[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2298-H2310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 143 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 143
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. 1) a bill to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is
left behind. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed two hours 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 committee 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 such 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
such amendments are waived. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 143 makes in order the bill H.R. 1, the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, under a structured rule. The rule provides 2
hours of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, debatable for
the time specified, equally controlled by a proponent and opponent.
These amendments shall not be subject to amendment or demands for a
division of the question.
The Committee on Rules worked very hard to ensure that the amendments
made in order reflect the variety of views in this House of
Representatives on education policy. I think the result is a balanced
rule that gives the House the opportunity to work its will on a variety
of issues related to the education of our children. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill as well as the
amendments printed in the report. Finally, the rule provides for one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic leap forward on behalf of our
children, parents, and teachers across this great Nation. Lately, the
attention of Americans has been drawn to the problems of high gas
prices and sustainability of our resources. America, it is time to
focus that attention on our Nation's most precious resource: our
children. H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, does just that.
We understand that the future of this great Nation lies in a global
economy, and H.R. 1 recognizes that investing in our children today
will prepare them and our country for the challenges of tomorrow. The
Committee on Education and the Workforce was assigned the arduous task
of reforming our Nation's failing Federal education policy. Although
there have been many bumps in the road, I am pleased to stand before my
colleagues today to present a rule on a bipartisan piece of legislation
that will transform the Federal role in education to ensure that no
child is left behind.
During testimony in the Committee on Rules, we heard time and time
again, from both Republicans and Democrats, that H.R. 1 represents the
most sweeping comprehensive education legislation to be brought before
the House during our tenure. It has been a long time in coming and this
bill is truly historic. The education of our Nation's children is the
number one concern of Americans, and H.R. 1 is the number one priority
of our President.
I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague and good
friend from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his hard work and
commitment to improving educational opportunities for our children, and
I would also like to congratulate and commend the ranking member of the
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his
hard work and support of this bipartisan legislation.
Despite a decade of economic growth and a Federal outlay of more than
$130 billion in the last 25 years, the achievement gap dividing our
Nation's disadvantaged students and their peers has continued to widen.
Mr. Speaker, the message is loud and clear: money alone cannot be the
vehicle for change in our public schools. It is time for
accountability, it is time for reform, and it is time for a commitment
to our children.
[[Page H2299]]
We must start by determining which students are in need of additional
help and which schools and school districts are in need of improvement.
H.R. 1 accomplishes this task by implementing annual assessments in the
core subjects of reading and math for students in grades three through
eight. However, the bill also recognizes that communities know more
about their children than Washington bureaucrats. H.R. 1 respects local
control by allowing States to design and implement these tests and
provide Federal funds to aid them in that task. It also explicitly
prohibits federally sponsored national testing or curricula.
Armed with knowledge from these assessments we will be able to
determine which schools are failing to educate our children, and this
information will be readily available to parents in the form of an
annual school performance report card. Based on these facts, H.R. 1
provides a system of accountability to ensure that students do not
become trapped in chronically failing schools.
As passed out of committee, H.R. 1 provides immediate public school
choice for children in schools identified as failing after just 1 year.
That is public school choice. This provision will give parents the
freedom to choose a better-performing public or charter school to
educate their children. The bill also allows parents to seek
supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, after-school
services, and summer school programs for their children if they are
enrolled in a school that has been identified as a failing school for
more than 3 years. This measure will act as a necessary safety valve to
allow students to seek outside educational support for any state-
approved provider using Federal title I dollars.
Now, in exchange for these new accountability measures, the plan will
dramatically enhance flexibility for local school districts, granting
them the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the Federal education
dollars they receive among an assortment of ESEA programs. This
decentralized approach will allow agencies to better target resources
to fit the needs of their own communities.
Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965, numerous programs and restrictions have been
piled and piled and piled upon the act, creating a bureaucratic maze of
duplicative policies, all well intentioned, but amazingly inefficient.
H.R. 1 will give some needed organization to this patchwork of programs
by consolidating or eliminating 34 programs under ESEA and cutting the
Federal education bureaucracy in half. At the same time, the bill will
target effective proven methods of reading through the implementation
of the President's Reading First initiative.
Mr. Speaker, we know that over 60 percent of children living in
poverty are reading below the very basic level. We cannot expect these
children to exceed with this handicap. At the same time, we destine
these children to academic underachievement by our failure to teach
them to read; we are denying them access to the world that may be
opened up to them only through books. The President's Reading and Early
Reading First programs will introduce a scientific-based, comprehensive
approach to reading instruction and will serve to refocus education
policy on this most fundamental skill.
The President's education plan, No Child Left Behind, also emphasizes
two other fundamental areas of education through the establishment of
math and science partnerships. The United States cannot remain a world
leader without the math and science knowledge that has made us a leader
in technology and scientific discovery. I am very pleased that H.R. 1
includes an initiative which will encourage States to partner with
institutions of higher learning, businesses, and nonprofit math and
science entities to bring enhanced math and science opportunities to
local education agencies with a high need.
Mr. Speaker, the 1,000-plus pages of H.R. 1 are filled with
calculated reforms that will restructure Federal education policy. It
includes provisions to increase safety in our schools, promote English
fluency, and improve teacher quality. It encompasses the education plan
laid out by our President and provides us with the most important
change in Federal education policy in over 40 years.
Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House has a vested interest in the
education of our children as the Nation's most precious resource. We
cannot stand idly by or be timid in fulfilling our responsibility to
ensure that every child, rich or poor, white or of color, gifted or
disabled have access to an education that gives them every chance to
reach their full potential and exceed their goals and their parents'
dreams for their future. As we debate this historic legislation, I urge
my colleagues to keep the children at the forefront of their minds. I
urge Members to support this rule and the historic underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such
time as I may consume.
(Ms. Slaughter asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose the process
it represents, and I oppose the duplicity by which this rule came
about. Nearly 150 amendments were submitted for this major legislative
initiative, and only a handful have been made in order.
Furthermore, many members of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce withheld offering amendments in that committee because of
assurances by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, that
they would be given an opportunity to do so on the floor. That did not
happen. Cut out of the process were numerous good-faith efforts to
build and improve on the underlying bill.
My colleagues relied on the good-faith assurances of the Republican
leadership, and learned a hard lesson instead. This is not a tone in
Washington for which so many of us had hoped. For instance, this
egregious rule will block consideration of an amendment by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). The gentleman's amendment would
have provided $20 billion for needed school renovation, repair, and
construction. Our schools are crumbling before our eyes.
Mr. Speaker, at the basic level, surely we can all agree that schools
should provide a safe and secure environment for learning and
instruction with classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other
resources necessary for learning. In the same manner, the rule blocks
my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), from offering an
amendment to maintain a separate stream of funding for the class size
reduction program.
Overcrowded classrooms remain the number one obstacles to quality
education in many communities. This rule does nothing to alleviate the
problem. The process for this education bill began with a lot of
promise.
In recent days, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
approved, on a true bipartisan basis, a major education reform bill
which will hold public schools accountable for improving children's
education while offering a substantial increase in Federal funds to
help them accomplish that goal.
It reflected a significant agreement between Democrats and
Republicans to improve education for all children in our country
regardless of their economic, social, or racial background; in other
words, leaving no child behind. It provided substantial new resources,
$4 billion more for elementary and secondary education for next year,
compared to what the Federal Government is spending this year, in
exchange for higher standards and tough accountability rules.
But then the process began to break down. Last week Congress failed
to include in the budget conference the new funds for education that
were called for in today's underlying bill. The disparity between
education funding in the budget and education funding in this reform
bill raises real questions about whether Congress is serious about
improving schools.
