Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4121-H4130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, and by direction of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left
behind, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), for him to control under this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been involved in education
policy since 1965. Thirty-six years later we are finally getting
serious about demanding results for our Nation's children.
As the Chicago Tribune noted recently, ``Congress has spent the last
four decades appropriating massive amounts of money to try to even out
the educational experiences that disadvantaged children receive
compared to their more fortunate peers. And in return for that long-
term multi-billion dollar investment, we have gotten more
disappointment. Most states show continuing gaps in achievement between
poor and middle-class kids, and between white and minority students.
Meanwhile, our students have fallen behind those of other countries.''
Washington finally seems ready to put an end to this era of lost
opportunity, thanks to President Bush and reform-minded legislators on
both sides of the political aisle.
The No Child Left Behind Act, H.R. 1, passed this House on May 23 by
a vote of 384 to 45, and reflects each of the four pillars of President
Bush's education reform plan: accountability and testing, flexibility
and local control, funding for what works, and expanded parental
options.
H.R. 1 embodies President Bush's vision for education in America.
That vision says a number of important things.
It says that when States use Federal education dollars, they should
be accountable for getting results.
It says that parents should be empowered with data about the schools
their children are attending, the qualifications of the teachers
teaching their children, and their children's academic progress.
It says Federal education resources should be focused on helping
students who are in the most need of help. We should increase for what
works and ensure Federal education dollars are targeted to where they
will make the biggest impact for our neediest children.
It says that to meet the tough new accountability standards, teachers
and local school officials should have greater flexibility to decide
how to address their students' unique needs.
And it says the parents want to choose the best education possible
for their children, regardless of income level and/or their ethnic
background.
The bills passed by the House and Senate have much in common, but
there are some important differences that must be resolved.
We differ from our colleagues in the Senate on the issue of targeting
resources to our most disadvantaged students, a goal that I think the
House version embraces. We do believe that Federal education resources
should be targeted to helping the most disadvantaged of our students
and helping them to learn to read, to learn English, and to learn math
skills. Accordingly, we passed a bill that focuses funds toward our
poorest students, streamlines bureaucracy and refocuses Federal
education dollars towards students who need help the most.
The Senate bill, by contrast, actually expands the overall number of
programs significantly. It creates many more new programs than does the
House bill, and the overall number of programs is significantly higher.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are 55 currently
funded elementary and secondary education programs, and the Senate bill
would increase that number to 89.
Many new programs added by the Senate may have merit. But the more
programs we create, the harder it becomes to target Federal resources
to the very students that we are trying to help. The more programs we
add, the more we force disadvantaged students to compete for available
funds.

The fact of the matter is that these students already have enough to
compete against. Life's circumstances are competition enough for most
of them. They should not have to compete for the opportunity to learn
to read, to learn English, or to learn to add and subtract and
multiply.
There are other areas where we are going to need to address issues as
well:
We must assist on real accountability. Parents should be empowered
with data, and States should be required to demonstrate that they are
using Federal resources to close the achievement gaps that exist
between disadvantaged students and their peers.
We must give States and local school districts the flexibility they
need to address their students' unique needs and meet the higher
expectations that we are placing on them.
And we must ensure that there is an escape route for students trapped
in dangerous, failing schools that just do not change. The House bill
provides for immediate public and charter school choice to parents with
children in failing public schools. We hope our Senate colleagues will
join us in embracing this new option for parents.
We look forward to taking the final step in what has been a very long
process this year. We are looking forward to sending to the President
an education bill that reflects his principles and begins making an
immediate impact for students in schools all across America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.

[[Page H4122]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference. We
have a historic opportunity to come out of this conference with an
education reform bill that will benefit America's children. In May we
passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to ensure that all schools are
held accountable for producing real results for our children.
I want to particularly thank the members of our Committee on
Education and Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner),
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer),
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens), for all of their hard work in the negotiating
sessions, and all of the other Members of the committee for their
willingness to stick with these very difficult reforms in this effort
to make a difference for education for our low-income children.
H.R. 1 requires that schools not only lift up the performance of all
students, white, African American, Hispanic, rich, poor, limited
English, proficient and disabled; but it also requires that we close
the achievement gap between these students and others.
We have had some serious discussions about accountability provisions
in conference. The President and the Congress, the House and the
Senate, Democrats and Republicans are all on record in support of
closing the achievement gaps between rich and poor and between minority
and majority students.

