Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The amendment would require the agencies funded in this bill to undertake new duties. These agencies would be required to determine whether entities are the subject of Federal proceedings alleging fraud before any contracts could be awarded. Fraud would only have to be alleged, not proven. I do not care if the President of the United States is the person making the accusation, people are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even average citizens. These departments currently do not have to make such determinations. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. The gentleman is not discussing the point of order. I do not intend to debate the amendment, and I do not expect anyone else is allowed to under the rules.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the appropriate committee of jurisdiction.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I learned the hard way a long time ago when I was in the State legislature and the Republican floor leader of our legislature lost his seat because a Democratic attorney general falsely accused him of breaking the law. He was indicted. He was convicted. And his conviction was overturned, justifiably so, by a State supreme court. That decision taught me the hard way that no matter how high up the power is, no person ought to be able to cause another person economic injury or personal reputation injury without having it proven. That is my motivation in taking this action.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think every thoughtful Member of this House understands what happened on the tax bill was an outrageous sneak play which delivered an illegitimate benefit to an industry that is not entitled to it. I would insist on its being eliminated and the Durbin amendment being accepted even if this amendment were not offered. But in the interest of driving home the message and saving time, I would be willing to withdraw my objection and support the amendment under the conditions that we just described.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, might I just indicate that I hope the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] can yield back my 10 minutes without using them. I think we cannot afford this much time on a nongermane amendment if we are going to finish this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say on this side of the aisle that I reluctantly accept the amendment as well. I understand that this issue was subject to extensive negotiations during the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Act. I would point out that that reauthorization took 2 years. I think that this amendment is not consistent with that. However, I am willing to accept the amendment in the interest of comity and time. I anticipate we will discuss this issue extensively in conference on the bill to reach a solution that is more satisfactory to everyone. I will accept very reluctantly the amendment at this time, and I would ask Members to recognize that we have a 5 p.m. deadline today, and if we are to finish this bill, we need to finish the bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] may very well be right, that a lot more work needs to be done. It seems to me that the right course would be to go into conference and work out a mutually agreed position. I still think in the end, regardless of the outcome of this amendment, that is what we are going to need to do. So when this amendment passes today, I hope people on all sides recognize that in the end, evaluation of student performance is a good thing. I believe testing is a good thing if it is done in the right manner, and I think we need to figure out a way to make sure that it can proceed.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that means that authority over all policy guidelines for this testing is being moved to that board; it will not be under the Department of Education. In addition, that board is being expanded to include a higher number of local officials, and along the way they exempted home schoolers; they made quite clear that home schoolers were exempted from any testing. Now, in practical terms, the administration has indicated that it will not sign a bill that does not allow them to develop the process or continue the process of developing testing. Now as I said, as far as the committee is concerned, after consultation with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], I am accepting the amendment, simply to make clear that the administration does need to do a lot more work in talking not only with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], but frankly with additional members of my own party. It is no secret that significant members of the Hispanic caucus and significant members of the Black Caucus of my own party support the Goodling amendment. I understand their concerns, but frankly, I believe that even if students are originally learning in another language, I believe that they need to take that test in English by the time they get to around the fourth grade. I understand and respect the concerns of several members of the Black Caucus that it is futile to provide testing if we do not also have a commitment to provide additional resources so that schools with little financial support can, in fact, have an opportunity to perform decently on those tests. However, I have a different tactical view. It happens to be my view that if this testing consistently demonstrates that low-income districts are not doing well on the tests, I believe that that will generate additional public demands for added resources to those districts. So basically, I think we have a lot of suspicion about whether these tests are going to be legitimate, whether they are going to be biased or not. People are concerned about it philosophically. We have a lot of concerns about whether these tests are going to be unfair, and I recognize all of that, and I can only say that at some time I think it is important that these problems be resolved. The only way I know to resolve them is by people sitting down in the same room and working them out. I would simply note the words of Chester Finn, who used to be the number two man in the Department of Education under the Republican administration, and I have disagreed with Mr. Finn often, but he was quoted in the newspaper today saying something that I think is right on. He said, ``If this testing initiative runs into trouble, it will be because conservatives will not swallow the word ``national'' and liberals will not swallow the word ``testing.'' It seems to me that both need to overcome their own concerns, because I really believe that in the end testing is going to be a crucial element in convincing the public that more resources need to be provided to poorly-financed districts in this country. I do believe that parents have a right to know how their children do perform on tests which are viewed nationwide. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] may very well be right.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think those defending the committee position have the right to close.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is entitled to close the debate.