Furthermore, this week we have come to learn that the bipartisan bill
has been hijacked by extreme elements of the majority's party, elements
intent on undermining the bipartisan
[[Page H2300]]
agreement reached by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
These elements are intent on reinserting vouchers into the underlying
bill, a move that would undermine public education. Moreover, efforts
to block-grant Federal money, a proposal referred to as Straight A's,
are underway and would also undermine the specific targeting of poor
school districts that exists in Federal law.
I am at a loss to explain to my colleagues how so carefully crafted a
bill has come under attack. The underlying bill was one this body could
have been proud of, but its success is now in jeopardy. We must not let
that happen. I urge the defeat of this rule to take care of these
deficiencies.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me this time. And I thank the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) who worked so hard on this. It was a pleasure working
with him. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). I also thank the Members on
the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), whose interest in education is great, as well as gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee),
and many others.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill. I believe that President
Bush deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his emphasis in terms
of what he is doing in education. I will be the first to say if any one
of us out of 435 had prepared this particular rule, we would have
prepared it differently. This rule is a compromise rule, taking 135
amendments or so and trying to determine how we could best represent
the interest of various Republican and Democrat parties in terms of
bringing it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I personally oppose a number of things in the rule. I
would have liked to have seen them out of the rule. I think there are
people who would have liked to see things in the rule that are not in
the rule. I understand some of the opposition to it and I will oppose,
as vehemently as any Member, certain aspects of this particular rule.
Mr. Speaker, just to cite one, the amendment by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) dealing with assessments absolutely guts the basic bill, and it
is one that I would have a great deal of trouble with.
But this is a rule. It is something that we have to move forward
with. It is my determination that we should pass the rule, go on to the
debate on the various amendments, and let them fall where they may.
Mr. Speaker, why is this a good bill? It is a good bill because it is
the first major piece of legislation in decades in this country,
perhaps since the creation of the Department of Education, which
essentially reevaluates the role of the Federal Government and makes a
determination that we have to start at a very young age, particularly
with kids in lower-income circumstances, and teach them how to read by
the end of second grade. And in grades 3 through 8, we have to pay
attention to how kids are doing. That is what the testing is all about,
in order to give them the opportunity to determine if they are not
doing as well as they should, and then providing for that opportunity.
We do have some consolidation into block grants to give flexibility.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) was very helpful in creating
local flexibility so that various people who are running the local
districts could make decisions in terms of how to expend money at the
local level. This gives the greatest flexibility of any legislation
ever coming out of Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, essentially what the President and others have done, and
this is a very bipartisan bill, is that they have sat down and made the
decision that the ultimate goal here is to help kids with their
education and where they are going. So even if you do not agree with
everything that is allowed for in the rule, as I do not, I would still
urge people to support the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today reflects the culmination of a
lot of work and effort by all of the members of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. I particularly want to thank the members
of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who
are part of the working group. But I want to extend that thanks to
every member of the committee, all of whom had to stretch to try to
bring this legislation together to try to create sound educational
reform and improvement along the lines that so many Members of Congress
have spoken about in our various debates, in our campaigns, talking to
children and parents to try to make the American education system a
better place for all of our students so they can acquire the skills
necessary to participate to the fullest extent in American society.
I believe that this legislation does that. It does that because of
the kind of cooperation that we received. However, I must say that I am
very disappointed in the rule because I am very concerned that very
crucial items for debate within the discussion of the American
education system, those amendments were not allowed in order:
Amendments offered by Members on this side of the aisle to deal with
the issues of smaller class size, to make sure that in fact we have an
environment in which teachers can teach and children can learn; to have
modern and safe schools; to renovate the unsafe schools and improve
schools through school construction grants; to make sure that we have
adequate counselors in schools so if we see violence break out in some
of our campuses, even to the extent of killings through gun violence
and other forms of violence, that we have people in place who can deal
with these student populations, in many cases in very difficult
situations; and clearly the need for full funding for IDEA.
Mr. Speaker, this is important to all of us on both sides of the
aisle to make sure that funding is there. For that reason, I would ask
Members to vote against this rule so that perhaps those amendments
could be made in order.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my distinguished friend and
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, whose hard
work, along with his ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), has led us to this historic day.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and members of the
Committee on Rules, for their long hours last night in putting this
together.
Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for the portrait that was unveiled
yesterday, and congratulations to him and hopefully his health
continues to improve.
Let me, like my colleagues before me, thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), my partner in this process, along with
those members of the working group, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer);
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who have spent months looking
across the table at each other, trying to develop a bipartisan bill
that follows the path that the President outlined.
[[Page H2301]]
As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) pointed out, we
really owe a debt of gratitude to all members of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce on both sides of the aisle who had their
moments of disappointment, their moments of happiness, but a
willingness all of the way through the process to see us produce a
bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that in the 10 years that I have been here in
Congress, the method in which we moved the bill through the committee
and the cooperation of all of the Members was absolutely stunning. We
had not one ill word said in the committee. We worked together, even
when we were disagreeing, to try to produce a bill that will help
children in America. I want to thank my colleagues.
As the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) pointed out, this is an
historic opportunity. President Bush has made education reform his top
priority, and now the House has the opportunity to deliver on the
President's promise. There are four main components of this bill. Four
key principles that the President outlined during the campaign and has
talked about all year: holding schools accountable to American parents;
providing State and local school districts with unprecedented new
flexibility; giving new choices to parents and students who are trapped
in failing schools; and ensuring that student instruction is based on
sound, scientific research.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 that we have coming before us embodies each of
those principles and closely tracks with the President's education
reform plan. We are on the threshold of the first serious overhaul of
Federal education policy since it was created in 1965. There is a lot
of discussion that we will have about this bill when we get to it.
First, however, we have to pass the rule that is before us.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is some disappointment, disappointment on
the Democratic side of the aisle and disappointment on the Republican
side of the aisle on some amendments that were not made in order.
However, we have produced a rule that is fair: fair for the Members,
fair for the country, and fair for this bill. All of us know we have a
very delicately balanced bill. The only way we are going to produce a
solid, bipartisan bill is to keep a delicately balanced bill.
Mr. Speaker, there are amendments that Members would like to offer,
but I think that we have a fair representation embodied in this rule,
and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is a good bipartisan bill; but I
oppose this rule for several reasons, one of which is the denial of any
Democratic amendment on school construction.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has spent millions and millions
of dollars on State and local prisons during my time here in Congress,
and virtually nothing on public school renovation and construction.
About 15 years ago, a Federal judge in Flint, Michigan, my hometown,
ordered the closing of our county jail, built in 1930, stating that it
was unfit for human habitation. A few years later, we blew that jail up
in compliance with that court order.
{time} 1300
That jail was newer and in better condition than many schools in my
congressional district, including Homedale Elementary School in my own
neighborhood which is in deplorable condition. We should really be
ashamed when we spend money on prisons and find some reason not to
spend money on school construction and renovation. Let us at least have
the opportunity to vote on school construction. It is a very
nonintrusive way to help our schools, school construction and
renovation. What are we really afraid of?
We have crafted a reasonable bipartisan education bill. Let us have a
reasonable rule for floor action.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the chairman of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce would engage with me in a colloquy.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to.
Mrs. WILSON. As the gentleman from Ohio knows, I had filed an
amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer),
on public school choice. That amendment would have provided parents and
children a better education through the public schools by eliminating
barriers to full choice within public school systems. My amendment
would have provided transportation expenses in public schools and
creative funding mechanisms for charter school facilities, whether
those facilities are leased or purchased.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio and I worked together yesterday
on a version of this amendment that would be in order and that the
committee could accept. That amendment would have authorized $400
million in Federal matching funds for States to level the playing field
in the area of facilities funding for charter schools and traditional
public schools. Charter schools often have to choose between paying
their rent and paying their teachers.
Mr. BOEHNER. Yes, I am very familiar with the gentlewoman's
amendment.