{time} 1100

I am optimistic that we can set high standards that drive our public
school systems toward that goal. Make no mistake about it: There will
be, and there already is, a great deal of pressure from those who
resist change, those who want to maintain the status quo, those who
want to make sure that nothing ever changes in this system, but those
are the same people that have given us the results that Americans find
so repugnant. We need to change the system, we must bring about that
change, and we must understand that that is the intent of the bill.
There are those that say they cannot get students proficient in 12
years. All I can say is, thank God they were not in the room with
President Jefferson when he launched Lewis and Clark, because they
would have never gotten across the Mississippi. And thank God they were
not in the room with John Kennedy when he launched the program to put a
man on the moon, because they would have never left the Beltway.
Their response to this bill is that they are going to dumb down
tests, that they are to teach to the tests. That is the response of the
American education system in this country? I hope not. I hope they
recognize the challenge and the intent that Congress has put in this
legislation, to substantially and dramatically change and improve and
hold accountable the American education system to the children it
teaches and to the parents that send them there.
We have ignored the educational inequities in our country for far too
long. This legislation will go a long ways toward addressing these
pressing problems. To do the job right, we must fight to match the
powerful new reforms in this bill with significant new resources. The
House and the Senate bill make this commitment in different ways, but
let me say this: In the end, it will not be enough to up the
authorizations and congratulate ourselves. The critical step will be
making good on these promises by following through with them in real
dollars in the appropriations process.
No one believes that we can really do public education reform on the
cheap and get the results that all Americans are demanding. If we are
to truly achieve real education reform, we will have to do our share in
providing the necessary resources to fully fund special education, to
support and train teachers, to turn around failing schools, and to
repair and to modernize classrooms.
I also hope the conference will embrace a new bipartisan local
flexibility, rather than letting States dictate local prerogatives
through unaccountable block grants. Provisions in the Senate
legislation would block grant much of the funding in this legislation,
while sacrificing the accountability and the targeting of resources to
the disadvantaged schools.
This legislation also gives us an opportunity to ensure that all
teachers, in all classrooms, in front of all students, are fully
qualified. Nothing is more shameful than having America's children
shortchanged by uncertified teachers or unqualified teachers to teach
the subject matter for which they have been hired. Study after study
continues to show the impact that unqualified teachers have on the
education of our children. The final conference report needs to reverse
this troubling trend by investing additional funding in professional
development, in teacher training, while ensuring that Federal funds are
only used to pay fully qualified teachers.
Mr. Speaker, we can do this. This legislation does this. The question
will be whether or not the conference committee can proceed toward
these goals or whether or not the forces of the status quo will be
sufficient to hold us back. I hope they will not be. I intend that they
will not be. I know that the chairman agrees with that notion.
Mr. Speaker, this is about real reform, real accountability and real
results and real resources. That is the goal of this legislation. That
is, I believe, the goal of the conference committee, and I look forward
to joining our Senate colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. I also rise in support of the motion to go to conference on H.R.
1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
I would like to start by expressing my thanks to both the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member, for their
hard work on this bipartisan legislation. If my colleagues heard their
speeches here today, they realize what a sincere and deep-seated effort
they have put in to making sure this legislation comes to fruition. We
should all appreciate it.
With this motion to go to conference, we take the next step in our
journey to fundamentally change the way children are educated in this
country. Both the House and Senate bills embrace accountability with
annual testing for all students in grades 3 through 8, create new
options for parents of low-income students in failing schools, and
provide unprecedented flexibility in the use of Federal dollars,
placing more control into the hands of local school administrators and
teachers. This pressure from above for high standards and competition
from below to provide parents and students with information and options
will help us rededicate our schools and ourselves to the joint
principles of equality and excellence.
While the House and Senate bills differ somewhat on the best way to
achieve these goals, we are united in our effort to ensure that no
child, regardless of his or her challenges or abilities, is beyond the
reach of our public school system. In that, we share President Bush's
strong desire to complete action on this legislation; and while
negotiations will be lively, I believe no issue will be insurmountable.
Some of these key differences include funding, program consolidation,
and the appropriate degree of program and spending flexibility, both at
the State and local levels. Specifically, while both bills dramatically
increase spending to carry out the reforms and visions of the
President's No Child Left Behind plan, the Senate version authorizes a
full $8.8 billion more than the House. While we should not be adverse
to increasing funding for programs that have been proven to work, we
should not support additional increases if they are not tied to high
standards and real accountability. To do so would defend and perpetuate
the status quo.
Both bills also provide new flexibility. The House version
consolidates similar programs, reducing the total number by a third. It
also provides new freedom for school districts, 100 school districts
nationwide, and allows all schools making adequate yearly

