Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for allowing me the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000. As most will recall, about 2 years ago we enacted on a bipartisan basis the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Millions of students have since benefited from our efforts, and the minimal number of technical amendments that we are considering today is testimony to the fact that the bill was well written. The legislation we are considering today makes necessary technical changes, as well as a few policy changes, that the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce believe are necessary to implement the act as intended. In writing this legislation, the members, with the guidance of our chairman, have worked to ensure that the bill is bipartisan; that it will benefit students; and that it will be signed into law. One notable benefit to students is the way this bill improves the Perkins loan program. It modifies the loan rehabilitation programs to provide the benefits of loan rehabilitation to a borrower with a defaulted loan who pays his or her loan in full with a single payment if the defaulted loan has not been reduced to judgment. It also clarifies that loans in deferment for a student who performs a service resulting in loan cancellation is reimbursed for interest and not just for principal. Additionally, this legislation improves the regulatory process for schools and other program participants. This is important because the committee continues to hear reports that the Department does not give the public enough time to comment on or to implement complex student aid regulations. To address this, the bill requires the Department of Education to allow a minimum of 45 days for comment after the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. It also prevents disclosure or reporting requirements from becoming effective for at least 180 days after final regulations are published. Another significant element of this bill is the change to the return of Federal funds provision to help students who withdraw before the end of a term. It corrects the Department's interpretation and clarifies that students are never required to return more than 50 percent of the grant funds that they receive. However, considering that we in Congress have worked hard to help our Nation's students meet some of their needs in order to attend the college or university, I for one would hate to see us being taken advantage of, or the taxpayer being taken advantage of. It is theoretically possible for a person to get a Pell grant to enroll in a low-cost local program with the full intention of dropping out almost immediately and pocketing half of the grant money. One thing I have learned in my years in Congress is that if there is a theoretical way for people to take advantage of the Federal Government, some people will find it and will do it. To address this concern, I intend to ask the General Accounting Office to conduct a study to determine whether or not this is a significant problem. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for allowing me to speak in support of the bill before us, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, for yielding time to me. I would like to commend him for taking the leadership to bring this measure before the House today to honor a distinguished son of the State of Wisconsin and a friend of mine, Les Aspin. While a member of the Democratic Party, Les was a person who took his responsibilities as a United States Representative, not as a party representative, seriously. He often broke party ranks to take actions that he felt were right, and his leadership influenced many others in this body, so that it ended up being quite effective. I can remember myself wondering whether it made sense for us to get involved in military action in the Gulf at the time of that crisis, when Kuwait was invaded, or whether we should, as many counseled at the time, rely on an embargo, which is still in effect, to bring down Saddam Hussein and roll back the troops. Les took the well of this House and repeatedly urged us to use military force, overwhelming military force, and predicted that if we marshalled that force it would not be effectively resisted, and we would have, and gasps went from the crowd, if any casualties, casualties in the hundreds, not the thousands. At the time, people were predicting a quagmire and tens of thousands of American troops and allied troops losing their lives. While it did not seem to many that plausible at the time, Les proved to be absolutely right. His counsel by a narrow vote was followed, and we did roll back the invasion of Kuwait, and set an example that we hope will deter others from taking similar action. He broke ranks from the military community in opposing the B-2 weapons system. He broke ranks again with party orthodoxy in supporting, but in a moderate way, the SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative, feeling that we should not try in Congress to cut it off, we should not throw money at it, but we should invest in research in that area, as we could prudently and as the defense community indicated could be absorbed. He was well respected, a former educator, an economist at the Marquette University, and a person who has been honored by Marquette University; there is the Aspin Institute here in this city, which trains many young people who come out to learn about government. I have been pleased to have a number of Aspin Institute scholars in my own office. Others in Congress I think can say the same. I really am very, very pleased that my colleague and the worthy successor of former Defense Secretary and former Representative Les Aspin, former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, has chosen to honor Mr. Aspin in this way.