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois indicated that he accepted the amendment for the committee. We also accept it on this side of the aisle. I would simply note that I have some doubts about it, because the original funding provided by the Congress to supervise these elections came as the result of an agreement entered into by the Justice Department under the Bush administration. I think it is in the national interest of the United States to see to it that fair elections are conducted in this union. It has a long and checkered history. I think it is in the interest of the country to see to it that the union is as clean as possible. It is obvious at this point that there are considerable problems with the last election. We do not know yet what the court decision is going to be, but as the gentleman has indicated, there is no money in this bill for financing supervision of any pending election, so there is certainly no problem at this point with accepting the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to pass; it is going to pass by a significant margin. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the subcommittee chairman, has already accepted the amendment. And for purposes of making clear to the administration that they have a lot of work to do in working out their differences, not only with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] but with segments of my own caucus, on behalf of the committee I want to indicate that we will accept the amendment as well. However, if it comes to a rollcall vote, I personally will vote ``no,'' representing not the committee but myself as an individual member. I would like to explain why. I am a convert on this issue. I have never felt particularly strongly one way or another on the issue of testing. I think there are many more important things to do in the field of education besides simply test, and when the idea of national testing first became respectable a number of years ago, I was very skeptical about it. I thought that teachers would wind up teaching to the test; I thought all of the things that a lot of opponents of testing think now. I thought that it would disadvantage students from low-dollar districts, districts that are not supported with a great deal of financial resources. I thought all of those things. I guess even Members of Congress can learn something, and at least I think I have, because I talked to a good many school administrators, a good many parents in my own district, and listening to them I gradually changed my view of this issue. I did so for the following reasons. It is nice to talk about States being able to administer their own tests. It is nice to talk about how well students do on a State's individual test. But the fact is, I was born in Oklahoma. I wound up growing up in Wisconsin. Most people in this society are mobile, and the mistakes that are made in many localities in this country often wind up being exported to some other part of the country, and all communities experience, sooner or later, the consequences of a lack of quality in education, whether that occurs in their own area or whether that occurs in some other district, because people move into communities all the time. I think the national government has a responsibility to try to assist local districts in their own way to improve quality just as much as possible, and I think that parents do not care much whether the initiative for testing comes from Washington or from Madison or from their own hometown, just so long as there is constant pressure on the system to change and to increase the quality that is being delivered to every single student in this country. I think that testing can play a useful role in that process. Now, I think we need to point out a few things. First of all, the bill itself does not allow the administration to proceed with testing. The bill, in fact, specifically precludes the administration from proceeding with testing, and I personally thought that the language that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] had worked out on the bill was sufficient to satisfy those who had questions about it. I was obviously wrong. I would point out that under the bill the administration cannot proceed to test; all it can do is develop a test which then must be sent to the National Academy of Science so that they can review the validity and the accuracy of the test, so that they can in essence serve as a quality control element in the process. That does not satisfy persons who are opposed to the administration initiative, obviously. The Senate has gone further; not far enough in the eyes of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but they have gone a far piece. They have, for instance, taken away policy oversight from the Department of Education and they have given it to the National Assessment Governing Board. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, the committee officially on this side of the aisle will accept this amendment. But I will vote against it, for a number of reasons. I would, essentially, like to simply direct my remarks to the most conservative Members of this House and the most liberal. To conservatives I would simply say, I think it is necessary for us to recognize that not all Federal initiatives are bad. We have a national interest, indeed a national responsibility, to produce quality education in this country. We have a national responsibility to see to it that local school districts are measuring up to that responsibility and are indeed providing the quality opportunity for every American child which each and every American child under this Constitution has the right to expect. I disagree fundamentally with the gentleman from Texas who said the Constitution does not even allow the Federal Government to prepare testing. The Constitution, the preamble, spells out the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberties for ourselves and our posterity, among other things. I think seeing to it that everyone has equal educational opportunity and that that opportunity is met with quality is indeed a Federal responsibility, even though the instruments by which we have chosen to meet that responsibility are largely local school districts. It is naive to the extreme, in my view, to assume that, totally left to their own devices, local school districts will produce that equality of opportunity. That is why we have Federal law enforcement. That is why we have civil rights laws. That is why we have title I and a number of education programs aimed at assuring equal quality. I would say to liberals, they do children no favors when they run away from either standards or testing. It seems to me that children desperately need to know where they stand. They desperately need to have us level with them in terms of how they are really doing. If we do not, then we get pressures for the very social promotion which a number of people in this House have voiced objection to. I recognize that testing may demonstrate that students may have had an unequal opportunity to get a good education and that, therefore, they will do poorly on tests. I think that is one of the advantages of having those tests, because it will then demonstrate to this country the need to put additional resources into districts which, through no fault of their own, do not have the financial ability to provide the same kind of opportunity that some of our districts provide. So I think on this issue it is necessary for both sides to put aside their ideology, to put aside their bias, to put aside their own philosophic preferences, and to instead put the needs of children first. I think the President is trying to do that by his testing initiative. I would point out this bill does not allow testing to proceed until a lot of other things happen and that they cannot proceed this year at all, and we have another appropriation bill next year that we can deal with if we do not like the kind of testing or the kind of tests which the administration has prepared, and under the Senate amendment, indeed, the preparation of those tests will be left in other hands. So I will personally vote ``no,'' even though I recognize that this amendment is going to pass by a very significant margin.