[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2611-H2645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 136, 137, 
and 140, I was at a subcommittee on Appropriations hearing. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on 137, ``nay'' on 136, and ``yea'' 
on 140.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 107-69.


             Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
       Strike part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be added by section 203 
     of the bill, and insert the following:

                 ``PART D--TEACHER LIABILITY PROTECTION

     ``SEC. 2301. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Paul Coverdell Teacher 
     Liability Protection Act of 2001'.

     ``SEC. 2302. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) The ability of teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals to teach, inspire and shape the intellect of 
     our Nation's elementary and secondary school students is 
     deterred and hindered by frivolous lawsuits and litigation.
       ``(2) Each year more and more teachers, principals and 
     other school professionals face lawsuits for actions 
     undertaken as part of their duties to provide millions of 
     school children quality educational opportunities.
       ``(3) Too many teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals face increasingly severe and random acts of 
     violence in the classroom and in schools.
       ``(4) Providing teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals a safe and secure environment is an important 
     part of the effort to improve and expand educational 
     opportunities.
       ``(5) Clarifying and limiting the liability of teachers, 
     principals and other school professionals who undertake 
     reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an 
     appropriate educational environment is an appropriate subject 
     of Federal legislation because--
       ``(A) the scope of the problems created by the legitimate 
     fears of teachers, principals and other school professionals 
     about frivolous, arbitrary or capricious lawsuits against 
     teachers is of national importance; and
       ``(B) millions of children and their families across the 
     Nation depend on teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals for the intellectual development of children.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this part is to provide 
     teachers, principals and other school professionals the tools 
     they need to undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, 
     discipline and an appropriate educational environment.

     ``SEC. 2303. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE 
                   NONAPPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) Preemption.--This part preempts the laws of any State 
     to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this part, 
     except that this part shall not preempt any State law that 
     provides additional protection from liability relating to 
     teachers.
       ``(b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This 
     part shall not apply to any civil action in a State court 
     against a teacher with respect to claims arising within that 
     State if such State enacts a statute in accordance with State 
     requirements for enacting legislation--
       ``(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
       ``(2) declaring the election of such State that this part 
     shall not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action 
     in the State; and
       ``(3) containing no other provisions.

     ``SEC. 2304. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Liability Protection for Teachers.--Except as 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c), no teacher in a school 
     shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of the 
     teacher on behalf of the school if--
       ``(1) the teacher was acting within the scope of the 
     teacher's employment or responsibilities related to providing 
     educational services;
       ``(2) the actions of the teacher were carried out in 
     conformity with local, State, and Federal laws, rules and 
     regulations in furtherance of efforts to control, discipline, 
     expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or control in 
     the classroom or school;
       ``(3) if appropriate or required, the teacher was properly 
     licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate 
     authorities for the activities or practice in the State in 
     which the harm occurred, where the activities were or 
     practice was undertaken within the scope of the teacher's 
     responsibilities;
       ``(4) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 
     misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed by the teacher; and
       ``(5) the harm was not caused by the teacher operating a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft,

[[Page H2612]]

     or other vehicle for which the State requires the operator or 
     the owner of the vehicle, craft, or vessel to--
       ``(A) possess an operator's license; or
       ``(B) maintain insurance.
       ``(b) Concerning Responsibility of Teachers to Schools and 
     Governmental Entities.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any civil action brought by any school or 
     any governmental entity against any teacher of such school.
       ``(c) Exceptions to Teacher Liability Protection.--If the 
     laws of a State limit teacher liability subject to one or 
     more of the following conditions, such conditions shall not 
     be construed as inconsistent with this section:
       ``(1) A State law that requires a school or governmental 
     entity to adhere to risk management procedures, including 
     mandatory training of teachers.
       ``(2) A State law that makes the school or governmental 
     entity liable for the acts or omissions of its teachers to 
     the same extent as an employer is liable for the acts or 
     omissions of its employees.
       ``(3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability 
     inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of 
     a State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
       ``(d) Limitation on Punitive Damages Based on the Actions 
     of Teachers.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Punitive damages may not be awarded 
     against a teacher in an action brought for harm based on the 
     action of a teacher acting within the scope of the teacher's 
     responsibilities to a school or governmental entity unless 
     the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
     that the harm was proximately caused by an action of such 
     teacher which constitutes willful or criminal misconduct, or 
     a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed.
       ``(2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) does not create a cause 
     of action for punitive damages and does not preempt or 
     supersede any Federal or State law to the extent that such 
     law would further limit the award of punitive damages.
       ``(e) Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--The limitations on the liability of a 
     teacher under this part shall not apply to any misconduct 
     that--
       ``(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
     defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
     of international terrorism (as that term is defined in 
     section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) for which the 
     defendant has been convicted in any court;
       ``(B) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
     State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
     court;
       ``(C) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
     found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law; 
     or
       ``(D) where the defendant was under the influence (as 
     determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating 
     alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to affect subsection (a)(3) or (d).

     ``SEC. 2305. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In any civil action against a teacher, 
     based on an action of a teacher acting within the scope of 
     the teacher's responsibilities to a school or governmental 
     entity, the liability of the teacher for noneconomic loss 
     shall be determined in accordance with subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount of Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each defendant who is a teacher, shall 
     be liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated 
     to that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect 
     to which that defendant is liable. The court shall render a 
     separate judgment against each defendant in an amount 
     determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.
       ``(2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a 
     defendant who is a teacher under this section, the trier of 
     fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of that 
     defendant for the claimant's harm.

     ``SEC. 2306. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect any 
     State or local law (including a rule or regulation) or policy 
     pertaining to the use of corporal punishment.

     ``SEC. 2307. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part:
       ``(1) Economic loss.--The term `economic loss' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       ``(2) Harm.--The term `harm' includes physical, 
     nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
       ``(3) Noneconomic losses.--The term `noneconomic losses' 
     means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       ``(4) School.--The term `school' means a public or private 
     kindergarten, a public or private elementary school or 
     secondary school (as defined in section 14101, or a home 
     school.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession 
     of the United States, or any political subdivision of any 
     such State, territory, or possession.
       ``(6) Teacher.--The term `teacher' means a teacher, 
     instructor, principal, administrator, or other educational 
     professional that works in a school, a local school board and 
     any member of such board, and a local educational agency and 
     any employee of such agency.

     ``SEC. 2308. APPLICABILITY.

       ``This part applies to any claim for harm caused by an act 
     or omission of a teacher if that claim is filed on or after 
     the effective date of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
     without regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the 
     claim or the conduct that caused the harm occurred before 
     such effective date.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Safe schools for students and teachers concerns us all, and from the 
shootings in Columbine to the recent shootings at Santana High School, 
all of us debate in this Chamber how to make our schools safer, how to 
make sure that our teachers and students are safe and return home 
safely each year. While we may disagree on some of the ways to do that, 
we are, in a bipartisan way, strongly supportive of returning order and 
discipline to our classrooms, and that is what this amendment is about: 
protecting teachers and schools from frivolous lawsuits when they 
responsibly maintain order and discipline in the classroom.
  Schools are becoming more and more dangerous. Teachers tell us they 
do not feel safe in their own school. They tell us they are afraid to 
discipline unruly students, afraid to stop fights among those students, 
afraid to even defend themselves. The reason is that teachers may face 
an expensive and career-damaging lawsuit by overzealous lawyers. And, 
worse yet, there is a good chance they will be humiliated again when 
their responsible decision to maintain order in the classroom is not 
backed up by the principals and the school boards who face constant 
threats of expensive, frivolous, harassing lawsuits. In the end, it is 
the children who suffer.
  As the American Federation of Teachers have said in their report on 
how to prevent violence in our schools, it is low-performing schools 
who suffer from the lack of safe and orderly learning environments. 
Teaching and learning are almost impossible to achieve in an 
environment of disorder, disrespect and fear. As our teachers tell us, 
no one has ever learned in the classroom where one or two kids take up 
90 percent of the time through disruption, violence or threats of 
violence. That is why in poll after poll, educators rank discipline and 
safety high on their list of education concerns. So do we as parents, 
and so do the students.
  This is what this bill does. This bill ensures that dedicated 
teachers trying to maintain a safe classroom are not afraid of being 
hauled into court for doing the responsible thing. This measure 
establishes a national shield to protect teachers, principals and other 
education professionals, including our school boards, who take 
responsible actions. The amendment does not protect educators or school 
boards when they engage in willful, reckless or criminal misconduct, 
when they engage in criminal acts, in violations of State or Federal 
civil rights laws, inappropriate use of drugs or alcohol, or behave 
with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of an 
individual harmed. We preserve States' rights with an easy opt-out, and 
we do not affect State law or local rules regarding corporal 
punishment.
  Let me tell my colleagues what one teacher from Houston wrote me. 
``In another classroom,'' he wrote, ``two girls had a fight today. The 
teacher got knocked down, was hit twice in the head and when he fell to 
the ground, was kicked twice by the girls. This

[[Page H2613]]

teacher could not touch these girls to separate them. We have been told 
over and over again, do not touch the students, even to defend 
yourself. It is recommended that you do not touch the child. Seven 
little letters tell us why: Lawsuit.'' This teacher wrote, ``Do they 
have any idea what teachers go through on a daily basis? We only want 
to be protected. Is a little peace of mind in the classroom too much to 
ask?''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment is advertised as providing liability protection for 
teachers, but the amendment defines ``teacher'' to include not only 
those that my colleagues and I might think of as teachers, but also any 
individual who works in a school, any member of the school board, any 
employee of a local education agency, as well as the school board and 
local education entity itself.
  Immunizing every responsible individual and then immunizing the 
school system itself, as the Brady amendment would do, means that 
nobody would be responsible to a parent when a child is injured by a 
negligent act or omission at the school. The Brady amendment would 
ensure that schools will virtually never be accountable to parents 
regarding the safety and discipline for their children.
  For example, the Brady amendment would eliminate accountability for 
negligent hiring decisions and would place schools and children at 
risk. Often, we have people who are hired as professional hall guards 
or monitors. This amendment would immunize principals and 
administrators who fail to make proper background checks and hire a 
violent or sexual predator as disciplinarian. Because the school 
administration is also immunized, nobody would be responsible.

                              {time}  1545

  There would be immunity for school administrators who single out 
African American students or members of another protected class for 
discipline and punishment in violation of their civil rights, or a 
school employee who negligently restrains a student, and the student is 
injured or dies as a result. Then no one would be responsible, so no 
one will take precautions to make sure that these things do not happen.
  School boards and educational agencies owe the highest duty to our 
schoolchildren. They ultimately are responsible for every teacher or 
principal's decision regarding discipline or punishment of students. 
This bill would not only shield teachers, but also school boards and 
local governments from any responsibility.
  The theme throughout the reauthorization of ESEA has been 
accountability of schools to parents and children. This amendment would 
violate that goal by providing immunity to school administrators, 
school personnel, school boards, and local education agencies for 
actions that harm the health and welfare of our children that they owe 
a duty to protect. I ask that Members vote no on this amendment.
  I would also point out that the National Education Association has 
come out against this amendment. They say that the amendment provides 
for immunity for every responsible party in the school and the school 
system itself. The amendment would eliminate all responsibility to 
parents when a child is injured by disciplinary actions.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the National 
Education Association.
  The letter is as follows:

                               National Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2001.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we urge your 
     opposition to the Brady amendment to the ESEA reauthorization 
     bill (H.R. 1) that would in effect remove all accountability 
     for disciplinary actions that result in harm to the health or 
     welfare of students.
       NEA does not oppose efforts to strengthen liability 
     protections for education employees. Unlike the McConnell 
     amendment in the Senate ESEA bill (S. 1), however, the Brady 
     amendment provides immunity for every responsible party in a 
     school and the school system itself--including the school 
     board and local education agency as entities. This amendment 
     would eliminate all responsibility to parents when a child is 
     injured by disciplinary actions.
       Immunizing school boards and local education agencies will 
     not improve discipline in the classroom. Instead, the 
     amendment will place students at risk, while undermining the 
     focus on accountability to parents and children central to 
     the ESEA bill.
       We urge your opposition to this dangerous amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill holds all teachers, all school boards, all 
educators equally accountable for willful, reckless, criminal 
misconduct, criminal acts, negligence, gross negligence, violations of 
State and Federal laws.
  I would point out, it is endorsed by our secondary school principals, 
our elementary school principals, and many teachers and parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, 
and for yielding time to me.
  One of the chronic complaints we hear about public education is a 
lack of discipline. In fact, I hear more about that than any other 
single issue from our public schools today, and the concerns expressed 
by teachers that they might be sued if they attempt to discipline 
students.
  In fact, their concerns are not unfounded. Thirty-one percent of all 
high schools have faced lawsuits or out-of-court settlements in the 
past 2 years. Teachers are not only wary of intervening physically in 
student confrontations, but there are times when teachers have to make 
judgment calls about disciplining a child whose behavior is distracting 
rather than dangerous.
  Some teachers err, frankly, on the side of leniency. The result has 
been a steady erosion of the teachers' ability to maintain order in the 
classroom. This addresses this problem by freeing teachers, principals, 
and school board members from meritless Federal lawsuits when they 
enforce reasonable rules.
  The amendment language is very modest and narrowly tailored. The 
amendment only deals with Federal causes of action that might be 
brought against teachers or principals who act in a reasonable way to 
maintain order and discipline in the classroom. There is absolutely no 
protection for reckless or criminal misconduct.
  Also, the amendment does not protect teachers when they violate State 
or local law. For instance, the teacher immunity provided under this 
amendment would not override State law towards claims such as 
negligence, assault, or battery as they are governed by State law.
  I strongly believe school officials must be protected if we are 
serious about helping them maintain a school environment where teachers 
can teach and students can learn. I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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 my friend for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to what is clearly a well-intended 
amendment that I believe will create significant confusion.
  No one can dispute the need or desirability of reinforcing the notion 
of teachers and other school professionals that they need to maintain 
order in the classroom. I think the gentleman's point that there are 
some frivolous lawsuits is indisputable.
  My concern about this amendment is that I think it fundamentally 
misunderstands the role of the courts versus the role of this Congress. 
This amendment would impose a hard and fast and rigid set of rules upon 
virtually every classroom situation, and do so in a way that could not 
foresee certain circumstances. As a result of this, I believe it would 
actually breed litigation.
  Let me give two examples. I do not believe it is inherently obvious 
from

[[Page H2614]]

this language as to whether or not an act of slander or libel by a 
teacher or by a school professional is or is not actionable under this 
provision.
  Secondly, the definition of ``school'' or ``within the scope of 
employment'' is a bit curious. What about a driver's education 
instructor who is behind the wheel of a car and negligently operates 
the car in the process of teaching a student how to drive?
  I do not know what the answer to those cases should be, but I do know 
this, that this House as a legislative body is ill-equipped and ill-
prepared to answer one of those questions on a case-by-case basis in 
advance of the incident's taking place.
  I think the gentleman's intention to protect the ordinary carrying-
out of school disciplinary measures is quite laudable and quite 
desirable, but I think the ambiguity of language in suggesting which 
causes of action would be preempted or excluded by this amendment and 
which would not, and the ambiguity of language in suggesting what the 
``scope of employment'' means, means that this very well-intentioned 
attempt to avoid litigation would in fact wind up creating it.
  In summary, I believe we should defeat this amendment because of 
those ambiguities.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Brady amendment 
to add teacher liability protection to the President's No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001. This is a commonsense reform that protects teachers 
from frivolous lawsuits when they take steps to maintain order and 
discipline in the classroom.
  For example, imagine a scenario where we have a disruptive student, 
and the teacher tells him to go to the principal's office. The student 
says, ``I am not going to do what you want. I am going to do whatever I 
want. You are not going to tell me what to do. I will sit here all day 
if I want.''
  Under that scenario, the teacher would probably go get another 
teacher and have no choice but to physically remove the child from the 
classroom as he was being disruptive and take him to the principal's 
office. Under that scenario, those same teachers could then be 
subjected to a frivolous suit for unlimited compensatory and punitive 
damages.
  This is a problem that happens all too often. I think our teachers 
deserve better. Interviews with public school teachers reveal a common 
theme. It is always a small percentage of the students who cause 
virtually all of the problems.
  Two-thirds of our public school teachers say discipline is a serious 
problem in the schools. Eighty-eight percent of those same teachers say 
academic achievement would improve substantially if the troublemakers 
were removed.
  Teaching is a noble profession. We ask a lot of them. We pay them 
nothing. The least we can do is protect them from frivolous lawsuits. I 
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Brady amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in a letter from the National Education Association, 
which represents 2.6 million members in this country, they urge defeat 
of the Brady amendment. Just let me read from that letter.
  ``On behalf of the National Education Association's 2.6 million 
members, we urge your opposition to the Brady amendment to the ESEA 
reauthorization bill, H.R. 1, that would in effect remove all 
accountability for disciplinary actions that result in harm to the 
health or welfare of students.''
  It goes on to say, ``Immunizing school boards and local education 
agencies will not improve discipline in the classroom.'' Instead, the 
amendment will place students at risk while undermining the focus on 
accountability to parents and children central to the ESEA bill. We 
urge your opposition to this dangerous amendment.''
  I would commend these word to the Members.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me and for sponsoring this amendment.
  As part of our broader efforts to make schools safer, H.R. 1 provides 
limited civil litigation immunity from civil causes of action for 
teachers, principals, and other school administrators who take 
reasonable actions to maintain school discipline. This will allow 
teachers to remove violent and persistently disruptive students from 
the classroom without fear of legal repercussions.
  The amendment before us strengthens the bill by providing teachers, 
administrators, and school board members immunity from State causes of 
action as well, and if a State does not want the immunity protections 
to apply, then State legislatures may in fact opt out of these 
provisions.
  While it may seem like common sense that teachers should be able to 
take reasonable efforts to keep their classrooms under control, the 
idea of disciplining students has come under fire over the years. In 
light of recent school tragedies, it is even more important than ever 
to support teachers who take reasonable actions to maintain order and 
discipline.
  Nearly 65 percent of public school teachers have suggested that 
discipline is a serious problem in their schools, and about 88 percent 
think that student achievement would improve if chronic troublemakers 
were removed from the class.
  As I noted earlier, the idea behind this provision is to make schools 
safer. The President's plan also includes more funding for safety and 
drug prevention programs, as well as after-school activities. It also 
requires States to report to parents on whether a school is safe, and 
the bill nearly triples funding for character education programs that 
try to instill values like honesty, respect for others, and 
responsibility into the curriculum.
  This amendment will save schools from having to waste money on 
frivolous lawsuits, and ensure that taxpayers' dollars go where they 
should go, to the classroom, not to a bunch of lawyers.
  I congratulate my colleague, and urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves), one of our newer Members interested in safe 
and orderly schools.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, too many teachers have told me that they 
are afraid to discipline unruly students for fear that they may face an 
expensive, career-ending lawsuit. It is time to take the lawyers out of 
the classroom.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to shield those responsible educators from 
frivolous lawsuits so our children may learn in a safe school. 
Responsible teachers should not be afraid of violent bullies with 
intimidating attorneys. Teachers should not fear a lawsuit because they 
attempt to break up a fight in gym class or on the playground. Teachers 
must be able to control the classroom to keep their students safe.
  I have introduced legislation that, like this amendment, would 
provide legal protections to teachers who make reasonable actions to 
maintain order and discipline in the classroom. I rise today in strong 
support of this amendment that will protect our teachers and empower 
them to do what they were hired to do; that is, teach our students.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas on his great work on 
this amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have passed this exact language twice through this 
House, Republicans and Democrats. We have protected equally from 
frivolous lawsuits our teachers, our principals, our educators, and our 
school boards. Our principals and teachers tell us that is so 
important, because if the school board does not back up the principals 
and teachers, all we have done is open a loophole for more violence, 
more bullying, more threats, and more harassing lawsuits.
  At a time when we always fear another Columbine, the last thing we 
need is an open loophole, an invitation

[[Page H2615]]

to harassing lawsuits against the educators who need to maintain order 
in their classroom.
  Let me close with this. Members of Congress are often asked: ``What 
are you doing to stop school violence? What are you doing to make our 
schools safer?'' Today we have the opportunity to answer, because today 
we have a clear choice, a choice between dedicated teachers and 
students who want to learn, or threatening, disruptive bullies and 
their reckless attorneys.
  It is time to take the lawyers out of the classroom and to restore 
order and discipline so our teachers can teach, our children can learn, 
in truly safe schools. That is the right choice.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Virginia 
is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Senate passed an amendment similar to 
this, but it had a significant difference. The Senate amendment, while 
providing liability protection to teachers, principals, and educators 
as individuals, it never thought to provide immunity to school boards 
and local education authorities as entities.

                              {time}  1600

  Immunizing every responsible party in a school and then immunizing 
the school system itself, as this amendment would do, means that no one 
will be responsible to a parent when a child is injured by an act or an 
omission with regard to discipline.
  This amendment would ensure that the schools would virtually never be 
accountable to parents regarding the discipline and safety of their 
children.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if no one is responsible for injuries negligently 
inflicted upon our children, no one will have an incentive to protect 
children from negligent acts.
  This amendment will not improve school safety and it should therefore 
be defeated.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All time for debate on this 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House 
Report 107-69.


            Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       In subparagraph (A) of section 1116(b)(3) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 106 of the bill--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of clause (vii);
       (2) strike period at the end of clause (viii) and insert 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) add at the end the following:
       ``(ix) ensure that a mentoring program is available to 
     teachers in the school who have been in the teaching 
     profession for 3 years or less, which provides mentoring to 
     beginning teachers from exemplary veteran teachers with 
     expertise in the same subject matter that the beginning 
     teachers will be teaching, to the extent practicable be 
     school-based, and provides mentors time for activities such 
     as coaching, observing, and assisting the teachers who are 
     mentored.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition not otherwise taken.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered out of 
my very great concern that what we have established by law and what we 
have built upon in H.R. 1 is a formula for the determination of when 
schools are deemed not to be providing adequate education to the 
children. They are referred to in a wide variety of ways as failing 
schools or schools that are not performing up to the standards.
  Consistent with this policy of trying to bring in accountability to 
the provision of Federal funds, we have provided for an additional 
number of tests from third grade to eighth grade, in an effort to try 
to maintain a steady pool of information as to whether the schools are 
failing or not.
  There are processes developed in H.R. 1 to promote efforts that we 
feel would help to bring these schools up to standard and allow the 
children to proceed and to achieve in the basic courses of reading and 
literacy and in math and science.
  One of the things that we have always discussed in our deliberations 
about failing schools is that it is the lack of resources in most cases 
that compound the problems, not just the lack of funding, but the fact 
that they cannot attract into these schools qualified teachers. They 
are not connected with the Internet. They lack the assistance of 
various resource teachers. They do not have the textbooks. They are in 
remote areas which compounds the problems.
  What happens in these remote areas is that there is a constant 
turnover of the teachers, and what we often find in my schools in the 
remote areas is that graduates that are just out of the colleges of 
education are the ones that are sent to teach in these schools that are 
already having a difficult time.
  Mr. Chairman, these teachers fresh out of the college of education 
are highly motivated. They have gone through a very rigorous course of 
education, but when they hit the classroom itself, many of them tell me 
that they need assistance. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to 
provide. It says in the case of failing schools, there should be a 
mentoring program which is made available to the teachers that are 
assigned to these failing schools that have been teaching for 3 years 
or less.
  The principals from 14 schools met with me recently and they 
identified this as one of the major benefits they want for their 
schools. If they had the assistance of an additional teacher or a 
mentor it would help to build confidence in the new teacher. The mentor 
could come from within the school system and would be paid an 
additional amount of money to provide help, support, confidence-
building by going over the lesson plans to bring these teachers along.
  This will contribute enormously to the retention factor, too. These 
young teachers assigned to the remote areas, to the failing schools are 
the ones who tend to leave immediately after their 3-year probation 
period comes about. With support instead of moving into the bigger 
cities where they prefer to live, they could be encouraged to stay.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment will go a long way to 
helping the children, bringing these schools up to par, helping to 
retain the teachers by giving these new teachers the confidence that 
what they have sought in their careers is important and that we are 
providing this additional service because they are important.
  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 congratulate the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. 
Mink) for all of her efforts this year as we have gone through the 
development of the bill that we have before us.
  I can tell my colleagues as a member of the negotiating team on the 
other side, she was a fierce advocate for the positions that she has 
taken for many years. I can tell my colleagues that as someone who has 
less experience in these areas than the gentlewoman from

[[Page H2616]]

 Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), her service to our group was invaluable.
  The amendment that she brings to us today is an important one. Under 
the current bill that we have before us, H.R. 1, it does require 
schools that have been designated as low-performing to develop a 2-year 
plan for how they will turn the school around.
  The plan must include scientifically based research strategies, high-
quality professional development, numerical goals for progress and 
other matters which improve the academic quality of the school.
  The amendment would ensure that mentoring is made available for 
teachers who have been in the teaching profession for 3 years or less. 
I think this is a valuable addition to the plan that we have before us, 
and I would ask all of my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my colleague who has been a member of our 
working group.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this display of bipartisanship 
also. I think for those who are concerned that Title I should perform 
better, this amendment would certainly help teachers, especially the 
newer teachers, to enhance their skills; and I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is 
granted an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for presenting this amendment.
  Professional development for educators is an important strength of 
this reauthorization act. We know that studies repeatedly show that the 
quality of teachers is the single most important predictor of student 
success.
  In California, we instituted a beginner teacher support program that 
provides the exact kind of support proposed in this amendment. My 
district in San Diego County initiated such peer-teacher mentoring in 
the 1980s, and years of experience have shown that it does two very 
important things.
  It makes the new teacher more effective from the first week in the 
classroom, and it increases retention of new teachers beyond the 5-year 
burnout that is a cause of our undersupply of trained teachers. And in 
addition, where midcareer teachers are recruited under alternative 
credentialing, consistent on-site peer coaching is a necessity to their 
success.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on this proven program. Again, I 
thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for presenting it.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink.)
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 22 printed in House Report 107-69.


                  Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       In section 501 of the bill, strike section 5302 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501) and insert the following:

     ``SEC. 5302. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time otherwise reserved for opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, character education makes a difference. Character 
education works because it teaches time-tested principles like honor, 
respect, responsibility, and courage. It teaches children to become not 
only future business professionals, doctors and technicians, but good 
citizens and decent human beings as well.
  President Bush clearly recognizes the importance of values in our 
society and is committed to seeking a better education for our Nation's 
children. The President has included our character education initiative 
in his reform proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, a valueless education is no education at all. At the 
foundation of all knowledge, there must exist a fundamental set of 
principles that distinguishes right from wrong and good from bad. As a 
matter of fact, academia used to believe in a value-neutral or a value-
free education, and now many people in academia say that we must have a 
value-based educational system so that knowledge can rest on the 
difference between right and wrong.
  Character education is taught in all 50 States. Thirty-two States 
have passed legislation either mandating or encouraging the teaching of 
character education in school. However, some schools do not have enough 
money to add this important curriculum, and this amendment will give 
them this capability.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the character-education movement 
has grown out of my hometown, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Today, the Center 
for Youth Issues Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provides 
materials and/or programs on character education to more than 26,000 
schools Nationwide and impacts more than 10 million students in all 50 
States.
  Since 1981, this organization, working through its school-based 
organizations, STARS, Students Taking a Right Stand, has found 
acceptance and great success in public school systems across America. 
My wife and I have been involved in STARS, and we really believe in its 
work.
  Education experts know well if we teach character and build good 
citizens, we will not need metal detectors at school entrances, bars on 
the windows or other measures that are more appropriate for the penal 
system than for the school system.
  Yesterday, I participated in a Court TV program on bullying in 
schools. And, frankly, this character trait of respect, if all of our 
students embraced it and learned it and know to respect others 
throughout the educational process, we would not have the youth 
violence problem that is surfacing in so many schools.
  Congress must act to support character education. To provide that 
support, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and myself 
introduced H.R. 228, the Character Counts for the 21st Century Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this is very similar to the language in H.R. 1 which 
will authorize the U.S. Education Department to provide grants to 
promote character education.
  Our amendment before us today is bipartisan. The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is a champion of strong public education. 
Character education is backed by a diverse coalition ranging from Miss 
America Angela Perez Baraquio to President Bush.
  I laud the bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, that 
includes $25 million annually for character education. But by doubling 
it to $50 million, we will double the number of schools that might 
qualify. Our amendment raises it to $50 million per year.
  There are 53 million children in our schools. Spending less than a 
dollar on

[[Page H2617]]

each child so they learn right from wrong and good from bad is the 
right thing to do. Much has been asked of American education, and the 
Congress should settle for nothing less. Improving education has become 
a priority of both political parties.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
ranking member, and their excellent staffs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member for their support and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) for working together in this bipartisan manner on this very 
important measure, doubling this bill's funding for character 
education.
  Last Congress, the gentleman from Tennessee and I had the 
opportunity, along with 22 other Members in this body, to serve on the 
Speaker's Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence that really 
addressed this issue after the Columbine tragedy. This came out as one 
of the unanimous recommendations of that commission as a way to prevent 
violence among our young people.
  As a former State superintendent of my State schools, I understand 
firsthand that character education really works. In a number of schools 
in my district, in Wake County, Johnston and Nash, it is providing 
leadership.
  This amendment will build on those efforts and provide more of our 
young people with the education on the basic values.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), another proponent of character 
education.
  Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment 
by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  John Whitehead once said that ``children are the living messages we 
send to a time that we will not see.'' We have to ask ourselves what 
kind of messages are we sending through our children. Yes, of course 
they need the knowledge and skills in the classroom to prepare for the 
global economy; however, we must remember that schools also serve as an 
important tool to help build citizenship.
  As one who has volunteered the last 20 years in the classroom myself 
long before I came up here to Washington, I know that we have an 
opportunity, a golden one, to work with our teachers and educators to 
help our children. Children spend about 1,500 hours a year in front of 
the television, 900 hours a year in school.
  This is a golden opportunity for us to help develop good character 
and support what our schools can do to help our children. Character is 
developed over time by teaching by example, by learning, and by 
practice. It is developed through character education.
  I strongly support this amendment and urge all my colleagues to do 
so.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I stand here before my colleagues today as 
the proud son of public school educators, as the father of two children 
growing up in the Prescott public schools back in my hometown. I stand 
here in support of character education.
  I have talked a lot about safer schools and smaller class sizes, 
about the need to put respect for teachers and discipline back into the 
classroom; and, yes, I have talked a lot about the need for more 
character education. We must focus more through character education on 
things like respect and citizenship. I think we need to get back to 
some of the basics in education. We need to teach our children. We must 
strive for them to do academically, but we must also strive to help 
them become good citizens and future leaders for all of us.
  I am pleased to stand here today in support of this bipartisan 
amendment. I hope it demonstrates that a lot of us are truly trying to 
put our children and are truly trying to put progress before 
partisanship.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close for our side on this debate by saying that 
this House has a chance to make character education work all across 
America. It works in those schools that we now have it in because it 
teaches our children to view the world through a moral lens and to 
understand that their actions really do have consequences.
  Character education works to improve order, discipline and the 
respect in our classroom, and to reduce the incidence of violence. The 
research we have done in North Carolina for schools that have it, 
violence goes down and academics go up.
  It teaches children to become not only successful children and 
students, but also good citizens and decent human beings as well. We 
must not only educate our children's minds, but their hearts as well.
  I believe if we can seize this moment and provide a national 
commitment to character education for our children, then we will not 
need metal detectors, bars on the windows, or other punitive measures 
that are more appropriate for a penal system than for our school 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the Wamp-
Etheridge amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and a man who has come up with 
an excellent work product in this bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and others for 
supporting this because I do think that character education is a 
valuable effort that needs to happen in our schools.
  When we grew up, we had two parents at home by and large teaching us 
character, teaching us the valuable lessons that we needed to be good 
citizens, to be good students, and to respect one another. All of those 
values were reinforced in the schools that we went to.
  But today, unfortunately, we do not have mom and dad both at home 
raising their children. We have a different society than we had when 
many of us grew up. For a lot of children, especially children in 
poorer school districts, they may never see their parents.
  The kind of values that we are talking about and the kind of 
character education that this plan would call for I think has to 
happen, because if we do not intercept these children in school and 
help them develop these values, they will never develop those values 
because they are not being reinforced at home like when we were all 
growing up.
  It is a good amendment. We ought to vote for it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair understands that amendment No. 23 
will not be offered. Therefore, it is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 24 printed in House Report 107-69.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hilleary

  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Hilleary:
       After part A of title IX of the bill, insert the following 
     (and redesignate provisions accordingly):

            PART B--EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

     SEC. 921. SHORT TITLE.

       This part may be cited as the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal 
     Access Act''.

     SEC. 922. EQUAL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds made available through the Department of 
     Education shall be provided to any public elementary school, 
     public secondary school, local educational agency, or State 
     educational agency, if the school or a school served by the 
     agency--
       (1) has a designated open forum; and
       (2) denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, 
     or discriminates against,

[[Page H2618]]

     any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or any 
     other youth group that wishes to conduct a meeting within 
     that designated open forum, on the basis of the membership or 
     leadership criteria of the Boy Scouts of America or of the 
     youth group that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals, or 
     individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' or the youth group's 
     oath of allegiance to God and country, as members or leaders.
       (b) Termination of Assistance and Other Action.--
       (1) Departmental action.--The Secretary is authorized and 
     directed to effectuate subsection (a) by issuing, and 
     securing compliance with, rules or orders with respect to a 
     public school or agency that receives funds made available 
     through the Department of Education and that denies equal 
     access, or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminates, as 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Procedure.--The Secretary shall issue and secure 
     compliance with the rules or orders, under paragraph (1), in 
     a manner consistent with the procedure used by a Federal 
     department or agency under section 602 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).
       (3) Judicial review.--Any action taken by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the judicial review 
     described in section 603 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2). Any 
     person aggrieved by the action may obtain that judicial 
     review in the manner, and to the extent, provided in section 
     603 of that Act.
       (c) Definitions and Rule.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary 
     school; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'', 
     and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (as in effect after the effective date 
     of this Act).
       (B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Education.
       (C) Youth group.--The term ``youth group'' means any group 
     or organization intended to serve young people under the age 
     of 21.
       (2) Rule.--For purposes of this section, an elementary 
     school or secondary school has a designated open forum 
     whenever the school involved grants an offering to or 
     opportunity for 1 or more youth or community groups to meet 
     on school premises or in school facilities before or after 
     the hours during which attendance at the school is 
     compulsory.

     SEC. 923. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Notwithstanding section 5, this part takes effect 1 day 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be before this House today with an 
amendment in support of one of our most revered institutions, the Boy 
Scouts of America. I find it interesting that this amendment comes 
immediately after the previous amendment regarding character education, 
because the Boy Scouts of America have been in the business of 
character education for many, many years.
  My amendment is very simple. It states that, if a school allows 
groups open access to its facilities, it must allow equal access to the 
Boy Scouts. All over the country the Boy Scouts are under attack and 
being thrown out of public facilities that are open to other similarly 
situated groups. From Florida to California, the Boy Scouts are being 
removed, not because they support an illegal right, but as retribution 
for the Supreme Court's ruling in the Boy Scouts of America versus 
Dale.
  The Boy Scouts won this case, but they have repeatedly once again 
defended this right in court. Thus far, the courts upheld the Boy 
Scouts' first amendment rights in assembly and speech and overturn 
their removal from public meetings areas such as schools. However, more 
and more schools continue to act, and the Scouts repeatedly have to get 
an injunction in court.
  This amendment is designed to stop this wasteful cycle in litigation 
and harassment. If one allows for an open forum for other groups to 
meet, it is only fair to allow equal access to the Boy Scouts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my objection is not because I object to 
the Boy Scouts. My objection is to intolerance. Since the Boy Scouts of 
America fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to 
discriminate, school districts, county governments, businesses and 
charitable groups like the United Way chapters have been breaking their 
ties with the Boy Scouts of America.
  This effort to stand up to the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy is 
not a fringe movement; it is part of the mainstream belief that 
intolerance in any form is un-American.
  It is amazing to me that the proponents of this amendment support 
intolerance by revoking Federal funds unless a school or school 
district supports discriminatory policy and at the same time would take 
local control away from a school or a school district.
  Whether one agrees with the Boy Scouts or not, anyone who believes 
that local communities should have local control over their own schools 
will surely want to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this is not unprecedented, this 
sanction in this amendment. We do this also with regard to school 
prayer. We do it with regard to military recruiters if schools decide 
to discriminate against the military and not allow them in. This 
sanction is not without precedence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the important amendment of 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) to protect the freedom of 
association of the Boy Scouts of America that is inherent in the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a sad, sad day in this country when the Boy 
Scouts of America, an institution recognized as a pillar of moral 
strength, is increasingly denied access to school facilities based on 
its membership or leadership criteria.
  Mr. Chairman, in an era where the headlines have been graced with 
atrocious incidents of kids killing kids, the rise of drugs and 
violence in our schools, it is shocking that this Congress would stand 
by those who point to the Boy Scouts and order them out of our schools.
  High school students in the State of Indiana can be asked to watch 
MTV programs to fulfill a course requirement, but the prospect of 
allowing the Boy Scouts of America to meet in the same building is 
somehow offensive to the Constitution of this great land.
  The Boy Scouts of America is a model of integrity, strong ethics, 
devotion to God and the public good. Closing school doors to them is at 
minimum misguided, and at the most it is extremism.
  The Founders of this Nation fought for one Nation under God. The 
phrase ``In God we trust,'' Mr. Chairman, graces the walls of this very 
Chamber as testimony to this historic truth. Let us in this place by 
this amendment make it possible for the next generation of Americans to 
embrace those same timeless values.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that, if those words are 
believed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) on the other side of 
the aisle, then it would make sense that all boys, not just some boys 
can be members of Scouting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. This amendment does nothing, nothing 
for the Boy Scouts. They are already well protected, not by some 
statute, but by the Constitution. That constitutional principle is 
already well established.

[[Page H2619]]

  Under the first amendment, they cannot be denied for the use of any 
public forum that is made available to other groups. For example, back 
in 1968, a Federal Court of Appeals upheld the right of the Ku Klux 
Klan to use a high school gym for a Klan meeting. In this past March, a 
Federal District Court applied the same principle to the Boy Scouts 
when a school board in Florida attempted to deny them the use of school 
facilities. So my colleagues do not have to worry about the Boy Scouts. 
They are well protected now.
  The reality is that this amendment is not about the Boy Scouts. It is 
about a conservative social agenda that holds passionate views about 
sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts' policy on sexual orientation is 
well known. That is fine. The gentleman is entitled to his views, and 
the Boy Scouts' are entitled to their views. But they ought not to be 
entitled to use the Congress of the United States to make a political 
statement that promotes intolerance and discrimination.
  Vote no on the Hilleary amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  During the last series of votes, 68 Republicans voted against the 
President on the most important provision of his Leave No Child Behind 
plan, and that was the portion that would have allowed students to be 
educated in private institutions if their public institution had failed 
them. That is unfortunate, because that was the heart of the bill.
  And since we are not going to allow students to go to private 
institutions, it makes perfect sense that we should now adopt this 
amendment to at least allow the private institutions to come into the 
schools and help educate children. In this case, we are talking about 
the Boy Scouts of America, which, as we just heard from the previous 
speaker, there are some here in Washington who are willing to associate 
the word ``intolerance'' with the Boy Scouts of America, which, of 
course, is just absurd.
  The Boy Scouts of America are anything but that. They are extremely 
tolerant and extremely open and they are a fine organization that has a 
long history in helping to provide guidance and support and education 
to the young boys of America who will ultimately become some of 
America's best leaders, many of whom serve right here in the United 
States House of Representatives and over across the Capitol.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important one, because it does 
really level the playing field and it speaks specifically to an 
organization that deserves our support here in the Congress, and one 
that has been the target of an unfortunate and pernicious kind of 
discrimination. This amendment is very much consistent with the 
President's plan. Consistent amendments to the President's plan have 
been kind of in short supply this afternoon, but this is one I think we 
can wholeheartedly endorse, and I hope the House does.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The Chair advises that the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) has 15 seconds remaining and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say first that the Boy Scouts, I 
think, reflect the standards, of course, that we hope for in terms of 
all young men in our country, and so that is why I believe that this 
amendment would be dangerous in terms of restricting the use of Federal 
funds from schools and school districts that choose to stand against 
the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies.
  Now, this amendment is really unnecessary. It is an unwarranted 
intrusion into a local school district's ability to set standards for 
the use of their own facilities. I am very concerned that Congress 
would eliminate vital funds for our children's schools simply because 
their school system stands up against discrimination. It also bestows 
upon the Boy Scouts and other youth groups unique rights that are not 
available to other student-led groups.
  The first amendment already guarantees the Boy Scouts the right to 
use any school or public facility to the same extent and in the same 
manner as any other group allowed to use those facilities. So the 
Hilleary amendment will transform these schools into open forums 
requiring them to allow anti-gay groups to use school premises 
regardless of a local school board's decision on the matter. So I urge 
a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and 
finish by saying that the Boy Scouts are not protected. They are the 
target of many, many votes of harassment, in my view, and this is 
simply to point out they should not have to use their precious 
resources to claim their constitutional rights in court, nor should the 
school systems have to use up their precious resources defending 
against the Boy Scouts in court. This just sets it right for them, and 
I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and, 
in closing, I would like to point out I have a letter before me that 
has been signed by 22 organizations, such as the National PTA, the 
National School Boards Association, the National Association of 
Secondary School Principals, and the National Rural Education 
Association, among many others.
  Mr. Chairman, we should vote against this because it is not necessary 
in the first place, but a vote against this amendment would be a vote 
telling our children that all children are important, not just some 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter I referred to earlier is submitted for the 
Record as follows:

                                                     May 22, 2001.
       Dear Representative: We are writing today to urge you to 
     reject the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' which 
     was offered as an amendment to the Leave No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001 (H.R. 1). This amendment would deny all Federal 
     education funding to any school district or state education 
     agency that has been found to ``discriminate'' against the 
     Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group that denies 
     membership to gays and lesbians.
       The Hilleary amendment is an unnecessary, unwarranted 
     intrusion into a local school district's ability to set 
     standards for the use of their own facilities, and bestows 
     uopn the Boy Scouts and other youth groups unique rights that 
     are not available to student-led groups.
       The amendment is unnecessary because the First Amendment 
     already guarantees the Boy Scouts the right to use public 
     school facilities, to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as any other group allowed to use those facilities.
       At the same time, the amendment is an unwarranted intrusion 
     into the decision-making of local school boards because it 
     mandates the creation of an ``open forum'' any time a school 
     lets one community group use their facilities. The Hilleary 
     amendment decrees that such an action transforms the school 
     into an ``open forum,'' therefore requiring the institution 
     to allow the Boy Scouts and any other anti-gay youth group to 
     use school facilities or premises--regardless of the school's 
     intention or the local school board's decisions on the 
     matter.
       We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to 
     oppose this amendment. If you have any questions or require 
     additional information, please contact Nancy Zirkin, Director 
     of Public Policy and Government Relations--American 
     Association of University Women (AAUW) or Jamie Pueschel, 
     Government Relations Manager--AAUW.
           Sincerely,
     American Association of School Administrators
     American Association of University Women
     American Counseling Association
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 
         AFL-CIO
     American Federation of Teachers
     American Psychological Association
     Americans for Democratic Action
     Anti-Defamation League
     Council of the Great City Schools
     Council of Chief State School Officers
     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
     Myra Sadker Advocates
     National Association of Black School Educators
     National Association of School Psychologists
     National Association of Secondary School Principals
     National Association of Social Workers
     National Association of Girls and Women in Sport
     National Council of Jewish Women
     National Council of La Raza
     National Education Association
     National Federation of Filipino American Associations
     National PTA
     National Rural Education Association

[[Page H2620]]

     National School Boards Association
     National Women's Law Center
     New York City Board of Education
     New York State Education Department
     NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
     People For the American Way
     School Social Work Association of America
     Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
     United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 25 printed in House Report 107-69.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       In section 501 of the bill, in section 5123(h) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501), insert after paragraph 
     (2) the following:
       ``(3) In-kind contributions.--Each State that requires an 
     eligible entity to match funds under this subsection shall 
     permit such entity to provide all or any portion of such 
     match in the form of in-kind contributions.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time 
in opposition, since no one is here to take it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) will control the 5 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as well as 
the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for all 
their hard work on the bill we have before us today.
  The amendment I am offering will make it easier for needy schools to 
obtain 21st Century Community Learning Grants. 21st Century Community 
Learning Grants provide funding to schools in disadvantaged communities 
that, in collaboration with other public and non-profit agencies and 
organizations, run before- and after-school programs designed to 
improve academic achievement. The services they provide include 
tutoring, technology training, expanded library services, arts and 
music education, recreational activities, and programs to promote 
parental involvement and prevent drug use and violence.
  These services can mean all the difference to a struggling student or 
a failing school. However, H.R. 1, as currently drafted, permits States 
to require grant recipients to provide matching funds equal to the 
amount of grant. Although the bill also requires States that choose to 
implement such a matching requirement, to do so on a sliding fee scale, 
this still is a burdensome requirement on prospective grantees that 
lack access to fund, the same prospective grantees that are most in 
need of 21st Century Community Learning Programs.
  By only allowing monetary contributions to be used to meet the 
matching requirements, we eliminate many neighborhoods from eligibility 
and we underestimate the value of in-kind contributions. These centers 
serve some of our poorest communities, and this language has the 
potential to cripple plans for those schools located in States with 
matching requirements. Obviously, this is a risk we cannot afford.
  My amendment will make it easier for the neediest grantees to put 
together competitive applications by allowing them to count in-kind 
contributions toward a matching requirement. Although many grantees in 
disadvantaged communities lack access to funds, they do not lack access 
to resources. By allowing grantees to count in-kind services, such as 
volunteer time and donated equipment, we will not only be providing an 
opportunity to a needy school, we will also be encouraging investment 
and support from the surrounding community.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment's efforts to 
eliminate obstacles to much-needed funding for disadvantaged schools 
and communities. Let us give all students the tools they need to strive 
for excellence. Let us make sure no child is left behind.
  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 New York for her 
contribution to this bill. As we all know, the 21st Century Community 
Learning Center Program is one that does, in fact, require a local 
match. For some smaller communities or some faith-based or community-
based programs, their ability to come up with the matching funds to do 
these programs is somewhat limited.
  I do think that allowing in-kind services as part of the match does 
provide more flexibility for these programs at the local level. It is a 
very good amendment, and I am happy to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 26 printed in House Report 107-69.