Mrs. WILSON. I understand the gentleman supported making this
amendment in order and that it was inadvertently left out of the
amendments that we will consider on this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. The gentlewoman is correct. I strongly support public
school choice and eliminating the barriers for charter schools to
educate children. The lack of funding for space is one of the biggest
hurdles they face. We need to create incentives for States to provide
funding mechanisms for charter schools without taking funds away from
public schools. The gentlewoman has been a leader in these efforts to
improve public education, and particularly crafting innovative
financing mechanisms for schools. I was looking forward to working with
the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from Indiana to
debate that issue on the floor. Unfortunately, the amendment was not
made in order.
Mrs. WILSON. Would the gentleman agree to seek to include the per-
pupil facilities aid program amendment in the conference committee on
H.R. 1?
Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentlewoman is aware and the gentleman from
Indiana is aware, similar language is in the Senate version of this
bill. I will pledge to work with the gentlewoman from New Mexico and
the gentleman from Indiana when we get to conference on trying to
secure this language in the final version of the bill.
Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I thank him for his
leadership. I look forward to continuing our work together.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico,
someone whom I have enjoyed working with on public school choice. I
just want to say that as we debate this bipartisan bill over the next
several days, we are going to be dealing with issues of reform and
accountability and testing. And we are going to be dealing with issues
of when children do not do very well, that they have more options to
get into new schools and out of failing schools. Certainly this
amendment that the gentlewoman and I have worked on expands public
school choice, expands options for parents to get into charter schools
and magnet schools, and does it earlier than waiting 3 or 4 years for a
school to fail. We have put this amendment together. It is a bipartisan
amendment on the Senate side with Senator Gregg and Senator Carper. We
hope that this would be accepted in conference.
Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy as I mentioned to the gentlewoman, if
she will yield further, that we will work together in conference to try
to secure this language. I share their commitment to increased public
school choice and to the growing movement of charter schools that are
providing help for children in very needy communities.
Mrs. WILSON. I thank my colleague from Indiana for his strong work on
this and we will continue to work together. I thank the chairman for
his leadership as well. I looked forward to working with him.
[[Page H2302]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. Mink of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to serve on the working group
representing the minority was a tremendous experience. I must say that
going into this, I did not expect to be able to reconcile all the
various differences that we held on the majority and the minority side.
It took an amazing amount of work on the part of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) to put this together. In the process of reconciling many of our
differences, one of the salient points that made it possible in my
opinion for us to come forward with this bipartisan bill was the
assurance that many of the amendments that the Democrats wanted to
offer to be included in the major legislation would be given an
opportunity to be debated on the floor. With that assurance, we gave up
the opportunity for major debate on these items in the committee as we
deliberated on the consensus bill. So I cannot begin to describe my
huge disappointment that the Committee on Rules did not permit two of
the most important Democratic amendments that we have been talking
about for years.
Now, this is the world-renowned legislative body that everybody looks
to in terms of being able to come to grips with the major issues of our
times and to debate them on both sides of the aisle. We are being
deprived of that opportunity by this rule which prevents the minority
from presenting these two amendments having to do with school
construction and class size, the two most important issues that affect
almost all of our school districts.
So it is with great disappointment that I come to the floor today, in
spite of all the efforts that we made in our committee, to ask the
Members of this body to vote down this rule so that we may have the
opportunity to offer these two important amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express disappointment that the rule for
consideration of H.R. 1 does not permit me to offer an amendment to
hire 100,000 additional counselors in our schools.
The amendment would have provided 100,000 resource-based staff for
our public schools to help students cope with the stress and anxieties
of adolescence. The amendment is similar to H.R. 466, which I
introduced on February 6, 2001.
None of us will forget the roster of incidents of school violence.
Only yesterday a 14 year old was convicted of second degree murder for
killing a middle school teacher. What could make a seemingly typical
child turn so violent?
Substantive preventative measures have their place. Security guards,
metal detectors, and expelling violent students all have their place in
addressing this problem. But they do nothing to address the child's
anger, rage and frustration that leads him or her to commit a violent
act.
My amendment would enable schools to work with children to ensure
they can handle their anger and emotions without resorting to violence.
Many of our children enter school with emotional, physical, and
interpersonal barriers to learning. We need more school counselors in
our schools, not only to help identify these troubled youths, but to
work on developmental skill building. Children do not check their
personal and home problems at the schoolhouse door; the problems come
in with them.
Suregeon General Dr. David Satcher has said that appropriate
interventions made during or prior to adolescence can direct young
people away from violence toward healthy and constructive lives. The
window of opportunity for effective interventions opens early and
rarely, if ever, closes. Thus, prevention is the best guard against
youth violence.
We have no real infrastructure of support our kids when it comes to
mental health services in our schools. The most recent statistics
indicate that there are 90,000 guidance counselors for approximately
41.4 million students in our public schools. That translates to 1
counselor for every 513 students. In Hawaii, we have only 1 counselor
for every 525 students. In California, there is only 1 counselor for
more than 1,000 students.
That is simply not enough. The Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences recommends that there be at least one counselor per
250 students, especially beginning in middle school.
With current counselors responsible for such large numbers of
students, they are unable to address the students' personal needs.
Instead, their role is more often administrative, scheduling, and job
and college counseling. The child is forfeited for different goals.
My amendments would put 100,000 new resource staff in our schools to
focus on the mental health needs of students. It authorizes $2.8
billion for fiscal year 2002. While that may seen a large sum, it is
only $28,000 per counselor.
This resource staff will be hired to address the personal, family,
peer level, emotional, and developmental needs of students, enabling
them to detect early warning signs of troubled youth. They will improve
student interaction and school safety. In a nutshell, they can help
save children's lives.
The resource staff can also consult with teachers and parents about
student learning, behavior, and emotional problems. they can develop
and implement prevention programs and deal with substance abuse. They
can set up peer mediation, and they can enhance problem solving in
schools. Resource staff will provide important support services to
students, and to parents and teachers on behalf of the students.
In addition, my amendment makes counselors eligible for professional
development training.
If we really are serious about addressing school violence, we must
address prevention and that means having the available personnel to
address the mental, emotional and developmental needs of the children.
I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit me to offer this
very important amendment.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), also a
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, I rise in
strong support of the rule. Actually I thought we were going to
continue that spirit of bipartisanship that we had on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). But
unfortunately that seems to be dissipated here. I am very unhappy about
it and I do not understand it at all, because in my assessment of the
rule, it seems as though we have continued that bipartisanship and we
have really focused on the issues of genuine concern to all that
divided us. I am deeply disappointed to hear that the partisanship that
we put aside in the committee deliberations is unfairly raising its
head on this rule debate. I believe that we have considered all of the
issues that genuinely were the core of the education program and that,
in the tradition of our fine democracy, they are included in this rule.
For example, I was one who was against vouchers as part of this bill.
I was one in the committee that led the fight against vouchers in this
bill. But appropriately, since it is an issue of great interest to a
core group of people on both sides of the aisle, it is in the rule and
there will be a full and open debate. That is the way this democracy
should be working in this House.
Now, there are other issues in the bill, of course; the flexibility
in local control. Another point I should make that both in the bill and
in the rule, we do put the focus on State and local control, as it
should be. We are not going to let the Department of Education as
bureaucrats run these schools for our children. But let me also point
out, because it is very important to many Members on both sides and it
seems to me that it is being misunderstood, and, that is, the question
of accountability and results, and that is the accountability. This
does not dictate national tests. I know that there are many that are
using that against the rule and against the bill. I want to repeat, it
does not dictate national tests. The funding is awarded to the States
and to the schools, the local schools, for the testing as well as the
corrective action.
Then I might finally just allude to my amendment on the mental health
counseling which was very well included in the bill. But I guess in
conclusion I have to say I am confident that the controversial measures
that under this rule and these amendments that will be brought up will
be defeated and that we will be consistent with reaching out on a
bipartisan basis and supporting the President's vision for education
reform, leaving no child behind.