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Robert Rosenberg, who has just delivered the opening prayer. Pastor Rosenberg is a resident of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, which is in my district, and has been the pastor of the Calvary Lutheran Church in Oshkosh since 1973. He graduated from Iowa's Wartburg College and its Theological Seminary in 1965. Pastor Rosenberg is active in the community. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Oshkosh, and is also the volunteer chaplain for the Oshkosh Police Department. He and his wife have three children. We appreciate Pastor Rosenberg's giving the prayer today.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to voice my concerns, and those of my constituents, about the current situation in many of our communities-- as a result of the long-pending Federal Railroad Administration requirements for improved grade-crossing safety equipment as a condition of escaping 24-hour-a-day locomotive horn noise. When the law requiring these regulations was enacted in 1994, railroad jurisdiction resided in the Commerce Committee. According to the terms of the statute, FRA was to adopt regulations making universal sounding of horns the ``default'' rule--that is, the requirement in the absence of FRA-specified equipment. FRA was to issue the regulations specifying the horn requirements and the equipment requirements in two phases--one by November 1996, and the other by November 1998. In fact, FRA did not even propose regulations until January 2000. Meanwhile, many railroads--in an understandable attempt to minimize liability for grade-crossing accidents, have adopted policies of universal horn- blowing at grade crossings. This leaves cites and towns in a ``Catch- 22'' situation'': The horns are blowing, but the FRA has given no guidance on what it takes to avoid the noise. I submit for the Record at this point a newspaper editorial about what this means in practical terms to the affected communities. [From the Oshkosh Northwestern, Thurs. Apr. 13, 2000] Editorial.--Rail Crossing Rules One More Mandate The Federal Railroad Administration is again showing how bureaucrats can twist sensible Congressional intentions into expensive new regulations that are shoved down the throats of local communities. Oshkosh will be forced to spend $320,000 on median barriers at railroad crossings if the federal bureaucrats have their way. This is another example of federal funding that is not as freely flowing as the rules that are spawned. If the city does not comply with the proposed rules, trains will blast their whistles almost continuously as they make their way through the city's 16 railroad crossings. Fortunately, there still is time for the public to speak out against this mandate madness. The Swift Rail Development Act was passed by Congress in 1994 and requires train whistles be sounded upon approaching every public grade crossing, unless there is no risk to persons, it is not practical or if safety measures have been taken to fully compensate for the absence of an audible warning. Like many communities throughout the nation, Oshkosh has a ban on locomotives sounding their whistles within the city limits unless an emergency situation develops. The ban recognizes that constant locomotive whistles would be a major irritation as trains rumble through 25 to 30 times a day (and night) through the city's most densely populated areas. FRA officials drafted proposed regulations to comply with the law--regulations that still are under review and subject to a public comment period. Our problem with the proposed regulations is they take railroad crossing safety measures to unnecessary extremes based on data that does not apply to Oshkosh. Requiring trains to blow whistles at crossings without gates is not an unreasonable regulation. It stands to reason that the additional warning of a horn blast could help prevent accidents. However, the FRA rules take the intention of the law to an unreasonable extreme because they say gates at crossings are not good enough to warrant honoring local whistle bans. The rules allow the Transportation Secretary to determine what are acceptable safety measures at crossings. The secretary has determined that median barriers are essential because they prevent vehicles from getting around crossing gates lowered as trains pass through. That's a barrier too far for two reasons. First, the federal government wants to protect the public but has not provided any additional funding for the improvements apart from existing highway grants. Second, the FRA is relying on statistics in a misleading fashion. The agency concludes there is an average of 62 percent more collisions at gated crossings with whistle bans in place. However convincing that figure may appear, it leaves out two important facts: of the crashes at intersections with gates in non-whistle communities, 55 percent of the collisions occurred because motorists deliberately drove around the lowered gates. Another 18 percent happened because motorists were stopped on the crossings. So nearly three-quarters of the accidents happened because drivers chose to break the law or ignore basic safety precautions. Concrete barriers and other extravagant measures are not going to protect people from themselves if they have a death wish. Nor has Oshkosh seen increased carnage at its crossings. In fact, the addition of gates in 1998 has turned the city from one of the deadliest to one of the safest