                  Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       At the end of title VI of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 607. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO FULL FUNDING OF THE 
                   IMPACT AID PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) More than 90 percent of resources for school districts 
     in the United States are raised from State and local property 
     taxes.
       (2) School districts that are affected by the presence of 
     the Federal government, such as Federal property that is not 
     subject to taxation, must still provide educational services 
     to children who are federally connected by such activities of 
     the Federal government.
       (3) To mitigate this loss of funding, Congress has made 
     ``impact aid'' payments to local educational agencies to 
     reimburse the agencies for the costs of educating federally 
     connected children.
       (4) From 1950 to 1969, Congress provided full funding for 
     the impact aid program to help defray the costs of educating 
     federally connected children.
       (5) For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided only 46 percent 
     of the costs of educating federally connected children.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the House of Representatives, Senate, and 
     Administration should work together to provide full funding 
     for the impact aid program in future fiscal years in order to 
     meet the needs of school districts affected by a Federal 
     presence; and
       (2) the full funding of the impact aid program will ensure 
     that federally connected children will continue to receive a 
     quality education.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about Impact Aid. If we are 
concerned about military pay, if we are concerned about military 
housing, if we are concerned about military health care, we also need 
to be concerned about the children of military personnel. That is why 
we support Impact Aid.
  The average school district in America, the $10 million school 
district, gets $9 million from local resources and

[[Page H2621]]

only $1 million from the Federal Government. But what happens if we 
cannot tax that housing? In many military districts, Indian 
reservations, and other facilities, kids flood into the school 
districts, but we have no dollars attached. The Impact Aid program 
makes up the difference, but it has made up the difference in an 
inadequate way.
  From 1950 to 1969, the Federal Government fully funded the Impact Aid 
program, but now only 46 percent of the needs of military kids and 
other kids are met. This amendment is the start of a process where we 
will build consensus behind the Impact Aid program. For us, we make a 
statement today that the needs of military kids and other kids must be 
met by fully funding Federal Impact Aid.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition, even though I am actually in support of 
this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) will control the 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Impact Aid is a program that is over 50 years old, yet 
for the last 30 years Congress has failed to fund the program fully. 
This program is designed to offset the losses school districts suffer 
in property taxes when Federal lands reduce their tax rolls but provide 
many children to be educated. This funding is critical to balance the 
local school district income so that the educational programs for all 
the students of the affected district is not diminished.
  The issue, Mr. Chairman, is one of fairness. The level at which 
Impact Aid is currently funded does not begin to offset the costs for 
educating a child. Generations of military families have been based in 
San Diego and Coronado in my district, and developments of federally-
owned housing are home to children throughout the area. We are very 
proud of the opportunity to serve the children of our military forces. 
Congress should be equally proud of providing the full funding that it 
promised half a century ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk) for bringing this forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), my Democratic colleague and partner in this 
effort.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this important issue to the 
attention of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, just last month I attended a ceremony, a welcome home 
ceremony in Oak Harbor, Washington, in my district; a welcome home 
ceremony for the 24 crew members of the plane that was downed in China. 
Oak Harbor has been the home of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island for 
many years, and 7,000 people turned out for this homecoming event, 
showing the commitment that the town of Oak Harbor has made to the 
presence of Naval Air Station Whidbey in my district.
  This amendment today, Mr. Chairman, would express the sense of 
Congress that the Federal Government must recognize that commitment, 
must recognize the sacrifice that communities all over our country are 
making. This sense of Congress amendment would say that the Impact Aid 
program should have guaranteed funding for districts that so 
desperately need it.

                              {time}  1645

  Whether it is Oak Harbor or Marysville, which is the home to the 
Tulalip Indian Reservation, these communities depend heavily upon 
funding; and I ask this body to support this amendment.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) to fully fund Impact Aid. I am 
proud to join them in this amendment and I commend these two freshman 
Members for their initiative and commitment to education for their 
constituencies.
  While many of us know Impact Aid is the Federal Government assistance 
program to local school districts where there is a large Federal 
presence, many of my colleagues may not know what Impact Aid means to 
cities such as New York City, my home city.
  $5.8 million goes to New York City annually in Impact Aid funding to 
help improve the quality of education for over 70,000 children who live 
in public housing. As representative of the largest public housing 
complex in the U.S. and of thousands of working New York families who 
make minimum wage and send their children to public schools, full 
funding for Impact Aid is critical to make sure that America provides 
educational opportunities to all of our children, no matter where they 
live and no matter what their income level is.
  While I thank the Committee on Education and the Workforce for 
recognizing the importance of Impact Aid to communities throughout the 
country, there is more that can be done. Last year $900 million was 
allocated for Impact Aid when the true need is closer to $1.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and urge 
my colleagues to fight for full funding of Impact Aid in conference 
with the Senate.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Kelly) representing West Point.
  (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kirk-
Larsen amendment expressing the sense of Congress that Impact Aid 
programs should be fully funded.
  I join my colleagues in their efforts to ensure that children in 
federally impacted school districts receive quality education. Like 
many of my colleagues, I represent a highly impacted, actually the most 
highly impacted school district in the United States of America. 
Adjacent to West Point, the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School 
District exists between Federal land, State land, and the Hudson River. 
This unique positioning means that over 90 percent of the land in the 
school district is nontaxable. Without Impact Aid, this school district 
is unable to raise the revenue necessary to educate its students.
  The increase in funding for section 8002, which applies to land-
impacted districts, has helped the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery 
School District undertake capital improvements, hire new teachers, 
tutors, and reinstate the college advanced placement courses which they 
had to cut.
  However, this section and the entire Impact Aid program is still not 
fully funded. As we continue to debate improvements to our children's 
education, we absolutely must not forget those military children 
sitting in classrooms in federally impacted school districts. We rely 
on Impact Aid funds for a quality education. Support the Kirk amendment 
and support full funding for Impact Aid.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kirk-Larsen 
amendment expressing the Sense of Congress that the Impact Aid Program 
should be fully funded.
  I join my colleagues in their efforts to ensure that children in 
federally impacted school districts receive a quality education.
  Created in 1950, the Impact Aid Program addresses the increased 
burden felt by school districts that host military children or have 
non-taxable federal lands.
  On behalf of the 1,500 school districts and 1.5 million federally 
connected students across the country who rely upon the Impact Aid 
funds for a good education, I urge all my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment.
  The Impact Aid program is equally important to an additional 17.5 
million children whose education is linked to the eligibility of their 
school, or their classmates, to receive Impact Aid funding.
  Like many of my colleagues, I represent the most highly impacted 
school district in the U.S. that relies upon the Impact Aid Program.
  Adjacent to West Point, the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School 
District, in Orange County, NY exists between federal land, state land, 
and the Hudson River.
  This unique positioning means that over 90 percent of the land in the 
school district is non-taxable.

[[Page H2622]]

  Without Impact Aid, this school district is unable to raise the 
revenue necessary to educate its students.
  The increase in funding for Section 8002, which applies to land 
impacted districts, has helped the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery 
School District undertake capital improvements, such as hiring new 
teachers, tutors and reinstating College Advanced Placement courses.
  This is quite a contrast to prior years when they were faced with the 
possibility of closing their doors.
  However, this section and the entire Impact Aid Program is still not 
fully funded.
  As we continue to debate improvements to our children's education, we 
must not forget those military children sitting in classrooms in 
federally impacted school districts.
  We rely on Impact Aid funds for a quality education.
  Support the Kirk amendment and support full funding of the Impact Aid 
Program.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Kirk amendment which expresses the sense of Congress that the Impact 
Aid program should be fully funded. Fully funding the Impact Aid 
program will greatly help the vast numbers of local school districts 
which have lost tax revenue as a result of a large Federal presence in 
their district.
  This especially holds true of my congressional district in New Mexico 
which has a large number of schools which depend on Impact Aid funding 
and who educate a large number of Native American students.
  The last time this program was fully funded was 1950 through 1969. 
Since that time, the funding levels for Impact Aid have not kept up 
with the amount required to cover the Federal Government's obligation 
to this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress how important this program is to the 
more than 1,500 school districts and 1.5 million children across the 
country who depend on this program for a quality education. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that the gentleman said, except 
that I think it should be called the Kirk, Larsen, Davis, Udall, 
Crowley, Hayworth, Kelly, Edwards and Hayes amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), chairman of the committee.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for bringing this sense of Congress to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member who does not have Impact Aid in my 
district, when I came to Congress, I was wondering what is this and why 
do we do it. Over the years, Members who have large military and 
civilian Federal employee impact in their district, do in fact receive 
funds because we do not as the Federal Government pay taxes in those 
communities.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this 
resolution here. I think in the few months he has been here he has done 
a great job in making sure I am fully aware of how important Impact Aid 
is to his district and how important it is to other Members' districts. 
It is a good resolution. We ought to push the appropriators, including 
Mr. Chairman, that we should in fact fully be funding Impact Aid.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to conclude on this amendment, I want to salute the 
bipartisan leadership on this. We have an equal number of Democrats and 
Republicans concerned.
  Under the Constitution, the number one mission of our government is 
national security; but I think education also comes as a top priority, 
and it is the education of military kids, Indian kids, and kids coming 
off of Federal property that is a key Federal responsibility.
  We have fallen behind, Mr. Chairman. We used to fully fund this 
program. We now only fund 46 percent. So by adopting this amendment, I 
think we can unscore the achievement and begin the consensus building 
that we need to fully fund the needs of military, Indian and other 
related kids for Impact Aid.
  Mr. Chairman, the children of military families are the most likely 
to be joining the military in the future. So for our country's own 
national defense, making sure that quality education is available on or 
near military, Indian reservations, and other Federal facilities is 
critical. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure for me to join with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle on this issue. As a school board member in San Diego from 
1983 to 1992, I felt like we were always going to lobby on behalf of 
these students. We always had to make a case for these students. It 
does not seem right that we had to make a case for the children of the 
families who were fighting for this Nation's security.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are working together on this 
today, and I certainly hope all of my colleagues will join us on a 
strong ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, Impact Aid is a crucial element of the basic 
financial support for schools in my Congressional District in North 
Carolina. Just as local taxes support other school districts, Impact 
Aid bridges the gap in counties where the Federal Government is a major 
landowner. In some cases, Impact Aid supplies a significant portion of 
school districts' operating budgets.
  As one of the over 150 members of the Impact Aid Coalition, one of 
the largest bipartisan coalitions in Congress, we have worked together 
to support our local school systems. Full funding for this program will 
fulfill the federal government's commitment not only to our local 
school systems but the families of our military men and women and those 
citizens who are affected by Federal properties. I will continue to 
work with the appropriators for full funding for this crucial education 
program and I commend my colleague from Illinois for continuing to 
support this program.
  Mr. SHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment 
which recognizes the importance of Impact Aid. In the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, over 60,000 students of military families attend federally 
impacted schools. Their parents make many sacrifices to support our 
national defense. We must provide these students with the quality 
education that they deserve. By making the Impact Aid an entitlement, 
the Federal Government will once again become a full partner with the 
taxpayers in federally connected districts as they, together, provide 
the revenue needed to deliver a free public education not only military 
to dependent students, Native American students and other eligible 
students, but to all students enrolled in federally connected school 
districts. I urge each Member of Congress to recognize its intent by 
supporting this bipartisan effort to fully fund the Impact Aid Program.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). All time for debate on this 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 27 printed in House Report 107-69.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Hoeffel

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Hoeffel:
       In section 5214(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by section 
     501 of the bill, add at the end the following: ``Such a 
     description may include how the applicant will provide 
     release time for teachers (which may include the provision of 
     a substitute teacher).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

[[Page H2623]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their support for my 
amendment.
  This amendment would add new flexibility to the Federal funds 
provided in this bill in the enhancing education through technology 
program to clarify that our school districts on their own initiative 
can use these funds to provide for the associated cost of leave time so 
that teachers can be trained in technology.
  When I was first elected, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure I knew 
as much about the public schools in my district as I could. I wanted to 
hear from the educators in my district about their needs. I sent out a 
survey to each of the school districts. I started and continue to hold 
regular education round tables open to parents and teachers, principals 
and superintendents. I learned a lot about my district and the schools 
in my district. They obviously put a high priority on educating 
children, and they want to use the highest and best technology.
  I represent a suburban district. We are fortunate to have the 
resources so that most of my school districts have a good amount of 
hardware, of computers and so forth, so they are able to provide 
computers for teachers and students. But I discovered that the biggest 
problem in my district was getting the teachers trained on technology 
and to keep them up to date on technology.
  Mr. Chairman, the training courses are available to the teachers, but 
it is difficult in many cases for the school districts to make the time 
to get teachers out of the classroom in order to be trained.
  This amendment would make it clear that school districts can use this 
Federal money as part of their application for funding under the 
enhancing education through technology program to apply for leave time 
and other associated costs to make sure they can get their teachers out 
of the classroom on a regular basis as they see fit at the local level 
to keep them trained and updated on technology.
  This amendment will go a long way to help the professional 
development of teachers. While in this bill we are determined to leave 
no child behind, let us make sure we leave no teacher behind as well. I 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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 gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
contribution on the technology assistance for local schools. The 
amendment brought to us by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel) would increase local flexibility for how they can use the 
technology money. I think it is a valuable addition, and urge Members 
to adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his 
leadership and his support on this particular bill and his hard work in 
the committee to bring forward this excellent bill. I thank again the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hoeffel 
Amendment because I believe that in order for schools to perform at 
21st century levels, we must provide them with 21st century technology 
and training.
  Our teachers and administrators must be better trained if we are to 
maximize the use of computers and the Internet in schools. The Hoeffel 
Amendment will ensure that while classroom teachers seek out advanced 
technology training that their districts will support them. This 
amendment truly reflects our willingness to put our money where our 
mouth is. This amendment says we support our teachers.
  Through my experience as a high school teacher and principal, I know 
that high achievement is dependent upon the learning environment. That 
means up-to-date, safe buildings, high quality teachers, and goods 
tools to promote learning.
  We need to work with teachers and high tech businesses to integrate 
technology into classroom curriculum. We also need to encourage high 
tech businesses to lend their employees to our schools in order to 
ensure the most up-to-date technology skills.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hoeffel Amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 28 printed in House Report 107-69.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Cox

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Cox:
       In part E of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as proposed to be amended by section 
     801 of the bill--
       (1) redesignate section 8520 as section 8521 (and correct 
     any cross-references accordingly); and
       (2) insert after section 8519 the following:

     ``SEC. 8520. AGGREGATE INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 EQUAL TO 
                   11.5 PERCENT.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act--
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2002, the aggregate amount of funds 
     authorized to be appropriated under this Act shall be 
     $20,528,782,360 (representing an increase of 11.5 percent 
     over the aggregate amount appropriated for programs under 
     this Act for fiscal year 2001); and
       ``(2) for each subsequent fiscal year covered by this Act, 
     the aggregate amount of funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under this Act shall be the amount appropriated for the 
     preceding fiscal year, increased by 3.5 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to more closely 
conform the spending levels in H.R. 1 to the budget that has been 
adopted by the Congress and by this House and to the budget that has 
been submitted to us by the President.

                              {time}  1700

  In their letter of support for this legislation, the administration, 
on May 15, 2001, wrote as follows: ``The administration supports House 
passage of H.R. 1, which reflects the themes of no child left behind, 
the President's comprehensive proposal to reform the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965.
  ``The administration urges the House to refine the committee bill; to 
maintain fiscal discipline. The bill,'' the administration says, 
``contains excessive appropriation authorization levels.''
  Here is what the letter says specifically about that: ``The total 
appropriation,'' according to the Office of Management and Budget, 
``contained in H.R. 1 as reported exceeds the President's total request 
by over nearly $5 billion for fiscal year 2002. The administration has 
produced a responsible budget that includes significant increases for 
key education programs, while also maintaining fiscal discipline 
government-wide. The administration urges the House to pass a bill that 
is closely aligned with the President's budget.''
  This amendment will implement President George W. Bush's commitment 
to an 11.5 percent increase in funding for education. This amendment 
provides that the total of all the funding increases in this bill, in 
the first year, will represent an 11.5 percent increase over fiscal 
year 2001.
  This is a rate of growth proposed for all Department of Education 
programs by the President. In fact, this amendment authorizes more 
funding than the President proposed in his budget and certainly more 
funding than we proposed in our budget.
  This 11.5 percent increase authorized in this amendment will 
authorize approximately $1.5 billion more for fiscal year 2002 than did 
H.R. 1 as introduced. For all subsequent years, the amendment 
authorizes further increases in

[[Page H2624]]

aggregate funding of 14 percent. This increase in subsequent years is 
in line with President Bush's original budget request for K-12 
education programs.
  This amendment more than triples the percentage increase in K-12 
funding in our budget resolution. This amendment guarantees that 
increases in education spending and increases for the Department of 
Education will make it the most significant recipient of additional 
funds of any cabinet agency. This is the largest increase in Federal 
spending for any cabinet agency.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration is urging amendment of H.R. 1 
to more closely conform to the President's budget. Our choice is to 
spend a great deal more, 11.5 percent, or to in fact bust the budget so 
much to make this bill so unrecognizable that we are jeopardizing other 
education programs that are not covered by this bill if we intend to 
live within the overall projection of an 11.5 percent increase in 
funding for education.
  I, therefore, urge adoption of this amendment, which is a very 
moderate approach to resolving the problem, because it is a much bigger 
increase in spending than was proposed by the administration. It is a 
bigger increase than was proposed in our own budget. It is a bigger 
increase than was in H.R. 1 as introduced. It is consistent with the 
11.5 percent increase across the board for education that the 
administration proposes; and yet it maintains fiscal discipline, 
something we should be teaching our children as we act here in Congress 
responsibly with a very good bill to improve education.
  It is important to live within a budget. Certainly an 11.5 percent 
increase in these programs, the largest increase of any cabinet agency, 
is something that we should all be very, very proud of. I urge adoption 
of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always believed that education, the education 
dollar, is really an investment dollar. It should really be part of our 
capital budget. It is a very important area of our national life, and 
we worked closely on these figures within the committee and reached 
bipartisan support for these figures in the committee, not without the 
knowledge of the White House.
  Now, the White House submitted the budget, but White Houses are even 
permitted to adjust figures. We worked closely with Sandy Kress from 
the White House as we, in a bipartisan way, crafted what we figured 
were figures that should be the authorization levels for these 
programs.
  Now, albeit we will have to fight for the appropriations for these 
things, I have always said that the authorization is much like a get-
well card. If I have a friend who is ill, I will send my friend a get-
well card indicating my sentiment and the value of my friend; but what 
my friend really needs is the Blue Cross card to pay the bills.
  This is what the committee, the authorizing committee, agreed upon 
were figures that would address the needs of education in this country. 
We did not do this in a vacuum in secret from the White House. Mr. 
Sandy Kress was with us most of those times as we discussed this. So I 
would assume the White House certainly wants this bill to be passed. I 
know they have been working very, very hard on both sides of the aisle 
to get this bill passed.
  So let us give the White House a chance in some informal way to 
adjust its figures that it had in its budget.
  What did we do in the committee? We did double the title I program 
over 5 years to $17.2 billion to raise the academic achievement of our 
low-income children. We have all talked about the importance of title 
I.
  We increased resources for teacher quality by $1.3 billion to $3.6 
billion. We have school districts throughout this country that have 
what I call ``bus stop'' teachers. They have teachers who are not 
qualified, they are not certified, not qualified to teach in their 
field. That is unfair to our students so we increased money for teacher 
quality.
  We set aside $500 million to turn around our low-performing schools. 
We have to identify those low-performing schools by having some 
standards and some good assessment, and we will turn those schools 
around hopefully with these dollars.
  We invest $750 million for students with limited English proficiency, 
a $290 million increase. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) worked 
very hard on that issue. It increases an area that is very, very 
important for our national life.
  It increases education technology to $1 billion, an increase of $128 
million.
  These figures were arrived at in the full light of the day with the 
awareness of the White House, and the White House in the last few days 
has been pushing for enactment of this bill. I would urge that this 
amendment be turned down.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The Cox amendment 
is responsible public policy to allow for an 11.5 percent increase in 
elementary and secondary education funding over last year's level. This 
amendment authorizes more money for K-12 programs than did H.R. 1, 
``leave no child behind'' legislation as introduced.
  By standing here today and supporting the Cox amendment others may 
make claims that this is a gutting or cutting amendment of the whole 
bill; that this for some reason would make me less of a pro-child or 
pro-education Member of Congress.
  Let me be clear on a couple of things. First, this amendment allows 
for a significant amount of increased spending for education over the 
current appropriation levels.
  Secondly, it is not as if money alone will put us on the path to 
education reform in this country. We all know that we have spent over 
$120 billion Federal dollars on title I programs for disadvantaged 
children since the program began in 1965, with $80 billion in the last 
decade. We have little improvement to show for all of this spending.
  The achievement gap has not closed. In fact, despite increased 
spending, test scores remain stagnant.
  We should not subsidize failure. We should not pour more money into 
the status quo. As we provide for more funding, we should ask for 
results.
  In my life before Congress, I was a quality consultant, and we worked 
a lot on improving qualities in corporations; and we found that just 
putting more money or energy behind the current processes seldom 
improved very much at all. It was only when we let the people who were 
actually on the front lines have the flexibility and authority to 
actually change things that quality could actually be improved. 
Measuring output and setting minimum standards did very little to 
improve quality.
  America, in just about every other segment, has understood that 
changing the process can improve the quality.
  I know we all desire the same outcome. We want better schools and 
better education for all of our children across this land. To secure 
the future for our children, I believe that the answer is not money 
alone but that embracing some real reform concepts that we have talked 
about here today.
  I believe that when we give teachers and principals and parents more 
flexibility and authority at the local level, we can actually change 
things. And until we do, just flooding the system with more money is 
not going to work.
  We have a very responsible proposal by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) to increase funding over a level last year that was also 
substantially increased. Let us give time for our reforms to work. Let 
us fund it at an 11.5 percent increase, more money for reading and all 
the critical programs we have talked about, and then review in a year 
or two and see how we can continue to improve.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Cox amendment as a 
practical measure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) will control the time in 
opposition.
  There was no objection.
  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.)

[[Page H2625]]

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There is a 
basic agreement in this bill that would be completely rejected and 
violated if this amendment were enacted. And the agreement is this: 
many of us who frankly have some misgivings about annual testing held 
together yesterday and with a bipartisan majority rejected an amendment 
that would have removed annual testing from this bill. Here is what the 
annual testing will tell us: schools that are overcrowded, that have 
minimal parental involvement, that have teachers teaching out of field, 
in dilapidated facilities, that are not safe, will have low test 
scores. That is what the annual testing is going to tell us.
  What we also know is that fixing that problem will require better 
teachers teaching in field to smaller classes with better technology in 
more modern, safer facilities, with greater parental involvement, with 
breakfast programs, with after-school programs, with tutoring and 
summer school, and all of the other elements that make a school 
successful. That costs money.
  If we do not follow up on the other part of this agreement and 
provide for the doubling of title I funding that is authorized by this 
bill, then this bill is nothing but a cruel hoax on the lagging schools 
and the struggling students of this country.
  The amendment does a public service, I must say. It points out the 
difference between the rhetoric of the administration and the reality 
of the budget resolution approved by this House and by the other body. 
Perhaps by the rules we are bound by that resolution, but by our 
commitment to better education and by our commitment to the principles 
that underlie this bill we are not. We should reject this amendment and 
adhere to this deal.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. Over my 10 years in Congress, I have often come down on this 
floor to argue for a balanced budget, to argue for a line item veto, to 
argue against a space station that is now an additional $4 billion over 
budget, as someone who believes that money is not the answer to all of 
our problems.