[[Page H2303]]
As a member of the Committee I rise in support of the Rule. This is a
fair Rule and this has been a fair process. This Rule continues the
spirit of bipartisanship we had in the Education Committee. It allows
an open debate on the important issues on which we genuinely disagree.
I commend the Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner and
Ranking Member George Miller for their leadership, hard work, and
diligence. Also, I thank Congressmen Castle, McKeon, and Isakson for
their work with key Democrats to form this compromise.
This Rule and this bill are truly examples of bipartisanship. Make no
mistake--this was not an easy process. There were many hurdles along
the way--and many times we all thought an impasse had been reached. But
each time, the sides returned to the negotiating table and found a way
to achieve a compromise. No one on either side ever lost sight of the
goal--to ensure that every child, regardless of situation, in every
public school in America receive a quality education.
This is the way the process is proposed to work--partisan politics
have been set aside to make way for a meaningful debate on the issues
that matter to America and our children. This process has not been
about politics--this process has been about the education of our
children. I am deeply disappointed to hear that partisanship is
unfairly raising its head on The Rule debate. This Rule deserves to be
adopted because if is fair and right for this debate. In the Committee
we debated many of these issues. This Rule allows the whole House to
genuinely debate the issues in education that in the tradition of our
democracy.
For instance, in the Committee we decided against allowing vouchers
to be part of this bill. Although I oppose vouchers, I agree with my
colleagues that this issue deserves a genuine and legitimate debate by
the whole House. This Rule allows the House to work its will. It is not
just vouchers. Other issues that divide us, such as testing and
accountability, will receive a fair and honest hearing through this
Rule. These subjects will be fairly debated under this Rule. All
Members, because of this Rule, will have the opportunity to make their
case for or against these important issues. In addition to this Rule
allowing us to debate the issues, it allows Members from across both
sides of the aisle to have their amendments heard. The Rule strikes the
appropriate balance by allowing a number of bipartisan amendments.
This Rule focuses debate on the most important and contentious issues
of education reform. It is fair, it allows genuine debate, and at the
end of the day the will of the House will be heard.
I am pleased that the bill before us today is bipartisan and is
reflective of President Bush's vision for education reform.
Specifically: H.R. 1 provides unprecedented flexibility and local
control.
It is vitally important to cut federal education regulations and
provide more flexibility to states and local school districts. We
should give our educators the flexibility to shape federal education
programs in ways that work best for our teachers and our children not
for bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education. Children should be
put ahead of federal regulations. Washington does not know best and
Congress should not serve as a national school board. While there
indeed is a role for the federal government in education, we must be
cautious of the Department of Education becoming a dynasty. I believe
that by reversing this trend we will be well on the way to creating the
best education system for our children.
Flexibility allows school districts the ability to target federal
resources where they are needed the most. This will ensure that state
and local officials can meet the unique needs of their students.
H.R. 1 dramatically enhances flexibility for local school districts
in two ways: (1) through allowing school districts to transfer a
portion of their funds among an assortment of ESEA programs as long as
they demonstrate results (2) and through the consolidation of
overlapping federal programs.
Very important to many of our members and this President, H.R. 1
enhances accountability and demands results.
As we deregulate federal education programs and provide more
flexibility, we must also ensure that federal education programs
produce real, accountable results. Too many federal education programs
have failed. For example, even though the federal government has spent
more than $120 billion on the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) since
its inception in 1965, it is not clear that ESEA has led to higher
academic achievement. Federal education programs must contain
mechanisms that make it possible for Congress to evaluate whether they
work.
This bill provides accountability and demands results through high
standards and assessments. And it provides appropriate responses to
address failure. States will be required to test students in grades 3-
8. It is important to emphasize that the states will develop their own
standards and assessments. This bill does not dictate a national test.
What the bill does is say that if you are going to accept federal
education funding, then you are going to be held accountable for
results. We reward states and schools that improve. Those that do not
improve will undergo corrective actions.
H.R. 1 ensures that our schools are safe. An important element
included here is ensuring that mental health screening and services are
made available to young people. In addressing school safety, we must
ensure that children with mental health needs are identified early and
provided with the services they so desperately need. Many youth who may
be headed toward school violence or other tragedies can be helped if we
identify their early symptoms. The nation is facing a public crisis in
mental health for children and adolescents. While 1 in 10 children and
adolescents suffer from mental illness severe enough to cause some
level of impairment, fewer than 1 in 5 of these children receive needed
treatment.
I am pleased that this bill includes school-based mental health
services language in addressing school safety and substance abuse.
While I am confident the controversial measures that would erode
bipartisanship and move us away from the President's vision for
education reform will be defeated, I am also confident that by the end
of this process we will have a solid, strong education package that is
good for our nation's children.
I believe in this bill. But these issues deserve full debate and this
Rule grants us that debate. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the Rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to vote no on
this rule and to give every child the first-rate public education that
he or she deserves. I believe, and I think most Members believe, that
education is the challenge of our time. And after the early promise of
a bipartisan accord on education, before getting sidetracked by a
partisan tax cut bill, we are on the floor with probably the first
truly bipartisan effort of the Bush administration. I congratulate the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) on bringing this truly bipartisan bill to fruition.
This, in our view, is real compromise. It is real bipartisan
legislation. It is the product of two sides coming together for the
sake of something larger. Democrats did not get everything that we
wanted. Republicans did not get everything that they wanted. But both
sides were able to forge agreement on more accountability, better-
trained teachers, high-quality teachers, and after-school programs
which we know make schools safer.
That is why Democrats are deeply disappointed with the rule that the
Republicans have put forward today. This rule prevents us from offering
amendments that we believe are critical to an excellent public
education in the Information Age. It squelches debate on the most
important issue that we know, preventing us from bringing two key
amendments; to modernize public schools and help get smaller class
sizes for our children.
Something clearly happened between the goodwill in committee and
bringing this bill to the floor. Instead of building on what was an
honest compromise in the committee, the Republican leadership has
backed away from the promise of education reform and opening the door
to reducing resources for after-school and other critical programs. It
has opened the door to undoing school accountability, an issue where
the President and all of us on the Democratic side agree. And it is
revisiting the flawed voucher scheme that will not turn around failing
schools, will leave children behind, and that Members of both parties
have rejected.
Now, we need to improve public education for children by building new
schools and repairing school buildings, something that both Democrats
and Republicans have proposed. By ensuring smaller class sizes, by
hiring new teachers, by providing new resources, not less, we live up
to the true promise of education reform that truly would leave no child
behind.
We believe with all our hearts that bipartisan amendments on building
[[Page H2304]]
new schools, on repairing and refurbishing schools and allowing for
smaller classroom size would command bipartisan majorities in this
House today and next week when we take up this bill.
{time} 1315
We ask Members to turn down this rule and give us a rule that will
yield a real, real bipartisan education bill for the American people.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but strongly oppose
this bill, reluctantly, after having worked with it for much time and
even the last couple of years in committee.
The amendments being offered today are a mixed bag. Some are good and
could restore this to a Republican Bush bill, but most likely they are
going to be left behind in the leave-no-Democrat-behind bill and it
will remain a Kennedy-Miller bill.
This bill, in my opinion, is worse than current law. Most moral
concerns that many of us had and worked with were stripped out in
compromises. I understood the process, but did not expect it to go so
far.
I am disappointed that religious denigration discrimination amendment
is not in the bill. I am disappointed that we could not get charitable
choice. In fact, that was negotiated out in the Senate and there was no
point in coming further on the House floor with it. It was taken out of
our bill, which was in it in the past. Every concern of moral
Christians that we had in trying to put protections in this bill are
gone.
