[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2577-H2590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Pursuant to House
Resolution 143 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.
{time} 1033
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with accountability,
flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May
22, 2001, amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 107-69 offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House
Report 107-69.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
No. 10.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
In section 701 of the bill, in subparagraph (A) of section
7203(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 701), strike
``may transfer'' and all that follows through the end of such
subparagraph and insert the following:
may transfer--
``(i) not more than 50 percent of the funds allocated to it
under each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a
fiscal year to 1 or more of its allocations for such fiscal
year under any other provision listed in paragraph (2); or
``(ii) not more than 75 percent of the funds allocated to
it under each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a
fiscal year to 1 or more of its allocations for such fiscal
year under any other provision listed in paragraph (2), if
the local educational agency obtains State approval before
making such transfer.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and a Member opposed will each control 10
minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time otherwise not claimed in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Currently, H.R. 1 gives local school districts a new opportunity to
use some of their Federal funds in a way that will benefit their
students. This transferability option will allow school districts to
transfer up to 50 percent of the money they receive from four Federal
programs, grant programs. They can move these monies between the
programs or into Title I.
This is an important step forward in giving local education
officials, those who know the names of their students, the ability to
spend Federal funds the way they believe will improve student
achievement, not the way a bureaucratic in Washington tells them to.
Transferability is a positive way to give school districts some
flexibility in how they spend their money. I believe that we should go
even further. That is why I have offered this amendment. This amendment
will allow a school district to go above the current 50 percent gap and
give them the option to transfer up to 75 percent of their Federal
formula grant funds between programs if they receive approval from
their States.
I hope my colleagues will agree that this is an important step
forward in flexibility, and I encourage them to support this amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This
legislation and this bipartisan agreement, and it is bipartisan
reporting from the committee, takes an unprecedented step in expanding
the transferability at the local level so that local school districts
can make a determination about the application of those resources.
But this legislation also understands that these programs are not
about some Washington bureaucrat. These programs are about the Congress
of the United States saying these are areas that we believe there
should be an important commitment of resources: safe and drug-free
schools, teacher quality improvement, innovative strategies and
technology.
These are articulations of the congressional will on a bipartisan
basis certainly over the last 10 or 15 years that these are either
emerging areas that need attention and the Federal dollars ought to be
applied there, because there are areas where there are deficits, but at
the same time in this legislation we have taken the unprecedented step
to say that we can have transferability of 50 percent of the money,
because in some instances it makes sense to allow them to double up the
resources on a short-term basis to improve the quality of teachers, or
to purchase technology so they can ramp it up and get it running and
get on their way.
But the Hoekstra amendment is simply an amendment that goes too far.
It is violative of the bipartisan agreement we have. It is violative of
the vote in the committee reporting this to the floor. It recognizes
the tension between a full-blown block grant and the notion that we
ought to have improved flexibility at the local level.
That is what we decided on doing. That is what we decided on as a
committee to do, to see whether or not over the next 5 years we could
see how this transferability takes place.
We ought to honor that agreement. It is a rational agreement and
makes sense. It also keeps faith with the congressional priorities that
this Congress has determined we ought to be using Federal dollars for
in the poorest schools with the poorest performing children, because,
after all, that is a program that we have before us today to help make
up those deficits in teacher qualifications in the poorer schools, in
lacking technology in the poorer schools.
I would hope that the Congress and the House would stay with the
bipartisan agreement that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Michigan, for offering the amendment. I do understand the concern
of some on each side of the aisle over giving local districts more
flexibility, but let us go and look at why we have this in the bill
today.
As was pointed out, we make sure that the money gets to the schools
under the targeting that is already in the bill. Then we make sure that
under Title I, which is the largest chunk of money, that we could
transfer money into title 1 but could not transfer any money out of it.
Secondly, we also wall off, under the current bill, the bilingual
education money and programs. So we are talking about basically four
funding streams that we are giving local districts, every local
district, the opportunity to move at least half of the money in those
four funding streams between programs or into Title I.
The amendment before us says, let us allow a local district to
transfer up to 75 percent of the funds, again, just among those four
funding streams. Why do we want to give districts this flexibility?
Because we have teacher and professional development monies, we have
technology money, we have an innovative grant program, and we have to
spend the money today in those particular funding streams.
Under the 50 percent local flexibility, we have some ability to
transfer, but I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan is a good one. It says we can do 75 percent. Why is this good?
Because let us say that we
[[Page H2578]]
want to put computers in every classroom, so we can take the technology
money and do that, but if we do not have teachers who are equipped to
teach their students how to use the computers, maybe the first step
ought to be to do the teacher training and the professional
development.
What in fact that would do, we might want to be able to transfer
money out of technology into the teacher training part to make sure
that they are trained before we get the equipment. This kind of local
flexibility we think will produce much better results.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment would cross the line between
preserving focused educational priorities and eliminating national
areas of need. I ask Members to oppose it.
Currently, this bipartisan bill allows school districts to transfer
up to 50 percent of a program's allocation. This maintains the
bipartisan priorities identified in the ESEA. By allowing transfers of
75 percent, the significant focus on the areas of school safety,
teacher quality, and technology will be diluted.
Mr. Chairman, the bill's current provisions allowing for a 50 percent
transfer from a program strikes the right balance between flexibility
and accountability. I would urge Members to reject this amendment. We
have worked very, very carefully, and this is a very important part of
the bipartisan agreement. I would urge Members to recognize that. This
75 percent amendment really, to my mind, violates the bipartisan effort
that we have put into this bill.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me. I appreciate the debate that is taking place on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Of course, this
amendment really addresses a small part of the bill that provides a
little bit of flexibility to school districts.
Now, the President and his plan, Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001,
proposed something much bigger. He said that what he had suggested was
that under his program, States and districts would be free from
categorical program requirements in return for submitting 5-year
performance agreements.
This portion of the President's plan, of course, has been left out of
the bill. But what we have instead is a portion that allows a tiny
little bit of Federal funds to be transferred between some programs at
the district level, and in those programs, only 50 percent of the
dollars that are allocated, just 50 percent.
This does not include Title I, which is where the real money is in
Federal funds back to States. So we are really talking here, Mr.
Chairman, about probably 1 percent or less of the dollars that go to
local districts, and we are having a debate over whether they should be
able to shift 50 percent of that tiny percentage, or, as the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has proposed in his amendment, 75 percent.
This is a debate about minutiae, frankly, but it is a good debate
because it is a small step in the right direction. But the tenor of the
debate I think speaks volumes about why so much of the President's bill
has been left behind here on the floor, because as my colleague, the
gentleman from California, stated in his arguments against the
amendment, he said this was a bad amendment because it violates the
bipartisan agreement that we have here between Republicans and
Democrats.
So we define the merits of the legislation based on which group of
politicians have agreed to the underlying bill that is before us. If
the amendment violates this agreement among politicians, then it is a
bad amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment benefits children. At some point during
today's debate, we ought to think about them. I have to tell the
Members, my friends back home in Colorado, school board administrators
and others, they do not care whether there is an agreement between
politicians, what they want is the flexibility to spend dollars on the
priorities that help kids. That is what this amendment does, and why I
ask for its adoption.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the subcommittee.
{time} 1045
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant but very strong opposition to this
amendment. This legislation as it stands right now with the amendments
in it has as much flexibility as one could possibly handle probably for
years to come.
In addition to the education flexibility that we passed last year, we
have great consolidation of a lot of the programs that exist at the
Federal level into one block grant-type program.
We do have the local Straight A's or the local flexibility, if you
will, which allows each district without permission from anybody to
transfer up to 50 percent of their funds as long as it is not in title
I. They can transfer into title I all of the Federal funds; that is
tremendous flexibility. That is the best we can possibly do with
respect to that.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and I had an amendment yesterday
which passed which allows 100 school districts to apply to the
Secretary to waive statutory requirements and consolidate certain
program funds at the local level.
This is unprecedented flexibility. The problem with going from 50
percent to 75 percent is that this percentage, the original percentage
reflects our shared desire to ensure that the funds that we have remain
available to some extent to carry out the program requirements as they
are not waived by the flexibility program.
Mr. Chairman, I am just afraid if we go above 50 percent, it is going
to be impossible to do this. So I believe that with all the flexibility
that has been entered into this legislation, and it really truly is
unprecedented, that we have gone far enough.