[[Page H4123]]

progress to transfer funds between programs to meet their most pressing
needs.
The Senate bill, on the other hand, actually creates many new
programs; and it focuses its efforts on creating new flexibilities for
States. In negotiating these issues, we should keep our children and
their achievement firmly in mind and resist efforts to add unproven
programs or approaches simply to score political points.
Mr. Speaker, the House passed the education reform bill by a margin
of 384 to 45, and the Senate passed its by a vote of 91 to 8. Without a
doubt, the time for reform is upon us. Now let us move ahead and
support the motion to go to conference.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I join my colleagues in supporting the motion to go to conference
on H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 represents the opportunity to demand results and
report the achievement of all students. The substantially increased
resources provided in both bills, coupled with emphasis on
accountability, is a hopeful recipe for improving our educational
system. In addition to the critical focus on accountability, the
conference report on H.R. 1 will give us the chance to significantly
expand resources and focus on extended learning opportunities for
children after school.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, a priority
initiative retained by both the House and the Senate bills, will
collectively be able to invest in after school enrichment opportunities
for their children.
While our eventual conference points will have many successes, a
resolution of some issues are daunting and will take the hard work of
all conferees to finalize, and we are committed to do that. Some of our
more difficult issues include balancing competing versions of
flexibility at the State and local level, creating a usable and
realistic definition of adequate yearly progress that does not mask
failure, and ensuring that our most disadvantaged receive the targeted
resources they need. While these issues will be fervently discussed, I
believe we can produce a strong bipartisan conference.
Mr. Speaker, we have kept bipartisanship through this whole process
so far, and I think we are committed to keeping that bipartisanship
within the conference.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), who chairs the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of this motion to go to conference on H.R. 1.
In January, when the President presented his No Child Left Behind
education reform proposal, he said, ``Bipartisan education reform will
be the cornerstone of my administration.'' He called on Congress to
work together across party lines to craft legislation; and as a member
of the House drafting team, I am proud of the work we have done so far
under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) in getting us to this point. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member, and all
of the Members of the House are to be commended for their commitment to
bipartisanship but, more importantly, for their commitment to our
Nation's children.
The bill we are sending to conference is a good bill and reflects
most of the President's proposals. This bill was a long time in coming.
We started the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in the last Congress under the previous administration.
After 2 years of debate and several pieces of legislation, we were
unable to put a package together. So today we will send H.R. 1 to
conference to continue the process of instituting historic changes to
our schools and new opportunities for our Nation's children.
Throughout the legislation, H.R. 1 maintains the four pillars of
President Bush's education reform plan: accountability, flexibility and
local control, research-based reform, and expanded parental options.
Specifically, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, I would like to talk about two issues which fall under
my jurisdiction: teacher training and education technology.
First, the teacher title builds upon legislation that I, along with
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking member,
authored in the last Congress, the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is based
upon three principles: teacher excellence, smaller classes, and local
choices. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 does this by consolidating and
streamlining the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the
Class Size Reduction Program into a single program to provide States
and local schools additional flexibility in the use of these funds in
exchange for increased accountability and demonstrated student
achievement. This will provide a major boost to schools in their
efforts to establish and support a high quality teaching force.
Second, in regards to technology, the House bill consolidates a
number of technology programs into a single performance-based grant
program. According to the General Accounting Office, there are 35
Federal programs spread across eight Federal agencies that may be used
as a source of support for telecommunications and information
technology in schools and libraries. By eliminating duplicative
programs under the Elementary and Secondary Act, the bill is a good
first step to ensure that schools will not have to submit multiple
grant applications that waste precious dollars on administrative
expenses.
Additionally, under H.R. 1, technology funds will go to those areas
where help is needed the most. According to the Department of
Education's most recent study, schools in the highest poverty areas are
still far less likely to have computers connected to the Internet in
every classroom.
This targeting of funds is a departure from the current practices
under the two major ESEA technology grant programs. A recent GAO study
reported that of 20 current grants under the Technology Innovation
Challenge grant program, none had been reported as being awarded to
grantees with greater than 51 percent poverty. The Enhancing Education
Through Technology initiative will ensure more funds get to the schools
that are most in need of obtaining and using education technology.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage all of the Members
of the House to support this motion so that we can take the final step
in this process and send the President an education bill that reflects
his principles and begin making an immediate impact for students and
schools and turn the promise of not leaving one child behind into
reality.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
For years, the policy of this country has been that when we find
schools that are filled with students who are underachieving, we do not
do anything about it. Year after year, wasted generation after wasted
generation, we just keep sending more money and doing the same old
failed thing.
This bill promises to change that. How do we change it? We build
schools where every child is in school well nourished, in a safe, clean
classroom, being taught by a qualified, enthused teacher in front of a
class that is a manageable size, with access to the right technology,
with programs for significant parental involvement, for
prekindergarten, for after school, for all of the things that we know
work.
But we also know this: All of those things that work cost money.