This bill is spending far more money than any conservative can
possibly live with. The national testing is a standard that we have
fought. The Republicans fought even President Clinton's State
standards, yet alone Federal standards.
This bill is unacceptable to Rush Limbaugh, to Dr. Dobson, to over 50
conservative groups in this country. It is unacceptable to Bill Bennett
and Chester Finn, who are original people who are doing this. Every
major conservative in this country is opposed to it, and some
conservatives in Washington need to stand up and say we cannot go
there.
I very much respect accountability and the principle of
accountability. I am an MBA as well. I believe you need to have
measures. I do not believe the problem right now is that there are not
tests. I fear one national test, and inevitably this test will control
not only public schools and lead to curriculum controlling, it will
control home-schoolers and private schools, because once schools become
punished by not meeting a standard and the parents have no escape,
there will be a manipulation of that standard.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 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 rise deeply disappointed with this rule,
but strongly supportive of this bipartisan bill.
There is an old saying about partisanship being left at the water's
edge with regard to foreign policy. Well, bipartisanship should not be
left in the Committee on Rules when we have worked so hard for a
bipartisan bill.
We have worked going back to December with meetings that many of us
had, Republicans and Democrats alike, with then President-elect Bush in
Austin; and we built on that negotiation and that discussion to put a
bill together in our committee, working with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), and on our side,
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), we
put education reform and children over bickering and politics.
We have also worked on trying to combine some very important
elements, the elements of a fair locally devised test with remediation
and resources to help poor children that are not passing some of those
tests.
We are going to have some key votes and some key amendments coming
up, and I hope that we can keep this bipartisanship together that is so
fragile and delicate but so important to convincing the American people
that we can do the people's work with common sense, with civility, and
good will.
I have great disappointment in this rule, but urge strong support for
this bipartisan underlying bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), a member
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule and urge for its
adoption, because the rule allows for a number of amendments that I
view to be critical and important.
Our President proposed in this document his education vision for
America. He also has proposed in other documents subsequent to his
Presidency called Leave No Child Behind a bold education plan which
represented an important balance in education reform. That balance
included school choice, it included accountability, and it included
flexibility.
The school choice provisions of the bill, however, have been ripped
out of the legislation at the committee level and they remain outside
of that legislation today. That was a painful defeat for the White
House and I think for conservatives and for Republicans in general who
believe that provision of the President's bill is essential and is
important.
The committee also stripped out of the legislation the language
dealing with flexibility known as Straight A's, or, as the President
called it in his plan, Charter States. This rule allows for the
opportunity for those two provisions in the President's plan to be
reconsidered on the floor, and it gives all of us, Mr. Speaker, a
chance to restore the President's bill to his original vision.
Absent those two core provisions of the President's plan, there
really is very little left of what the President initially proposed in
his plan that helped bring him to the Presidency and his plan that he
brought to the Congress to leave no child behind.
This rule is important because it makes those rules in order. We have
commitments from our own leadership and from our own chairmen with
respect to the Straight A's provision, that that will be restored here
on the floor before that bill goes on to the conference committee, and
those are important elements in restoring the President's vision.
The rule is necessary, and I urge its adoption.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule.
The President, on a number of occasions, has made it clear that
education is supposedly his number one priority, and that is exactly
how it should be. What deeply troubles me is the heavy-handed way in
which the majority is preventing the full House from debating some of
the most crucial elements of this concept.
While ostensibly one of the more important factors for this bill for
the President and others is testing, yet this rule allows only one
amendment, and that would completely strike a proposed new test. No
other amendment on the validity or concept of testing would be allowed
if this rule passes, not even one.
If it passes, there will be no real consideration as to whether we
provide sufficient resources to schools to administer fairly and
comprehensively these tests. There will be no real debate about whether
or not this type of testing is even good for our students or, if it is,
what is the best way to administer them.
We are going to hear a lot of reasons why it could not be done, and
chief amongst them is you allowed us some amendments. Well, 28 out of
158 is hardly enough. You are going to say there is not enough time to
do all of this. Well, we are going to be going
[[Page H2305]]
home in a little while and we are not coming back tomorrow, so that
does not carry any water. The fact of the matter is a good public
policy debate is exactly what we need, especially on this bill, and we
all ought to be here to engage in it.
One amendment that I would propose would address perhaps the biggest
flaw in this debate. The bill dramatically increases the scope and
frequency of standardized tests by requiring States to begin testing
students each year in grades 3 through 8. That is on top of current
requirements. As a result, children will sit for standardized tests by
the time they reach the age 9, and in some fourth grade classrooms in
fact children still sit three times in a given year.
What clearly is unfair is the anemic funding that this bill proposes.
The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $650 million each
year for States to design, administer, review and revise the tests
required by H.R. 1. That is way more than is expressed in this bill,
and there is no way of telling how the States intend to make up the
difference, other than by depriving other important educational
programs.
For this reason I submitted an amendment that would require annual
appropriations to reach $600 million before those provisions could go
into effect. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it seems the majority cannot see the
millions of students through the trillions in tax cuts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill says a lot. It could say a lot more. I rise
today to argue the point that the Members of the Committee on Education
and Workforce, at least on our side of the aisle, were told to keep
this bill together, we are working cooperatively. When you get to the
floor, you are going to have a chance to do what you want to do with
amendment. You are going to be able to deal with the class size issue,
you are going to be able to deal with school modernization and school
construction.
Well, lo and behold, the rule comes down, and no classroom
modernization amendment, no class size amendment, are made in order.
Overcrowded classrooms, the fact that teachers are required to instruct
so many students that children are not getting the attention they
deserve, the attention they desperately need, this is a huge issue, a
huge issue.
Right now in Michigan, we have some of the most qualified teachers in
the country. Ninety-nine percent of our teachers in public secondary
schools hold teaching certificates in their main teaching assignment.
Forty-eight percent have masters degrees. Yet with all that talent and
all that skill, all of that is undermined by the fact that, on average,
they have bigger class sizes, these teachers in my State, bigger class
sizes than they do in 44 other States.
Yet under this rule, as I suggested, we are not presented with the
opportunity to go forward with the 100,000 teacher program, to put more
teachers in our classrooms, reduce that size, get more discipline, more
attention to those students.
A lot of folks these days talk about modern classrooms, about
connecting the schools with the Internet, and that is critically
important and we need to do that. But we also cannot forget that there
are literally thousands of schools in this country that are in
desperate need of repair; schools with broken plumbing systems, schools
that were too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter, schools
where children sit in rundown classrooms with broken windows and
peeling paint and asbestos hanging from the ceilings. If it is an
environment that none of us would choose to live in, how can we say it
is an environment where our children should struggle to learn in?
Well, today, Michigan, like on the other issue of class size, we have
a very bad statistic with respect to school modernization. We have the
sixth highest percentage of school districts in America reporting at
least one building in inadequate condition.
So, this rule denies us the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to address
those issues. They are primary issues, they are important issues, and I
hope my colleagues as a result of that will vote against this rule, and
hopefully the committee will go back and make them in order, so at
least we can have a debate on these issues and move forward on class
size and school modernization and make sure our kids have the kind of
place we want them to learn in.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
In negotiations, we were pretty much assured that Democratic amendments
would be included on the floor. Good Democratic amendments, such as my
amendment to create safe havens at or near schools, and my amendment to
bring more females into the high-tech and science workforce, should be
part of today's debate, and we should be talking about school
construction.
But these ideas were, obviously, inadvertently left out. Instead,
Republican amendments that will destroy our bipartisan effort by taking
funds from the students and the schools that need them the most are
being considered.
This rule definitely fails the fair play test. Let us vote it down.
Let us give the whole issue back to the House, so that some day soon we
can pass a real bipartisan bill that will debate all of the issues that
are important to this House in general on both sides of the aisle.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the rule considering the No Child Left
Behind Act still leaves many children behind. It fails to address
national concerns, such as the desperate need to repair and modernize
our schools, to reduce class sizes and to hire counselors so that our
children learn in the best possible environment.