I am reluctant to oppose it, because of the distinguished record of
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) sponsoring it, but the
bottom line is that the flexibility is there, it is what we should do.
I would encourage all of us to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, for his support of this amendment and his yeoman's
efforts in this education bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud member of ``Hoekstra's
heroes,'' a band of my colleagues who over the past several days have
rallied around the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his
heroic effort to preserve the vision of State and local control of
education in America.
It is said that without a vision, the people perish. And the vision
of Washington, D.C., the vision of the founders of this country was a
vision of limited government that left things like education to those
who could govern best at the State level.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow local school districts to
transfer more funds to specific programs and better utilize their
resources for the benefits of students. Let me repeat that, this
marginal increase in transferability is for the benefit of students. By
increasing the transferability cap, this body permits Federal dollars
to be targeted to the areas that most help students.
Mr. Chairman, the people of east central Indiana did not send me to
Washington, D.C. to increase the Federal Government's role over
education or education resources. They sent me to help students by
promoting innovation and reform.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help us modestly innovate and
reform by raising the transferability cap; and I urge my colleagues,
all of my fellow Hoekstra heroes, and all Hoekstra hero
[[Page H2579]]
``wannabes'' on both sides of the aisle to support this fine amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), my friend, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The amendment makes a modest
quantitative change but a significant and negative qualitative change.
First of all, we ought to remind ourselves that States and localities
can do whatever they see fit with 100 percent of their State and local
money, 100 percent. This is about the very small amount of money that
comes to local school districts from the Federal budget.
We are in the process of collectively making a judgment about some
spending priorities that help children. We believe it helps children to
encourage school districts to spend money on the latest technology so
there are computers in classrooms.
We believe it helps children to bring police officers and teachers
together to teach children the evils and dangers of drugs and alcohol
under the safe and drug free schools section.
We believe it helps children to afford teachers the opportunity to
retool and relearn their craft on a regular basis, and we believe it
helps children to find some extra money for the unusual and innovative
ideas that usually do not find its way into the regular school budget.
We believe that each one of those things ought to be done with at
least 50 percent, at least 50 percent of the very modest amount of
Federal money that is being sent to local school districts. If you
reduce that 50 percent to 25 percent, I believe you reduce these
priorities to the point of dilution. You reduce them to the point where
nothing really gets done in these four important areas at all.
Mr. Chairman, I fully embrace and support the right of local school
districts to spend their own money, raised through their own taxing
authorities completely as they see fit, subject to the laws and
constitutional provisions that they must live under, but I think that
when we make a national judgment about the importance of technology, of
teacher training, of safe and drug free schools and of innovative
strategies, we ought to stick to it.
This amendment does not do that. It should be defeated.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, when the President came to Washington, he
announced a bold plan, a bold plan to reform education, by giving more
flexibility to the States, by holding the schools accountable for
results and by empowering parents.
Over the last 3 months, that plan has slowly been whittled away. Much
of the flexibility that the President had envisioned for States to
target their spending towards the needs of their kids is gone.
This amendment is an attempt to give the States and local school
districts just a little bit more flexibility for that 1 percent of
their money that comes to their local school districts.
Parental empowerment is basically gone.
Accountability, it is interesting the President's plan said we are
going to get rid of process accountability. We are going to move away
from these categorical programs that tell school districts exactly what
to do with every Federal dollar and then audits them to make sure that
the dollars are spent for each of these programs creating a huge
bureaucratic and programmatic nightmare.
He said we are going to come back and we are going to focus not on
process accountability, but we are going to focus on results
accountability; move away from process accountability, go to results
accountability. Let us test whether our kids are actually going to be
able to read and to do math. The process accountability has stayed
alive. The bureaucracy has won on all of those counts. School districts
will be given money. They will be told how to spend it, and now they
will also have the results accountability.
We will now be telling school districts what to do and exactly what
results they will be expected to achieve, and if they do not achieve
those results, here is what will happen.
It is all laid out in the bill. It is all very clear. This ends up
being the most significant takeover of our local schools since the
creation of the Department of Education.
It is disappointing that we do not trust the individuals who know the
names of our kids to do what is best for our children. Go to your local
school districts. I spent a tremendous amount of time in school
districts in my hometown, my district and around the country, and if
there is one impassioned plea that you consistently hear, it is free us
from the bureaucracy, free us from the paperwork, free us from the
mandates so that instead of focusing on Washington and what you are
telling us to do, we can focus on the needs of our kids.
This amendment is just one small step in trying to bring some more
freedom to the folks who know our kids' needs, but, more importantly,
they know our kids' names and they can bring those things together.
There is such a tremendous diversity in the needs of our children and
the needs of our school districts that we ought to trust our local
school officials to do the right things, to trust our State officials.
They do not need another Federal mandate.
As a matter of fact, they have a Federal mandate that comes into
effect in 2001 on testing. We are throwing that out, putting a massive
new mandate in place. Let us trust the folks back home to do the right
thing with a small portion of this money.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I was proud to stand with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) to oppose additional Federal mandates
yesterday, and it is a value that we share.
This debate that we are having today, I agree with the gentleman and
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) that this should not be
about agreements between politicians. It should be about learning. This
debate should be about priorities.
This debate should be about responsibility. We have a responsibility
to bring the best learning we can to our school children, and we have a
responsibility to spend tax dollars wisely. We have a responsibility to
bring focus priorities to these programs that we are talking about:
school safety, teacher quality and class size reduction, school
technology.
These are important priorities that we have set at a national level,
and we have agreed to reduce bureaucracy and to increase
transferability to the 50 percent mark. But why not raise it to 75
percent? Why not raise it to 100 percent?
I believe the answer is we should not raise it to 100 percent; and it
is, I admit, a difficult matter to set where the line should be, but as
we negotiate these lines and move them toward the 100 percent, I
believe that we abdicate responsibility. Our responsibility is to spend
tax dollars wisely and to focus on efforts that help our school
children.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that we need to give local
flexibility; and we have set the right amount in this bill. I oppose
the Hoekstra amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
will be postponed.
[[Page H2580]]
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House
Report 107-69.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
In section 501 of the bill, in section 5501(1) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult''.
In section 501 of the bill, in section 5502(1) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult'' and
insert ``individual''.
In section 501 of the bill, in section 5503(a)(1) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 501), after ``responsible
adults'' insert ``or students in secondary school''.
In section 501 of the bill, in section 5503(c)(1)(C) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
not otherwise taken in opposition to this.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner)?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to make a small, modest change to
the Osborne Mentoring Program so that both adults and qualified,
trained and motivated high school students can become mentors.
During the Committee on Education and the Workforce's consideration
of H.R. 1, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) offered a
noncontroversial amendment which the committee adopted by voice vote
that established a mentoring program.
I commend the initiative of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne). His program is well-intended and also well designed.
Presently this bill only allows adults to be mentors.
My amendment seeks to make a modest change so that qualified, trained
and motivated high school students can also become mentors.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that neither the Osborne
Mentoring Program or my amendment would require that local educational
agencies offer mentoring programs.
{time} 1100
This is strictly an option that the school district can or cannot
take. Like the bill, my amendment would preserve local option. Local
school districts would have the choice whether or not to start a
mentoring program.
When the mentor is an older student, not too far in age from the
mentee, it appears that this transforming relationship affects both
young people. For example, a study recently conducted by Pediatrics
Magazine pointed out that the benefits of peer monitoring are very,
very good. The researchers compared children who were involved in an
inner-city mentoring program with demographically matched children who
were not. Mentors were age 14 to 21, while mentees were children 7 to
13.
Both mentees and mentors involved in a community-based peer mentoring
program were found to benefit from such interactions by acting with
greater maturity and more responsibility in their daily lives.
In my years as a college instructor, I often witnessed the
transforming power of peer relationships. Younger students sometimes
perceive adults as authority figures who are out of touch or all too
ready to preach; whereas, a child may come to confide in his or her
slightly-older peer because they perceive their peer to have a greater
capacity to understand and identify with what they are going through.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her
amendment to a program that was put in the bill in committee by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), as we all know, had a very
successful career in winning three national championships during his
years as coach of Nebraska. During his years, though, in Nebraska, he
was very involved in mentoring programs of many sorts and brought an
amendment to the committee and added to this bill a mentoring program
that I think will be very helpful to all of the disparate and
independent mentoring programs that are going on around the country.