{time} 1115

The bill that I was proud to support that we are sending to this
conference has a significant increase in the Federal investment in
education. But that is only a target as it now stands. One of the goals
of our conferees should be to work with the other body and make sure
that that promise of greater investment in struggling schools becomes a
reality.

[[Page H4124]]

It is not just about investment, it is about prekindergarten. It is
about teacher training, smaller classes, safer schools, school
breakfasts, parental involvement programs, and all the things that make
a school work right.
We have laid the foundation to get that done. I hope that in the
weeks and months ahead, the conferees will finish the job and bring
back to this House a product that honors the promise of real change
where it is most needed in American education.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding time to me.
I want to acknowledge three people.
First would be the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman,
whose inspired leadership really allowed this bill to come to the floor
in a bipartisan way, and the guidance he has given.
Second, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
who has unalterably opposed the status quo and on this bill has very
eloquently stood for the accountability to the American public for
education needs of the American people.
Last but not least, I thank the President of the United States, who
really believes that we should leave no child behind.
Mr. Speaker, Robert Browning was once asked, the great philosopher
and writer, what his definition of education was and what it meant to a
human being. His answer was very simple: education makes a people easy
to lead, difficult to drive; easy to govern and impossible to enslave.
Mr. Speaker, the poor and most disadvantaged children in America's
public schools are in fact enslaved today by ignorance. Title I was
intended, at its beginning 33 years ago and subsequently with an
investment of $125 billion, to break those shackles of ignorance and to
break the slavery that, in fact, exists when people leave school or
drop out without the equipment that they need.
President Bush, this committee, and, in the end, this conference will
I am sure ensure that the three cornerstones that are essential to the
education of a child become the measurable reality of American public
education of our most disadvantaged students:
First, reading. This bill puts $600 million more into reading
annually, and focuses on K through 2 in the Early Reading First
initiative. It increases the resources to teachers, and it gives
children in those most formative years of education the opportunity to
learn to read and to comprehend.
Second, that comprehension, that ability, will be monitored and
assessed annually from grades three through eight, so by the time that
child reaches the ninth grade, where most of them drop out, instead of
dropping out they will be dropping in on a high school education.
Lastly and most importantly, it gives flexibility to local school
systems. In the school systems in California or Georgia, Indiana or
Wisconsin, our students are different: different in ethnicity,
different in race, different in economics. School systems deserve the
right and the flexibility to choose what is best so as they educate
children and are measured on their progress, they are able to make the
determination that they believe is best, not what a bureaucrat or a
politician in Washington thinks is best.
There are differences between the House and Senate. There are
differences in the amount of money, and there is a little difference in
the amount of flexibility. I believe we will work those differences
out.
We have seen that no amount of money, even $125 billion over 33
years, has changed or lessened the achievement gap. Hopefully now the
amount of money we ultimately invest, with accountability on public
education and resources for our most poor and disadvantaged students,
will not only close the achievement gap, but enlighten and enrich every
child in the United States of America so that truly no one ever again
in this country leaves a public school enslaved by lack of experience
and a lack of education.
I look forward to the conference. I look forward to the House
position. I look forward to maintaining the accountability in the
reading levels of all our children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of the motion to go to
conference on H.R. 1.
I want to commend the leadership first of all on the committee, the
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for working
hard and trying to produce a good bipartisan product which we could
report out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and bring to
the House floor and receive overwhelming bipartisan support.
I think this is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. It calls for
greater consolidation of a lot of Federal programs with increased
flexibility back to local school districts on how best to utilize those
resources that will be provided to them.
It calls for greater investment in professional development programs
of our teachers, given a 2.2 million teacher retirement over the next
10 years, as well as an investment in the leadership of our school
districts, with principals and superintendents.
It also calls for money to better integrate the use of technology in
classroom curriculum, so our students graduating are going to be
prepared to compete in the 21st century new economy.
It is a bill that calls for reform with results. It also holds school
districts responsible with accountability, mandatory testing programs,
so we can measure the students' progress.
I am hoping that in conference, attention will be paid to providing
enough resources for the remediation of students who are being measured
and who are falling behind at their skills level, so we can bring them
back up to the rest of their classmates so they, too, can succeed.
There were some features of this bill I think that we missed the call
on. I think it is time for this Congress to take action to provide some
matching grant money back to local school districts to put in place
pre-K schooling opportunities. Researchers at the University of
Wisconsin just did the most long-term, 15-year comprehensive study of
the pre-K program in the Chicago public school district and found that
those students who are participating are less likely to commit juvenile
offenses, more likely to stay in school, and perform better on tests
than their classmates, and are more likely to graduate and go on to
postsecondary education.
I also think that this Congress is not living up to our promise to
fully fund special education opportunities for students with special
needs. The promise was made 25 years ago that we would fund 40 percent
of the expense of special education costs. Today we are slightly less
than 15 percent.
If there is one piece of work that this Congress can do this year
that will alleviate the pressures and the financial burdens that school
districts throughout the country feel, it is to live up to our promise
to fully fund special education. I hope that, too, is a source of
conversation with the conferees.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern from the gentleman from
Wisconsin over the issue of IDEA funding. I think most of our
colleagues understand that the Individuals With Disabilities Act in
education is not part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
In fact, this Congress over the last 5 years has increased funding
for IDEA some 50 percent over the last 5 years. I have no doubt there
will be another increase again this year.
But that program is up for reauthorization next year. I would ask my
colleagues to allow us to go through the reauthorization process on
IDEA next year and debate any additional resources that might be
devoted to that in the context of the reauthorization of that bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.