in the state. Our accident totals are at zero and counting with a whistle ban in place. And Oshkosh meets all of the other criteria set by the agency to continue the whistle ban, including long- term law enforcement initiatives at crossings and targeted public education programs. Rep. Tom Petri, R-Fond du Lac, should exercise his considerable rank on the House Transportation Committee to encourage the FRA to reconsider its barrier requirements before allowing for a quiet zone. In addition, the public can send comments on the proposal to Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Plaza-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments will be accepted through May 26 and should include the reference ``Docket Number FRA-1999-6439.'' Let's hope it's not too late to get the FRA to change its mind. Certainly, FRA's complete failure to adhere to the schedule in the statute has been a major contributing factor in this unfortunate situation. At the same time, it appears that there may be some overreaching by some railroads in adopting across-the-board horn- blowing requirements. I want to resolve this situation as rapidly as possible. To that end, I have sent to the FRA a letter requesting a formal legal opinion on the exact degree of federal pre-emption of state and local noise regulations, in the current situation--that is, where there are as yet no final and effective FRA regulations in place. No matter what policy decisions are to be made here, it is in the interest of all parties to know what the current legal situation really is. At this point, I submit for the Record a copy of the April 28 letter sent by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois and myself to FRA Administrator Jolene Molitoris, requesting a formal legal opinion on the degree of legal pre-emption that obtains while the FRA rulemaking is still pending. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 28, 2000. Hon. Jolene Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington,

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), and, pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the time I control be controlled by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 310) supporting a National Charter Schools Week.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this bill which commends the charter school movement for its contribution to improving our Nation's public schools. I have been a supporter of the charter school movement since 1992, when former Representatives McCurdy and Penny and I introduced the Public Schools Redefinition Act of 1992. This bill was based on legislation introduced the previous year by Senators Durenberger of Minnesota and Lieberman of Connecticut. That was the very beginning of Congressional efforts to encourage charter schools. I am delighted to say that the bipartisan efforts of a handful of dedicated individuals resulted in the subsequent creation by Congress of a Federal public charter schools program in 1994. Later, the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 revised the public charter school statute by, among other things, increasing its authorization and giving priority for grants to states, providing charter schools with financial autonomy. We should remember that the charter school movement is a true grassroots movement. It is a movement that was started in the early 1990's by worried parents and frustrated teachers who were sick and tired of the status quo, sick and tired of battling the bureaucracy that strangles educational innovation, and sick and tired of seeing their children wallow in mediocrity and, in some cases, in failure. It is, therefore, important to keep in mind that Congress should shy away from federally prescribing requirements such as teacher certification. According to the Charter Friends National Network, ``More than two-thirds of the states--with more than 80 percent of the charters--currently have some degree of flexibility in allowing use of teacher qualifications other than traditional certification.'' Any attempt to apply a teacher certification mandate to charter schools would jeopardize their very nature, which is based on autonomy in exchange for academic excellence. In my State of Wisconsin, I am proud to say we have a strong charter school and school choice program, particularly in the City of Milwaukee, where we have the prominent support of our Governor and other education reform-minded individuals, such as former School Superintendent Howard Fuller and Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that charter schools work. They work because they are free from burdensome regulations; and in return, they are held accountable for academic results. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana for introducing this resolution; I thank him for the opportunity to speak in support of this measure. I urge all of my colleagues to sport and promote this week as the national charter school week.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago we approved legislation which allows parents to put aside $500 each year in education savings accounts, where the money can be invested in order to grow tax free and where it can be added to each year so that it can grow enough to help pay for college tuition. Ever since we managed to get education savings accounts enacted into law, we have been trying to raise the amounts parents are allowed to put into their children's accounts each year. We have been trying to extend education savings accounts so that parents, grandparents, or other interested parties will be able to use them to prepare for private or parochial, elementary or high school expenses. If a family were able to put $2,000 in an education savings accounts every year, from the time a child was born, and if the account averaged 7\1/2\ percent interest annually, it would hold $14,500 by the time the child got to 1st grade. If nothing were withdrawn and annual savings continued, that amount would rise to $46,500 when it was time for high school. President Clinton vetoed an extension of education savings accounts last September, but I am confident that most of us in the House think parents should be encouraged to save for their kids' futures and that is why we are going to try again.