                              {time}  1715

  In this bill, we have crafted a bipartisan agreement that says, very 
carefully, we will test more children and diagnostically use those 
tests to try to help remediate many of these children in title I 
schools in some of the poorest areas of America, in schools where some 
of these children do not have computers, where they have textbooks with 
missing pages that are 30 years old. They have roofs falling down on 
top of them, and they have schools that sometimes are delayed opening 
by 3 and 4 weeks because of plumbing problems.
  Now, I would love to be a political consultant and put commercials 
together in the next election which would kind of say on these votes 
coming up, here was a vote to put $3 billion toward the poorest 
children in America and help in a bipartisan way get them a good 
education, or another vote to give the taxpayers of this country a 
$1.35 trillion tax cut. We did not have enough room to help the poorest 
kids in America, but we sure had plenty to go even higher than a $1.35 
trillion tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan agreement to help on bipartisan 
testing, to help remediate in diagnostic ways the poorest kids in the 
poorest districts. Let us defeat this amendment and move forward to 
conference with a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 
time for the purposes of closing to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. 
Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  What I think this House needs to bear in mind as we consider this 
very, very important amendment is that the structure that we have put 
forth is a formula which really puts the Federal Government into the 
position of elaborating very strict standards that the school districts 
that are eligible for this funding under title I and other titles must 
meet in order to receive the funding. And then, on top of that, 
pursuant to the President's recommendation, we have now said that the 
schools have to test these children in every grade from 3 to 8. Why are 
we doing all of this testing if we are not going to help these children 
and the schools meet their requirements of success? Leave no child 
behind. We cannot test, evaluate, have standards, require the schools 
to meet them and not come up with the necessary resources.
  So I urge this House to keep faith with what the President has said, 
leave no child behind, keep faith with what the bipartisan committee 
has done in recommending H.R. 1, and it was a very difficult task; 
there are lots of things that I would like to see in this bill, school 
construction, smaller classrooms and other things, but we came together 
with a core agreement. The Republicans had to make some concessions, 
the Democrats made concessions, but we have an understanding that this 
is what it takes to reform education in America, to make sure that the 
poorest among us have an opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, we have lifted up the hope and faith of the people of 
this country, the teachers and the families who believe that what we 
are doing means something when we double the funding for title I. It is 
not an empty phrase, it is not a percentage over what we did last year. 
This is a new thrust to try to meet the responsibilities of this 
country. Yes, local school districts and the States have the primary 
responsibility for education, but the Federal Government is saying, we 
want to help. Do not diminish that promise of help by cutting before we 
even get to the table to negotiate with the appropriators on the money 
necessary to produce equal opportunity for our kids in this country.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be 
extended by 5 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Our schools are important enough and our children matter enough that 
we ought to be willing to spend a lot of money, frankly, on education, 
if that spending comes along with real, meaningful reform that has the 
promise, offers the promise of improving our schools.
  The President proposed meaningful reform, and he also proposed 
spending 11.5 percent in increases over last year's spending on 
education. Now, the reform has been ripped out of the bill. The choice 
has been taken out of the bill. The President proposed school choice in 
his Leave No Child Behind provision; that is gone. The flexibility 
provisions are not even going to be brought up on the floor. That is 
gone. What we have are some testing provisions, all of which can fit 
easily within the 11.5 percent increase that the President proposed for 
the whole plan. H.R. 1 now is just a fraction of the plan, yet we are 
spending even more money than the President proposed.
  In an effort to try to be consistent and at least stick to what the 
President originally had suggested this Congress do, he stood right 
here in front of us, he brought this plan with him and described it, he 
brought his budget proposals and suggested that the government should 
grow at a rate of 4 percent, but he made the exception with the 
Department of Education, that the Department of Education should grow 
at a rate of 11.5 percent over the next year, nearly 3 times more than 
the rest of government.
  Those reforms, I believe, were important, and I regret that they are 
no longer part of H.R. 1. But the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce prepared this chart and I would refer

[[Page H2626]]

Members to it. It shows that way back in 1990, we had an expenditure of 
about $18.6 billion. That has grown this year to $42.1 billion. This is 
a huge escalation in growth and spending in the size of the education 
bureaucracy, yet test scores in the country remain stagnant.
  The message here is that throwing more money at the education problem 
clearly has no impact whatsoever on the improvement of academic 
performance of our students; reform does. However, we decided reform is 
not important in H.R. 1. Let us at least give the President a victory 
on his spending proposals. Let us adopt the Cox amendment at 11.5 
percent.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to again focus our attention on the fact that the amendment 
that is before us calls for an 11.5 percent increase over last year in 
funding for the programs covered by this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on this side of the aisle have already 
laid out the situation that we find ourselves in. Passage of this 
amendment, in fact, breaks the arrangement and the deal that we have 
with respect to this legislation.
  Let us look at why we have added the increases that we have in this 
legislation. We have added the increases in this legislation because we 
think they are important to bringing about the reforms that many in 
this Congress have said, many on both sides of the aisle, but also what 
clearly this President of the United States has said that he wants to 
achieve in terms of the results. Yes, that chart that was just held up 
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), and earlier held up a 
number of times by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), tells us a 
story that we are not particularly proud of. But that is because in the 
past, generally, when we have authorized this legislation, we have not 
put in the accountability provisions that are in this bill.
  So these school districts that have among the highest percentages of 
poor children of any school districts in the Nation, very often they 
are also the poorest school districts because they do not have very 
high assessed evaluations, so certainly they are not receiving the 
resources that are necessary that they receive, or we would not have 
this program, because the States have already made the determination to 
not provide them the equalized funding.
  But among these, the poorest school districts with the poorest 
children, as the President will point out, and the poorest performing 
children, under this legislation, within 4 years they are going to have 
to have a qualified teacher in every classroom. Today they have 
teachers on emergency credentials. Today they have teachers on 
provisional credentials. They are going to have to get those teachers 
trained, certified and qualified to teach in the subject matter in 
which they are teaching. That does not come free. They are going to be 
held accountable, not just for the average, how the average child is 
doing in the school district, but they are going to be held accountable 
for every poor child, for every minority child, for every limited 
English-speaking child in that school district. They are going to have 
to have the results that suggest that they are making the yearly 
progress. They are going to be held to yearly standards on making that 
progress according to the standards selected by the States.
  That is why we need new resources. That is why it is not a question 
of whether it is 11 percent or not, it is a question of whether or not 
we are adequately prepared to fund and to provide these kids an 
opportunity and a first class education. Because even with this effort, 
almost all of these children will not have the financial resources 
available to them that many of our children have had available to them 
in the schools where they have gone. That is why they are among some of 
the least performing schools in our system.
  So let us understand that this is a very different arrangement than 
what the Congress has done in the past. There is a huge lobby in this 
town that is against this bill, because they are for the status quo. 
They are not for testing. They are not for accountability. They are 
just for Federal dollars. And what we have said in this legislation is 
we are not going there again. We are not going to have this, the first 
education bill of the millennium. We are not going to have this, when 
we just put the money on the table. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) says, they just come by and take it. No, if you want to sign up 
for this, you are going to be held accountable and you have to have 
first class programs for all of the children, all of the children, and 
they deserve them.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to first associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), who pointed out that it is regrettable 
that much of the reforms that were in this legislation that would have 
improved education across America are gone. But I really want to focus 
my remarks now on the Cox amendment and why I think it is such a good 
amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who spoke before the last 
speaker on the other side, in her remarks, said that we should not 
begin this process by cutting; indeed, that that would be a serious 
mistake. Well, make no mistake about it: there is no cutting going on 
in this bill or in the Cox amendment, nor is there any cutting going on 
in education spending.
  Since the Republican Party became the majority in this Congress, we 
have more than doubled the funding for K-through-12 education. Indeed, 
we have increased it by 109 percent. That is not a cut of spending by 
any stretch. In the Cox amendment, we triple funding. As a matter of 
fact, as this chart shows, we triple the rate of funding increase from 
the original H.R. 1 for K-through-12 education. We go to the 
President's proposal of an 11.5 percent spending increase next year, 
the highest of any cabinet level agency in the country. So for someone 
to talk about cutting, they are simply not getting the facts straight. 
A tripling of the rate of spending is not cutting. This is a fiscally 
responsible amendment, which I urge my colleagues to adopt.

                              {time}  1730

  Let us look at some of the other facts.
  The Cox amendment matches the President's Department of Education 
budget request. The Cox amendment authorizes more funding for K through 
12 education programs than did H.R. 1, as introduced. The Cox amendment 
authorizes more funding for K through 12 programs than the President's 
budget.
  On top of that, the Cox amendment guarantees that the Department of 
Education will receive the single largest increase in spending of any 
cabinet agency.
  This is a reasonable amendment. It is a fiscally prudent amendment. 
To call it cutting is to misrepresent the facts. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in passing the Cox amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let me say this about this amendment to cut these education monies 
for the poorest children in our society and the poorest school 
districts in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to put it in context. We have to put it in 
context. We are going to finish this bill in the next hour. Then we are 
going to have a motion to go to conference on a tax bill, a $1.3 
trillion tax bill that is going to spend 13 times as much on the top 1 
percent of taxpayers in this country than we are going to spend in all 
of this legislation.
  Some on that side of the aisle would think that the rich do not have 
enough money and the poor have too much. This money is absolutely 
essential in this bill if in fact we are going to bring about the 
reforms that almost every Member in this body has said that he or she 
wants for their school districts, for the children who reside in those 
school districts, and if we are in fact going to have those reforms 
result in the results that we all say we want in terms of the 
performance of our students.

[[Page H2627]]

  They can chop the money, but they should not come telling me they 
want the same results. They cannot bring about these reforms on the 
cheap. They cannot do that. So if we put it in the context of what else 
this Congress is doing, we tried to explain, it would be difficult to 
do a first class job on education and also to have a $1 trillion tax 
cut, but they have made those choices.
  However, we ought not now, in the same night we are going to do the 
$1 trillion tax cut, take away from the poorest children in this 
country their one chance at education, opportunity, and accountability 
that they have been denied for so very long. That is what we have to 
understand.
  That is why we have got to reject the Cox amendment and stay with the 
bill that was reported from the committee, that was reported out with 
overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), for his hard work on this legislation. 
I intend to vote for it. I support the accountability that is in this 
bill. I support the President's aim to make sure that no child is left 
behind. I support the whole of the President's request, including in 
particular the President's request to this House that we amend this 
bill as it was reported to committee to make it more closely conform 
with the President's budget and our own budget.
  The President has proposed an 11.5 percent increase in education 
programs. Our own budget proposed a 3.2 percent increase in funding for 
the K through 12 programs that are the subject of this bill.
  My amendment increases H.R. 1 as introduced, increases the budget 
that has already been passed by this House so that the total of 
programs funded by this bill are increased next year by 11.5 percent. 
If we do not adopt this amendment, the rate of increase will be 23.5 
percent.
  I have school-aged kids. They are in second grade, first grade, and 
preschool. I care a lot about their future, which is why I am so 
supportive of this big increase in support for education, continuing 
the major increases in funding that we have experienced over the last 
several years.
  But I worry about their future, not just in education but also in 
Social Security and in Medicare. I want the future for them to be just 
as great in the job market as it has been recently during the 1990s. I 
hope we can have some tax relief so those jobs will be there.
  If we go way beyond the 3.2 percent increase in our budget, way 
beyond even the 11.5 percent that is called for in this amendment, then 
our appropriators, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on 
this side of the aisle who are striving to maintain our responsible 
budget, will have to cut other education programs that are not covered 
by this bill. That is not what anyone here wants.
  Mr. Chairman, let us honor the President's request to more closely 
conform this bill to his and our own budget. Let us live within a 
budget. Let us honor our children. Let us honor their future. Vote yes 
on the Cox amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) will be postponed.


     Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. George Miller of California moves that the committee do 
     now rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
     recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
my motion. I do so to once again outline the accomplishments of this 
legislation, and to buy a bit of time for some of our Members who are 
currently in a meeting.
  Mr. Chairman, we are bringing to a close here the debate on H.R. 1. I 
want to begin by thanking certainly all of the Members that have 
participated in that debate on this floor, on both sides of the aisle. 
It has been a spirited debate from time to time, but that is because we 
have very strongly-held views in this House about education, and we 
have different views about how that education should be carried out, 
and the Federal role and involvement in education in this country.
  It is honorable and it is important that this House allow that kind 
of debate, and I appreciate the fact that the Committee on Rules did in 
fact make in order the amendments that they did. I wish they would have 
made in order more of the amendments from this side of the aisle so we 
could have debated school construction and class size reduction, but we 
were not able to do that.
  However, I think, as Members can see from the debate over the last 2 
days, it is very clear that this subject matter captures the interest 
and the imagination of the Members of Congress. They all have very 
strong feelings on it.
  All of us have spent a great deal of time when we were back in our 
districts visiting schools, talking to schoolteachers, talking to 
parents, talking to children, going through the process over and over 
again at all different levels.
  It is clear that this is the foundation of our society. This 
legislation is tough. This legislation is comprehensive. This 
legislation is controversial. However, I think in fact that the work 
product that we have put together here is one that we can all be proud 
of, and I think as we bring about this first reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of this millenium, that we truly 
are setting out on a different course.
  We are setting out on a different course because the President wants 
to change the direction, and because Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan basis want to change the direction of the use of Federal 
dollars and the purposes for which they are used.
  This legislation has called together a coalition, again from both 
sides of the aisle, but even within our own caucus. Some of the 
suggestions made here, and some of, in fact, the key suggestions, were 
brought to us in our caucus by the New Democrats, who helped us reach 
agreement with the Republicans on flexibility, something we have talked 
about for many years.
  It has been very controversial, there has been great resistance to 
it, but in this legislation in fact we have worked it out. I want to 
thank those Members for that.
  I also want to make clear that I do not want to overlook, as we get 
to the end, the work that has been done by the staff. The members of 
the working group spent a lot of time talking about this legislation, 
but our staff spent much, much more time, as did the staff of all of 
the Members of the Committee, in bringing about this agreement.
  We worked on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays on this legislation, 
and the staff worked Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, 
Saturdays, and Sundays on this legislation, and very often late at 
night. I think the work product reflects that. This committee is very 
fortunate to have people with a great deal of institutional memory and 
with a great deal of skills and talent and knowledge about this subject 
matter.
  We have warred over some of these topics and we have agreed on some 
of these topics, but I think that is why in fact we again were able to 
produce this work product in this Congress this rapidly, and with this 
level of agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 20 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady);

[[Page H2628]]

  Amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk);
  Amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 189, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--239

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cubin
     Dooley
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1804

  Messrs. TERRY, WEINER, GUTIERREZ, NADLER, GEPHARDT, SERRANO, DIAZ-
BALART, ENGLISH, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. McINTYRE and Mr. PASCRELL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PHELPS and Mr. HOLDEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device may 
be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                  Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 3, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)

[[Page H2629]]


     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Obey
     Sensenbrenner
     Upton

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1812

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Cox

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101, 
noes 326, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--101

     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blunt
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Flake
     Foley
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Weldon (FL)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cubin
     Hutchinson
     Moakley
     Rush
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1819

  Mr. CALVERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H2630]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 143, the Cox 
of California amendment, I inadverently voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 
143. I intended to vote ``nay.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order 
under the rule, the question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with accountability, 
flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind, pursuant to 
House Resolution 143, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OWENS. At this point I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Owens moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 926, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate provisions and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

                 TITLE IX--SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 901. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                ``TITLE IX--SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

 ``PART A--SCHOOL REPAIR, RENOVATION, AND CONSTRUCTION; ASSISTANCE FOR 
           CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES; TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES

     ``SEC. 9101. GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Grants to Native American Schools and State 
     Educational Agencies.--
       ``(1) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount made available to 
     carry out this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate--
       ``(A) $75,000,000 for grants to impacted local educational 
     agencies (as defined in paragraph (3)) for school repair, 
     renovation, and construction;
       ``(B) $3,250,000 for grants to outlying areas for school 
     repair and renovation in high-need schools and communities, 
     allocated on such basis, and subject to such terms and 
     conditions, as the Secretary determines appropriate;
       ``(C) $25,000,000 for grants to public entities, private 
     nonprofit entities, and consortia of such entities, for use 
     in accordance with part B; and
       ``(D) the remainder to State educational agencies in 
     proportion to the amount each State received under part A of 
     title I for the previous fiscal year, except that no State 
     shall receive less than 0.5 percent of the amount allocated 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Determination of grant amount.--
       ``(A) Determination of weighted student units.--For 
     purposes of computing the grant amounts under paragraph 
     (1)(A) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the 
     results obtained by the computation made under section 6003 
     with respect to children described in subsection (a)(1)(C) of 
     such section and computed under subsection (a)(2)(B) of such 
     section for such year--
       ``(i) for each impacted local educational agency that 
     receives funds under this section; and
       ``(ii) for all such agencies together.
       ``(B) Computation of payment.--The Secretary shall 
     calculate the amount of a grant to an impacted local 
     educational agency by--
       ``(i) dividing the amount described in paragraph (1)(A) by 
     the results of the computation described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii); and
       ``(ii) multiplying the number derived under clause (i) by 
     the results of the computation described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i) for such agency.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `impacted local educational agency' means, for any fiscal 
     year--
       ``(A) a local educational agency that receives a basic 
     support payment under section 6003(b) for such fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(B) with respect to which the number of children 
     determined under section 6003(a)(1)(C) for the preceding 
     school year constitutes at least 50 percent of the total 
     student enrollment in the schools of the agency during such 
     school year.
       ``(b) Within-State Allocations.--
       ``(1) Administrative costs.--
       ``(A) State educational agency administration.--Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), each State educational agency 
     may reserve not more than 1 percent of its allocation under 
     subsection (a)(1)(D) for the purpose of administering the 
     distribution of grants under this subsection.
       ``(B) State entity administration.--If the State 
     educational agency transfers funds to a State entity 
     described in paragraph (2)(A), the agency shall transfer to 
     such entity 0.75 of the amount reserved under this paragraph 
     for the purpose of administering the distribution of grants 
     under this subsection.
       ``(2) Reservation for competitive school repair and 
     renovation grants to local educational agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the reservation under 
     paragraph (1), of the funds allocated to a State educational 
     agency under subsection (a)(1)(D), the State educational 
     agency shall distribute 75 percent of such funds to local 
     educational agencies or, if such State educational agency is 
     not responsible for the financing of education facilities, 
     the agency shall transfer such funds to the State entity 
     responsible for the financing of education facilities 
     (referred to in this section as the `State entity') for 
     distribution by such entity to local educational agencies in 
     accordance with this paragraph, to be used, consistent with 
     subsection (c), for school repair and renovation.
       ``(B) Competitive grants to local educational agencies.--
       ``(i) In general.--The State educational agency or State 
     entity shall carry out a program of competitive grants to 
     local educational agencies for the purpose described in 
     subparagraph (A). Of the total amount available for 
     distribution to such agencies under this paragraph, the State 
     educational agency or State entity, shall, in carrying out 
     the competition--

       ``(I) award to high poverty local educational agencies 
     described in clause (ii), in the aggregate, at least an 
     amount which bears the same relationship to such total amount 
     as the aggregate amount such local educational agencies 
     received under part A of title I for the previous fiscal year 
     bears to the aggregate amount received for such fiscal year 
     under such part by all local educational agencies in the 
     State;
       ``(II) award to rural local educational agencies in the 
     State, in the aggregate, at least an amount which bears the 
     same relationship to such total amount as the aggregate 
     amount such rural local educational agencies received under 
     part A of title I for the previous fiscal year bears to the 
     aggregate amount received for such fiscal year under such 
     part by all local educational agencies in the State; and
       ``(III) award the remaining funds to local educational 
     agencies not receiving an award under subclause (I) or (II), 
     including high poverty and rural local educational agencies 
     that did not receive such an award.

       ``(ii) High poverty local educational agencies.--A local 
     educational agency is described in this clause if--

       ``(I) the percentage described in subparagraph (C)(i) with 
     respect to the agency is 30 percent or greater; or
       ``(II) the number of children described in such 
     subparagraph with respect to the agency is at least 10,000.

       ``(C) Criteria for awarding grants.--In awarding 
     competitive grants under this paragraph, a State educational 
     agency or State entity shall take into account the following 
     criteria:
       ``(i) The percentage of poor children 5 to 17 years of age, 
     inclusive, in a local educational agency.
       ``(ii) The need of a local educational agency for school 
     repair and renovation, as demonstrated by the condition of 
     its public school facilities.
       ``(iii) The fiscal capacity of a local educational agency 
     to meet its needs for repair and renovation of public school 
     facilities without assistance under this section, including 
     its ability to raise funds through the use of local bonding 
     capacity and otherwise.
       ``(iv) In the case of a local educational agency that 
     proposes to fund a repair or renovation project for a charter 
     school or schools, the extent to which the school or schools 
     have access to funding for the

[[Page H2631]]

     project through the financing methods available to other 
     public schools or local educational agencies in the State.
       ``(v) The likelihood that the local educational agency will 
     maintain, in good condition, any facility whose repair or 
     renovation is assisted under this section.
       ``(D) Possible matching requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State educational agency or State 
     entity may require local educational agencies to match funds 
     awarded under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Match amount.--The amount of a match described in 
     clause (i) may be established by using a sliding scale that 
     takes into account the relative poverty of the population 
     served by the local educational agency.
       ``(3) Reservation for competitive idea or technology grants 
     to local educational agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the reservation under 
     paragraph (1), of the funds allocated to a State educational 
     agency under subsection (a)(1)(D), the State educational 
     agency shall distribute 25 percent of such funds to local 
     educational agencies through competitive grant processes, to 
     be used for the following:
       ``(i) To carry out activities under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.).
       ``(ii) For technology activities that are carried out in 
     connection with school repair and renovation, including--

       ``(I) wiring;
       ``(II) acquiring hardware and software;
       ``(III) acquiring connectivity linkages and resources; and
       ``(IV) acquiring microwave, fiber optics, cable, and 
     satellite transmission equipment.