I think the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Meek) is very well done because in many high schools around the country
today we have mentoring programs where older young adults in schools
are working with their peers. I know in my own local high school at
home, they have a peer-counseling program, peer-mentoring program that
I think has been very successful. So I would encourage my colleagues to
support the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the Meek
amendment, the mentoring success component of H.R. 1. Traditionally,
many mentoring programs involve adults, but there are a great many
around the country, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner)
mentioned, that do use secondary school students to work with younger
children.
So as the initial introducer of the mentoring component, I certainly
support the gentlewoman's amendment, and we hope very much that our
colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. We think it has great
merit. We look forward to working with the conference committee to
possibly also include younger college-age students in mentoring
endeavors.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Meek) for her willingness to yield to me, and I thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter a colloquy with the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). First, I would like to thank
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), as I said, for being willing
to yield me time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Boehner) for his outstanding leadership on the committee,
along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has
worked so hard to bring a good bill to the floor.
The education of our children should be our top priority, which is
why we are especially pleased that this bill is truly the result of a
bipartisan effort. During the debate, we have discussed at great length
the need for standards and improved achievement. However, many of our
schools do not have access to research-based reading programs developed
by NICHD. This bill includes report language that discusses research-
based reading programs. But I do not feel we are doing enough to make
sure that our teachers have access to this innovative research.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to have a colloquy with the
distinguished gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), my colleague on
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of
the Committee on Appropriations, who shares my concern and interest in
this area.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my colleagues
who have spent many hours listening to NIH testimony and getting quite
an appreciation for the research they have
[[Page H2581]]
done on reading, and to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who
is my cochair in the Reading Caucus that seeks to bring focus on what
reading programs work.
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education of the Committee on Appropriations on which both the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I sit has had a number of
discussions about the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, a
report compiled by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development and the Department of Education.
The National Reading Panel was charged with conducting a
comprehensive review of the evidence-based research on reading and
assessing the effectiveness of different approaches. As my colleagues
know, NICHD has conducted scientific research and identified the steps
required for all children to become effective readers. Armed with that
research and knowledge, we now need to take the next step, putting
research into practice.
We are pleased that the President's Reading First Initiative has been
shaped by the findings of the National Reading Panel. Reading is a
fundamental building block of education. That is why it is crucial that
our students receive the best reading instruction.
Mr. Chairman, the dismal statistics of illiteracy simply do not have
to exist. We are optimistic that with the National Reading Panel's
findings as our guide, we can achieve much better results.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), I think
that this particular program of instituting mentoring into the lives of
the children is absolutely essential. The fact that reading has been
shown as an extreme good component of this entire spectrum, I welcome
the fact that we now see the importance of reading. It also further
strengthens the fact that having mentors working with the mentee will
be most efficient.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to discuss this important issue with the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentlewoman from Kentucky
(Mrs. Northup), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
In April, I visited a demonstration project at Independence
Elementary School in Liberty Township, Ohio, which is in my district.
Independence Elementary is successfully utilizing the host reading
program that promotes the practices recommended by the National Reading
Panel and the National Research Council. The host model utilizes about
60 mentors, age 16 to 84, to tutor approximately 50 first-through-third
graders at the school in one-on-one sessions.
The host reading program, which is supported by Governor Taft, funds
the host programs in Ohio. In fact, the Governor and Mrs. Taft both are
volunteers for this program, and I think it is a very worthy endeavor.
I think that the efforts by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek) are certainly in order.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are at least five
schools with host programs in my district as well, all of which are
demonstrating improved results.
We look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) and the President on implementing the recommendations of the
National Reading Panel and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) as well.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we
obviously strongly support the amendment of the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek). On behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and myself, we
all support the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I hope people can follow how this happened.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed
in House Report 107-69.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
In the matter proposed to be inserted as part E of title
VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by
section 801 of the bill, insert after section 8520 the
following:
``SEC. 8521. ENCOURAGE EDUCATION SAVINGS.
``To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall promote
education savings accounts in States that have qualified
State tuition programs (as defined in section 529 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, late last year, I was getting ready to address a very
dignified group of community leaders. As I was preparing my remarks, I
asked my first-grade daughter what she thought I ought to tell these
fairly important people. She thought about it for a minute. She looked
up. She said, ``Dad, you can tell them that I got the best lower case
A's in the entire first-grade class.'' I thought about that a minute,
and I tell my colleagues what, Mr. Chairman, I told my very
distinguished group that my daughter had the best lower case A's in the
entire first-grade class.
I want every daughter in America and every son in America in the
first grade to be worried about those lower case A's. I want every
parent to have to understand and have the ability to understand that,
not only do we have to worry about their lower case A's, but we have
got to worry about their future and what happens. In just a few short
years, they will be ready to go to college or technical training
school.
What this amendment does is embrace the 50 States who have 529
prepaid tuition or college savings plans for parents. Costs are going
up, and we are not a Nation that saves. We have about a 1 percent
savings rate in America.
There are five Federal programs to help people offset the costs of
getting college education, of technical training that will cover not as
many as it will not cover. There will be more families out there
struggling to borrow money to get their kids to go to school than there
will be receiving a grant or a scholarship or tuition from another
source.
What we are trying to do here, Mr. Chairman, is allow parents to get
connected and understand the value of time and compounding with these
State savings plans.
In Michigan, I offered a bill last year that would allow State tax-
free money in and tax-free money out to defray the costs of getting an
education. The time and compounding value of that is immense. We need
to get parents connected as soon as we can and take the middle class
from the borrowing class to the saving class.
This is an important element in offsetting those increasing costs,
Mr. Chairman. I urge this body's support so that parents can go back to
saving a little money and worrying about those lower case A's.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
[[Page H2582]]
Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this amendment. We support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) is a very good amendment. The
gentleman from Michigan, during his years in the State senate, authored
the college tuition savings program in Michigan. I think his ongoing
efforts here as a new Member of this body to encourage the Secretary,
to the extent practicable, to promote these programs is of great
benefit for the American people.
We all know that the cost of going to college continues to rise; and
we believe by the end of this year, some 48 States will have such
programs. We want to make sure that they are working well and provide
the avenue by which many more of our middle- and lower-income students
will be able to attend an ongoing college, university or some type of
training program once they graduate from high school.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. The gentleman should be
congratulated.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of an
amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Education to work with
state administrators to promote and advocate the use and establishment
of state-sponsored college savings plans during a student's elementary
years.
In recent years, most states have created either a prepaid tuition or
college savings plan to help parents save for ever-increasing post-
secondary education costs. The 1980s saw the first developments in
state-created tuition plans as states attempted to meet the growing
concerns about the affordability of college. In 1986, Michigan was the
first state to establish a prepaid college tuition plan, and last year
our state added a savings plan. Currently, all 50 states offer some
form of Qualified State Tuition Programs within Section 529 of the tax
code as Georgia and South Dakota became the last two states to
establish plans earlier this year.
As the author of Michigan's post-secondary education savings account
plan while a member of the Michigan State Senate, I believe that
education is central to our prosperity as a nation. However, too often
the educational opportunities for our students and families are limited
by tuition costs or the prospect of a crushing debt-load. The best
answer to this dilemma is to encourage advance family savings--starting
to save during a student's elementary years.
Please allow me to briefly describe the benefits of saving under
Michigan's recently-enacted Michigan Education Savings Program. Under
this program, which was launched in November, 2000, any individual
interested in investing for a college or a vocational education can
open an account and contribute on behalf of any beneficiary for as
little as $25 up-front. Furthermore, individuals can also contribute as
little as $15 per savings account per pay period by using payroll
deduction through participating employers.
Michigan's program has been a great success in its first six months,
as more than 16,000 accounts have been opened with over $34 million in
investments. In fact, Money magazine recently named the Michigan
Education Savings Program one of the best state-operated college
savings programs in the country.
The power of compounding makes these plans especially appealing to
families who can save only in smaller increments. For example, families
can put away as little as $10 a week over the first 18 years of child's
life and, based at a conservative earnings rate of 8 percent, have
about $20,000 by the time he or she is ready for college or technical
school. Over a period of time, families can save enough to provide the
kind of future we all want for our children without having to run up a
huge debt to get an education.
An example of the need to create a saving class was highlighted in a
recent Washington Post column titled: ``Colleges Where the Middle Class
Need Not Apply.'' The lead paragraph touched upon the fact ``. . . the
poor and middle class at least try college for a year, although for
many of them, even the modest cost of state schools quickly becomes
burdensome.''