It treats limited English proficient children unfairly. With one hand
the majority tries to court Hispanic voters, but in this bill it places
new and undue burdens on Hispanic children.
Democrats have made this bill enormously better, but it is too bad
that the Republican budget resolution would not fund many of these
initiatives. The majority showed its priorities last week and decided
to leave education behind.
The bill has the wrong answer on mandatory testing. At a time when
the majority is quick to pass provisions ordering the National Academy
of Sciences to study ergonomic standards before implementing rules and
the effects of dredging the Hudson River to remove contaminants, it is
remarkable that it is going to allow mandatory multiple testing of
children from the third to eighth grade without allowing the National
Academy of Sciences to study the proposal.
The rule we are considering today does not give us the opportunity to
correct those mistakes and improve the bill. The rule shuts the door on
initiatives that American people care about, while opening the door to
proposals the American people have rejected.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time,
and I rise in opposition to the rule.
Let me just give one example of how the promise to have debate on the
floor has been broken.
{time} 1330
Science education. Science is not just another subject, it is
fundamental, like reading and math. For the past year, the National
Commission on the Teaching of Math and Science, the so-called John
Glenn Commission, met and made a number of recommendations. Some of
those recommendations, such as one that would call for a network of
national academies, training academies for science teachers around the
country, were included in the report, but were not allowed for debate
in the committee because, they said, we were told it would be allowed
on the floor.
This is critically important. We face a crisis in science and math
teaching. The title of our report says it well: before it is too late.
Senator Glenn, the
[[Page H2306]]
head of Intel, the head of State Farm insurance, a number of other
leaders in industry, education and business around the country say that
we need these recommendations. We should at least have a debate on them
on the floor.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time. I rise today in opposition to this rule for one
particular reason: there are too many children being left behind. Time
after time this year I have asked that we finally have a discussion
about the Federal Government's underfunding of the Individuals with
Disabilities Act.
Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise to
children with disabilities, their parents, their teachers and their
schools, that we would pay 40 percent of the excess cost to local
school districts to educate children with disabilities. I do not know
about the rest of my colleagues, but I grew up in a family where when
one made a promise, one kept that promise. Today seemed like the
perfect opportunity to have this discussion.
As I did earlier this year in the Committee on the Budget, I proposed
an amendment that would have finally made sure the government kept its
promise. This time, I was joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind), who is on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am sad
to report that we were denied even the opportunity to bring this
amendment to the floor.
Once again, we are sending the message to our students that this
legislation leaves no child behind, except for those with disabilities.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and for her extraordinary leadership on this issue.
I rise today to oppose this rule which eliminated many good
amendments that should have been at least debated. For example, I
submitted an amendment that would have established a formula grant
program to ensure that all States could receive funding to allow them
to hire additional school counselors, social workers, and
psychologists. At a time when our children are dealing with suicide,
substance abuse, school shootings, and other very grown-up problems,
these mental health personnel are vital to the health and well-being of
our students. The average student-to-counselor ratio is 1,100 to one in
my State of California, although the recommended ratio is 250 to 1.
Now, as a trained clinical social worker, I know firsthand how
counseling and effective treatment can reduce violent behavior. Early
detection of troubled youth by mental health counselors prevents school
violence. We need mental health school counselors in all of our
schools. We need school construction. We need smaller class sizes. We
owe this to our children. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, I am a proud supporter of the underlying bill, H.R. 1. I
am glad to see we finally have legislation that recognizes the number
one issue, the number one priority of the American people: education
improvement in this country.
I am, however, extremely disappointed in the rule. I think it is
shameful that the only amendment that was offered dealing with special
education in this country, IDEA, is how we can better punish special
education students rather than how we can help them.
A couple of days ago I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules
with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that would allow a debate
as to how we can increase funding on special education costs so the
Federal Government lives up to our 40 percent cost share. We are only
at 15 percent today. If there is one issue that is having a devastating
financial impact on local school districts from district to district
across the country, it is the inability of the Federal Government to
live up to our responsibility, our obligation to fund special-education
expenses. Our amendment would have at least allowed a discussion of
that in the context of the elementary- and secondary-education bill.
Because it was not made in order, I would encourage my colleagues to
oppose the rule and give us a chance to discuss this important issue.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and
ranking member for their work on this very important issue, the issue
of education. I am disappointed that like the collapse of a real energy
policy for the American people, we are about to verge on a collapse of
this legislation.
I offered two amendments that I thought would be very important to
deal with the high degree of suicide and the difficulty that our young
people are having today; to provide grants to ensure that we would have
local funding and assistance for drug and violence prevention, and also
to reduce the risk of children; to identify health risks for our
children that play on playgrounds where there is an exposure to tin,
zinc, mercury and lead, that would have helped enhance the educational
facilities that we have.
Finally, I think it is very important that we have additional
resources for mental health services where there are those kinds of
resources in the schools so that there is no stigma, and we can refer
the children and their families to therapy and counseling and
psychiatric health care.
As well, on this whole issue of testing, can one imagine testing a
little 8-year-old all the time, focusing the teacher's resources on
testing? We need to reconsider that, and we need more school
construction. We could have done a better job on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in the support of
education for all of our nation's children. I would like to thank and
commend the work of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
in their effort to present a bipartisan bill for our consideration.
I am disappointed that the Rule for this bill does not take into
consideration several points that I feel should be part of this effort
to not leave any child behind. These are real problems with America's
schools, but the fault is not isolated to one source, but are multiple
in nature. We know that children are acting out a level of rage that
challenges our ability to educate our children in a safe and nurturing
environment.
The children of our nation are our country's greatest asset and
should be the top priority of the Congress and the Administration. The
lack of will to make critical and sometimes difficult decisions on
children and education issues has damaged the ability of the United
States to guarantee that the next generation will achieve a higher
standard of living than their parents.
We must make sure that this bill to reform our nations education
system truly does not leave any child behind. This bill reauthorizes
federal elementary and secondary education programs (including the
Title I compensatory education, teacher training and bilingual
education programs) for five years (through FY 2006) and includes
changes to current laws intended to improve the effectiveness of public
schools and hold schools accountable.
The measure reported by the Education and the Workforce Committee has
provisions intended to hold public schools accountable for improving
the academic achievement of their students. It requires annual testing,
flexibility in spending at the local school district level, as well as
a new system that would require poorly performing public schools to
improve or face consequences, which could include the removal of staff
or the transfer of some of their students to other public schools.
As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I
have a strong interest in the well being of our nation's children and
would like to offer the following amendments for the committee's
consideration as it prepares the rule for consideration of this
historic legislation.
The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is the largest public
school system in Texas and the seventh largest in the United
[[Page H2307]]
States. Our schools are dedicated to giving every student the best
possible education through an intensive core curriculum and
specialized, challenging instructional and career programs. HISD is
working hard to become Houstonian's K-12 school system of choice,
constantly improving and refining instruction and management to make
them as effective, productive, and economical as possible.
HISD has become a leader in restructuring public education, most
recently by establishing unprecedented new standards that every student
must meet to earn promotion from one grade to the next. HISD's balanced
approach to the teaching of reading has garnered national attention,
and Project CLEAR, a comprehensive initiative to align curriculum with
fundamental knowledge and skills expected of all students, is
contributing to a steady rise in scholastic performance. HISD is
bringing its school buildings up to high standards and building 10 new
schools through Rebuild 2002, a $678-million capital improvement
program. In addition, HISD opened two new state-of-the art high schools
that were built thanks to the creation of tax increment zones that
allow HISD to derive revenue from increases in property value through
redevelopment. HISD is demonstrating the utmost managerial
accountability through contractual arrangements with specialists in
budgeting, purchasing, payroll, personnel management, food services,
and maintenance that enable the school district to devote more
resources directly to the classroom.