       ``(B) Criteria for awarding idea grants.--In awarding 
     competitive grants under subparagraph (A) to be used to carry 
     out activities under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), a State 
     educational agency shall take into account the following 
     criteria:
       ``(i) The need of a local educational agency for additional 
     funds for a student whose individually allocable cost for 
     expenses related to the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act substantially exceeds the State's average per-
     pupil expenditure.
       ``(ii) The need of a local educational agency for 
     additional funds for special education and related services 
     under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
       ``(iii) The need of a local educational agency for 
     additional funds for assistive technology devices (as defined 
     in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1401)) or assistive technology services (as so 
     defined) for children being served under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.).
       ``(iv) The need of a local educational agency for 
     additional funds for activities under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.) in order for children with disabilities to make 
     progress toward meeting the performance goals and indicators 
     established by the State under section 612(a)(16) of such Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1412).
       ``(C) Criteria for awarding technology grants.--In awarding 
     competitive grants under subparagraph (A) to be used for 
     technology activities that are carried out in connection with 
     school repair and renovation, a State educational agency 
     shall take into account the need of a local educational 
     agency for additional funds for such activities, including 
     the need for the activities described in subclauses (I) 
     through (IV) of subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(c) Rules Applicable to School Repair and Renovation.--
     With respect to funds made available under this section that 
     are used for school repair and renovation, the following 
     rules shall apply:
       ``(1) Permissible uses of funds.--School repair and 
     renovation shall be limited to one or more of the following:
       ``(A) Emergency repairs or renovations to public school 
     facilities only to ensure the health and safety of students 
     and staff, including--
       ``(i) repairing, replacing, or installing roofs, electrical 
     wiring, plumbing systems, or sewage systems;
       ``(ii) repairing, replacing, or installing heating, 
     ventilation, or air conditioning systems (including 
     insulation); and
       ``(iii) bringing public schools into compliance with fire 
     and safety codes.
       ``(B) School facilities modifications necessary to render 
     public school facilities accessible in order to comply with 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 
     et seq.).
       ``(C) School facilities modifications necessary to render 
     public school facilities accessible in order to comply with 
     section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     794).
       ``(D) Asbestos abatement or removal from public school 
     facilities.
       ``(E) Renovation, repair, and acquisition needs related to 
     the building infrastructure of a charter school.
       ``(2) Impermissible uses of funds.--No funds received under 
     this section may be used for--
       ``(A) payment of maintenance costs in connection with any 
     projects constructed in whole or in part with Federal funds 
     provided under this section;
       ``(B) the construction of new facilities, except for 
     facilities for an impacted local educational agency (as 
     defined in subsection (a)(3)); or
       ``(C) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for 
     athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which 
     admission is charged to the general public.
       ``(3) Charter schools.--A public charter school that 
     constitutes a local educational agency under State law shall 
     be eligible for assistance under the same terms and 
     conditions as any other local educational agency.
       ``(4) Supplement, not supplant.--Excluding the uses 
     described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1), a 
     local educational agency shall use Federal funds subject to 
     this subsection only to supplement the amount of funds that 
     would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made 
     available from non-Federal sources for school repair and 
     renovation.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--Each local educational agency that 
     receives funds under this section shall ensure that, if it 
     carries out repair or renovation through a contract, any such 
     contract process ensures the maximum number of qualified 
     bidders, including small, minority, and women-owned 
     businesses, through full and open competition.
       ``(e) Public Comment.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving funds under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection 
     (b)--
       ``(1) shall provide parents, educators, and all other 
     interested members of the community the opportunity to 
     consult on the use of funds received under such paragraph;
       ``(2) shall provide the public with adequate and efficient 
     notice of the opportunity described in paragraph (1) in a 
     widely read and distributed medium; and
       ``(3) shall provide the opportunity described in paragraph 
     (1) in accordance with any applicable State and local law 
     specifying how the comments may be received and how the 
     comments may be reviewed by any member of the public.
       ``(f) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Local reporting.--Each local educational agency 
     receiving funds under subsection (a)(1)(D) shall submit a 
     report to the State educational agency, at such time as the 
     State educational agency may require, describing the use of 
     such funds for--
       ``(A) school repair and renovation (and construction, in 
     the case of an impacted local educational agency (as defined 
     in subsection (a)(3)));
       ``(B) activities under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.); and
       ``(C) technology activities that are carried out in 
     connection with school repair and renovation, including the 
     activities described in subclauses (I) through (IV) of 
     subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii).
       ``(2) State reporting.--Each State educational agency shall 
     submit to the Secretary, not later than December 31 of each 
     year (beginning with 2003), a report on the use of funds 
     received under subsection (a)(1)(D) by local educational 
     agencies for--
       ``(A) school repair and renovation (and construction, in 
     the case of an impacted local educational agency (as defined 
     in subsection (a)(3)));
       ``(B) activities under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.); and
       ``(C) technology activities that are carried out in 
     connection with school repair and renovation, including the 
     activities described in subclauses (I) through (IV) of 
     subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii).
       ``(3) Additional reports.--Each entity receiving funds 
     allocated under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section (a)(1) 
     shall submit to the Secretary, not later than December 31 of 
     each year (beginning with 2003), a report on its uses of 
     funds under this section, in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(g) Applicability of Part B of IDEA.--If a local 
     educational agency uses funds received under this section to 
     carry out activities under part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), such 
     part (including provisions respecting the participation of 
     private school children), and any other provision of law that 
     applies to such part, shall apply to such use.
       ``(h) Reallocation.--If a State educational agency does not 
     apply for an allocation of funds under subsection (a)(1)(D) 
     for any fiscal year, or does not use its entire allocation 
     for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reallocate the amount 
     of the State educational agency's allocation (or the 
     remainder thereof, as the case may be) to the remaining State 
     educational agencies in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(D).
       ``(i) Participation of Private Schools.--
       ``(1) In general.--Section 4142 shall apply to subsection 
     (b)(2) in the same manner as it applies to activities under 
     subpart 1 of part A of title IV, except that--
       ``(A) such section shall not apply with respect to the 
     title to any real property renovated or repaired with 
     assistance provided under this section;
       ``(B) the term `services' as used in section 4142 with 
     respect to funds under this section shall be provided only to 
     private, nonprofit elementary or secondary schools with a 
     rate of child poverty of at least 40 percent and may include 
     for purposes of subsection (b)(2) only--
       ``(i) modifications of school facilities necessary to meet 
     the standards applicable to public schools under the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 
     seq.);

[[Page H2632]]

       ``(ii) modifications of school facilities necessary to meet 
     the standards applicable to public schools under section 504 
     of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794); and
       ``(iii) asbestos abatement or removal from school 
     facilities; and
       ``(C) notwithstanding the requirements of section 4142(b), 
     expenditures for services provided using funds made available 
     under subsection (b)(2) shall be considered equal for 
     purposes of such section if the per-pupil expenditures for 
     services described in subparagraph (B) for students enrolled 
     in private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools that 
     have child poverty rates of at least 40 percent are 
     consistent with the per-pupil expenditures under this section 
     for children enrolled in the public schools in the school 
     district of the local educational agency receiving funds 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Remaining funds.--If the expenditure for services 
     described in paragraph (1)(B) is less than the amount 
     calculated under paragraph (1)(C) because of insufficient 
     need for such services, the remainder shall be available to 
     the local educational agency for renovation and repair of 
     public school facilities.
       ``(3) Application.--If any provision of this section, or 
     the application thereof, to any person or circumstances is 
     judicially determined to be invalid, the provisions of the 
     remainder of the section and the application to other persons 
     or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
       ``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Charter school.--The term `charter school' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 4210(1).
       ``(2) Poor children and child poverty.--The terms `poor 
     children' and `child poverty' refer to children 5 to 17 years 
     of age, inclusive, who are from families with incomes below 
     the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) 
     of the Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) 
     applicable to a family of the size involved for the most 
     recent fiscal year for which data satisfactory to the 
     Secretary are available.
       ``(3) Rural local educational agency.--The term `rural 
     local educational agency' means a local educational agency 
     that the State determines is located in a rural area using 
     objective data and a commonly employed definition of the term 
     `rural'.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

   ``PART B--CREDIT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES TO ASSIST CHARTER SCHOOL 
           FACILITY ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION

     ``SEC. 9201. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to provide one-time grants to 
     eligible entities to permit them to demonstrate innovative 
     credit enhancement initiatives that assist charter schools to 
     address the cost of acquiring, constructing, and renovating 
     facilities.

     ``SEC. 9202. GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use 100 percent of 
     the amount available to carry out this part to award not less 
     than three grants to eligible entities having applications 
     approved under this part to demonstrate innovative methods of 
     assisting charter schools to address the cost of acquiring, 
     constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the 
     availability of loans or bond financing.
       ``(b) Grantee Selection.--The Secretary shall evaluate each 
     application submitted, and shall make a determination of 
     which are sufficient to merit approval and which are not. The 
     Secretary shall award at least one grant to an eligible 
     entity described in section 9210(2)(A), at least one grant to 
     an eligible entity described in section 9210(2)(B), and at 
     least one grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     9210(2)(C), if applications are submitted that permit the 
     Secretary to do so without approving an application that is 
     not of sufficient quality to merit approval.
       ``(c) Grant Characteristics.--Grants under this part shall 
     be of a sufficient size, scope, and quality so as to ensure 
     an effective demonstration of an innovative means of 
     enhancing credit for the financing of charter school 
     acquisition, construction, or renovation.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--In the event the Secretary determines 
     that the funds available are insufficient to permit the 
     Secretary to award not less than three grants in accordance 
     with subsections (a) through (c), such three-grant minimum 
     and the second sentence of subsection (b) shall not apply, 
     and the Secretary may determine the appropriate number of 
     grants to be awarded in accordance with subsection (c).

     ``SEC. 9203. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To receive a grant under this part, an 
     eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     in such form as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Contents.--An application under subsection (a) shall 
     contain--
       ``(1) a statement identifying the activities proposed to be 
     undertaken with funds received under this part, including how 
     the applicant will determine which charter schools will 
     receive assistance, and how much and what types of assistance 
     charter schools will receive;
       ``(2) a description of the involvement of charter schools 
     in the application's development and the design of the 
     proposed activities;
       ``(3) a description of the applicant's expertise in capital 
     market financing;
       ``(4) a description of how the proposed activities will 
     leverage the maximum amount of private-sector financing 
     capital relative to the amount of government funding used and 
     otherwise enhance credit available to charter schools;
       ``(5) a description of how the applicant possesses 
     sufficient expertise in education to evaluate the likelihood 
     of success of a charter school program for which facilities 
     financing is sought;
       ``(6) in the case of an application submitted by a State 
     governmental entity, a description of the actions that the 
     entity has taken, or will take, to ensure that charter 
     schools within the State receive the funding they need to 
     have adequate facilities; and
       ``(7) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 9204. CHARTER SCHOOL OBJECTIVES.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this part 
     shall use the funds deposited in the reserve account 
     established under section 9205(a) to assist one or more 
     charter schools to access private sector capital to 
     accomplish one or both of the following objectives:
       ``(1) The acquisition (by purchase, lease, donation, or 
     otherwise) of an interest (including an interest held by a 
     third party for the benefit of a charter school) in improved 
     or unimproved real property that is necessary to commence or 
     continue the operation of a charter school.
       ``(2) The construction of new facilities, or the 
     renovation, repair, or alteration of existing facilities, 
     necessary to commence or continue the operation of a charter 
     school.

     ``SEC. 9205. RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) Use of Funds.--To assist charter schools to 
     accomplish the objectives described in section 9204, an 
     eligible entity receiving a grant under this part shall, in 
     accordance with State and local law, directly or indirectly, 
     alone or in collaboration with others, deposit the funds 
     received under this part (other than funds used for 
     administrative costs in accordance with section 9206) in a 
     reserve account established and maintained by the entity for 
     this purpose. Amounts deposited in such account shall be used 
     by the entity for one or more of the following purposes:
       ``(1) Guaranteeing, insuring, and reinsuring bonds, notes, 
     evidences of debt, loans, and interests therein, the proceeds 
     of which are used for an objective described in section 9204.
       ``(2) Guaranteeing and insuring leases of personal and real 
     property for an objective described in section 9204.
       ``(3) Facilitating financing by identifying potential 
     lending sources, encouraging private lending, and other 
     similar activities that directly promote lending to, or for 
     the benefit of, charter schools.
       ``(4) Facilitating the issuance of bonds by charter 
     schools, or by other public entities for the benefit of 
     charter schools, by providing technical, administrative, and 
     other appropriate assistance (including the recruitment of 
     bond counsel, underwriters, and potential investors and the 
     consolidation of multiple charter school projects within a 
     single bond issue).
       ``(b) Investment.--Funds received under this part and 
     deposited in the reserve account shall be invested in 
     obligations issued or guaranteed by the United States or a 
     State, or in other similarly low-risk securities.
       ``(c) Reinvestment of Earnings.--Any earnings on funds 
     received under this part shall be deposited in the reserve 
     account established under subsection (a) and used in 
     accordance with such subsection.

     ``SEC. 9206. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``An eligible entity may use not more than 0.25 percent of 
     the funds received under this part for the administrative 
     costs of carrying out its responsibilities under this part.

     ``SEC. 9207. AUDITS AND REPORTS.

       ``(a) Financial Record Maintenance and Audit.--The 
     financial records of each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this part shall be maintained in accordance with 
     generally accepted accounting principles and shall be subject 
     to an annual audit by an independent public accountant.
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) Grantee annual reports.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this part annually shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report of its operations and activities under 
     this part.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each such annual report shall include--
       ``(A) a copy of the most recent financial statements, and 
     any accompanying opinion on such statements, prepared by the 
     independent public accountant reviewing the financial records 
     of the eligible entity;
       ``(B) a copy of any report made on an audit of the 
     financial records of the eligible entity that was conducted 
     under subsection (a) during the reporting period;
       ``(C) an evaluation by the eligible entity of the 
     effectiveness of its use of the Federal funds provided under 
     this part in leveraging private funds;
       ``(D) a listing and description of the charter schools 
     served during the reporting period;
       ``(E) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     eligible entity to assist charter

[[Page H2633]]

     schools in meeting the objectives set forth in section 9204; 
     and
       ``(F) a description of the characteristics of lenders and 
     other financial institutions participating in the activities 
     undertaken by the eligible entity under this part during the 
     reporting period.
       ``(3) Secretarial report.--The Secretary shall review the 
     reports submitted under paragraph (1) and shall provide a 
     comprehensive annual report to the Congress on the activities 
     conducted under this part.

     ``SEC. 9208. NO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR GRANTEE 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       ``No financial obligation of an eligible entity entered 
     into pursuant to this part (such as an obligation under a 
     guarantee, bond, note, evidence of debt, or loan) shall be an 
     obligation of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United 
     States. The full faith and credit of the United States is not 
     pledged to the payment of funds which may be required to be 
     paid under any obligation made by an eligible entity pursuant 
     to any provision of this part.

     ``SEC. 9209. RECOVERY OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code, shall collect--
       ``(1) all of the funds in a reserve account established by 
     an eligible entity under section 9205(a) if the Secretary 
     determines, not earlier than 2 years after the date on which 
     the entity first received funds under this part, that the 
     entity has failed to make substantial progress in carrying 
     out the purposes described in section 9205(a); or
       ``(2) all or a portion of the funds in a reserve account 
     established by an eligible entity under section 9205(a) if 
     the Secretary determines that the eligible entity has 
     permanently ceased to use all or a portion of the funds in 
     such account to accomplish any purpose described in section 
     9205(a).
       ``(b) Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary shall not 
     exercise the authority provided in subsection (a) to collect 
     from any eligible entity any funds that are being properly 
     used to achieve one or more of the purposes described in 
     section 9205(a).
       ``(c) Procedures.--The provisions of sections 451, 452, and 
     458 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234 
     et seq.) shall apply to the recovery of funds under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(d) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to 
     impair or affect the authority of the Secretary to recover 
     funds under part D of the General Education Provisions Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1234 et seq.).

     ``SEC. 9210. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) The term `charter school' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 4210(1).
       ``(2) The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a public entity, such as a State or local 
     governmental entity;
       ``(B) a private nonprofit entity; or
       ``(C) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).''.

  Mr. BOEHNER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit adds a vital 
component that has been left out of our deliberations so far. We were 
not allowed to offer an amendment on the floor dealing with school 
construction, renovation or modernization, and this motion to recommit 
includes instructions to continue the school renovation program, which 
is now in its first year, and increase that funding to $2 billion.
  My colleagues will recall that last year we did agree on a $1.2 
billion school repair, renovation bill. We would like to at least raise 
that to $2 billion. It is a small amount compared to the need. We know 
that in 1994, the General Accounting Office said we needed $110 billion 
at that time for school renovation, construction, and repairs. The NEA 
did a survey last year which said we need about $320 billion for school 
construction, repair, and renovation across the whole Nation. The $2 
billion was merely to make a beginning on emergency repairs and is 
still very important.
  It is important we say to the children in the public schools of 
America, 53 million children, that we care about more than just testing 
them. Accountability means more than accountability of the students and 
school and the massive testing we have proposed. Accountability also 
means we will stand up and make certain that those tools that they need 
to work with are there, especially the infrastructure, the facilities.
  In a religion we would never propose to proceed without the temple, 
the infrastructure, the physical building being in tip-top shape to 
begin with. We cannot propose to have decent education if we are going 
to neglect the actual infrastructure, the buildings and the facilities, 
that children are to receive their education in.
  So this is a modest proposal, a mere $1.2 billion at this time. We 
want to raise that to $2 billion to take care of emergency repairs and 
renovations, and we ought to continue this. I hope every Member will 
vote for this.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
America's schools are in a State of disrepair, and that is interfering 
with the education of today's students. On average, schools were built 
about 50 years ago to meet the oncoming demand of the baby boom 
generation, and they are now in disrepair.
  The General Accounting Office reports that now one-third of our 
public schools are in need of extensive repair or replacement. Nearly 
60 percent of schools need new roofs, walls, plumbing and heating 
systems or electric and power systems. Over half pose environmental 
concerns, such as poor ventilation, flaking paint, crumbling plaster, 
and nonfunctioning toilets.
  Leave no child behind; is that the phrase the President has 
appropriated for his use? How can we expect to reform education and 
improve student achievement when so many schools are crumbling? Why do 
we keep ignoring this growing problem? We cannot relegate it to the 
back burner. We must ensure that our schools are safe and modern and 
that we have modern technology.
  Too often I hear the argument this is a problem for the local school 
districts to handle.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Speaker, too often I hear the argument that this is a problem for 
the local school districts to handle. However, local school districts 
cannot handle this problem alone. Property tax payers are beleaguered 
by the costs of a growing student population. The repairs are just too 
expensive. According to the GAO, the cost of needed repairs is on order 
of $127 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, we are asking for merely a 
fraction of that amount, $2 billion to help our schools most in need. 
This will not kill the bill. That is not our intent.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the bill and intend to vote 
for final passage; but, I urge my colleagues to support this very 
important motion to recommit so we can deal with this pressing national 
problem.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), I 
think that a motion to recommit that would bring an additional $2 
billion worth of authorization to this bill, a 10 percent increase over 
the current level in the bill, is unwise.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about school construction and the need for 
school buildings in America, the gentleman from New Jersey and the 
gentleman from New York could be no more right. There is a great need. 
But we all know that school construction has been a province of State 
and local governments since our inception.
  As a matter of fact, State governments over the last 10 years or so 
have increased funding for school construction by some 39 percent, and 
today every State has a huge budget surplus.
  In my own State, Ohio, from a State standpoint, never got involved in 
school construction until the last several years, and the State has 
been helping low-income districts in my State to provide this.
  But I do not think that at this point in time we ought to do this. 
Here is one big reason: All of the programs that we have agreed to and 
the funding levels that we have agreed to in the base bill are there. 
If we expect to work with our appropriators to get most of those 
authorizations funded, the last thing

[[Page H2634]]

we want to do is to open it up for more disparate funding.
  We have a serious education proposal on the floor which has been put 
together on a bipartisan basis. Let us reserve the precious funds that 
we can get out of the appropriation process to fund that program to 
ensure that it works. Where does that money go? It goes to low-income 
schools and high-poverty students who need this money the most.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) who 
has worked on this proposal in the past.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, as we are poised to make a substantial 
improvement in public education, let us not end by making a hollow 
promise to public education.
  The gentlemen are correct that their proposal represents but a 
fraction, and I mean a fraction, of the need.
  But if the Congress of the United States ever sent the message to the 
public we will take care of that construction, we will do more damage 
to public education. Voters will not pass bond referendums. Local 
options, sale taxes will not be passed, and the capital investments 
will not be made by the local schools.
  Let us leave no child behind. Let us make sure that the poorest and 
the most disadvantaged have the advantage of this bill. Let us reject 
the motion to recommit. Instead of making this hollow promise, let us 
make a promise to the children of America and improve their education 
forever. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 223, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cubin
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1852

  Messrs. PETERSON of Minnesota, RADANOVICH, GILMAN and SCHAFFER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Permission for Chairman and Ranking Member of Committee on Education 
                 and the Workforce to Address the House

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the Chair to recognize myself and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) to address the House each for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by 
thanking everybody in the House for their patience as we deliberated 
this bill. I also want to begin by thanking staffs on both sides of the 
aisle for all of their very difficult and hard work. We have spent 2 
days deliberating this bill on the floor. The staff of this committee 
has spent 4 months, along with members of the working group on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I want to thank the Members of the working group on our side of the 
aisle, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for all of 
their help on this and on the other side, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) for all of their effort to bring the Members together to 
talk about whether or not

[[Page H2635]]

there was a possibility of getting the legislation that, in fact, would 
reflect what many Members in this House have said they wanted for our 
education system, for the Federal participation in our education 
system, for many years, but we have not achieved.
  Some 35 years ago, we set out to see whether or not the Federal 
Government could help the poorer children in this Nation residing in 
the poorer school districts in this Nation. We have spent $120 billion, 
and in many instances we have changed the lives of those children and 
their education, but we have not achieved all that we have wanted to 
achieve. We have made a difference in many ways, but we have also had 
our disappointments.
  This effort and this legislation is an effort to do it in a different 
fashion, to hold schools more accountable; and I do not mean 
accountable just in the sense of testing or just in the sense of money, 
but accountable for results. We are no longer going to ask schools how 
is the average child doing in their district. In this legislation, we 
are going to ask how each and every child in that district is doing, 
how is each Hispanic child, every African American child, every rich 
child, poor child, limited English-proficient child, how are they 
doing.
  We are also going to ask them whether or not the gap is being closed 
that exists today in education between the majority and minority in 
America.
  That question has not been asked. We have put out the money there to 
get the results, but we never asked them whether or not it was taking 
place; and in fact, the gap to some extent has widened.
  We also said we are going to hold them accountable because we are 
going to ask for annual testing and annual assessment, a diagnostic 
effort so if a child is falling behind in second or third grade in 
reading we know the resources that we can attach that that child needs. 
Do they need a Saturday school? Do they need after-school? Do they need 
a mentor? Do they need a tutor? So that, in fact, children do not fall 
behind.
  Many on my side of the aisle said that is all well and good and we 
have always been for that; but if we do not have the resources, we 
cannot obtain it. So we also made a commitment in this legislation, 
through a very lot of hard and very difficult negotiations, that, in 
fact, the resources would be there; that the resources would be there 
to fix the failing schools and not abandon them; the resources would be 
there to help align the test to the curriculum and improve many of the 
tests in States today that are not acceptable to challenge our 
children; to improve the curriculum. Those are the efforts we would 
make, and we just reconfirmed those figures on this floor on a huge 
bipartisan vote of 324 in support of those resources being there. That 
is a commitment to this legislation. We are not going to try to reform 
this system on the cheap.
  Some on this side of the aisle said we have to have more flexibility, 
we have to have Straight A's down to the States. We thought, why would 
we give money to the States? Why can it not go locally? I could not 
work it out, probably because I am very much against that kind of 
effort. But the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and others got together and the 
staffs got together; and they hammered out something that I think is 
superior.
  We said, fine, we will give local districts flexibility, and we have 
increased the flexibility ten times what it is in current law so that 
they can set some priorities about whether they want to train the 
teachers first to become proficient in computers and then buy the 
computers, or whether they want to buy the computers and then train the 
teachers. That is their decision. They can combine these monies based 
upon their local needs and priorities. Ten times the flexibility that 
we have ever experienced in Federal law.
  I think it is an experiment, and we will see. Other people are very 
confident about it. Anyway, that is what a compromise is. That is what 
a compromise is.