When it comes to saving for college and vocational training we need
to help our families turn from a borrowing class into a saving class.
To encourage such saving, all 50 states have established prepaid
tuition or college savings plans and this amendment empowers the
Secretary of Education to work with those states to advocate the
benefits of these plans to elementary school parents and the importance
of establishing an account as soon as possible.
I believe we all can agree that the federal government should foster
policies encouraging families to save for educational expenses instead
of relying on debt or government aid programs. My amendment to H.R. 1
would authorize the Secretary of Education to work together with the 50
states that have Section 529 savings programs to advocate and promote
the use of these valuable educational tools to encourage parents to
enroll in their state's plan during their children's elementary years.
Promoting the use of savings at the elementary level will allow the
dynamic of time and interest produce significant savings that will help
the families of today's kindergartners shoulder the financial burden of
tomorrow's education costs. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment promoting the use of these valuable tools during the
elementary years.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my colleague and friend Mike Rogers from the State
of Michigan. As we debate this historic education reform legislation,
H.R. 1, one aspect that should not be overlooked is that too often the
educational opportunities of our students and families are limited by
tuition costs and overwhelming debts.
We need to encourage low- and middle-class families to turn from
borrowing to a saving. The best time to encourage parents to start
saving for tuition costs is when their children are in elementary
school. Today, all 50 States, including my home State of Michigan, have
established prepaid tuition or college savings plans under section 529
of the Federal Tax Code.
This amendment will empower the Secretary of Education to work with
the States to advocate the benefits of these plans to elementary school
parents and stress the importance of establishing an account as soon as
possible. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for his
leadership in the State of Michigan on this important issue.
I encourage my House colleagues to leave no child behind and support
this amendment to encourage families to save early for their children's
educational expenses.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1115
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed
in House Report 107-69.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Norwood
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
No. 13.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Norwood:
At the end of part A of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 501 of
the bill, add the following:
``SEC. 5155. DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
``(a) Authority of School Personnel.--Each State receiving
funds under this Act shall require each local educational
agency to have in effect a policy under which school
personnel of such agency may discipline (including expel or
suspend) a child with a disability who--
``(1) carries or possesses a weapon to or at a school, on
school premises, or to or at a school function, under the
jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency;
``(2) knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or
solicits the sale of a controlled substance at a school, on
school premises, or at a school function, under the
jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency; or
``(3) commits an aggravated assault or battery (as defined
under State or local law) at a school, on school premises, or
at a school function, under the jurisdiction of a State or
local educational agency,
in the same manner in which such personnel may discipline a
child without a disability. Such personnel may modify the
disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a)
shall be construed to prevent a child with a disability who
is disciplined pursuant to the authority provided under
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) from asserting a
defense that the carrying or possession of the weapon, or the
possession or use of the illegal drugs (or the sale or
solicitation of the controlled substance), as the case may
be, was unintentional or innocent.
``(c) Free Appropriate Public Education.--
``(1) Ceasing to provide education.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of Federal law, a child expelled or suspended
under subsection (a) shall not be entitled to continue
[[Page H2583]]
educational services, including a free appropriate public
education, required under Federal law during the term of such
expulsion or suspension, if the State in which the local
educational agency responsible for providing educational
services to such child does not require a child without a
disability to receive educational services after being
expelled or suspended.
``(2) Providing education.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1),
the local educational agency responsible for providing
educational services to a child with a disability who is
expelled or suspended under paragraph (1) may choose to
continue to provide educational services or mental health
services to such child. If the local educational agency so
chooses to continue to provide the services--
``(A) nothing in any other provision of Federal law shall
require the local educational agency to provide such child
with any particular level of service; and
``(B) the location where the local educational agency
provides the services shall be left to the discretion of the
local educational agency.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Controlled substance.--The term `controlled
substance' has the meaning given the term in section 5151.
``(2) Illegal drug.--The term `illegal drug' means a
controlled substance, but does not include such a substance
that is legally possessed or used under the supervision of a
licensed health-care professional or that is legally
possessed or used under any other authority under the
Controlled Substances Act or under any other provision of
Federal law.
``(3) Weapon.--The term `weapon' has the meaning given the
term `dangerous weapon' under subsection (g)(2) of section
930 of title 18, United States Code.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as it stands now, Federal law requires schools to have
two different discipline policies for those who bring a weapon to
school or engage in aggravated assault, one policy for special needs
students and another for nonspecial needs students. A special needs
student receives preferential treatment when it comes to being punished
for outrageous behavior.
For all practical purposes, a special needs student could be
suspended for no longer than 55 days, for all practical purposes, and
even then must be provided educational services. Nonspecial needs
students, on the other hand, can be and often are suspended for longer
periods of time, and then without educational services.
My amendment will finally change that. It gives schools the authority
to have a consistent discipline policy for all students. It allows
special needs students to be disciplined under the same policy as
nonspecial needs students in the exact same situation.
My amendment also contains safeguards. My amendment contains
safeguards to ensure that no special needs student is unjustly punished
or singled out. This amendment sends clear messages that weapons and
violent assaults at school will not be tolerated. My colleagues, let's
send that message today by passing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr.
Chairman, I was one of the original sponsors, coauthors and authors of
the IDEA Act when I first came to Congress in 1975. I have very strong
feelings about our obligations to educate students with disabilities. I
was also the first author of the Act who said that you would expel
students from schools if they brought guns to schools. I have very
strong feelings that our schools are a place of learning, they ought to
be a sanctuary, and the streets ought not to come into our schools. But
these two values clash.
My concern is this: The suggestion is somehow that children with
handicaps are privileged; that children with handicaps have
preferential treatment. No, what we do under the law is recognize that
children with handicaps, with disabilities, in many instances, must be
treated differently because of those disabilities. And what we do in
this is suggest that we cannot, under the Federal law, deny them
continued education if they are suspended, because we understand the
problems of educating some of these children, many of whom have
multiple handicaps, multiple disabilities; that if we stop the
educational services, in many instances, it is very difficult to start
or to have that child catch up.
There is nothing in the Federal law that says that that child must
return to school. A decision must be made in 55 days, but there is
nothing that says the child must return to school. The gentleman from
Georgia and the committee, when we were deliberating this, handed out
an article from the Orlando Sentinel and he said that this child should
not be back in school. But when we read the article, it makes very
clear that the school authorities are educating the child while he is
in a juvenile detention center. The school authorities make it very
clear that this child will never return to his school. This child will
not go back to school. They do not want to return him home, but they
are going to continue to educate him because that is what the law
requires.
By the same token, the law does not require that that student be
returned to school. It says we cannot have a secession of the
educational program. And we should not change that law today. We should
not change that law today.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
for his work on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, creating a safe learning environment must be a top
priority for our schools. Unfortunately, the discipline provisions in
IDEA make it impossible for educators to address the needs of all
students in the classroom. The safety and the learning opportunities of
all students are jeopardized by the rules that require that a dangerous
and disruptive student remain in the classroom.
I believe when it comes to the issue of weapons, illegal drugs and
assaults, we cannot afford to gamble with the safety of our students,
with our teachers and staff. Ensuring the safety of all students must
be our first goal. The Federal bureaucracy cannot second-guess our
local educators, who must make difficult decisions about the safety in
their classrooms. Doing such will unnecessarily put the safety of our
students at risk.
This amendment will allow schools to discipline all students that
bring weapons, sell illegal drugs or commit aggravated assault or
battery at school in the same manner. Schools will not be able to
discriminate against students with disabilities, but they will have the
flexibility under this amendment to make sure that all violent students
are removed from the classroom.
Simply put, this amendment will remove the roadblocks that Congress
has put in the path of good school administrators, parents, teachers,
and local school boards who merely want to keep their classrooms safe.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
When we reauthorized IDEA in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we took steps
so that schools could ensure a safe and orderly environment for all
students. The 1997 amendments specifically allow schools to immediately
remove IDEA children from the classroom for discipline violations and
place children in alternative educational settings when they commit
infractions dealing with guns, drugs, or are likely to injure
themselves or others.
What IDEA in 1997 also stated was that troubled, disabled children
should not be kicked out of school onto the streets without educational
services, since this will lead only to additional juvenile crime.
