[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.
____________________