[[Page H4125]]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for
their work in producing a bipartisan bill that really should make a
difference in our schools.
Mr. Speaker, as we come to conference with the other body, there are
some things that I think are in consideration here; and we must make
sure they come out in the final version.
First of all, I want to make sure that some of the discussions that
we have had in committee about authorized use of funds comes out. The
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and I in committee were able
to see that of the money that is spent, that local schools have the
option of spending it on training teachers, providing the professional
development on math and science teaching in particular, which can be as
much as 20 percent of the funding under title II. I hope that that will
be preserved in conference.
I also hope that we can preserve the agreement that we had in
committee that under the President's reading initiative in title I, an
accepted use of funds is for books. If we are going to have a literacy
program, it does make sense that books would be covered as an
authorized use of funds. Similarly, in title IV, I would hope that we
can see that instruments, musical instruments, are included as
appropriate use of funds in music programs.
Overall, I hope we would see that we pay special attention to the
professional development for math and science teachers. Furthermore,
something that is coming from the other body that I hope will be
preserved in conference is legislation, a part of the bill, that will
ensure that parents have a right to know at least 72 hours in advance
of the use of pesticides, dangerous chemicals, in their schools, in
their children's schools.
Of course, as others before me have said, I hope out of conference we
will come with a real dedication to give more than words to education
for children with disabilities under the IDEA program.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I would like to also compliment the bipartisan leadership in bringing
this bill to this particular point, and in recognizing that it has
traveled many miles. One particular mile left to go is as it pertains
to special education.
I disagree with my colleague who says that this has to be put off for
a year before we substantially will be able to go through a
reauthorization period. I do not question the reauthorization time
frame, but I do recognize that back at home, where we did increase
funding, we started out at a very low level. So a 50 percent increase,
while it sounds great and large, really in terms of property taxpayers
and children and families with special needs and special education,
really it has only gotten up a smaller percentage of where we made a
commitment to the communities and school districts throughout this
country when the Federal Government 25 years ago said we would cover 40
percent of the cost.
All we have done is shifted those costs onto the property taxpayers,
because we have regulations that say they have to comply. So we have a
substantially unfunded Federal mandate that needs to be corrected. We
need to do it now, because we are not going to have the budget surplus,
if we have a surplus at all, to be able to deal with this; and it is
better to act now when there are so many others that are trying to
attempt to get at that particular budget in the resources that are
being made available. Then the real impact of special education is
going to be borne by local property taxpayers.
In our State alone, the Federal Government should be contributing
$100 million a year to cover 40 percent of the cost. They are only
contributing $32 million a year, and $68 million more is being
contributed on the backs of property taxpayers, the most regressive tax
of all taxes.
If we want to provide property tax relief, tax relief, and we want to
fund unfunded mandates, which are the pillars of the congressional
leadership over the years, especially in the House, then we should
fully fund special education.
I ask my colleagues to support the Harkin-Hagel amendment in the
conference, which would provide for full funding over 6 years for this
critical program. I would prefer it in a shorter period of time, but I
think that is the bare minimum that we will accept.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to
conference. I, too, want to join in the chorus of accolades for our
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and for my ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and for
their talent and eloquence in getting a bill together with 384 votes to
take us to conference.
The challenges ahead are indeed large and looming. John Adams, who
wrote the Constitution for the State of Massachusetts, wrote in clause
2 a very unique section guaranteeing the right of education to every
single citizen in the State of Massachusetts.
At no time is that right to a good education more important than
today in America, and at no time is that right more threatened to the
poorest in America than right here today.
What we do in conference is extremely important. With this bill,
while we can all pat ourselves on the back and say we have accomplished
a lot up to this point, there is a lot more work to do, particularly on
the resources. As a fiscally conservative Democrat often coming to the
floor saying money is not the answer to every problem, if we are going
to test children and do it with diagnostic tests that we can turn
around in real time remediation to help these children do better, we
need the resources.
We also need a NAEP test. We need a NAEP test that can compare with
the local government, the local schools and the State schools, when
they devise their State tests, so we can then assess how good that test
is in comparison to other tests.