Unfortunately, my concern over this amendment has already become
reality in the tragic incident of school violence in Springfield,
Oregon, 2 years ago. Kip Kingle, the shooter in the Springfield
incident, although not an IDEA student, was suspended when he brought a
gun to school. He was sent home without counseling or educational
services and proceeded to shoot and kill his parents and go on a
shooting rampage at his school. This incident is the perfect example of
why
[[Page H2584]]
cutting educational services off for children can lead to disastrous
circumstances.
I fully believe, as do all of us here, that our schools should be
safe for all children. Now, those children who engage in dangerous
activities should be dealt with through such means as immediate removal
from the classroom. This is something we can really agree upon:
Dangerous children must be removed from the classroom, absolutely and
immediately. However, ceasing educational services for these children,
or for any child, is not the answer, since it will only lead to more
juvenile crime and possible situations similar to the horrific incident
in Springfield.
I taught school for 10 years, and we had incidents where we had to
have that child removed, not necessarily an IDEA child, a child in our
regular programs, but we did provide in Michigan alternative programs
for that child. I know children who were involved in that fashion and
did get alternative education who are now working and are productive
citizens in Flint, Michigan, because we gave them that alternative. I
think all children should have some possibility of alternative services
when they commit such incidents as these.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, in my home State, four students were caught
bringing a gun to a school-sponsored event. They were passing the gun
among themselves. After a disciplinary hearing, three of the students
were expelled for possession of a gun, but the child who actually
brought the gun to the event was given only 45 days in an alternative
program. Why this unequal result? Because the child who brought the gun
was classified as learning disabled under IDEA.
Now, Mr. Chairman, when I travel throughout my district and talk to
parents and teachers and administrators, they are concerned about this
dual system of school discipline. They want school discipline returned
to the schools. A safe productive learning environment is a key element
to providing all students with a good education.
There is no hidden agenda here. There is no attempt to deny disabled
students the ability to be educated. It is simply a matter of safety in
schools and order in schools and discipline in schools.
It was the academic community who encouraged me during the last
Congress to introduce a bill to restore disciplinary decisions to State
and local administrators. I was pleased when the amendment of the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), similar to my bill, was approved
in the 106th Congress during consideration of the Juvenile Justice Act.
We cannot tolerate students bringing guns or drugs to school or
assaulting other students. It does not matter who the student is, the
danger to the other students remains the same.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, under current law, a child with a disability who is
expelled from the regular classroom for any reason is still entitled to
a free and appropriate education. I know of no public policy benefit
which can be achieved by sending these children to the streets without
any educational services, even when they are involved with serious
offenses. In fact, I see no benefit to the public for depriving any
child of an education, whether they have a disability or not. It is
difficult for any child who is expelled to catch up and graduate from
school, and it is especially hard for disabled children.
We learned, during hearings on youth crime, that there is a strong
link between dropping out of school and subsequent crime. For children
with disabilities, these correlations are even stronger. Research shows
that children with disabilities who are put out of school without
educational services are less likely than other children to ever catch
up; they are less likely to graduate from high school or get a GED;
they are less likely to be employed, and they are substantially more
likely to be involved in crime.
Some talk about a deterrent effect. Let me read a letter from the
National Coalition of Police Chiefs, Prosecutors, and Crime Victims
from 2 years ago. They said: ``We urge you to oppose any amendment that
would deny educational services to kids who are expelled or suspended
from schools. Schools can already immediately expel a student who
brings weapons to schools. But giving a gun-toting kid an extended
vacation from school and from all responsibility is soft on offenders
and dangerous for everyone else.
Please don't give those kids who most need adult supervision the
unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs, and get their hands
on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.''
Mr. Chairman, during the last Congress we had a bipartisan task force
on juvenile crime lasting several weeks. We met for several weeks,
heard from dozens of witnesses, and not one witness had anything good
to say about kicking kids out of school without continuing services.
Some said take them out of the regular classroom, but continue their
education. Not one witness had anything good to say about kicking them
out without any services.
The IDEA program is premised on the recognition that children with
disabilities need more support than other students to enable them to
obtain a decent education. There is nothing to suggest that less
support is needed when they have disciplinary problems, even when they
are serious disciplinary problems.
School systems should not be allowed to send uneducated children with
discipline problems onto the streets and endanger the public. For those
reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this
amendment.
{time} 1130
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the previous opponent of this
amendment, the learned gentleman from Virginia, has illustrated
graphically the sorry state in which our schools are finding
themselves. According to the gentleman from Virginia, we ought to feel
guilty, schools ought to feel guilty, teachers ought to feel guilty, if
they try and protect the students in their schools.
The gentleman says schools should not turn these students out because
they commit acts of violence. After all, then it is the school's fault
for those kids being on the street. That sort of reverse thinking is
what this amendment and piece of legislation tries to correct. It tries
to bring back some rationality to the process of educating and
protecting our children.
No longer, if this amendment is adopted and signed into law by the
President, would our schools be held hostage by claiming that an act of
intimidation, an act of assault cannot be punished, that students
cannot be removed from the school, that the taxpayers should not
continue to support them simply because that act of violence, that act
of drug dealing, that act of assault might be a manifestation of a
disability.
Our teachers and our administrators tasked by the government of this
country, by our local government and by millions upon millions of
parents, have an obligation to teach our students. They cannot fulfill
that obligation if those students under their care are in fear.
Mr. Chairman, this will remove that fear and provide flexibility to
our schools to do what we have asked them to do.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott.)
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I did not say that we wanted to keep
children in the classroom. If children have committed a serious
offense, maybe they do need to be taken out of the classroom. What this
amendment will do, if it passes, it will put those children out on the
streets without any services; and all of the studies show the crime
rate will go out.
Mr. Chairman, that is why not a single witness on our bipartisan task
force had anything good to say about this amendment. They all said we
have to
[[Page H2585]]
continue educational services if we want to protect our children.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, the real debate here should be about
school choice, allowing parents to choose the school that is safe for
their children. The President proposed school choice in his package No
Child Left Behind, but that provision was left out of the bill. So it
is incumbent upon us now to discuss the safety of the children who are
left in those schools and trapped in government-owned schools
throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, this dual standard that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) has put his finger on is one that is painfully understood by
every teacher in America, many parents, but it is also understood by a
certain number of children.
Children under the IDEA program are no more likely to be involved in
discipline problems than anyone else, but the dual standard is one that
does play a disproportionate role in classrooms because it sends a
mixed signal in the whole context of classroom discipline.
Schools should be safe. Teachers deserve to be in classroom settings
where their safety is secure as well, and where their expertise is
respected and honored. This amendment that the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) has proposed is a good amendment; it is one that we
should adopt. It moves us in the proper direction in the context of
empowering parents and teachers and making our classrooms safer.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, who has worked so hard on this education
bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) for bringing this amendment to the floor. As many of the
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce know, there was
great interest in dealing with this subject in the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. At my request, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) saved this amendment for today's debate, and we did not
engage in this fight in the committee process.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that IDEA was an important step in terms of
allowing more of our children to receive the same educational
opportunities as those without disabilities. But we all know and we
have all heard from every one of our superintendents and school board
members that there have been significant problems. Many of us believe
that there is a two-tier policy in many of our schools when it comes to
the possession of a weapon, the possession of drugs, or the commission
of an aggravated assault against other students, against teachers, and
school personnel when it comes to IDEA students.
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) brings makes it very clear that the policies that would
be appropriate in a school for non-DEA students ought to apply to IDEA
students as well in these three particular areas. Most people around
America would say this makes common sense and we ought to do it, and we
ought to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, having said that, we all know there are other issues
having to deal with IDEA, and that bill is up for reauthorization next
year. It likely will be a rather contentious debate in the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and on the floor. By and large, we would
like to leave most of these issues until next year.
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment, though, is a commonsense
amendment. We ought to support it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the gentleman from Virginia who
said that there is no good public policy that can be achieved by this
amendment; and I would like to say that and tell that to the family of
Linda Hendrick, 52 years old, who was stabbed repeatedly in 1999 by a
special ed student that could not be removed from the classroom.
I think there is very good public policy that can occur here. It has
been pointed out by the other side that there are some students, I
think Down's syndrome was mentioned, that this would apply to. But it
also applies to so many other students who are in special education
today for various and sundry reasons who actually do know the
difference, and we need to give people like the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee), who was a teacher for 10 years, the superintendents back
home, we need to give them some discretion to make some decisions about
when a student should or should not be in a school.
