Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, how much time has each side remaining?

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) a hard-working, active member of the committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), an active member of our committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), an active member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will work to ensure that the language of the gentleman from Delaware is included in the final bill that is sent to our President.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, that is why the accountability in Straight A's is so high, to ensure that States and school districts target their funds as effectively as possible to improve academic achievement.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I agree. As the gentleman knows, there is a hold-harmless in the bill, no school district in America will lose Title I dollars. Straight A's gives them the flexibility to address the needs of those students.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Castle, I believe I can speak for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in this regard: What the gentleman from Delaware has indicated is true. States may include part A of Title I as well as 13 other programs.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), our colleague and a senior member of the committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), a member of the committee, on leave, and our distinguished majority leader.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a former member of the committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a permissive one. It allows States and local districts the option of establishing a 5-year performance agreement with the Secretary of Education. In return for this performance agreement, they will get greater flexibility to use their Federal dollars as they determine with vastly slashed paperwork. Straight A's puts academic results, rather than rules and regulations, at the center of K to 12 programs. It works on the same premise as charter schools, freedom in return for academic results. Straight A's grants freedom and puts incentives in place for States to enable schools to innovate and to educate children as effectively as possible. States lose their flexibility in 5 years if they do not meet their goals and in 3 years if their student performance declines for 3 years in a row. On the other hand, States and school districts are rewarded if they significantly improve achievement and narrow achievement gaps. Now, Mr. Chairman, Straight A's creates a relationship with States where Uncle Sam is the education investor, not the CEO. Since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed back in 1965, our approach from Washington to aiding schools has been a bit heavy-handed. It has relied on strict regulations of what States and communities may do with their Federal dollars and what priorities they must set, and that has not worked very well. Evaluations of dozens of ESEA programs make clear that the rich-poor achievement gap has not narrowed since 1965, that schools are neither safe nor drug free, and that much of the professional development money that we have spent has been wasted. Straight A's is voluntary. States do not choose this option. They will continue to receive funds under the current categorical program requirements. They will be protected. But, Mr. Chairman, we owe it to our children to allow States the opportunity, the option, of participating in such a program. If Congress can agree to this ambitious experiment, then 5 years from now, when the next ESEA cycle comes around, we certainly will know a great deal more about which visions will best guide the Nation's schools. Until then all we are doing is throwing money at a set of sometimes broken programs. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for working out this bill. I think it is one of the most innovative and potentially far-reaching bills to come out of committee in my 20 years there, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response. This would, in fact, not be a mandate in the sense that its effective date is after the expiration date of this particular reauthorization bill, but this is a signal to State and local school districts that we feel science education is important and to prepare young people for the changing world of work and to be productive Members of our society and to be a competitive society, we must emphasize science education.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman's response to the argument that some have made that this is one more mandate, and we are attempting to give more flexibility to the States, mandate that there be science education in addition to I guess we do mandate reading and math.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, would the author of the amendment answer a question?