{time} 1130

We need to accede to the Senate language on the NAEP test. And on
adequate yearly progress, we must hold students accountable. Whether 70
percent of students are passing in a school and 30 percent failing, we
need to be able to find out what 30 percent are failing.
In conclusion, I would just say that we have the model for
bipartisanship here today with this bill, but we do not yet have the
model for bold school reform that works. That will be determined in
this conference when we work out NAEP, resources, and other important
issues, like adequate yearly progress.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 1, and I
compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Good
job. This was not easy to do.
But I want to talk about something we left out in the House that we
cannot wait another year to cover, and that is fully funding special
education and IDEA. I would ask that the conference committee include
the Senate provisions regarding funding IDEA.
When I meet with parents in my district who have children with
special needs, I hear how frantic they are about getting the services
their children need in their schools. They think the schools are giving
them the runaround. While, when I talk to the school administrators and
the educators, they tell me they are worried sick about not having
enough money to fully meet the needs of special education programs. And
parents of students without special needs are fearful that their
children will not receive enough resources so that they can get the
education that they need.
This cannot continue. We need not wait another year. We must fully
fund IDEA, because we are pitting one important education program
against another. Students against students, parents against parents,
and parents

[[Page H4126]]

against schools. It is time for Congress to honor the commitment made
to parents and educators over 26 years ago.
We can do that by adopting the Senate provision in the Leave No Child
Behind Act and fully fund IDEA over 10 years. It is the right thing to
do, and I urge my colleagues and the conferees to stand behind funding
IDEA as we committed over 25 years ago.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and while a new Member of Congress, the
gentleman spent a career in the field of education.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and I thank him for his work, as others have, and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for his work,
as well as other members of the committee, who did an outstanding job
of working together.
I certainly support H.R. 1 as it goes to conference. I think there
were some graphic reasons for the reform. It is my understanding that
the Federal Government has spent $80 billion on education over the last
10 years; yet we saw absolutely no improvement in dropout rates, no
improvement in test scores, less performance in general, and roughly 60
percent of our fourth graders are not able to read at an adequate
level. So I think H.R. 1 really represents significant improvement in
educational policy. It does provide better measurement of students,
more accountability for schools, and certainly greater local control.
However, I would like to also underscore the idea that the best
educational policy alone is not going to be the whole answer. And the
reason I say this is that we can have the best teachers, the best
curriculum, the best buildings, facilities; and still, if there is a
high percentage of dysfunctional students from dysfunctional
situations, we will have a very difficult time educating them because,
number one, they will not get to school; and, number two, if they do
get to school, they are not going to be in a very good frame of mind to
learn anything.
So one of the components of H.R. 1 that I have been very interested
in, which has not been talked about a whole lot, is the mentoring
component. This is something that is very important to the President.
Mentoring reduces absenteeism from school by over 50 percent, decreases
drug abuse by more than 50 percent, teenage pregnancy by 30, 40
percent, violence, and gang-related activities by a significant margin
as well. So mentoring does work, and it is an important part of the
educational component.
So as we go to conference here on this bill, I hope that this will be
preserved. I especially hope that the conferees will maintain the
flexibility and the local control that we have written into the bill,
particularly in regard to training the mentor.
So again I would like to compliment those who have drafted and
crafted this bill, and I want to wish them well as they go to
conference.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time; and I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller). I give credit to both sides of the
aisle on working really hard to get this bill through. Both sides gave
up a lot, but we came out with an excellent bill; and I appreciate all
the work everybody did on it.
When we talk about flexibility, when we talk about teacher
preparation, when we talk about mentoring programs for our children,
these are all going to be wonderful things for the future of education;
but again I have to add my voice to those talking about IDEA. I know
reauthorization is coming up, and I am looking forward to working with
my chairman on reauthorization of IDEA next year.
As someone who grew up with learning disabilities, and as someone who
has a child with learning disabilities, I know how important it is. I
go into schools every single Monday and see that our schools,
unfortunately, have to take funds away from important programs because
the Government mandated these children be mainstreamed in our schools,
yet have not followed through with the promised 40 percent to help them
do this. We will fight to make sure that the monies are there.
It is not fair to our school systems, as it is today, to be paying
out these monies when we made these mandatory deals with the schools to
educate these children. I am looking forward to seeing what the
conferees come out with. I know it will be a good bill. The House and
the Senate bills are a little different, but in the end I think the
people of America and the children of America are going to be proud of
the work done here in Congress.
Decisions should be made on the local level, and I do believe in
that; but the flexibility is probably going to be the most important