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3822, ``The Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.'' I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, for his leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor this afternoon. H.R. 3822 represents an effective, forward-thinking approach to reforming our Nation's failed energy policy and providing long-term relief to our Nation's consumers. Every day we see newspaper or television reports on the rising cost of fuel. There are stories about truckers having to park their trucks because they can't afford to keep them running. Many airlines have already imposed surcharges to reflect their higher costs. And there is plenty of speculation in the press about how high prices will really go before the summer vacation season. Prices of $2 per gallon, which seemed far-fetched just weeks ago, now don't seem out of the question. Prices are simply too high and have risen too fast. The United States has been caught flat footed and its economy is at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers. The situation is unacceptable and we must take action. Since the current Administration took office, domestic oil production has dropped by 17% while consumption has increased by 14%. This, along with an oil cartel run by countries that are supposed to be our allies who the President is supposed to be able to influence, seem to me to be the real causes of high fuel prices. This legislation is an important tool that the U.S. can use against foreign oil producers who constrict supply to drive up the price of their product. It affords us significant diplomatic leverage in difficult economic times, and I believe that this sort of supply-side solution is the most effective way to prevent the kind of price escalation we see today from occurring in the future.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Poverty Trap Study Act of 2000. This legislation would create a commission to study the combined effects on low income families of effective marginal tax rates resulting from the simultaneous phaseouts of a number of welfare programs as well as payroll taxes and federal and state income taxes. Why does this prosperous country still have millions of people living in poverty? Why, in the face of tremendous economic growth, does the poverty rate barely drop if at all? It's not because we are a selfish country; it's not because we spend too little on welfare and it's not because the minimum wage is too low. It's because we have adopted tax and welfare policies which bring about that exact result! Not that it was the intent of those who wrote those programs to keep people in poverty. I'm sure that when the housing assistance program was created, it was thought that taking 30 percent of income as rent was not too much of a disincentive to work. Likewise, when the Earned Income Tax Credit was created and later revised, I'm sure no one thought that a 21 percent phaseout of benefits for two-child families just over the poverty level was a drastic disincentive. And when the Food Stamp Program was begun, a 24 percent phaseout didn't seem so bad. But add them up and we already have a 75 percent effective marginal tax rate from just these three programs. Now add in a 7.65 percent payroll tax, federal and state income taxes, and possible phaseouts of other state welfare programs, plus copayments for child care, and in most states families with children with earnings around the poverty level face marginal tax rates over 100 percent! Furthermore, at an income level where most of these phaseouts are still in effect, these families face the ``cliff effect'' of Medicaid and lose their health coverage. It's not surprising that we have a seemingly intractable problem of poverty no matter how high the economy soars. What is amazing is that some people are able to work their way out of poverty anyway. We have created this mess by designing every program in a vacuum without ever considering the combined effects. I supported the welfare reform of 1996, sending most of the decisions back to the states. The main effect has been for states to institute work requirements for most able-bodied recipients, moving them off of AFDC and into subsidized jobs. That's good but it is only the first step. Phase II has to be to move people from subsidized jobs into self-sufficiency, and that is never going to happen until more work actually means more money in their pockets. Likewise, I supported the recently passed marriage penalty relief act. However, as a percentage of income, the biggest marriage penalties have nothing to do with moving to higher tax brackets or the size of the personal exemption. In some cases in my home state of Wisconsin, a single parent with two children who marries someone with a similar income loses ALL of the spouse's income to lost benefits and taxes and the family of four has to live on less than the family of three did! Ending the poverty trap should also be considered phase II of marriage penalty relief. It's time