The 18th Congressional District of Houston serves a very diverse
group of young people, 52 percent are Hispanic, 34 percent are African
American, 10 percent are white, nearly 3 percent are Asian/Pacific
Islander, and just under one percent are Native American. The district
mangers 295 campuses and educational programs: twenty-nine are high
schools, 34 are middle schools, 186 are elementary schools, 19 are
charter schools, 9 are community-based alternative programs and 18 are
combined-level or other programs.
The heart of HISD are its teachers, principals and administrators,
librarians, nurses and psychologist, support staff, parents, and board
members. I can assure you that the City of Houston is extremely
grateful. They have performed outstandingly and deserve special
recognition; unfortunately our society does not offer the greatest
financial rewards to our most valued citizens--teachers. However, the
President's Award for Excellence in Elementary Mathematics and Science
Teaching has become an excellent symbol of professional accomplishment
as an educator.
In order that we do indeed not leave any child behind, we must first
consider that not all children are the same. Their differences should
not however, limit their opportunity for a good education in our
nation's public schools.
As long as there exist a disparity in funding among school districts
within states, and a disparity of education funding K-12 among the
states there will continue to be disparities in the education of
disadvantaged youth especially taking into consideration the
socioeconomic limitations of these communities to augment the
educational experience of their children. This must and should be
acknowledged by the education reform legislation that we pass and send
to the President's desk. We know the realities of education in the
United States are that many children are left behind, not at the
discretion of the teacher, school district, parent or child, but under
the pressures presented by a lack of adequate funding.
We must fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act when it
comes up for reauthorization next year, but in the mean time there are
thousands of children who are denied access to assistance because of
the difficult decisions school districts are forced to make in the
absence of adequate funding.
Speech and language difficulties affect children of all races in our
nation. When a child cannot be understood then their opportunity for a
good basic education is greatly diminished.
Because of the lack of funding going into IDEA, children like
Jonathan Adam Roumo, who is three year's old Houstonian with a speech
delay problem. School districts across our nation struggle with the few
dollars provided by the federal government to provide services with
children with disabilities.
Jonathan unfortunately is being left behind by the current state of
affairs in our nation's education funding. Jonathan is a bright,
intelligent little boy who is inquisitive and a challenge to his mother
and father because of his interest in everything about his world.
Unfortunately, Jonathan also has difficulty being understood because
the muscles along his tongue are too weak and affect how he says words.
The tongue is an important organ of speech in human beings and as such
is critical to being understood.
The muscles along Jonathan's tongue are at a stage in development
that would equate with that of a much younger child, which means that
although he has the innate intelligence and stimulation in his
environment to speak, his physical ability to be understood is greatly
hindered.
Because his parents were concerned about Jonathan's inability to make
himself understood, they educated themselves about what was available
in the public school system to help Jonathan. They learned about a
speech-testing program in their local school district, and saw that
Jonathan was tested. Jonathan did well in all areas of the test, which
established that he did not need occupational therapy or physical
therapy, but he needed speech therapy.
He was enrolled into a speech program in August of 2000 and made
excellent progress. Unfortunately, Jonathan's mother was told that he
could not go to pre-kindergarten, where he would continue to receive
help because he did not have other types of disability associated with
his speech limitations. To compound this situation his parents were
told that they failed to meet income requirements, which prevent
Jonathan's parents from getting him the help that he needs through the
public school system.
There are thousands of Jonathans in our public schools who have the
potential to do very well, with only a little support in speech
development. Under current law Jonathan can receive thirty minutes of
speech each week, but that is not enough to make sure that this child
is not left behind.
Another serious area which must be addressed is mental health
resources available to children and their parents in public school. I
have introduced H.R. 73, a bill requiring the Secretary of Education to
conduct research on children with dyslexia in the public school system
throughout our nation. Dyslexia is identifiable and treatable in
children at an early age. For this reason, all children kindergarten
through third grade must be given tests that measure the following
knowledge skills: print; book; phonological awareness, phonics, and
writing. These areas have been identified by child psychologist to be
key to recognizing learning disabilities in very young children so that
they may receive the proper help to insure that they are not left
behind.
Further, I would offer that we should rethink what language programs
should be used to accomplish. If a child with a speech impediment such
as stuttering, lisp, or other delayed speech cannot be understood by a
teacher or fellow students, then that child's ability to succeed in the
classroom is limited. Today, we consider that child to be disabled and
the rules governing the role of schools to provide proper instruction
are not uniform. I would offer that if a child cannot be understood
that their language barrier be addressed as early and aggressively as
possible by removing all economic requirements for that child to get
help through the public school system at as early an age as possible.
Violence in public schools have cast a chilling shadow through the
halls of education in our nation.
The reality of children's lives today are far removed from the
experiences of previous generations. They are killing each other and
killing themselves at alarming rates.
Currently, there are 13.7 million children in this country with a
diagnosable mental health disorder, yet less than 20 percent of these
children received the treatment they need. At least one in five
children and adolescents has a diagnosable mental, emotional, or
behavioral problem that can lead to school failure, substance abuse,
violence or suicide. However, 75 to 80 percent of these children do not
receive any services in the form of specialty treatment or some form of
mental health intervention.
The White House and the U.S. Surgeon General have recognized that
mental health needs to be a national priority in this nation's debate
about comprehensive health care.
Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States,
accounting for more than 1 percent of all deaths.
The National Mental Health Association reports that most people who
commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most common is
depression.
According to the 1999 Report of the U.S. Surgeon General, for young
people 15-24 years old, suicide is the third leading cause of death
behind intentional injury and homicide.
Persons under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides
in 1997. Between 1980 and 1997, suicide rates for those 15-19 years old
increased 11 percent and for those between the ages of 10-14, the
suicide rates increased 99 percent since 1980.
More teenagers died from suicide than from cancer, heart disease,
AIDS, birth defects, strokes, influenza and chronic lung disease
combined.
Within every 1 hour and 57 minutes, a person under the age of 25
completes suicide.
Black male youth (ages 10-14) have shown the largest increase in
suicide rates since 1980 compared to other youth groups by sex and
ethnicity, increasing 276 percent.
Almost 12 young people between the ages of 15-24 die every day by
suicide.
[[Page H2308]]
In a study of gay male and lesbian youth suicide, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services found lesbian and gay youth are two to six
times more likely to attempt suicide than other youth and account for
up to 30 percent of all completed teen suicides.
We must also be prepared and capable of protecting children from
other sources of harm that are present in their environment, such as
lead, zinc chloride, tin, and mercury.
I appreciate the work done by the Committees to bring this measure
before the House for consideration, but I feel that is lacking in a
complete and balanced approach to meet the needs of educating all of
our nation's children.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to the rule. The bipartisanship on our committee
on this education bill taught us a lesson on how to get along and work
in a bipartisan fashion. It is a lesson that the leadership of this
House has not learned.
Here is what is wrong with this rule: it is a delicate compromise
between the Democrats and the Republicans. There are many Republicans
who believe that block grants called Straight A's should be included,
and they will have their chance to make that argument on this floor.
There are many Republicans who believe that private school vouchers
should be included, and they will have their chance to make their
argument on this floor. But there are many Democrats who believe that
an extension of the class size reduction program ought to be included,
and we will not have our chance to make that argument on this floor.
There are many of us who believe that a school construction program
should be added, and we will not have our chance to make that argument
on this floor.
The lesson of bipartisanship that was taught by the committee has
been ignored by the House majority leadership. Their rule should be
rejected.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed
rule on H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act. Because education is such an
important issue, I feel that rules must be introduced on the floor so
that all people can express their opinions in the general debate. The
Committee on Rules only allowed one amendment from the Democratic side,
and that is wrong.