Mr. Chairman, they say schools can eliminate a student from special
education for however long you like. That is simply not true because
the process is so cumbersome, the process is so expensive it
effectively does not work.
Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to take this
opportunity to give people like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) an opportunity to do this at home.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 2
minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, opposition to this amendment is not based
upon an expression of guilt, it is based upon an exercise of common
sense. I do not think that any violent student should spend one more
hour in any classroom in this country. Under the existing law and under
this bill, they need not. This bill says if a student engages in an act
of violence and present law says if a student engages in an act of
violence, they can be removed from the classroom.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us says after they are removed
from the classroom, that is the end of their education. That is it if
the State so chooses.
I oppose this amendment because it does not answer this question:
With respect to this violent student, once they are removed from the
classroom, as they should be, what happens next?
This amendment does not deal with the very real problem of violence
in our schools. It just moves it from our schools to somewhere else, to
our streets or to our neighborhoods or to other social institutions.
I for one minute would not stand for the proposition that we should
coddle or discriminate in favor of people who commit violent crimes.
But I know this: That pretending that they are just going to go away
will not work. Pretending that they will disappear from the rest of the
community will not work. And understanding if we get people that are
prone to violence back on a positive track by offering them an
education, they are a lot less likely to commit another violent
offense.
Mr. Chairman, it is very alluring to say we should just pull the plug
on the education of those that commit violence. It is also completely
counterproductive. It is a guarantee that many of those same young men
and women will never get an education, never become contributing
members of society, and will commit even more heinous and terrible
crimes. This amendment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each side will control 2 additional
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will close this up by making an appeal to the good
folks on the other side. I know that they are big defenders of the
disability education program, as well they should be. This program was
passed by Congress to address real and serious problems. Special needs
students were often not given an opportunity to get an education in
this country. The Disabilities Education Act fixed that. It does not
mean that it is perfect, but it takes a step in the right direction.
But that is yesterday's problem that we did take the right step.
[[Page H2586]]
Mr. Chairman, today's problem with disciplining special needs
students is just as real. In fact, it is causing a growing backlash
against IDEA. My teachers and superintendents are pleading for relief
here. Nonspecial need parents are seriously questioning special and
unequal treatment of students regarding discipline. There is a backlash
here.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my colleagues, in their zeal to protect the
legacy of this program, do not overlook this problem by supporting this
reasonable change. My colleagues will do much to stop this growing
backlash against IDEA without hurting education for special needs
students.
Let me assure my colleagues, this amendment will not encourage
schools to engage in mass expulsions of special needs students. This
amendment has solid safeguards to make sure this does not happen. Let
me be very clear. If a teacher is trying to unjustly kick a special
needs student out of their class, this amendment requires parents and
local officials to have the authority to stop such a thing.
Mr. Chairman, we can and should pass this amendment. We passed a very
similar amendment in this Congress last year with 300 votes. This is
something we as Federal legislators can do, something we actually can
do that will make life better for our teachers back home.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood). I do not think that there is anybody here in this Chamber
that disagrees that a student that is causing disruption in a classroom
should be removed. But let us remember something very clearly. We are
talking about children with special needs. Right there, special needs.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who disrupts the classroom should be removed,
but they have to have an alternative place to go. One of the things
that we are not doing in this Chamber and not providing to children
with special needs is to give it to them: Alternative schools. We have
seen children removed and sent to alternative schools, and we have seen
them do very well in small classrooms with specialized care for them.
These are children that have special needs.
Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress to reduce gun violence in this
country, and I certainly stand by that. So of course anyone that is
carrying a gun to a school should be removed. But to put students out
on the street and have them come back the next day and fire among their
classmates, that is the wrong way to go, too.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about safety. No one
supports a policy that allows a violent or dangerous student to stay in
the classroom. This amendment is about having an alternative program
for children with special needs. Not having that contained in this
amendment is wrong.
{time} 1145
What is even more wrong is the fact that this was the only amendment
made in order dealing with one of the most pressing challenges facing
schools districts; how to meet the challenge of educating children with
special education needs.
The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I offered an amendment
that talked about getting the Federal Government to live up to its 40
percent cost share of special education expenses. Unfortunately, that
amendment was not made in order. We should have that debate on the
floor as a part of the elementary and secondary education bill because
every Member can bring anecdotal evidence to this Chamber that shows
the pressing financial costs that school districts are facing because
we are only funding our responsibility of special education at slightly
less than 15 percent when we promised to fund it at 40 percent. We need
to help school districts stop pitting student against student because
the limited resources that they have available for one of the fastest
growing expenses in school budgets, meeting the needs of special
students in the classroom. That's the debate we should be having today
instead of an amendment that will make it easier to punish those
students.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in House
Report No. 107-69.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
Before part B of title IX of the bill, insert the
following:
Subpart 3--General Education Provisions
SEC. 916. INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONSENT.
(a) In General.--Section 445 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is amended by--
(1) redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as
subsections (d) through (f), respectively; and
(2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Access to Information.--No funds shall be made
available under any applicable program to any educational
agency or institution that has a policy of denying, or that
effectively prevents, the parent of an elementary school or
secondary school student served by such agency or at such
institution, as the case may be--
``(1) the right to inspect and review any instructional
material used with respect to the educational curriculum of
the student. Each educational agency or institution shall
establish appropriate procedures for the granting of a
request by parents for access to the instructional material.
The granting of each such request shall be made in a
reasonable period of time, but shall not exceed 45 days,
after the date of the request;
``(2) the right to inspect and review a survey, analysis,
or evaluation that is subject to subsection (c)(7) before the
survey, analysis, or evaluation is given to a student.
``(b) Restriction on Seeking Information From Minors.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law, no funds shall be made available under any
program administered by the Secretary to any educational
agency or institution that administers or provides a survey,
analysis, or evaluation to a student without the prior,
informed, written consent of the parent or guardian of a
student concerning--
``(A) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or
the student's parent;
``(B) mental or psychological problems potentially
embarrassing to the student or the student's family;
``(C) sex behavior or attitudes;
``(D) illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior;
``(E) appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor
has a familial relationship;
``(F) relationships that are legally recognized as
privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and
members of the clergy; and
``(G) religious practices affiliations or beliefs.''.
``(2) Explanation.--In seeking the consent of the parent an
educational agency or institution must provide an accurate
explanation, in writing, of the types of items listed in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (1) that are
contained in the survey and the purpose, if known, for
including those items.
``(c) Restriction on Medical Testing and Treatment of
Minors.--
``(1) Consent required.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), no funds shall be made available under any applicable
program to an educational agency or institution that requires
or otherwise causes the student without the prior, written,
informed consent of the parent or a guardian of a minor to
undergo medical or mental health examination, testing,
treatment, or immunization (except in the case of a medical
emergency).
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to medical
or mental health examinations, testing, treatment, or
immunizations of students expressly permitted by State law
without written parental consent.
``(3) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the
term `educational agency or institution' means any
elementary, middle, or secondary school, any school district
or local board of education, and any State educational agency
that is the recipient of funds under any program administered
by the Secretary, except that it does not apply to
postsecondary institutions.
``(4) Instructional material.--In this subsection the term
`instructional material'
[[Page H2587]]
means a textbook, audio/visual material, informational
material accessible through Internet sites, material in
digital or electronic formats, instructional manual, or
journal, or any other material supplementary to the education
of a student.
``(5) Rules of construction.--(A) Nothing in this section
shall be construed to supersede the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
``(B) The term `instructional material' does not include
academic tests or assessments.
``(6) Application.--
``(A) Certain surveys, analysis, and evaluations.--
Subsection (b) shall not apply to surveys, analysis, or
evaluations administered to a student as part of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(B) Parental consent.--Nothing in subsection (c) shall be
construed to supersede or otherwise affect the parental
consent requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(C) Student rights.--The rights provided parents under
this Act transfer to the student once the student turns 18
years old or is an emancipated minor at any age.
``(7) State law exception.--Educational agencies and
institutions residing in a State that has a law that provides
parents rights comparable to the rights contained herein may
seek exemption from this Act by obtaining a waiver from the
office designated by the Secretary to administer this Act.