                              {time}  1900

  There are some places we could not go. Clearly, this caucus was not 
going to go for vouchers and it was not going to go straight As, and we 
did not go there. But we have tried to provide alternatives and 
responses to that. We have said that if a school is failing, a parent 
can, in fact, go out and purchase, purchase those services to tutor a 
child, to provide the kind of remedial help that may be necessary, and 
they go out in the community and get those services from private 
vendors. That is an important change. It is a very important change, 
especially when we see what technology is bringing to bear for the 
educational problems of our children, the technology that the private 
sector is developing. We have to call those resources in and make them 
available to the parents, and that is what this legislation does.
  If I just might, Mr. Speaker, if I just might add that I think this 
is legislation that does very well by America's children. It is not 
everything I would do, it is not a bill I would write and it is 
certainly not a bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the 
chairman of the committee would write, but it is a bill that we were 
capable of writing, trying to keep in mind what all of us have said 
when we go home to our districts.
  We are not all going to be happy and we have a long way to go before 
the end of this road. But I think this is a very good beginning for a 
House of Representatives as a statement of where we should be on 
education.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our 
chairman, who provided exceptional leadership. He acted with honor. His 
word was his bond and he opened up lines of communication that we have 
not had available to us before. I want to say how much I appreciate 
that and I thank him very much for that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their patience as 
we have gone through what really has been, I think, an extraordinary 
process. It all started last December when our new President-elect 
invited a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members to Austin, Texas to 
talk about his desire for dealing with the issue of education in an 
honorable, up-front and positive way. It was a step that many of my 
colleagues on our side of the aisle were somewhat uncomfortable with, a 
step that many of my colleagues on the other side were uncomfortable 
with as well. But the President laid out his agenda in great detail, 
and the Members of the House and the Senate that were there all had 
their opportunity to put their fingerprints on how this path was going 
to be started, and they did it in Austin, Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was 
not on the list to be invited, but he ended up on the list at my 
insistence, because if the President was serious about having a new 
tone in Washington and if the President was serious about working 
together in a bipartisan way, it was right for the President to invite 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to Austin, Texas, and 
he did. And after the President spoke, all of the Members spoke, and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was the last person 
to speak. The gentleman stood up and said, Mr. President, I think you 
are serious about helping underprivileged children in America. And if 
you are serious about helping underprivileged children in America, and 
you are willing to stand up and fight for accountability, I am going to 
be standing right there with you, and he has, each and every step along 
the way, and I want to say to the gentleman from California, ``thank 
you.''
  Now, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) pointed 
out, there were people who helped, there were a lot of people who 
helped. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson); and even the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer), my good friend, who is hiding way in the back, were Members 
on our side who sat in rooms for months, as well as the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and

[[Page H2636]]

all of our staffs who have done a very good job. I really do want to 
thank them for all of what they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand here at this moment on the threshold of the 
most significant change in Federal education policy in 35 years. We all 
know the money that we have spent, we all know the results that we have 
gotten, but we have a problem in America, and every one of us knows it; 
every one of us. We have an achievement gap that exists between Anglo 
students and their minority peers that has widened over the last 10 
years, while we have had the best economy in the history of our 
country.
  We have a growing achievement gap that exists between middle income 
and upper income schools than our minority and lower income schools. 
Good schools have gotten better over the last 10 years. Middle income 
schools have gotten better over the last 10 years. Our worst schools, 
unfortunately, have gotten worse.
  We as a society cannot turn a blind eye to this problem. The 
President has made it perfectly clear over the last 4 months that we 
have to act. So, we have acted, and we have done it in a way that we 
can work together on both sides of the aisle to address all of the 
Members' concerns. This truly is a bipartisan bill. There are issues 
that my Democrat colleagues do not like in this bill, I know that, and 
I can tell my colleagues that there are problems with my guys on this 
side of the aisle, and I can show my colleagues the wounds of my back 
to prove it. But bipartisanship means working together for the benefit 
of the whole, and I can tell my colleagues that the bill that we have 
before us today is a solid achievement for this House. It is a solid 
achievement that will improve the lives of the neediest children in our 
country.
  Those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder who today are not 
getting a good education in our society will suffer if we do not step 
up and have the courage, the courage to take this step, and that is 
really what this bill today is all about. Do we have the courage as 
conservative Republicans to stand up and take a step in the direction 
that some of us are a bit uncomfortable with? And, to my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, do they have the courage to stand up today 
and to take a step toward bipartisanship, toward an effort that truly 
will help the neediest students in our country.
  I have talked to virtually all of my colleagues over the last several 
months about this bill. Everyone has had their opportunity for input. 
Yes, some are disappointed. But I think each and every one of my 
colleagues know that unless we exhibit courage today, that this will 
not happen. We need it to happen. We need to exhibit the courage and 
show the American people that we can work together to solve the 
problems that we have in this country. Remember, when we vote today, 
this is not about the House, and it is not about this bill, it is about 
the neediest children in America who are counting on us today.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record ``An Evaluation 
of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program. The 
report was prepared by Jay P. Greene, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The 
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and research associate, Program 
on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.


                            about the author

       Jay P. Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute 
     for Policy Research and a research associate at Harvard 
     University's Program on Education Policy and Governance 
     (PEPG). He has conducted evaluations of school choice program 
     in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Charlotte, and San Antonio. He has 
     also investigated the effects of school choice on civic 
     values and integration. His publications include the 
     chapters, ``Civic Values in Public and Private Schools,'' and 
     ``School Choice in Milwaukee: A Randomized Experiment,'' in 
     the book, Learning from School Choice, published by the 
     Brooking Institution in 1998; ``The Effect of Private 
     Education on Political Participation, Social Capital, and 
     Tolerance,'' in the Fall 1999 issued of The Georgetown Public 
     Policy Review; and ``The Texas School Miracle Is for Real,'' 
     in the Summer 2000 issue of City Journal. He has been a 
     professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin 
     and the University of Houston. He received his Ph.D. from the 
     Government Department at Harvard University in 1995. Dr. 
     Greene lives with his family in Weston, Florida.


                       author's acknowledgements

       This report was prepared under contract with Florida State 
     University as part of a grant from the Florida Department of 
     Education to evaluate the A-Plus Program. Additional support 
     was provided by Harvard University's Program on Education 
     Policy and Governance (PEPG). Professors Richard Feiock and 
     Tom Dye of Florida State University and Professor Paul 
     Peterson, Director, PEPG, Harvard University, served as 
     principal investigators on this project. Rob Fusco and Tom 
     Dye provided valuable research assistance.


                           executive summary

       By offering vouchers to students at failing schools, the 
     Florida A-Plus choice and accountability system was intended 
     to motivate those schools to improve their academic 
     performance. Under this plan, each public school in Florida 
     is assigned a grade, A through F, based on the proportion of 
     its students passing the Florida Comprehensive Assessment 
     Test (FCAT). Students attending schools that receive two 
     ``F'' grades in four years are eligible to receive vouchers 
     that enable them to attend private schools or to transfer to 
     another public school.
       This report examines whether schools that faced the 
     prospect of having vouchers offered to their students 
     experienced larger improvements in their FCAT scores than 
     other schools.
       The results show that schools receiving a failing grade 
     from the state in 1999 and whose students would have been 
     offered tuition vouchers if they failed a second time 
     achieved test score gains more than twice as large as those 
     achieved by other schools. While schools with lower previous 
     FCAT scores across all state-assigned grades improved their 
     test scores, schools with failing grades that faced the 
     prospect of vouchers exhibited especially large gains.
       The report also establishes that the FCAT math and reading 
     results are highly correlated with the results from a 
     nationally recognized standardized test, the Stanford 9, 
     which suggests that the FCAT is a reliable measure of student 
     performance.
       This report shows that the performance of students on 
     academic tests improves when public schools are faced with 
     the prospect that their students will receive vouchers. These 
     results are particularly relevant because of the similarities 
     between the Florida A-Plus choice and accountability system 
     and the education initiatives proposed by President George W. 
     Bush.
     The Purpose of the Study
       The Florida A-Plus Program is a school accountability 
     system with teeth. Schools that receive two failing grades 
     from the state during a four-year period have vouchers 
     offered to their students so that those students can choose 
     to leave for a different public or private school. The theory 
     behind such a system is that schools in danger of failing 
     will improve their academic performance to avoid the 
     political embarrassment and potential loss in revenues from 
     having their students depart with tuition vouchers.
       Whether the theory behind the A-Plus Program is supported 
     by evidence is the issue addressed in this evaluation. While 
     it is plausible that the incentives provided by an 
     accountability system with teeth should be an impetus for 
     reform, it is also plausible that the A-Plus system would not 
     produce meaningful academic improvement. Perhaps schools 
     would develop strategies for improving the grade they 
     received from the state without actually improving the 
     academic performance of students. Perhaps schools would not 
     have the resources of policy flexibility to adopt necessary 
     reforms even if they had the incentives to do so. Perhaps the 
     incentives of the accountability system interact with the 
     incentives of schools politics to produce unintended 
     outcomes. In short, whether the A-Plus system is successful 
     in improving student achievement is a matter that cannot be 
     resolved without reference to evidence.
       The evidence presented in this report suggests that the A-
     Plus Program has been successful at motivating failing 
     schools to improve their academic performance. In addition, 
     the evidence presented in this report suggests that we should 
     have confidence that the improvement in academic achievements 
     is a real improvement and not merely a manipulation of the 
     state's testing and grading system.
     A Brief Description of the A-Plus Program
       The Florida A-Plus Program assigns each public school a 
     grade based on the performance of its students on the Florida 
     Comprehensive Assessment Tests (FCAT) in reading, math, and 
     writing. Reading and writing FCATs are administered in 4th, 
     8th, and 10th grades, while the math FCAT is administered in 
     5th, 8th, and 10th grades. The scale score results from these 
     tests are divided into five categories. The grade that each 
     school receives is determined by the percentage of students 
     scoring above the thresholds established by these five 
     categories or levels. If a school receives two F grades in a 
     four-year period, its students are offered vouchers that they 
     can use to attend a private school. They are also offered the 
     opportunity to attend a better-performing public school.
       The FCAT was first administered in the spring of 1998. 
     Following the second administration of the exam in 1999, only 
     two schools in the state had received two failing grades. 
     Both of those schools, located in Escambia County, 
     had vouchers offered to their students. Nearly 50 students 
     and their families from those two schools chose to attend 
     one of a handful of nearby private schools, most of which 
     were religiously affiliated. When

[[Page H2637]]

     the FCAT was administered in 2000, no additional schools 
     had their students offered tuition vouchers because none 
     had failed for a second time.
       Additional information on the FCAT and A-Plus Program can 
     be found at the Florida Department of Education's FCAT web 
     site at http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcathome.htm or its home 
     page at http://www.firn.edu/doe/.
     Other Research on Voucher and Accountability Systems
       Many states have testing and accountability systems. Some, 
     such as the New York Regents Exam, date back many years. 
     Others, such as the Michigan Educational Assessment Program, 
     are relatively new. States also vary in the difficulty of the 
     tests they administer, the grades to which tests are 
     administered, whether passage is required for promotion or 
     graduation, and whether sanctions or rewards are attached to 
     student and/or school performance.
       Despite the increasing prominence of testing and 
     accountability systems as a tool for education reform, the 
     effectiveness of those systems has been the subject of 
     limited systematic research. Additional research in this area 
     is particularly important given the centrality of 
     accountability systems in many state and federal education 
     reform proposals. The attractiveness of such proposals would 
     be increased if stronger empirical evidence were produced to 
     show that widespread testing and grading of schools provided 
     incentives to schools to improve their performance. Evidence 
     on the effects of using vouchers as a sanction for 
     chronically failing schools would speak to whether 
     accountability systems are likely to be more effective at 
     inspiring improvement if vouchers were part of the program. 
     On the other hand, evidence that widespread accountability 
     testing produced results that were subject to manipulation or 
     failed to inspire improvement would argue against the 
     adoption of such policies. And if the evidence failed to show 
     special gains produced by the prospect of vouchers at failing 
     schools then a voucher component of the policy would be less 
     desirable.
       The greatest amount of research attention has been devoted 
     to evaluations of the accountability system in Texas. The 
     Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) has been in 
     existence for a decade and is the most comprehensive of the 
     state testing systems. Students in Texas are tested in 3rd 
     through 8th grades in math and reading. In addition, passage 
     of an exam that is first offered in 10th grade is required 
     for graduation. The state is also phasing-in requirements 
     that students pass exams in order to be promoted to the next 
     grade.
       The extensiveness of TAAS, its centrality in education 
     policy in Texas, and the fact that the governor was a 
     candidate for president attracted considerable attention to 
     the program. Linda McNeil and Angela Valenzuela of Rice 
     University and the University of Texas, respectively, issued 
     a report with a series of theoretical and anecdotal 
     criticisms of TAAS, but presented no systematic data on the 
     educational effectiveness of the program.\1\ Walter Haney of 
     Boston College has written about the relationship between 
     TAAS and minority dropout rates, but again has not 
     systematically evaluated the effect of TAAS on educational 
     achievement.\2\
       The most systematic research on TAAs has appeared in two, 
     somewhat contradictory, reports from the Rand Corporation. 
     The first report, with David Grissmer as its chief author, 
     was released in July of 2000.\3\ It analyzed scores from the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a test 
     administered by the U.S. Department of Education, to identify 
     state policies that may contribute to higher academic 
     performance. It found that states like Texas and North 
     Carolina, with extensive accountability systems, had among 
     the highest and most improved NAEP scores after controlling 
     for demographic factors. The report featured a lengthy 
     comparison of student performance in California and Texas 
     to highlight the importance of TAAS in improving academic 
     achievement, as measured by the NAEP.
       The second report, with Stephen Klein as its chief author, 
     was released in October of 2000. It cast doubt upon the 
     validity of TAAS scores by suggesting that the results do not 
     correlate with the test results of other standardized tests 
     Because the other standardized tests are ``low stakes 
     tests,'' without any reward or punishment attached to student 
     or school performance, there are few incentives to manipulate 
     the results or cheat. It is therefore reasonable to assume 
     that the low stakes test results are likely to be a reliable 
     indication of student performance.\4\ Schools and students, 
     however, might have incentives and opportunities to 
     manipulate the results of high stakes tests, like the TAAS. 
     Because Klein finds that the results of the TAAS do not 
     correlate very well with the results of the low stakes 
     standardized tests, he and his colleagues suggest that the 
     TAAS scores do not represent the true academic performance of 
     students.
       Klein, however, cannot rule out alternative explanations 
     for the weak correlation between TAAS results and the results 
     of low stakes standardized tests. It is possible that the 
     TAAS, which is based on the mandated Texas curriculum, tests 
     different skills than those tested by the national, 
     standardized tests. Both could produce valid results and be 
     weakly correlated to each other if they are testing different 
     things. It is also possible that the pool of standardized 
     tests available to Klein is not representative of Texas as a 
     whole. The standardized test results that were compared to 
     TAAS results were only from 2,000 non-randomly selected 5th 
     grade students from one part of Texas. If this limited group 
     of students were not representative of all Texas students, 
     then it would be inaccurate to draw any conclusions about 
     TAAS as a whole.
       In addition to comparing TAAS and standardized test 
     results, Klein and his colleagues also analyzed NAEP results 
     in Texas. Contrary to the findings of Grissmer and his 
     colleagues whose Rand report was only released a few months 
     earlier, Klein concluded that the NAEP performance in Texas 
     was not exceptionally strong. This finding contradicted 
     Grissmer's finding that strong NAEP performance in Texas 
     confirmed the benefits of a high stakes testing system, like 
     TAAS.\5\
       A third examination of NAEP scores in Texas published in 
     City Journal supports Grissmer's claim and refutes Klein's by 
     finding that NAEP improvements were exceptionally strong in 
     Texas while the TAAS accountability system was in place.\6\ 
     The fact that these studies differ while all examining NAEP 
     and TAAS results can be explained by the different time 
     periods examined, the grade levels that are compared, and the 
     presence or absence of controls for student demographics. 
     Without discussing these issues at length, it is sufficient 
     to say that there is some ambiguity regarding any conclusions 
     that can be drawn from a comparison of NAEP and TAAS results. 
     This ambiguity is created in part by the fact that the NAEP 
     is administered infrequently and in only certain grade 
     levels.
       In addition to ambiguous research results, our expectations 
     for A-Plus based on the experience of TAAS are further 
     limited by the fact that the two accountability systems 
     differ in one very important respect. The A-Plus Program is 
     unique in that it uses vouchers as the potential sanction for 
     low-performing schools, while the accountability systems in 
     Texas, North Carolina, and elsewhere at most threaten schools 
     with embarrassment or reorganization as the sanction for low 
     performance. The incentives for schools to improve when faced 
     with embarrassment or reorganization may not be the same as 
     the incentives produced by the prospect of vouchers.
       We could try to look at recent research on school choice to 
     learn more about whether the prospect of vouchers motivates 
     schools to improve. Unfortunately, while there have 
     been several high-quality studies on the effects of 
     vouchers on the recipients of those vouchers, there has 
     been relatively little research on whether school choice 
     provides the proper incentives to improve academic 
     achievement in an entire educational system.\7\ Recent 
     work by Caroline Minter-Hoxby and by the Manhattan 
     Institute attempt to address whether vouchers would 
     improve academic achievement in the education system as a 
     whole by examining variation in the amount of choice and 
     competition currently available in the United States.\8\ 
     Some states and metro areas have more school districts, 
     more charter schools, and other types of choice than 
     others. The findings of both studies suggest that areas 
     with more choice and competition experience better 
     academic outcomes than areas with less choice and 
     competition. While these results support the contention 
     that voucher systems would improve the quality of 
     education for the entire educational system, they are not 
     definitive because they involve argument by analogy. It is 
     possible that competition and choice that currently exist 
     contribute to academic achievement while expanding choice 
     and competition would not have similar benefits. A more 
     direct examination of the effects of expanding choice and 
     competition would address the question more definitively.
     The Design of the Current Study
       The Florida A-Plus Program offers a unique opportunity to 
     researchers to examine the effects of an accountability 
     system as well as the effects of expanding choice and 
     competition. Because the A-Plus Program involves a system of 
     testing with sanctions for failure, we can examine whether 
     such a program motivates schools to improve. And because the 
     sanction that is applied is the prospect of offering choice 
     to families and competition to public schools, we can examine 
     whether the prospect of choice and competition are effective 
     motivators.
       To address these issues we will conduct two types of 
     analyses. First, we will want to determine whether the test 
     that is used to determine school grades in the A-Plus 
     accountability system is a valid test of student performance. 
     Given the concerns raised by the Klein study regarding the 
     validity of the TAAS in Texas, we will examine the validity 
     of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) using the 
     same analytical technique used by Klein. That is, we will 
     identify the correlation between FCAT results and the results 
     of low stakes standardized tests administered around the same 
     time in the same grade.\9\
       During the spring of 2000, Florida schools administered 
     both the FCAT and a version of the Stanford 9, which is a 
     widely used and respected nationally normed standardized 
     test. Performance on the FCAT determined a school's grade 
     from the state and therefore determined whether students 
     would receive vouchers. Performance on the Stanford 9 (or the 
     FCAT Norm Referenced Test as the state refers to it) carried 
     with it no similar consequences. It is therefore reasonable 
     to assume that schools and students had little

[[Page H2638]]

     reason to manipulate or cheat on the Stanford 9. If the 
     results of the Stanford 9 correlate with the results of the 
     FCAT, then we should have confidence that the FCAT is a valid 
     measure of academic achievement. If the two tests do not 
     correlate, one possible explanation for the low correlation 
     would be that the FCAT results were manipulated so that they 
     were no longer valid measures of student performance. 
     Confirming the validity of the FCAT is important for ruling 
     out the concerns raised by Klein and others before proceeding 
     with other analyses.
       Second, we will examine whether the prospect of having to 
     compete to retain students who are given vouchers inspires 
     schools to improve their performance. We would expect that 
     the schools that had already received one F grade from the 
     state and whose students would become eligible for vouchers 
     if they received a second F to make the greatest efforts to 
     improve their academic achievement. That is, if the prospect 
     of choice and competition motivates schools to improve, then 
     the schools that are in the greatest danger of having their 
     students receive vouchers should experience greater test-
     score improvement than schools for which that prospect is 
     not so imminent.
       To test this proposition we examine the average FCAT scale 
     score improvements for schools broken out by the grade they 
     received the year before. If the A-Plus Program is effective, 
     schools that had previously received an F should experience 
     greater gains on the FCAT than schools that had previously 
     received higher grades.
       In short, the design of this study is to verify the 
     validity of the FCAT results and then to determine whether 
     those schools that most imminently face the prospect of 
     having to compete to retain their students who have been 
     offered vouchers experience the greatest gains in their FCAT 
     scores.
     Data Examined
       The FCAT results examined were from the spring of 1999 and 
     spring of 2000. The Stanford 9 results were from the spring 
     of 2000. The Stanford 9 was not administered statewide in 
     1999. All test results were obtained from the Florida 
     Department of Education.\10\ The FCAT was administered in 
     4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th grades, but not in all subjects. The 
     Stanford 9 (or FCAT NRT, as it is described on the web site) 
     was administered in 3rd through 10th grades, but the reading 
     results from 10th grade were discarded because the state 
     determined that there was a difficulty with their design. 
     Because both kinds of tests were not available in all 
     subjects in all grades, our analyses are confined to those 
     grades and subjects for which results were available.
     The Results of Correlating FCAT and Stanford 9 Results
       It appears as if the FCAT results are valid measures of 
     student achievement. Schools with the highest scores on the 
     FCAT also have the highest scores on the Stanford 9 tests 
     that were administered around the same time in the spring of 
     2000. It is also the case that schools with the lowest FCAT 
     scores also tended to have the lowest Stanford 9 scores. We 
     can know this because the school level results from both 
     tests are highly correlated with each other.
       If the correlation were 1.00, the results from the FCAT and 
     Stanford 9 test would be identical. As can be seen in Table 
     1, the correlation coefficient is 0.86 between the 4th grade 
     FCAT and Stanford 9 reading test results. In 8th grade the 
     correlation between the high stakes FCAT and low stakes 
     standardized reading test is 0.95.\11\ This demonstrates an 
     extremely high level of correlation between the tests.

          TABLE 1.--VERIFYING THE VALIDITY OF THE FCAT RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Grade level
           Correlation between           -------------------------------
                                             4       5       8      10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.86      na    0.95      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.90    0.95    0.91
Number of schools.......................   1,514   1,514     508     356
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All correlations are statistically significant at p < .01.
na=not available.

