Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Ose Oxley Packard Paul Pease Petri Pickering Pitts Pombo Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Ramstad Regula Reynolds Riley Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roukema Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Souder Spence Stearns Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tauzin Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Thune Tiahrt Toomey Traficant Upton Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Watkins Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NAYS--187 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Berkley Berry Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Bonior Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Capps Capuano Carson Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Condit Conyers Costello Coyne Cramer Cummings Danner Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doyle Edwards Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Forbes Ford Frank (MA) Frost Gejdenson Gephardt Gonzalez Gordon Green (TX) Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hastings (FL) Hill (IN) Hilliard Hinojosa Hoeffel Holt Hooley Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson John Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kildee Kilpatrick Kleczka Klink LaFalce [[Page H5863]] Lampson Larson Lee Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McGovern McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Millender-McDonald Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal Oberstar Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Peterson (MN) Phelps Pickett Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Rangel Reyes Rivers Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Schakowsky Scott Serrano Sherman Shows Sisisky Skelton Slaughter Snyder Spratt Stabenow Stenholm Strickland Stupak Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thurman Tierney Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Velazquez Vento Visclosky Waters Waxman Weiner Wexler Weygand Wise Woolsey Wu Wynn NOT VOTING--19 Berman Calvert Cardin Coble Cooksey Engel English Hinchey Holden Kennedy Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) McDermott Ortiz Peterson (PA) Stark Towns Watt (NC) {time} 1334 Mr. SHERMAN and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 253 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1995. {time} 1334 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if someone is a parent and someone has an opportunity to have their child in a classroom with 25 other students with a quality teacher, or if someone is a parent and they have the opportunity to have their child in a classroom of 18 children with someone who is not qualified to teach, who would they choose? Well, it is very obvious. They would choose the quality teacher. All of the studies would indicate that next to the parent, and I repeat next to the parent, the determining factor as to whether a child does well or poorly in school has a great deal to do, more than anything else, with the quality of that classroom teacher. In California,