thing. So I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and am looking forward to working with him again.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the conferees to please
hold the course and not water down this bill any further.
There is an education state of emergency in many American
communities. There is an education state of emergency in the African
American community in inner cities and in other inner-city minority
communities and in rural poor communities. We need all the help we can
get as fast as we can get it.
The reading scores show there is a state of emergency, the SAT scores
show it, the dropout statistics show it; but also there are other
indicators that we ought to take a look at. The number of uncertified
teachers are clustered and concentrated in these state of emergency
communities. The number of unsafe, unhealthy buildings are concentrated
in these communities. The lack of science laboratories and lack of
physics teachers and chemistry teachers, they are all concentrated in
these communities. Libraries with the oldest books are in these
communities.
So we need to maintain the focus and the concentration of this bill
and not let the bill that came from the other body water it down and
make flexible the funding so that it does not have the same
concentration as the President's bill.
The President is to be congratulated for focusing on where the
greatest need is. The bill does do that. The focus on title I as a
major component to be expanded in the authorization, the move towards
an increase of title I funding to $17.2 billion in 5 years, that is
very important. That authorization must be maintained.
We must unite with the other body to get higher authorizations in
some other areas, and we must understand that the conference committee
holding to these authorization levels is the first step in a larger
strategy to guarantee that the appropriations will equal the
authorizations.
We have a need for education reform everywhere in the country. I know
that everybody is concerned about the fact that our children scored
lower than youngsters in other nations, the best; but that need for
concern should be understood in terms of there is a need for emergency-
targeted funds that go straight to the areas of greatest need. In other
words, what I am saying is let us make certain that we do what we have
to do and can do at the Federal level so that we will hold accountable
the States and hold accountable the local education agencies to deal
with the state of emergency and guarantee that the opportunities to
learn create safe schools, guarantee certified trained teachers,
guarantee science laboratories, science equipment, guarantee science
and math teachers.
We must take the first step, and also we must act in a way which
guarantees that the appropriation will match the authorization in this
Congress.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me rise, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate my friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Owens), and tell him that I could not agree with him
more.
As we go to conference with the Senate on this bill, our eyes need to
be focused on the major goals. And one of the major goals that I think
many of

[[Page H4127]]

us share is to make sure that the resources that are going to be
dedicated to this bill, whatever that amount may be, go to the most
needy students in our society.
On the House bill we reduced the number of programs that we were
going to fund under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in order
to try to better target these resources to those children, especially
minority children in inner city schools and in rural areas who are
underserved and need our help. But if we look at the Senate bill, where
they expanded the number of programs, a lot of well-intentioned, well-
meaning programs, good ideas; but what it does is it tends then to take
our eyes off of getting the resources where they, in fact, are most
needed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), a member of our committee.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone had asked me during the month preceding the
last election if the House could have come together in this fashion to
pass 384 to 45 a major reform initiative on education, I would not have
taken the bet. Those were tough, dark times for the country. It was the
longest election in history. Yet here we stand several months later
talking about something long overdue.
The magic of this event to me is that the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), have brought a committee that has been divisive at times
together, along with the President, after many meetings at the White
House, to take a new look at education.
There are so many debates going on in education right now about how
best to fix the problem. Some people say we need more money. More money
is in this bill, a lot more money. Some of us believe just throwing
money at the problem alone will not work, and our voices were heard.
But the money is going to be spent in a new fashion. We are going to
hold people accountable. Before we hold them accountable, we are going
to provide them with the resources and the latitude and the flexibility
to fix the problem, and we are going to monitor what happens. We are
going to look at those children who have been left behind
traditionally; and they are going to report to us, the school districts
are that receive Federal money, as to how each group is doing. We are
going to have a monitoring process for the first time in a long time,
and we will actually find out where our money is going and if it is
working.
For those school districts who have been helped and who have been
monitored and they continue to fail, we are going to do something new.
We are just not going to continue to throw money, giving it to the same
group of people, expecting different results. I remember one thing that
President Clinton said. He said insanity is doing the same thing and
expecting different results. We are going to make sure the money is
monitored; we are going to give people flexibility, the resources
necessary to improve education; and if after 3 years things are not
getting better we are going to take a new look at how to make them
better.
We are going to allow parents to choose other public schools to go
to. Charter schools. We are going to give parents some choices. This
bill requires curriculum reporting. It will empower those parents who
care. It will try to get people more involved in the education process.