       The math results of the two tests are also highly 
     correlated. In 5th grade the correlation coefficient is 0.90. 
     In 8th grade the FCAT and Stanford 9 school level results are 
     correlated at 0.95. In 10th grade the correlation between the 
     results of the two math tests is 0.91.
       It is not possible to verify the validity of the FCAT 
     writing test with this technique because there was no 
     Stanford 9 writing test administered.
       In the second Rand Corporation study of TAAS in Texas, 
     Stephen Klein and his colleagues never found a correlation of 
     more that 0.21 between the school level results from TAAS and 
     the school level results of a low stakes standardized tests. 
     In this analysis we never found a correlation between FCAT 
     and standardized tests below .86. All of these 
     correlations in Florida are statistically significant, 
     meaning that the strong relationship between the results 
     of the two tests is very unlikely to have been produced by 
     chance.
       While we cannot check the validity of the FCAT writing 
     results, these analyses strongly support the validity of the 
     FCAT reading and math results. Schools in Florida perform on 
     the high stakes FCAT similarly to how they perform on the low 
     stakes Stanford 9. Since schools would have little incentive 
     to manipulate the results of the low stakes test, the fact 
     that they confirm the high stakes test results is important 
     confirmation that the FCAT measures are cedible.
     FCAT Improvements by State-Assigned Grade
       Now that we have confirmed the validity of the FCAT 
     results, is it the case that schools facing the imminent 
     prospect of competing to retain their students experienced 
     the greatest improvement in FCAT results to avoid that 
     prospect? In fact, the incentives appear to operate as 
     expected. Schools that had received F grades in 1999 and were 
     in danger of having their students offered vouchers if they 
     repeated their failure made the largest gains between their 
     1999 and 2000 FCAT results.
       As can be seen in Table 2, the year-to-year changes in FCAT 
     results for schools do not really differ among schools that 
     received A, B, or C grades from the state. Schools that had 
     received D grades and were close to the failing grade that 
     could precipitate vouchers being offered to their students 
     appear to have achieved somewhat greater improvements than 
     those achieved by the schools with higher state grades. But 
     schools that received F grades in 1999 experienced increases 
     in tests scores that were more than twice as large as those 
     experienced by schools with higher state-assigned grades.

          TABLE 2.--COMPARING TEST SCORE GAINS BY SCHOOL GRADE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Change in FCAT Scores from 1999 to 2000
School grade given by State in -----------------------------------------
             1999                 Reading         Math         Writing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................   1.90 (202)     11.02 (202)    .36 (202)
B.............................   4.85 (308)      9.30 (308)    .39 (308)
C.............................  4.60 (1223)    11.81 (1223)   .45 (1223)
D.............................  10.02 (583)     16.06 (583)    .52 (583)
F.............................   17.59 (76)      25.66 (76)     .87 (76)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The change for F schools compared to schools with higher grades is
  statistically significant at p < .01.
Math and reading scales are from 100 to 500.
The writing scale is from 0 to 6.
Number of schools is in the parentheses.

       On the FCAT reading test, which uses a scale with results 
     between 100 and 500, schools that had received an A grade 
     from the state in 1999 improved by an average of 1.90 points 
     between 1999 and 2000. Schools that had received a B grade 
     improved by 4.85 points. Those that had a C in 1999 increased 
     by 4.60 points. But schools that had a D grade in 1999 
     improved by 10.02 points. And schools that had F grades in 
     1999 showed an average gain of 17.59 points. The lower the 
     grade that the school received from the state, the greater 
     the improvement it made the following year. This improvement 
     was especially large for schools that had received a D or F 
     grade the previous year.\12\
       Examination of the FCAT math results shows a similar 
     pattern. Schools that had received an A grade experienced an 
     average 11.02 point gain on a scale that ranged between 100 
     and 500. Schools that had a B gained by 9.30 points. Schools 
     that had received C grades in 1999 showed 11.81 point gains, 
     on average, between 1999 and 2000. While D schools had 
     improved by 16.06 points from 1999 to 2000 on the FCAT math 
     exam, schools that had received an F grade in 2000 made gains 
     of 25.66 points. Again, the year-to-year gains achieved by 
     schools that had previously received a D or F grade were 
     significantly larger than those experienced by higher grade 
     schools. The improvements realized by schools that had 
     previously received an F grade were especially large.\13\
       The FCAT writing exam, which has scores that go from 0 to 
     6, also shows larger gains for schools that had received an F 
     grade. Schools that had received an A grade in 1999 improved 
     by .36 on the writing test. Schools with a B grade had an 
     average gain of .39. For C schools the improvement from 1999 
     to 2000 was .45. And for schools that had received a D grade, 
     the improvement was .52 points on the FCAT writing exam. 
     However, schools that had received an F in 1999 demonstrated 
     an average gain of .87 points, about double the improvements 
     for the other schools.\14\
       The larger improvements achieved by schools that had 
     received an F and were in danger of having vouchers offered 
     to their students are all statistically significant. That is, 
     the gains observed in the F schools differed from those in 
     the other schools by an amount that is very unlikely to have 
     been produced by chance.
     A Hard Test of the Voucher Effect
       To what extent were the gains produced by failing schools 
     the product of the prospect of vouchers and to what extent 
     were those improvements the product of the pressures of low 
     performance?\15\ One technique for isolating the extent to 
     which gains were motivated by the desire to avoid having 
     students offered vouchers is to compare the improvements 
     achieved by higher-scoring F schools to those realized by 
     lower-scoring D schools. The idea behind this comparison is 
     that high-scoring F schools and low-scoring D schools were 
     probably very much alike in many respects.\16\ Both groups of 
     schools had low previous scores and faced pressures simply to 
     avoid repeating a low performance. Schools in both groups 
     were also likely to face similar challenges in trying to 
     improve their scores. It is also likely that a fair number of 
     schools near the failing threshold could easily have received 
     a different grade by chance. That is, random error in the 
     testing may have made the difference between receiving a D or 
     F grade for at least some of these schools. To the extent 
     that chance is the only factor distinguishing those schools 
     just above the failing line and those schools

[[Page H2639]]

     just below the failing line we are approximating a random 
     assignment experiment, like those used in medical research.
       While the low-scoring D schools and the high-scoring F 
     schools may be alike in many respects and some may only be 
     distinguishable by chance, schools in each category faced 
     very different futures if they failed to improve. The schools 
     with the F grade faced the prospect of having vouchers 
     offered to students at their school if they failed to improve 
     significantly while D schools did not face a similar 
     pressure. A comparison of the gains achieved by low-scoring D 
     schools and high-scoring F schools should help us isolate the 
     gains that are attributable to the prospect of vouchers 
     unique to those with the failing label. This comparison is a 
     hard test for the effect of vouchers in motivating schools to 
     improve because we are not considering all of the failing 
     schools who faced that pressure and we are comparing against 
     D schools that might have experienced some pressure from the 
     prospect of vouchers to the extent that they anticipated the 
     consequences of their experiencing a decline in future 
     performance.
       As can be seen in Table 3, the gains realized by high-
     scoring F schools were greater than the gains realized by 
     low-scoring D schools.\17\ The improvement achieved by 
     higher-scoring F schools on the reading test was 2.65 points 
     greater than that achieved by higher-scoring F schools on the 
     reading test was 2.65 points greater than that achieved by 
     lower-scoring D schools, although this difference fell short 
     of being statistically significant. On the math test the 
     higher-scoring F schools made gains that were 6.09 point 
     greater than those produced by lower-scoring D schools. The 
     difference between the two groups of schools on the writing 
     test was .16, keeping in mind that the scale for the writing 
     test goes from 0 to 6 instead of from 100 to 500 as is the 
     case for the reading and math exams. The differences between 
     these groups on the math and writing tests were statistically 
     significant at p < .01 meaning that we can have high 
     confidence that these differences were not produced by 
     chance.
       These gains made by the higher-scoring F schools in excess 
     of what were produced by the lower-scoring D schools are what 
     we can reasonably estimate as the effect of the unique 
     motivation that vouchers posed to those schools with the F 
     designation. Given that the higher-scoring F schools were 
     very much like the lower-scoring D schools, the fact that 
     those schools that faced the prospect of vouchers made larger 
     gains suggests that vouchers provide especially strong 
     incentive to public schools to improve.
       The excess gains that we can attribute to the prospect of 
     vouchers can be reported in terms of standard deviations, as 
     is conventional in education research. The improvement on the 
     reading FCAT attributable to the prospect of vouchers was a 
     modest 0.12 standard deviations and fell short of being 
     statistically significant. The voucher effect on math scores 
     was larger 0.30 standard deviations, which was statistically 
     significant. And the prospect of vouchers improved school 
     performance on the writing test by 0.41 standard deviations, 
     an effect that is also statistically significant.
       To put the size of these effects in perspective, education 
     researchers generally consider effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.2 
     standard deviations to be small, effects of 0.3 to 0.4 
     standard deviations as moderate, and gains of 0.5 or more 
     standard deviations are thought of as large. For comparison, 
     the effect size of reducing class sizes from an average of 25 
     students to an average of 17 students according to the 
     Tennessee Star study was .21 standard deviations.\18\ The 
     motivational benefits of the prospect of vouchers were larger 
     than this class size reduction effect, at least on math and 
     writing scores.

                           TABLE 3.--ISOLATING THE EFFECT OF THE PROSPECT OF VOUCHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Gains in
                                                                   reading            Math           Writing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower-Scoring D Schools......................................  12.87 (251)      18.15 (272)       0.59 (296)
Higher-Scoring F Schools.....................................  15.52 (42)       24.24 (41)        0.75 (35)
Voucher Effect...............................................   2.65             6.09             0.16
Voucher Effect Measured in Standard Deviations...............   0.12             0.30             0.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of schools is in the parentheses.
 The math and writing results are significant at p. < .01

     Discussion
       The most obvious explanation for these findings is that an 
     accountability system with vouchers as the sanction for 
     repeated failure really motivates schools to improve. That is 
     the prospect of competition in education reveals competitive 
     effects that are normally observed in the marketplace. 
     Companies typically anticipate competitive threats and 
     attempt to make appropriate responses to retain their 
     customers before the competition fully materializes. 
     Similarly, it appears as if Florida schools that foresee 
     the imminent challenge of having to compete for their 
     students take the necessary steps to retain their students 
     and stave off that competition.
       While the evidence presented in the report supports the 
     claims of advocates of an accountability system and advocates 
     of choice and competition in education, the results cannot be 
     considered definitive. First, the A-Plus Program is still 
     relatively new and its effects might change, for the better 
     or worse, as the program matures. Second, only two schools in 
     the state have actually had vouchers offered to their 
     students because the schools had received two failing grades. 
     It remains to be seen whether the number of schools where 
     students are eligible for vouchers grows in future years. If 
     the number does not grow, it is possible that the prospect of 
     having vouchers offered to students will not seem so imminent 
     to schools and they will not face the same incentives to 
     improve.
       Third, one could offer alternative explanations for the 
     results reported in this study. For example, critics might 
     suggest that the findings reported in this study might be 
     produced by manipulation of FCAT results that may be 
     localized among schools that faced the prospect of receiving 
     a second failing grade. That is, perhaps the high correlation 
     between FCAT and Stanford 9 results does not verify the 
     validity of the FCAT among F schools who may face 
     particularly strong incentives to cheat or manipulate 
     results. If one breaks out the correlations between the FCAT 
     and Stanford 9 results by state-assigned grade and grade 
     level of the test, however, we find that the correlations 
     generally remain high even if we only examine F schools. As 
     can be seen in Table 4, the correlation on the reading score 
     is never lower than 0.77 and never below 0.79 on the math 
     scores for F schools. And the correlations for the F schools 
     are comparable to the correlations for schools with higher 
     state-assigned grades. Focusing on correlations between the 
     FCAT and Stanford 9 results only among F schools tends to 
     refute the claim that cheating or manipulation may be 
     localized among failing schools.

  TABLE 4.--VERIFYING THE VALIDITY OF THE FCAT RESULTS FOR EACH STATE-
                             ASSIGNED GRADE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Grade Level
           Correlation between           -------------------------------
                                             4       5       8      10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                A SCHOOLS
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.71      na    0.89      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.82    0.94    0.98
Number of Schools.......................     121     121      68       8
                B SCHOOLS
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.48      na    0.91      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.74    0.94    0.89
Number of Schools.......................     207     207      89      12
                C SCHOOLS
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.62      na    0.86      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.79    0.89    0.87
Number of Schools.......................     684     684     254     277
                D SCHOOLS
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.74      na    0.87      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.83    0.89    0.90
Number of Schools.......................     436     436      92      55
                F SCHOOLS
FCAT reading and Stanford 9 reading.....    0.77      na    0.99      na
FCAT math and Stanford 9 math...........      na    0.79    0.98    0.99
Number of Schools.......................      66      66       5      4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All correlations are statistically significant at p<.01.
na=not available.

       As another alternative explanation critics might suggest 
     that F schools experienced larger improvements in FCAT scores 
     because of a phenomenon known as regression to the mean. 
     There may be a statistical tendency of very high and very 
     low-scoring schools to report future scores that return to 
     being closer to the average for the whole population. This 
     tendency is created by non-random error in the test scores, 
     which can be especially problematic when scores are 
     ``bumping'' against the top or bottom of the scale for 
     measuring results. If a school has a score of 2 on a scale 
     from 0 to 100, it is hard for students to do worse by chance 
     but easier for them to do better by chance. Low-scoring 
     schools that are near the bottom of the scale are very likely 
     to improve, even if it is only a statistical fluke.
       In the case of the FCAT results, however, regression to the 
     mean is not a likely explanation for the exceptional 
     improvement displayed by F schools because the scores for 
     those schools were nowhere near the bottom of the scale for 
     possible results. The average F school reading score was 
     254.70 in 1999, far above the lowest possible score of 100. 
     The average math score for F schools was 272.51 on the 1999 
     FCAT, also far above the lowest possible score of 100. And on 
     the FCAT writing exam the average F score received a 2.40 on 
     a scale from 1 to 6, also not likely to cause a bounce 
     against the bottom. Given how far the F schools are from the 
     bottom of the scale, regression to the mean does not appear 
     to be a likely explanation of the gains achieved by F 
     schools.
       Another way to test for regression to the mean is to 
     isolate the gains achieved by the schools with the very 
     lowest scores from the previous year. If the improvements 
     made by F schools were concentrated among those F schools 
     with the lowest previous scores, then we might worry that the 
     improvements were more of an indication of regression to the 
     mean (or bouncing against the bottom) than an indication of 
     the desire to avoid having vouchers offered to the students 
     in failing schools. We can test this proposition by 
     constructing a simple regression model that predicts the 
     improvement in FCAT scores for

[[Page H2640]]

     those F schools with previous test scores below average for F 
     schools, for those F schools with previous test scores above 
     average for F schools, and for all schools based on how low 
     their previous scores were. The below average F schools are 
     our proxy for a regression to the mean effect. If their gains 
     are not significantly greater than higher-scoring F schools, 
     then we can reasonably exclude regression to the mean as a 
     likely explanation. All F schools should have experienced a 
     similar motivation to improve to avoid vouchers. But if 
     regression to the mean were operating, then the lowest-
     scoring F schools should have made significantly greater 
     improvements because they would be more likely to be bouncing 
     against the bottom of the scale.
       As can be seen in Table 5, the gains achieved by low-
     scoring F schools are not greater than the gains achieved by 
     higher-scoring F schools. For analyses of the reading, math, 
     and writing results the higher-scoring F schools experienced 
     gains comparable to those gains experienced by low-scoring F 
     schools. This means that all F schools, whether they were 
     ``bounding'' against the bottom of the scale or not, produced 
     similar improvements. According to these models, schools that 
     faced the prospect of vouchers by virtue of having received 
     an F grade made improvements on their reading FCAT that were 
     approximately 4 points higher than would be expected simply 
     from how low their previous score was. The exceptional gain 
     achieved by F schools on the math FCAT was approximately 8 
     points and the exceptional gain on the writing FCAT was 
     approximately one-quarter of a point on a 6-point scale. All 
     of these results are statistically significant. These results 
     are also consistent with the voucher effect estimated using 
     the analyses reported in Table 3.
       It was a general pattern that schools with lower previous 
     scores made larger improvements. This effect of simply having 
     an accountability system in place to put pressure on lower-
     performing schools operated across all grades, inspiring low-
     scoring A, B, C, and D schools to improve. But F schools made 
     gains that were even larger than would have been expected 
     simply given how low their previous scores were. The 
     exceptional incentive that existed for schools that had an F 
     grade was the desire to avoid the prospect of vouchers. We 
     might therefore attribute this improvement realized by F 
     schools beyond what would be expected given their low 
     previous score as their ``voucher'' gain. Because higher-
     scoring and lower-scoring F schools experienced comparable 
     exceptional improvements, we can have some confidence that 
     this is a voucher effect and not a regression to the mean 
     effect. And all schools, across all grades, faced some 
     motivation to improve lower scores simply by virtue of having 
     an accountability system in place.
       It therefore appears as if two forces were in effect to 
     motivate schools to improve. Schools had some motivation to 
     improve simply to avoid the embarrassment of low FCAT scores. 
     This motivation operated across all state-assigned grades. 
     But schools with F scores had a second and very strong 
     incentive to improve to avoid vouchers.
       While one cannot anticipate or rule out all plausible 
     alternative explanations for the findings reported in this 
     study, one should follow the general advice to expect horses 
     when one hears hoof beats, not zebras. The most plausible 
     interpretation of the evidence is that the Florida A-Plus 
     system relies upon a valid system of testing and produces the 
     desired incentives to failing schools to improve their 
     performance.

    TABLE 5.--REGRESSION ANALYSES OF THE EFFECT OF PRIOR SCORES AND FAILING STATUS ON FCAT SCORE IMPROVEMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Reading                    Math                     Writing
             Variable              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Effect      P-Value       Effect      P-Value       Effect      P-Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Previous Score..............         0.19         0.00         0.15         0.00         0.14         0.00
Higher-Scoring F Schools..........         3.92         0.02         7.93         0.00         0.23         0.00
Lower-Scoring F Schools...........         2.93         0.11         7.24         0.00         0.39         0.00
Constant..........................        61.67         0.00        59.28         0.00         0.89         0.00
Adjusted R-Square.................         0.16                      0.12                      0.12
Number of Schools.................        2,392                     2,392                     2,392
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dependent variable is the change in FCAT scores from 1999 to 2000. P-values below .05 are generally
  considered statistically significant.

                                 Notes

       1. ``The Harmful Impact of the TAAS System of Testing in 
     Texas: Beneath the Accountability Rhetoric,'' May 1, 2000. 
     Available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/
conferences/testing98/drafts/mcneil__valenzuela.html. 
     Accessed most recently on December 20, 2000.
       2. ``The myth of the Texas miracle in education,'' 
     Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41), August 19, 2000. 
     Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41. Accessed most 
     recently on December 20, 2000.
       3. ``Improving Student Achievement: What NAEP State Test 
     Scores Tell Us,'' by David W. Grissmer, Ann Flanagan, 
     Jennifer Kawata, and Stephanie Williamson, The Rand 
     Corporation, June 25, 2000. Available at http://www.rand.org/
 publications/MR/MR924/. Accessed most recently on December 
     20, 2000.
       4. Although low stakes also introduce the danger that 
     students or schools will not devote sufficient effort to 
     demonstrating their true level of performance.
       5. For a critique of the Klein and Grissmer reports see 
     Eric Hanushek, ``Deconstructing RAND,'' Education Matters, 
     Spring 2001. The article is available on-line at 
     www.edmatters.org.
6. ``The Texas School Miracle is for Real,'' by Jay P. 
     Greene, City Journal, Summer 2000. Available at http://
www.city-journal.org/html/10__3__the__texas__school.html. 
     Accessed most recently on December 20, 2002.
       7. For a summary of recent research see ``A Survey of 
     Results from Voucher Experiments: Where We Are and What We 
     Know,'' by Jay P. Greene, Civic Report 11, The Manhattan 
     Institute for Policy Research, July 2000. Available at http:/
     /www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr__11.htm. Accessed most 
     recently on December 20, 2000.
       After that summary was written two important voucher 
     studies were released. One is ``Test-Score Effects of School 
     Vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington D.C.: 
     Evidence from Randomized Field Trials,'' by William G. 
     Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, Paul E. Peterson and David E. 
     Campbell, August 2000. Available at: http://
www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/. The other is ``The Effect of 
     School Choice: An Evaluation of the Charlotte Children's 
     Scholarship Fund,'' by Jay P. Greene, Civic Report 12, The 
     Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, August, 2000. 
     Available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/
cr__12a.htm.
       8. See ``Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit 
     Students and Taxpayers?'' by Caroline Minter-Hoxby, The 
     American Economic Review, December 2000; and ``The Education 
     Freedom Index'' by Jay P. Greene, Civic Report 14, The 
     Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 2000.
       9. This technique addresses what is technically known as 
     the concurrent validity of the FCAT. It does not address 
     whether the letter grades assigned by the state are based on 
     appropriate cutoff points in the test results. That is, this 
     report does not address whether schools given an A in Florida 
     truly deserve an A or whether D schools should really receive 
     an F. To use a metaphor familiar to most students, this 
     report only examines the validity of the test, not the 
     validity of the curve used to assign grades.
       10. The Florida Department of Education also has FCAT 
     scores on its web site at http://www.firn.edu/doe/cgi-bin/
doehome/menu.pl. However the web site only has scores for 
     standard curriculum students in 1999 and all students in 
     2000. This study used scores for standard curriculum students 
     in both years. Earlier analyses on these results from the web 
     site do not produce results that are substantively different 
     from those reported here. This suggests that the inlcusion or 
     exclusion of test scores from special needs students have 
     little bearing on the conclusions of this evaluation.
       11. The correlation between results of test averages for a 
     school will be higher than correlations between the results 
     of individual student test scores. Nevertheless, these 
     school-level correlations are quite high.
       12. The within sample standard deviation for the FCAT 
     reading scores is 21.94, making the gain achieved by the F 
     schools equivalent of .80 standard deviations.
       13. The within sample standard deviation for the FCAT math 
     scores is 20.59, making the gain achieved by the F schools 
     the equivalent of 1.25 standard deviations.
       14. The within sample standard deviation for the FCAT 
     writing scores is .39, making the gain achieved by the F 
     schools the equivalent of 2.23 standard deviations.
       15. For a case study that documents the extent to which 
     improvements at failing schools can be attributed to the 
     prospect of vouchers, see Carol Innerst, ``Competing to Win: 
     How Florida's A-Plan Has Triggered Public School Reform,'' 
     Urban League of Greater Miami, Inc., The Collins Center for 
     Public Policy, Floridians for School Choice, The James 
     Madison Institute, and the Center for Education Reform, 
     April, 2000.
       16. In fact, the high-scoring F schools had slightly higher 
     average test scores from the previous year than did the low-
     scoring D schools. This is possible because the state-
     assigned grade is determined by the percentage of students 
     above certain thresholds on the test score, not by the 
     average test score for the school.
       17. High-scoring F schools are those with previous scores 
     that were above average for F schools. Low-scoring D schools 
     are those with previous scores below average for their grade.
       18. Finn, J.D., and C.M. Achilles (1999), ``Tennessee's 
     Class Size Study: Findings, Implications, and 
     Misconceptions,'' Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 
     21(2): 97-109.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1 as reported by 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This bipartisan