to look at welfare and tax policy for low income families in a coherent fashion instead of the hit or miss piecemeal approach we have been employing. That is why I have introduced the Poverty Trap Study Act of 2000. This legislation would create a commission to examine the poverty trap problem and make recommendations to fix it. I call on my colleagues who support ending marriage penalties, cutting taxes for low income families and fighting poverty, to support this bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3419--the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999--is a comprehensive bill that will improve truck and bus safety by strengthening Federal and State safety programs. The bill creates a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on January 1, 2000; increases funding from the Highway Trust Fund for Federal and State safety efforts; and, closes loopholes in the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. For example, the bill gives the Secretary emergency authority to revoke the license of a truck or bus driver found to constitute an imminent hazard. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is given increased funding for safety to allow for growth in the number of safety inspectors and in safety research. The bill guarantees $195 million over the next three years from the Highway Trust Fund for motor carrier safety grants. These grants fund State safety enforcement efforts. The bill also contains a number of programmatic reforms, including the closing of loopholes in the Commercial Driver's License, setting standards for fines, and improving border safety efforts. I am submitting a Joint Explanatory Statement on the bill that explains the provisions of the bill in more detail. It is critical that Congress enact this legislation before the end of the session since trucking safety functions of the Department are temporarily housed in the Office of the Secretary. If we don't pass this legislation, I am afraid that this organizational limbo will continue. The bill is very similar to the bill that passed the House earlier this year by a vote of 415 to 5, which had bipartisan support in Committee. This is an important bill, that truly will improve highway safety. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just adopted.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I call up the resolution, (H. Res. 373) that immediately following his resignation as Chaplain of the House of Representatives and in recognition of the length of his devoted service to the House, Reverend James David Ford be, and he is hereby, appointed Chaplain emeritus of the House of Representatives, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is offered in appreciation and thanks for the 20 years of service to the House, its Members, and its employees by our colleague and friend, the Chaplain of the House, the Reverend James David Ford; and I urge its adoption.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 213) encouraging the Secretary of Education to promote, and State and local educational agencies to incorporate in their education programs, financial literacy training.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the author of the resolution before us. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, although our economy remains strong, some of us in Congress believe that we should be focusing our efforts to find ways to address our Nation's high consumer debt, numerous bankruptcies, and unacceptably low savings rate. A way to focus our efforts on solving these problems without merely treating the symptoms is to increase our Nation's children's knowledge about and appreciation of financial literacy. I join my distinguished colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in expressing my view that educating our Nation's youth about personal finance should be a priority for our schools across the country. The Jumpstart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy recently found that the average student who graduates from high school lacks basic skills in the management of personal financial affairs. Students are unable to balance a checkbook and have little or no insight in the basic financial principles involved with earning, spending, saving, and investing. In its nationwide survey conducted in 1997, the Jumpstart Coalition examined the knowledge of over 1,500 12th graders. On average, survey respondents answered only 57 percent of the questions correctly, and only 5 percent of the respondents received a grade of C or better. Evidently, many young people fail in the management of their first consumer credit experience, establishing bad financial management habits, and stumble through their lives as consumers learning by trial and error. Our Nation's students are taught about a multitude of subjects, including reading, writing, history, mathematics, science, and the list goes on. But do we teach our children how to balance a checkbook? Do we teach them about compounding interest? Do we teach them about the necessity of good credit? Do we train students to understand how to budget their money and about their relationship between taxes, spending, and investing? Madam Speaker, because of our students' inability to understand and manage finances, it should come as no surprise that our Nation's personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high and personal savings rates at an all-time low. Despite the importance of youth financial education, the average American high school senior lacks these basic skills and is unable to manage personal financial affairs. However, these shortcomings when properly addressed can be turned around. A recent study by the National Endowment for Financial Education has shown that personal finance education improves students' saving and spending habits and money management skills. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 213, introduced by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), to promote financial literacy training. Specifically, this resolution encourages the Secretary to use funds available from the Fund for the Improvement of Education, Part A of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to promote personal literacy programs. In addition, H. Con. Res. 213 encourages States and local educational agencies to incorporate personal financial management curriculums into their education programs. Madam Speaker, we all know that an investment in education is an investment in our future. It is time we focus on efforts to promote financial literacy to help ensure that our children will have the tools they need to prosper in the next millennium. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 213.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a pilot program that allows up to 10 States or school districts with the approval of their respective State legislatures and governors to convert Title I into a portable benefit, one that follows the child to the education service chosen by his or her parents. The amendment gives interested States wide latitude to vary the amount of the benefit according to factors such as differences in cost of services in different areas of the State, differences in educational needs of students, or a desire to place priority on selected grades. The amendment also provides wide latitude in the types of educational services which may be covered. This amendment does not require States to provide benefits to all poor students regardless of educational need, as some have indicated. States are explicitly allowed to target the funds as they wish. Therefore, this provision will not necessarily dilute the assistance provided to current Title I recipients. In fact, Mr. Chairman, States can increase targeting to those students with the greatest educational need if they so wish. Similarly, the amendment need not threaten school-wide programs. For example, States could provide that any child attending a school with a school-wide program must use his or her Title I benefit to pay for that program. If the State also provides public school choice, it would then get some highly useful market-based feedback on the perceived value of those school-wide programs. The child-centered benefit might be more difficult in the current program to administer, but I prefer to let the States and school districts decide whether the benefit of this approach exceeds any such costs. The basic philosophy of this amendment is that if something is broken we should allow people to try to fix it. I am not sure if there ever really was a time when Title I was unbroken, but it is certainly broken now. There are some places where it works, including some in my own district, but on the whole studies show that the $120 billion we have spent on this program over the years has failed the children that it was supposed to help. It is time to let the States try something different, and it is especially appealing to allow experimentation when we have so little clues when it is so unlikely that we will do worse than the current program. And what is the heart of the experiment allowed by this amendment? It gives power to parents. If education bureaucracies have not helped their children, why not give some decision-making power to parents? To those who argue poor parents cannot make good decisions, I reply that that represents the kind of bureaucratic paternalism that has failed practically everywhere it has been applied. To those who argue that the likely per-child benefit on the order of some $650 is not a lot, well I reply that it is something, and something is better than nothing. It will offer some choices and give parents some power and the responsibility to play some direct role in the education of their children. The money could pay for supplementary services from a variety of sources including a child's own public school. It could even be used by a private school student to pay for an exemplary after-school or Saturday morning program at a public school. We should never assume that the public schools could not compete for these dollars. But if some parents decided that the best option for their children was to apply their $650 toward private school tuition rather than supplementary services of any kind and that $650 made the difference in enabling them to afford the tuition, I believe we owe it to their children to allow them to make that choice. Some decades ago, Mr. Chairman, many folks used the slogan: Power to the People. Of course, they really meant power to themselves claiming to represent the people. This amendment provides real power to the people and one of the strongest kind, purchasing power. In every other case where individual consumers make decisions, we get better and cheaper goods and services. Why not try that in compensatory education? Remember, this is a pilot program. We are trying a different approach. If it does not work, we can return to the drawing board and consider other options; but if it does work, Mr. Chairman, if it does make a difference to our educationally disadvantaged students, then it means that today with this bill in this 106th Congress we will have significantly affected the future of America and of her children. What have we got to lose? I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.