This office may grant a waiver to educational agencies and
institutions upon review of State law.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of parental rights. Today, we
will be passing legislation to ensure that no child is left behind in
our education system. As a Nation and as a government, we have a duty
to make sure that our public school system is held accountable; but our
schools should not only be accountable to the government, but parents
as well. Ultimately, it is the families who should have the most say in
how their children are educated.
The Parental Freedom of Information amendment is based on the need to
provide concerned, active parents with information that is vital for
them to exercise their right to guide the upbringing of the children.
Educators have often said that involved parents are the most
important thing public schools need to help students learn. I believe
involved parents must be informed parents.
The current hodgepodge of State and Federal laws simply does not
provide parents of public school children with the clear-cut right to
access information regarding their child's education.
The goal of this amendment is to plainly and unambiguously define the
rights parents have under the law.
Specifically, parents will have the right to access the curriculum to
which their children are exposed. Parents will also have the right to
give informed written consent prior to any student being required to
undergo nonemergency medical or mental health examinations, testing or
treatment, while at school; and finally, they will be afforded the
right to inspect surveys and questionnaires seeking personal
information before they are given to students.
This legislation in no way seeks to influence the content of
curricula or tests. It simply allows parents to access the basic
information which involved parents need to guide the education of their
children.
There may be some attempt to argue that there is no need for this
amendment. However, the increasing amount of litigation to determine
what rights are guaranteed to parents under current Federal law is
evidence to the contrary. Plain and simple, parents should not have to
go into a courtroom to find out what is going on in the classroom.
Parents provide both tax dollars to fund our public education system
as well as children who participate. Why should we as parents be denied
the right to see how schools are using our tax dollars to educate our
children? We need this legislation to clarify that parents have this
right to be involved.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, if I might ask either of the authors a question about
the amendment because we have no opposition to the amendment. I think
we fully understand the problems and the concerns that the authors are
trying to address, but we would like to clarify obviously some concern
of, very often, school teachers. Under State law, in a number of
instances, teachers are required to react to their concerns about
whether or not a child has been abused or not, and they must make some
inquiries of that child. My understanding is this amendment would not
impact in any way the ability of those school officials to engage in
that sometimes, unfortunately, necessary activity.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is correct. We have no
intent of preventing anyone from trying to stop child abuse. I think
that is an awful situation that we currently have in America that we
need to stop, so our efforts would be to do the same as the intent of
the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We raise this concern, and I thank
the gentleman for his answer. We raise this concern because obviously,
again in very tragic and unfortunate situations, many times the child
abuse is within the home and the parent cannot be notified that the
teacher wants to ask questions of the child, and we just want to make
sure that this does not get in the way.
Some of the groups have raised that concern. I do not think the
amendment does that, but I would certainly like, if it is possible,
that we could continue to work on this if that problem somehow
materializes so that does not happen.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. It is our intent to work with the gentleman to make sure
there is no confusion about this.
I would also like to remind the gentleman this does not supersede
State laws. Those States that have made initiatives in this area to
stop child abuse, it would not interfere with that process at all.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his
response.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt) yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this
amendment. It is often said that knowledge is power, and what we are
trying to do is make sure that informed and caring parents know what is
going on at school in an appropriate way. What the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) raised, I want to assure him it is not
my intent, nor the intent of anyone, to supersede State law that
requires teachers or medical personnel to report suspected child abuse,
because we do not want to do anything that is going to undermine
protecting children. I think we have drafted an amendment that will
accomplish that.
We are trying to empower parents in three key areas. We want to make
sure that parents have some knowledge of what is going on in terms of
the curriculum being taught at the school and that they have some
information up front, and that they can be informed by the appropriate
authorities to know what their child is being taught and have some
input.
We want to make sure that the parents have access to school material
that is going to be taught to their child.
Second, if a child is being surveyed about their personal family
life, about whether they use drugs, or mental health issues, that we
want parents to know what is going on and get parental consent there
when a survey is being done because we believe it is important for
parents to know what is being asked of their children.
[[Page H2588]]
Third, we want to make sure that in emergency situations, guidance-
counseling situations in its normal fashion, that there is no
impediment there. But we do believe that when it comes time to perform
medical exams or part of a treatment regime that a school counseling
team may come up with, that parents are informed about what is going to
happen to their child medically and any mental health counseling that
is a result of the normal counseling process.
Knowledge is power. We believe this will give parents more knowledge
about what goes on in their school. It will create a better
relationship between administrators and parents, and we are going to
make sure that we do not do anything to impede the right to protect
children who are being abused at home.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for the purposes of a
colloquy.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to have this colloquy with the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the other author, but first let me make a point
clear. I speak on this subject about parental consent with a little bit
of experience that my husband is a psychiatrist not only in private
practice but also as a psychiatric consultant to a number of school
systems over the years on these issues.
With that as background, I want to say that I agree with the
gentleman's amendment; but I want to be sure that we are not having
unintended consequences here. So I want to make clear what the language
does.
Specifically with the section on restrictions on medical testing and
treatment of minors, these initial contacts are vital. As a primary
proponent of school-based mental health services, as the author of that
provision that is in the bill, I want to be very sure that we are
talking about the same things here.
My understanding here is that under the gentleman's amendment a child
in trouble would be first referred to a school guidance counselor, as
is presently the case, under all State law; no signed permission for
this initial contact is needed. Is that correct?
Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding, yes.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then the child's case is referred to a child study
committee, and the social worker that is a member of that child's study
committee then is required to have parental consent or make the contact
with the parent before that evaluation. Is that correct?
Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then, of course, we get to the question of the mental
health counselors that are provided for in this bill. It is again my
understanding, and there is no ambiguity about this, that mental health
counselors would then assess the treatment needs but would again
require parental consent with specificity?
Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is also the understanding of the gentleman.
I want to thank the gentleman because this is a very important
portion of this bill. I want to make the particular point for all of
our colleagues that we need this clarification to ensure that the
children and families are able to receive the best possible treatment
but not eroding the rights of the parents in these cases.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for his
amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt) for yielding me this time and would urge the adoption of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment because at its core it
empowers parents, and that really should be what we are all about here
in Congress, is finding ways to empower parents to the greatest extent
possible. This empowers them through information and putting parents in
the driver's seat when it comes to administering various psychological
and psychiatric examinations, nonemergency medical examinations and
tests that might be required at school.
Giving parents the authority to make these decisions is just one
strategy to do two things: one, to make parents a more integral part of
the academic and learning experience of their children; but, secondly,
to allow parents to be in a position where they have a better
opportunity to protect their children from different examinations,
procedures, different experiments that take place in America's
government-owned schools that are somehow different than the academic
mission that most parents assume these institutions are all about.
That is, in fact, what these institutions should be about, and that
should be our goal here in the House, is to focus to the greatest
extent possible the mission of our public schools on the mission of
teaching, on education. Pure and simple. It is important to empower
them through the Tiahrt amendment because the options to empower
parents further have really not become a part of this bill nor have
those amendments been permitted to even be discussed.
The President, in his plan to leave no child behind, had suggested
that parents should have the full authority to move their children out
of government-owned institutions and into private schools at some point
if those public schools have failed to deliver an academic product that
was in the best interest of their children. That core provision of the
President's bill has been left behind, ironically, and is not part of
H.R. 1; but this amendment here is critical and I think addresses that
deficiency in the overall legislation to some degree because it does
significantly empower parents in a very important area of their child's
academic experience and makes sure that their focus is on education and
academics and not on experimentation and psychological testing.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first took up the fight to guarantee parental rights
when I encountered resistance in trying to obtain information about my
own children's curriculum. Since then, I have learned that 11-year-olds
have been given surveys asking about explicit sexual practices. School
counselors have conducted counseling sessions for treatments that they
were not qualified to give, and other abuses have been occurring across
the United States.
In closing, let me once again state that my intent with this
amendment is to simply clear up the confusion that already exists in
Federal law. Any teacher will say parental involvement is imperative to
the success of a child during their educational career.
{time} 1200
This amendment states unequivocally, parents have the right to be
involved in a child's education. It is pro-family, it is pro-education,
and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed
in House Report 107-69.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Armey
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Armey:
In section 104 of the bill, in paragraph (13) of section
1112(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(as proposed to be amended by such section 104), strike
``public''.