[[Page H2641]]

legislation strengthens education in this country.
  As good as the bill before us is, it won't mean much if Congress does 
not provide the funding at the levels promised in H.R. 1. All of us 
need to understand what we're doing here. We are pledging a significant 
increase in federal resources to elementary and secondary education in 
this country. In exchange, local school districts will increase the 
emphasis on educational standards and academic results. Under this 
bill, school districts will be held accountable for doing so.
  There is an old saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. 
I am concerned that this is precisely what a majority of this House has 
in mind when they promise increased federal funding for education 
today, only to vote to lock in an oversized tax cut later this week. 
This is a risky gamble. The increased aid for education we're voting 
for today, as well as the $1.35 trillion tax cut we will vote on later, 
are both predicated on future budget surplus projections that are 
anything but certain. The Congressional Budget Office has cautioned us 
that these surplus estimates are not written in stone. If we lock in an 
oversized tax cut, and the budget surplus evaporates down the line, 
there will not be enough money left to meet the promises we are making 
today to fund education.
  Even if the surplus numbers turn out to be correct, the size of the 
tax cut would still threaten education funding since all of us know 
that the defense budget is still tentative pending completion of the 
Administration's strategic review. It's a near certainty that defense 
spending will rise by hundreds of billions of dollars beyond what is 
currently budgeted. The tax cut makes no allowance for this. We will 
have had our cake, but left our schools with crumbs and yet another 
unfunded federal mandate. This is the last thing we should do to our 
children.
  Again, I urge all my colleagues to support education today by voting 
for H.R. 1. Just as importantly, I urge you to support education later 
this week when you are casting your vote on the tax cut.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, it was with great reservation that I 
will vote yea on final passage of H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The children of this country deserve the best education 
that is available, regardless of whether they attend a public or 
private school. I believe that there are parts of this bill that will 
serve these children and others that could see some improvement.
  I am very pleased that this bill will double the authorization level 
for Title I over the next five years to $17.2 billion. This increase in 
funding will assist our schools in closing the achievement gap for 
disadvantaged students, something which is of vital importance to the 
children living in cities such as Detroit. This increase will be 
targeted to improve low performing schools through the investment of 
additional help and resources. I am also encouraged by the fact that 
this bill will permit parents of children in low performing schools to 
use Title I funds to provide supplemental educational services such as 
tutoring, after-school programs and summer school.
  My reservations in voting for the passage of this bill stem from the 
fact that this bill does not include funds for new school construction. 
There are too many schools in this country that are falling into 
disrepair. Our children are crammed into overcrowded classrooms, and 
this bill does nothing to help resolve this problem.
  I am also very concerned about the provision in this bill that 
requires annual math and reading testing of students in grades three 
through eight. I agree that testing is one way to assess the abilities 
of a student; however, I fear that these tests will be used to 
undermine schools in the inner city. Low test scores may very well lead 
to the closing of schools, when instead we should be providing these 
students with additional resources. Every child should be provided with 
the resources that will help them to excel academically. We must 
provide these children and their teachers with additional assistance 
and opportunities. I hope that these test results will serve to show us 
what schools and specific students need our assistance, and will not 
serve only as a reason to close down much needed schools.
  In closing, I reiterate my support for the increase in Title I 
funding. The students in my district will directly benefit form these 
funds. I thank my colleagues for their support of this bill, and hope 
that in the future we will recognize the importance of funding new 
school construction as well.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1 and the technical changes to the Impact Aid program. Impact 
Aid compensates local educational agencies for the substantial and 
continuing financial burden resulting from federal activities.
  Impact Aid is one of the only federal education programs where the 
funds are sent directly to the school district, so there is almost no 
bureaucracy. In addition, these funds go into the general fund, and may 
be used as the local school district decides. As a result, the funds 
are used for the education of all students.
  Last year, the Defense Authorization Conference Report included the 
Department of Education Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2001 which 
contained a small school provision that addressed some of the concerns 
that small school districts have had with regard to funding levels. It 
was the intent of the provision to recognize two public school finance 
facts: (1) that small schools are significantly more expensive to 
operate; and (2) that the changes in the proration of available funds 
in the 1994 Impact Aid Reauthorization devastated small schools. The 
small school provision provided a funding floor for small school 
districts with fewer than 1,000 children who have a per pupil average 
lower than the state average. It also guaranteed these schools receive 
a foundation payment of no less than 40% of what they would receive if 
the program were fully funded.
  However, there was an oversight on the part of the framers of the 
current law. The option to select the higher of the state or national 
average was not recommended for the current law. For this reason, I 
support the minor modification to the small school provision. The 
concept of a school district having the choice between the ``higher of 
the state average or the national average'' is already used in the 
payment calculation for the basic impact aid support payment and the 
heavily impacted district payment. Therefore, this technical correction 
is consistent with already existing Impact Aid laws.
  By increasing its support of the Impact Aid program, the federal 
government can assist these schools in providing a quality education to 
thousands of children across the country. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Millions of students 
depend on the Impact Aid program for a quality education. Let's not 
disappoint them.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, 
which provides for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. While I support the underlying bill, I opposed the rule, 
which prevented consideration of key amendments--including School 
Modernization and Class Size Reduction. In addition, the rule 
authorized consideration of several flawed proposals, including the 
Armey/Boehner/DeLay school voucher amendment, the DeMint Straight A's 
amendment, and the Cox amendment to drastically reduce the bill's 
authorization levels.
  This bipartisan bill represents a compromise negotiated between 
Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, and the Bush 
Administration, and contains important bipartisan provisions to improve 
the accountability of schools and school districts. As an original co-
sponsor of the ``3R's'' legislation, I believe this compromise 
legislation is rightly focused on developing and implementing high 
standards in the core academic subject areas, while also holding 
schools accountable for academic achievement. This legislation also 
provides substantial new resources, totaling $4 billion in additional 
funds for elementary and secondary education in exchange for higher 
standards and tough accountability rules. To ensure higher academic 
achievement, H.R. 1 requires students in grades three through eight to 
be tested annually in math and reading. While testing is not a panacea 
and can be counterproductive in some instances, I believe we must 
ensure that parents, teachers and school administrators have a reliable 
gauge of student development. Testing must, however, be matched with 
sufficient resources to ensure children who do not score well can get 
the assistance they need to learn. This bill moves in that direction. 
If a school does not make adequate progress after one year, it would 
have to allow students to transfer to other public schools and the 
school would have to pay the students' transportation costs. I believe 
that each of these initiatives are vital to improve public schools and 
student achievement, and critical components to effective school 
reform.
  While H.R. 1 takes a positive step towards helping students achieve 
academically, I believe we must also reject any amendments to divert 
public funds to private schools and provide block grant funding to the 
states. I strongly oppose any attempts to divert federal funds away 
from public schools and to private or parochial educational 
institutions. Vouchers would undermine the accountability for student 
achievement that is a strong component of H.R. 1. Furthermore, there is 
no evidence that vouchers will improve achievement for disadvantaged 
students. Vouchers do not increase parental choice, since the choice 
for admission would rest with private schools. Most importantly, I 
believe federal funding must be invested in proven public schools that 
help all students.
  I am also opposed to any attempt to add Straight A's provisions to 
this bill, which regardless of its name, would undermine the

[[Page H2642]]

federal role in education and would institute bad public policy. 
Essentially, the Straight A's proposal would block grant federal 
programs and erode meaningful involvement of parents and other school 
officials. The Straight A's provisions would take away any real 
accountability for how federal money is spent and severely weaken local 
control over the use of federal education dollars. The Straight A's 
proposal would allow states to block grant and use for other purposes 
federal funds that are now dedicated to specific national concerns, 
such as improving education for disadvantaged children, enhancing 
teacher quality, reducing class sizes and promoting high standards. 
Block granting federal funds will direct resources away from low income 
student with the greatest needs, and undermine accountability in 
education. I urge my colleagues to reject the Straight A's amendments 
offered today.
  I also oppose passage of the Cox amendment, which would cut $2.3 
billion from Fiscal Year 2002 authorized funding levels and prevent any 
real increases above inflation in future years. Mr. Speaker, if we are 
to consider a reduction in spending levels, we should do so through the 
appropriations process, not through consideration of this bill. 
Instead, we should support the bipartisan authorization levels provided 
in H.R. 1, which includes $5.4 billion for critical investments in ESEA 
programs. Without adequate resources, schools will be unable to provide 
real results and our nation's children will suffer as a result.
  Mr. Chairman, with passage of the underlying bill, we can strengthen 
our commitment to improving education through support for successful 
and cost-effective education programs. H.R. 1 strikes an appropriate 
balance in improving public schools and student achievement. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1 as offered today, and reject the Straight 
A's and school voucher amendments.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to any 
amendment that would allow block granting of federal education 
programs, including Title I. There are various problems associated with 
some of the amendments that my colleagues are offering to H.R. 1, 
legislation that would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA). As you know, Title I of the ESEA provides 
targeted federal resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students 
have access to a quality education. The block granting of programs 
under Title I and other titles of the bill dilutes targeting for 
special needs populations. This would result in significant funding 
shifts among localities and would weaken accountability of federal 
funds.
  For example, in Title III of H.R. 1, the current Bilingual Education 
Act (BEA), Emergency Immigrant Education Program (EIEP), and the 
Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) are consolidated into one 
formula driven state grant. I oppose consolidation of these three 
programs because it would dilute federal resources to serve three 
distinct and separate student populations. Given the rising number of 
limited English proficient (LEP) students and the diverse needs of 
recent immigrant students, local schools need a targeted amount of 
federal resources to provide adequate services to each group.
  BEA provides startup funds for schools to develop quality services 
for LEP students, whereas EIEP reimburses schools for the extra costs 
associated with helping newly arrived immigrant students succeed in 
school--services that go far beyond language classes. Finally, the 
third program to be consolidated under Title III is FLAP, which helps 
native English speaking students learn a foreign language. 
Consolidation ignores the distinctiveness of each of these programs and 
dilutes the funds available to students in need.
  Mr. Chairman, while I applaud the bipartisan support for this 
legislation, I ask my colleagues to oppose any amendments that would 
consolidate federal funds into state block grants.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I want to praise President Bush for putting 
forth an education plan that offered children in failing schools a 
chance to get a better education. It is too bad that Democrats and 
supporters of the failing status quo were allowed to gut the 
legislation, H.R. 1, at the Committee level to remove any chance for 
failing schools to successfully improve their performance or to let 
parents have the option to move their children to better schools.
  I believe that control of education should be retained at the local 
level. Last year, Illinois high school students led the nation in 
Advanced Placement scores. With a few exceptions we have good schools 
in the 8th District and I don't want to force local parents, school 
boards, and teachers into a one-size fits all approach that might work 
in New York City or Atlanta but not in Barrington or Wauconda.
  One of the reasons I support tax relief, including eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty and doubling the child tax credit, is because it 
lets 70,000 married couples and families with 125,000 children in the 
8th District of Illinois keep $162 million per year in their pockets. 
That is $162 million per year that families could spend in our district 
on education if they chose to do so.
  When we send a dollar to the federal government from Illinois, we 
only get 73 cents back. In my district, we send more than $2 to 
Washington and only get a dollar back. With a return like this, it is 
easy to see why I support letting taxpayers keep more of their hard 
earned money and having parents decide locally how their money should 
be spent on education.
  I believe the best way to improve education is to return dollars and 
decisions back home to the parents and teachers who know our children's 
names and their educational needs. That is why I am a cosponsor of The 
Dollars to the Classroom Act, a bill that directs federal elementary 
and secondary education funding for 31 programs directly to public 
school classrooms of this country.
  Federal education funding is at an all-time high, and H.R. 1 
increases it by a huge amount, yet student achievement continues to 
lag. Most Republicans in Congress want to give local schools more 
freedom to use new models to solve old problems while maintaining high 
accountability standards. H.R. 1 in its current form does not come 
close to accomplishing this worthy goal.
  Former President Ronald Reagan, in a March 12, 1983 radio address to 
the nation on education, said, ``Better education doesn't mean a bigger 
Department of Education. In fact, that Department should be abolished. 
Instead, we must do a better job teaching the basics, insisting on 
discipline and results, encouraging competition and, above all, 
remembering that education does not begin with Washington officials or 
even State and local officials. It begins in the home, where it is the 
right and responsibility of every American.''
  The legislation now before the House heads in the other direction. it 
continues increasing the amount of taxpayer money sent to the 
bureaucrats at the Department of Education while, as President Reagan 
said in his radio address, ``our traditions of opportunity and 
excellence in education have been under siege. We've witnessed the 
growth of a huge education bureaucracy. Parents have often been reduced 
to the role of outsiders.''
  One concept that has strong support from parents is President Bush's 
proposal to improve public education by testing children in reading and 
math in grades three through eight once each year. Under President 
Bush's proposal, schools would be held accountable for either improving 
scores within three years or losing their federal money, which accounts 
for seven cents of every education dollar. The rest comes from states 
and localities.
  I voted against the amendment co-sponsored by Congressmen Peter 
Hoekstra and Barney Frank to remove President Bush's test requirement 
from the bill. The tough new testing regimen designed to identify 
failing public schools--an idea at the heart of President Bush's 
education plan--survived when the amendment failed. But the rest of the 
President's plan to give local schools more control to make the changes 
necessary to improve and to give parents the option to move their 
children to a better school were stripped out of the bill.
  For the reasons I have outlined, I decided to vote against H.R. 1. I 
want to praise President Bush for his leadership in proposing creative 
solutions to improving the education of our children. I encourage him 
to continue to move the federal government out of the way and to give 
schools more flexibility and parents more choices for their children.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the No 
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
  I want to commend Representative George Miller and the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce for reporting out a bill that will help to 
improve this nation's elementary and secondary education system by 
making students a priority, by providing school accountability and by 
giving financial support to our schools to train and recruit quality 
teachers.
  H.R. 1 provides a clear signal that this Congress has prioritized 
children's education. It provides $5.5 billion of valuable new 
resources in Fiscal Year 2002 over the previous year for elementary and 
secondary education. More specifically, it builds upon the Federal 
commitment to ensure that children from disadvantaged families get an 
opportunity to receive a quality education by doubling the funding for 
the Education for the Disadvantaged Program over the next 5 years.
  The bill also maintains the Federal commitment to expand quality 
after school programs by increasing funding for the 21st Century 
Learning Center After School program. Furthermore, it

[[Page H2643]]

provides additional funding to help our children learn in safe school 
environments by authorizing more funding for the Safe and Free Drug 
Schools.
  H.R. 1 helps to create a strong school accountability system by 
providing new funds to states to develop statewide educational 
standards and standardized student tests. These standards and tests 
will give parents information so that they can measure the quality of 
education that the school system is providing for their children. 
Parents are also empowered to monitor the quality of their children's 
education through this bill's requirement that states, local school 
agencies and schools must issue report cards to parents on aspects of 
school performance and teacher's qualifications.
  This legislation signals to teachers that the federal government 
supports their efforts to educate our children by providing almost $2 
billion in new resources for teacher training, recruitment and school 
class size reduction next year.
  I also support this bill for the provisions that are left out. I am 
pleased that this Congress made the wise decision to reject private 
school vouchers. At the moment, public schools are underfunded. 
Diverting resources to a few students so that they can go to private 
schools does not resolve the issue of creating an excellent educational 
system for all students. At best, the capacity of private schools can 
only accommodate a small proportion of students' educational needs at 
the expense of fewer resources for all students.
  Although this bipartisan bill is encouraging, I am concerned that the 
legislation that Congress passes today will not get the necessary 
appropriated funds for schools to implement it. A few weeks ago, the 
Majority passed a Budget Resolution that only increased education by 
$0.9 billion for next year. This amount is far short of the $5.5 
billion of additional resources authorized for this legislation next 
year. I hope that my colleagues in the Majority who vote for this bill 
put their money where their mouths are by appropriating the necessary 
funds to implement this bill. Otherwise, this bill will become another 
hollow promise.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1 and help to create an 
education system that puts students first, creates strong school 
accountability and provides valuable financial support to improve 
teacher quality.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express both my support and 
concern for provisions of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act.
  Since taking office, President Bush has made education reform 
legislation a centerpiece of his administration's domestic policy. I 
sincerely believe that the President has the very best of intentions to 
address real problems in our nation's schools.
  The legislation before us today represents a great departure from 
current federal education policy--a policy that contains more than 50 
duplicative programs and funding streams and burdens our administrators 
with paperwork. H.R. 1 provides unprecedented flexibility to local 
school districts, while retaining the overall purpose behind federal 
funding by targeting it to the students and districts that need them 
the most. It reduces the paperwork burden currently imposed by federal 
programs so that school administrators have time to do what they were 
hired to do--educate our kids.
  I am extremely concerned, however, with the provision of the bill 
mandating yearly testing in grades 3 through 8. Administrators, parents 
and teachers in my district have expressed concern to me regarding the 
testing provisions of H.R. 1. They point out that Kansas currently 
tests students in order to determine progress and close the achievement 
gap. I understand that the President believes that yearly testing is 
absolutely essential to tracking student performance and promoting 
accountability. I share his belief that we should closely track the 
progress of students, but I am very concerned that this bill does not 
include adequate funding for school districts to implement the tests 
yearly. I understand that administering these tests could cost the 
state of Kansas nearly $10 million per year, a sum that is not 
adequately provided for in this bill or in the President's budget.
  Recently, the Kansas State Legislature completed its business for the 
year, having faced a revenue shortfall of over $200 million, directly 
resulting in a lack of adequate funding for Kansas schools. Even 
Governor Graves, reflecting on large tax cuts of previous years, 
recommended a tax increase to meet the revenue shortfall for education 
funding. Unfortunately, the Governor's proposal failed and the State 
Legislature has still not adequately funded education in Kansas.
  Like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I am extremely 
concerned that this bill, although well-meaning, will shift an 
additional unfunded financial burden to local school districts that are 
already struggling. We in Congress need to accept that real education 
reform will require a substantial investment on the federal level, and 
not a cost-shifting strategy that leaves local school districts holding 
the bag.
  A serious dialogue needs to begin, between Congress, the public, and 
those concerned with the quality of education about the value and 
efficacy of testing, the frequency of testing and the need for local 
authority for testing. We in Congress should listen to the concerns of 
teachers, administrators and parents about ``over-testing'' and 
incentives to ``teach to the test.'' These concerns are often easily 
dismissed, but I believe that they are valid and have not been 
adequately addressed by those who support yearly testing.
  The White House has made it clear that without the testing component, 
this bill would not be signed into law. Knowing this, I voted against 
the Hoekstra/Frank amendment to strip the testing provisions from the 
bill, despite grave reservations about the testing component. I am 
supporting this bill because I believe that it is fundamentally sound 
and bipartisan. It greatly improves current law by providing increased 
flexibility to local school districts while maintaining the federal 
focus on disadvantaged students. I support, and wish to encourage, the 
efforts of the President and the Democratic and Republican leaders who 
have worked together on this legislation. Drafting legislation is a 
very difficult process, and I doubt that all parties involved will ever 
be completely satisfied with the final product. The bill is not 
perfect, but it is extremely good, and I think it would be a mistake to 
sacrifice the careful balance of the underlying bill and go back to the 
drawing board.
  I believe that this bill can be further improved, before it arrives 
on the President's desk, by addressing the valid concerns that I have 
mentioned. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the conference 
committee to ensure that the concerns of my school administrators, 
teachers and parents are addressed.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend my colleagues on the 
Education and the Workforce Committee for crafting a bill that contains 
landmark investments in education and prioritizes disadvantaged 
children and low-performing schools.
  In total, H.R. 1 authorizes $22.8 billion, about $5 billion more than 
was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This bill creates new 
accountability systems that hold our schools responsible for delivering 
the first-rate education that our children deserve. It tackles the 
problem of illiteracy by creating two new reading programs and 
authorizing them at three times the level of past programs. H.R. 1 
gives children more personal attention and improves teacher quality by 
almost doubling funding for class size reduction and professional 
development for teachers. It authorizes $11.5 billion for Title I in 
2002 with increases over five years that amount to almost twice the 
2001 level. Finally, H.R. 1 rejects both vouchers, which would drain 
resources from public schools, and `Straight As,' which would 
politicize education and deny critical funding to the students who need 
the money most.
  In sum, H.R. 1 is a remarkable measure. My only fear is that the 
budget we were forced to vote on last week so binds our hands that we 
will not be able to keep our promises. By enacting a $1.35 trillion tax 
cut and a four percent cap on discretionary spending increases, we have 
virtually guaranteed that we will not adequately fund all the programs 
we are about to authorize. Mr. Speaker, reforms without resources will 
not produce results.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1. However, we must all 
remember that our job is not over until we meet these obligations 
during the appropriations process.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. After having voted against this 
legislation in the Education and Workforce Committee, today I supported 
President Bush, Chairman Boehner, and Ranking Member Miller and voted 
in favor of this legislation.
  I remain concerned that H.R. 1 does not grant local school districts, 
teachers and parents the degree of flexibility originally contained 
within President Bush's education plan. Yet, I also feel this 
legislation was honestly debated and voted upon on the House floor. I

[[Page H2644]]

am hopeful that through the continuing work of Congress and the 
Conference Committee on H.R. 1, that certain aspects of the President's 
original plan will be reinforced or reinserted.
  I look forward to working with the President and Members of Congress 
to further improve this legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today, I will vote against two 
amendments to H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. In a bill that is 
heralded for promoting greater local decision making authority, both of 
these amendments are efforts to impose federal mandates and place 
strings on schools districts eligible for precious federal dollars.
  Mr. Vitter's amendment to mandate that public schools receiving ESEA 
dollars allow military recruiting is currently playing out at the local 
level in my district. Last night, the Portland School Board voted to 
continue a ban on military recruiters on schools grounds. Military 
service is a rewarding career and vital to our national interests. The 
information recruiters provide can be very helpful to many students. 
But, it's local school districts and their locally elected school 
boards, not politicians 3000 miles away, that should decide whether or 
not the military should be allowed to recruit on school grounds.
  Similarly, the Hilleary Amendment seeks to overturn school district 
decisions to deny access to organizations that discriminate by 
mandating that schools which receive Federal funding allow Boy Scouts 
to meet on their premises. Personally, I agree with the decisions of 
local school districts to ban organizations that engage in 
discriminatory practices from school grounds, but, more importantly, I 
will vote against this amendment because these types of decisions 
should be made by local government entities, not the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, today I will, however, vote in favor of H.R. 1, the 
Leave No Child Behind Act. Since coming to Congress my goal has been to 
ensure that the Federal Government is a better partner in building more 
livable communities. Access to quality public education is a key 
component of a community that is safe, healthy and economically secure.
  While not perfect, H.R. 1, as passed out of the House Education 
Committee, represents a bipartisan agreement that will move us in the 
right direction to providing more support and investment for public 
education. While I support the overall framework that the bill 
provides, there are several amendments that I do not support.
  I am deeply concerned with amendments to block grant federal 
education funds or to provide taxpayer dollars for private schools 
through a voucher system. Both proposals threaten precious Federal 
funding for public schools, most harshly impacting the schools that are 
the most vulnerable. We can reform and improve our public education 
system without diverting funds from our already financially strapped 
public schools.
  Although this bill is an important step forward, there is still 
unfinished business to address if we are sincere about proving 
education in this country. One of the most glaring omissions is the 
lack of funding for school construction. In my state of Oregon, 96 
percent of schools need to be upgraded or repaired. In the Northwest 
alone, 25,000 schools need major repairs or outright replacement. 
Schools can serve a vital function in the community, both as places for 
our children to learn and grow and as a center for community activity, 
but only if our schools are safe places for students and adults to 
learn on modern technology and equipment. Investment in renovation of 
existing schools can significantly enhance community livability.
  H.R. 1 also provides no additional funding for Individuals with 
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). In the 94th Congress, we mandated 
special education access for children with severe learning 
disabilities. Along with that mandate came a promise that the federal 
government would pay 40 percent of the cost, this was the right thing 
to do given the increased costs that are often required to teach 
children with special needs. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has 
yet to fulfill its commitment to IDEA. We have missed yet another 
opportunity today to provide full funding for this critical program.
  Education, like livable communities, is for all of us--not just a 
select few. The Federal Government should lead by example in offering 
the best possible public education to our nation's children. H.R. 1 is 
a good start, but we have a long way to go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 384, 
noes 45, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--384

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--45

     Akin
     Bartlett
     Conyers
     Crane
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner

[[Page H2645]]


     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cubin
     Larson (CT)
     Moakley
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1925

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________