I went before the Committee on Rules and asked that my amendment,
which would keep the title I monies at a 50 percent level, be included.
When title I began, 75 percent of the money was targeted for poor
children. It was the Federal Government saying, we need to assist these
schools where there is an imbalance in funding. The imbalance still is
there; but it was reduced from 75 percent of poverty to 60 percent of
poverty, to 50 percent of poverty, and now it is 40 percent of poverty.
On the other hand, some of the people on the other side of the aisle
say, we have a 25 percent amendment coming up at you next time.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to leave every child behind. I ask for the
rejection of the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), my distinguished
colleague and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I would like to urge strong support for this rule. It is a fair rule.
It will allow us to vote on amendments which will restore the
President's plan.
The President's reform plan for education was a delicately balanced
approach, providing more flexibility to the States, a program to
empower parents by allowing them to make more choices in their
children's education, and holding schools accountable for the results
that they would deliver; a delicate balance of saying, we are going to
give States more process freedom. We are no longer going to hold them
accountable for the process by which they spend their money, but we are
going to make sure that every child goes through and achieves the
learning that we want. We are going to focus on results accountability.
This rule allows us to have a vote on restoring State flexibility,
which was ripped out of the committee mark. It allows us to build on
the local flexibility and parental empowerment that are so critical to
the President's plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member and the
chairman for their commendable efforts at crafting a commonsense,
bipartisan education bill. But I am going to ask my colleagues to vote
against this rule which brings partisanship and prevents the bringing
of commonsense amendments which would improve this bill.
Our efforts at keeping class size reduction as a separate source of
funding, maintaining our national priority on bringing smaller class
sizes to schools across this country was not permitted to be brought to
the floor. Our efforts to bring school construction to the floor in
order to be fully debated were not permitted to be brought to the
floor. Class size reduction and school construction are two priority
issues in American education; and yet we will not have a chance to
discuss these bipartisan, commonsense issues. I regret that very much,
and I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and I know he will use it well.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about accountability,
holding students accountable and teachers and schools. There is one
entity that is never mentioned, even though States are responsible for
the certification of teachers, the setting of curriculums, the entire
determination about how schools are going to be provided resources.
There is nothing anywhere about trying to get States to be responsible
once and for all for the education of poor children.
The Congress, in 1965, 35 years ago, passed the title I law, which we
are getting ready to reauthorize, and since then, still, States have
failed poor children.
I would hope that we would have a rule that would allow us to seek
more accountability. I think there could be consensus between Democrats
and Republicans on that point.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my distinguished colleague.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I want to commend the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), but I must agree with the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) that an
America that builds prisons, but not schools, is headed in the wrong
direction.
I am asking the Republican leadership to take a good look at the
position of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and when we go to
conference, consider putting some construction money in for schools.
But I am inclined to support the bill, and I thank the Republican Party
for giving consideration to the request of the gentleman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in opposition to this rule.
{time} 1345
This is a rule for education, yet it is not a very smart rule,
because it does not allow us to have the debate and vote on school
construction and school modernization.
Mr. Speaker, all of the science tells us that children do better in
smaller classes, and indeed, in smaller schools, in some cases.
Children are smart. We cannot tell them that education is important to
them, that it is about their self-fulfillment, about their way to earn
a living and our competitiveness
[[Page H2309]]
internationally, and yet send them to schools that are in disrepair,
instead of sending them to smaller classes where they will get the
attention they need and classrooms which are wired for the future.
Children are smart. They see the contradiction. If education is so
important, why then is it not important to the Democrats and to the
Republicans, to the Congress of the United States?
That is why I cannot understand for the life of me why an education
bill would come to this floor, after all the science this Congress has
paid for and told us that children need smaller classes, and this
Republican Party will not even allow us the opportunity to debate that
amendment on the floor.
I urge our colleagues to vote no on this very unsmart rule on the
education bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule. I am disappointed that the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment
was not made in order.
Our amendment would have provided much-needed Federal grants to
organizations so that they can teach today's youth about the Holocaust.
Unfortunately, many schools and communities around the country have
not learned about the Holocaust because their schools do not have the
funds or tools to each about this tragic event in world history.
There is no question: teaching children about the horror and tragedy
of the Holocaust will create a generation of youth in America who are
less likely to commit hate crimes, and who are more likely to mature
into adults who will envision and work toward peaceful world relations.
This is exactly why the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment is so
important.
We need programs in our schools that teach the consequences of
intolerance and hate.
In denying the House a vote on our amendment, the majority is denying
our children a chance to learn about one of the most tragic events in
history.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who
has been such an integral of this effort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes to close.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Rules for a fair rule.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and the members of our
committee for a fair and open debate and a bipartisan bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, if we think about our
red or green vote, I want Members to look at what we are really talking
about. To my left is a chart which shows that over the history of
funding for public education in Title I, while the gold bars which
represent money have gone up astronomically, today, the same as it was
25 years ago, reading proficiency remains at the bottom. It is time for
true reform.
On the issue of building schools, they will not tell us that
America's unmet need at the local level, and it is their
responsibility, is $300 billion. They also will not tell us that
represents 2.5 times more money than has been spent on Title I since it
began.
This is not about building buildings, this is about building and
changing the lives of America's most disadvantaged children. It has
been said that our children are a message we send to a time we shall
never see. I am proud we have a committee and I am proud we have a
President that has laid it on the line.
When Members get ready to vote red, I want Members to look in the
eyes of a disadvantaged poor child in Members' rural or urban districts
and ask what kind of message they want to send to a time they will not
see.
As a politician, I want Members to think about how much they would
respect a President who brings a bill forward with accountability that
will allow us to measure our progress within his term of office.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a promise, it is a hope. It is a hope
for the future, not of buildings and inanimate objects, but of the
sacred treasure of the lives of America's youngest and most
disadvantaged children.
The Committee on Rules will allow competitive debate over
controversial issues, and in the end I hope Members' green vote on this
rule results in a green vote on this bill that leaves no child behind,
and sends a message to our future that we would love for our future to
see.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for
H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization bill.
This rule prevents Democrats from offering key education priorities as
amendments to the bill--including School Modernization and Class Size
Reduction. In addition, I am troubled that an amendment I offered in
the Rules Committee to establish a program in the Department of
Education to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school
buildings was rejected.
The amendment I offered in the Rules Committee--the ``High
Performance Schools Program''--takes the concept of ``whole buildings''
and puts it into the context of our schools. My amendment would have
established a program in the Department of Education to help school
districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. It would
provide block grants to state offices of education that would then be
allocated as grants to school districts for building design and
technical assistance. These grants would be available to school
districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary school
enrollments, that can't afford to make major investments in
construction or renovation, and that commit to work with the state
agencies to produce school facilities that incorporate a ``high
performance'' building approach.
We wouldn't dream of putting only manual typewriters in new school
buildings--we would install today's computer technology. Nor should we
build yesterday's ``energy inefficient,'' non-sustainable, and less
effective schools. Our kids are our country's future, and they should
have the best school facilities, especially if they will cost less and
benefit us all in other ways.
As the Congress begins debate on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the important legislation that
governs our nation's education priorities, I fear the House Rules
Committee has missed a golden opportunity. I am especially disappointed
that today--a day when Congress is focused on energy issues because of
the release of the administration's energy plan--the Rules Committee
chose to overlook this opportunity to take care of our children and our
environment at the same time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 219,
nays 201, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
[[Page H2310]]
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop
Borski
Brady (PA)
Condit
Cubin
Ganske
Hunter
Kilpatrick
Lucas (OK)
Meeks (NY)
Moran (VA)
Thompson (MS)
Waters
{time} 1409
Mr. BERMAN, Mr. HOEFFEL and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GREENWOOD 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.
Stated against:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________