In section 106 of the bill, in clause (ii) of section
1116(b)(7)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106),
strike subclause (II) and insert the following:
``(II) make funds available--
``(aa) to the economically disadvantaged child's parents to
place the child in a private school in accordance with
subsection (d)(2); or
``(bb) make funds available for supplementary educational
services, in accordance with subsection (d)(1); and
[[Page H2589]]
In section 106 of the bill, in paragraph (8) of section
1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(as proposed to be amended by such section 106), after
``paragraph (6)(D)(i)'' insert ``, (7)(A)(ii)(II)(aa),''.
In section 106 of the bill, in subparagraph (A) of section
1116(b)(8) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), strike
``public''.
In section 106 of the bill, in subsection (d) of section
1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(as proposed to be amended by such section 106)--
(1) in paragraph (1) strike ``(1) In'' and insert the
following:
``(1) Supplemental Instructional Services.--''
``(A) In
(2) strike ``this paragraph'' each place it appears and
insert ``this subparagraph'';
(3) in paragraph (2) strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert
``subparagraph (A)'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert ``subparagraph
(B)''; and
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses
(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and indent accordingly);
(4) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), strike ``paragraph (6)'' and
insert ``subparagraph (F)''; and
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (E) as clauses
(i) through (v), respectively, (and indent accordingly);
(5) in paragraph (6)--
(A) strike ``paragraph (5)(c)'' insert ``subparagraph
(E)(iii)''; and
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (D) as clauses
(i) through (iv), respectively (and indent accordingly);
(6) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), strike ``subparagraph (A)'' and
insert ``clause (i)''; and
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses
(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and indent accordingly);
(7) in paragraph (10)--
(A) in subparagraphs (C) and (D), redesignate clauses (i)
and (ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively (and indent
accordingly);
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (D) as clauses
(i) through (iv), respectively (and indent accordingly);
(8) redesignate paragraphs (2) through (11) as
subparagraphs (B) through (K), respectively (and indent
accordingly);
(9) at the end, insert the following:
``(2) Parental Choice.--
``(A) In general.--In any case described in section
1116(b)(7)(A)(ii)(II)(aa) the local educational agency shall
permit the parents of each eligible child defined in
paragraph (7)(A) to--
``(i) receive, from the agency, the child's share of funds
allocated to the school under this part, calculated under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, use
those funds to pay the costs of attending a private school
that agrees to--
``(I) assess the student in mathematics and reading and
language arts each year during grades 3 through 8 and at
least once during grades 10 through 12, using academic
assessments that are comparable in what they measure to the
academic assessments used by the State; and
``(II) provide the results of those assessments to the
student's parents.
``(B) Per-child amount.--The amount of a school's
allocation under this part that it shall make available to
the parents of an eligible child under subparagraph (A)(ii)
is equal to the amount of the school's allocation under
subpart 2 of this part divided by the number of eligible
children enrolled in the school.
``(C) Limitation.--The amount of funds provided to the
parents of a child under this paragraph shall not exceed the
actual costs of the parents for sending the child to a
private school and providing transportation to such school.
``(D) Duration.--The local educational agency shall
continue to provide funds to parents of a child attending a
private school under this section until the child completes
the grade corresponding to the highest grade offered at the
public school the child previously attended.
``(E) Nondiscrimination.--
``(i) In general.--A private school participating in the
choice program under this paragraph shall not discriminate on
the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in carrying
out the provisions of this paragraph.
``(ii) Applicability and construction with respect to
discrimination on the basis of sex.--
``(I) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the
basis of sex, clause (i) shall not apply to a private school
that is controlled by a religious organization if the
application of clause (i) is inconsistent with the religious
tenets of the private school.
``(II) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With
respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in
clause (i) shall be construed to prevent a parent from
choosing, or a private school from offering, a single-sex
school, class, or activity.
``(III) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on
the basis of sex, nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to
require any person, or public or private entity to provide or
pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing
or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of
facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed
on any person or individual because such person or individual
is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to
a legal abortion.
``(iii) Children with disabilities.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to alter or modify the
provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
``(iv) Rule of Construction.--
``(I) In general.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to prevent any private school which is operated by,
supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious
organization from employing, admitting, or giving preference
to, persons of the same religion to the extent determined by
such institution to promote the religious purpose for which
the private school is established or maintained.
``(II) Sectarian purposes.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed to prohibit the use of funds made available
under this subsection for sectarian educational purposes, or
to require a private school to remove religious art, icons,
scripture, or other symbols.
``(F) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the term
`eligible child' means a child from a low-income family, as
determined by the local educational agency for purposes of
allocating funds to schools under section 1113(c)(1).''.
In section 401 of the bill, in section 4131(b) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 401)--
(1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (14);
(2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (15) and
insert ``; and''; and
(3) insert the following:
``(16) activities to promote, implement, or expand private
school choice for disadvantaged children in failing public
schools.
In section 501 of the bill, in subparagraph (P) of section
5115(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 501), after
``including a public charter school,'' insert ``or a private
school if no safe public school or public charter school can
accommodate the student,''.
In section 801 of the bill, in section 8507 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed
to be amended by such section 801)--
(1) insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Nothing''; and
(2) add at the end the following:
``(b) Inapplicability.--Subsection (a) shall not be
construed to prohibit the use of funds made available to
parents of eligible children for sectarian educational
purposes under private school choice provisions of this Act,
or to require an eligible private institution to remove
religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this amendment, which is offered by myself, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay). With the consent of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), I
will just make a few comments and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents the language that was first
introduced in the President's bill as he sent it up to the House and
represents that very important component of his education package and
education philosophy, which is parental involvement in school choice.
It is, in my estimation, just the most minimal introduction of the
right to choose a school on the part of a parent that is concerned
about the performance of the school relative to the child's life, and
it is certainly something that this Congress should take under
consideration and, in my estimation, we should pass without hesitation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we have before us
reinstates the private school choice provisions into the bill, and I
think will help rescue children who are trapped in chronically failing
schools. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for sponsoring this amendment with
me.
This issue is about fairness. It is about equity. It is about
providing a safety valve for disadvantaged students.
Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1, the bill expands choices for parents, but
we need to expand it even further by giving parents the option of
private school choice in cases where their children are
[[Page H2590]]
trapped in failing schools. This was part of the President's original
plan and, while far from the only part, it is a very important part.
The amendment would restore all the private school choice provisions
that were struck in the bill in committee, except for the demonstration
program. Specifically, the amendment would restore private school
choice as an option for disadvantaged students who have attended
failing schools for at least 3 years. It would restore private school
choice as a local use of funds under title IV of the Innovative
Education Grants for Disadvantaged Students. It restores private school
choice for students who are stuck in unsafe schools and where there are
no other public schools to which they could transfer. And, it restores
private school choice for students who have been victims of crime on
school premises and where there are no other public schools to which
they could transfer.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is common knowledge that we already have
school choice in this country, except for poor children. Suburban
parents, including many members of this body, are more likely to have
the financial means to send their children to private schools, but low-
income parents cannot afford this option. While we would continue to
deny parents with children in failing schools the opportunity that
Members of Congress enjoy, I just do not know.
We are told that providing poor children a way out of failing schools
will siphon away money from the public school system. Quite frankly, I
do not think this argument holds water.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago, Matthew Miller, writing for the
Atlantic Monthly, asked Bob Chase, who is the president of the National
Education Association, if the NEA would support vouchers in exchange
for tripling per-pupil spending for inner city kids, and guess what?
Jay said, ``no.''
This is not about money, even assuming, which we should not, that
spending more money automatically increases student achievement. This
is about an education bureaucracy that is resistant to change and mired
in habit. This about powerful lobbies that refuse to accept any change
in the status quo.
Where it has been tried, school choice works. Harvard University's
Jay Green found that Florida students' test scores have improved across
the board since the implementation of Florida's A-Plus program, similar
to the plan that we would see in this amendment. And a September 1999
report conducted by the Indiana Center for Evaluation found that
participants in Cleveland's scholarship program scored up to 5
percentile points higher than their public school counterparts in
language and science assessments.
Disadvantaged students have the most to gain from school choice.
Consider the characteristics from those who benefit from Milwaukee's
Parental School Choice plan: Fifty-four percent receive Aid to Families
with Dependent Children money, they come from families with an average
income of $11,600; 76 percent come from single-parent homes, and more
than 96 percent are from ethnic minorities.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. These are good provisions.
They will help parents and they will help children stuck in failing
schools.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schaffer) assumed the chair.
____________________