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, I want to again commend the leadership on this committee on both sides of the aisle for having worked so diligently and over so many months to bring H.R. 2 to the floor with bipartisan support. I do regret the fact that, unlike some other of these negotiations that I have been involved in in other committees, that leadership, after having reached an agreement and worked out a bill that makes a number of improvements in the Title I program, is not willing on a bipartisan basis to defend the agreement on the floor of the House from amendments, whether they come from one party or the other. Because the purpose of having negotiations and give-and-take and working out a good piece of legislation is then to stick by those agreements when we get to the floor and move the bill forward. That having been said, I am proud that we are at this point here in the House of Representatives, with a good piece of legislation before us, authorizing more money for Title I. We are on the verge of, in this Congress, appropriating some $350 million above what the administration has requested for Federal aid to the school children of our country, because I think we have got our priorities right here in this Congress. We have managed to appropriate, not just talk about, and not just authorize, but appropriate more money than ever before in the history of this Republic for Pell Grants to help the neediest of our children to go to college and vocational school and get on the ladder of success here in our country, more money for special ed, and more flexibility for school districts to deal with disadvantaged kids with handicaps here in our country. This legislation deserves bipartisan support, not tinkering from the fringes. So I hope the amendment is defeated and the bill is passed.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is a great credit to our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling); our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). It is a great tribute to all of them that the bill passed our committee with an overwhelming vote of 42-6. The Student Results Act was put together with four principles in mind: Quality, accountability, choice, and flexibility. It contains several noteworthy provisions. For the first time, it encourages public school choice, at least in those situations that cry out for it most. The public school choice provision is a simple concept. Children should not be forced to attend failing schools. One of the problems in education today is that some students, especially many of those participating in Title I programs, are trapped in substandard schools without a way out. The bill allows children attending schools classified consistently as low performing to be given the opportunity to attend a higher quality public school in the area. And if there is no such school in the area, then the school district is authorized to work out a school choice program with another school or schools in a neighboring school district. Surely, if we cannot fix our worst schools, we should give their students a way out, at least to a better school. Failure to do that is completely unfair to those children and robs our Nation of the contributions they could make if their talents were better developed. Although Title I has traditionally tried to engage parents in the education of their children through measures such as parental compacts and formal parental involvement policies, I am pleased to note that there are new provisions in H.R. 2 that attempt to address this issue better. A significant parental empowerment provision is the annual State academic reports on schools and the school district reports. Through these report cards and annual State reports, H.R. 2 makes available to parents information on the academic quality of Title I schools. Among other things, such information would include test scores at the school as compared to other Title I schools in the district. H.R. 2 would also require school districts to make available upon request information regarding the qualifications of the Title I student's classroom teachers, including such information as whether the teacher has met State qualifications and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in which he or she provides instruction. In an effort to provide a higher caliber of teachers, H.R. 2 also places a freeze on the number of teacher aides that can be hired with Title I funds. For those aides employed with such funds, the bill increases the minimum qualifications that must be met by all teacher aides within 3 years. Finally, the bill attempts to reward excellence by giving States the option of setting aside up to 30 percent of all new Title I funding to provide cash rewards to schools that make substantial progress in closing achievement gaps between students. Madam Chairman, when it comes down to it, this is what we are attempting to do. Not only must we improve all our schools, it is especially vital to close the achievement gaps between them and to find ways for low-income students to have equal access to high-quality education. This bill makes positive steps in that direction; and, therefore, I am pleased to support it.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PETRI

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999, is a comprehensive bill designed to improve truck and bus safety by strengthening Federal and State safety programs. The bill creates a new National Motor Carrier Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation to administer Federal motor carrier safety programs. It increases funding from the Highway Trust Fund for Federal and State safety efforts, and it tightens the commercial driver's license program. For example, the bill gives the Secretary emergency authority to revoke the license of a truck or bus driver who is found to constitute an imminent hazard. This year the subcommittee held 4 days of hearings on motor carrier safety issues. We heard from a broad range of witnesses, including the Department of Transportation, the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, representatives of the truck and bus industries, organized labor, and highway safety representatives. After listening to their testimony, we concluded that the best course of action that this committee could take for the safety of the Nation was to create this administration. The bottom line was that truck safety was just not getting the level of attention it should while it was part of the Federal Highway Administration. The process of establishing this administration has already begun because of the inclusion in the Transportation Appropriations Act of a vision that prohibits the Federal Highway Administration from continuing to carry out motor carrier safety functions. The Secretary of Transportation has implemented this provision by creating a freestanding office. The National Motor Carrier Administration is given increased funding for safety to allow for growth in the number of safety inspectors and in safety research. The bill authorizes $420 million over the next 3 years from the Highway Trust Fund for motor carrier safety grants, and 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. The bill has bipartisan support. The Secretary of Transportation wrote to us on Tuesday in support of the legislation. It is an important bill that truly will improve highway safety, and I urge its immediate passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)