{time} 1145

There is some significant differences between the House and Senate
bill, but I predict now that these differences will be quickly resolved
and this Congress will go on record as being the first Congress in
maybe 35 or 40 years to do something bold in the area of education.
The Federal level provides about 7 or 8 percent of education funding.
No longer will that money be given blindly. We will expect results for
our contribution, and we will try to create an atmosphere where school
districts who want to experiment and try new things can do so with the
Federal money.
All in all, if you asked me in October preceding the last election if
this could have ever come about I would say no. If you asked me in
December, I would say heck no. But here we are. It is a testament to
the good hearts of the people on this committee and the leaders on this
committee, along with the President.
We are about to do something new, long overdue; and the beneficiaries
will not be politicians. It will be parents and children.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
measure. As a former teacher, I am proud to support this bill because
it really starts to address the issue of leaving no child behind and
closing that achievement gap. However, there is a piece that I would
hope the conference committee would address and that is the funding for
IDEA or Individuals With Disabilities Act.
Unfortunately, year in and year out Federal appropriations fall far
short of the Federal government's commitment to help meet the needs and
the cost of educating students with disabilities. The lack of funding
places considerable strain on entire school budgets as schools are
forced to choose between raising local taxes or cutting other critical
programs in order to provide Federally mandated special education
services.
To its credit, the Senate has recognized that students with
disabilities and their families deserve more than an empty promise.
By passing the Hagel-Harkin IDEA full funding amendment with strong
bipartisan support, the Senate has taken an important step toward
meeting the Federal government's commitment.
Mr. Speaker, it will be a great day in this country when every child
receives a first-rate education. I ask the conferees, I beg the
conferees to address this issue of full funding for special education.
I thank both the Chair and the ranking member for the terrific job
they have done on this bipartisan bill to help every child. If they
would just please address full funding for special education, I think
we would go a long way in making sure that every child is educated.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak today on
the floor on a bill that I helped craft in the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, a committee that worked real hard a couple months
ago, with bipartisan support, to pass on a bill to the floor and on to
the Senate. A bill that puts President Bush's principles and education
together with accountability and testing and flexibility and more local
control and targeted funding and expanded parental options. A bill that
consolidates programs. A bill that empowers parents with more
information. A bill that included an amendment that the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I crafted, a superflex amendment that
provides for a hundred school districts to have more local control to
consolidate Federal programs.
Yes, this bill differs from the Senate, but those differences can be
resolved, and we can put together a bill that the President can sign
that benefits America's schoolchildren.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am also here to support the motion to go to
conference on the education bill. However, I have to tell you that
today I am saddened because I am reading today in the Los Angeles Times
that one of my feeder schools in East Los Angeles, Garfield High
School, which was known for the movie ``Stand And Deliver,'' where
Latino students able to excell and rise to the occasion, is now found
to be failing. It is one of the schools that is failing in my district.
I would ask the conferees as they begin their discussions on
education to remember those low income students, the new face of
California and the country. Those students are in need of support
because they come from different backgrounds or speak different
languages, that we not forget those children.
We also need to do as much as we can to help provide prevention
funding for

[[Page H4128]]

dropouts. Because in the Latino community right now we are finding the
average number of students that come into the system are leaving at a
50 percent rate. That is disgusting. We need to do more to make sure
that our students stay in school, that we have better equipped and
credentialed teachers in our school.
In my district alone we have an overabundance of teachers who do not
have credentials. They do not have credentials because we do not have
the funding and support to help provide them that incentive to go on
and get those credentials.
I would ask the conferees to take a look at what it is we need to do
to help provide so that no child is left behind, so that no parent or
student feels that this public education systems leaves them woefully
behind in this society.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is about time we did what this
amendment or this instruction does.
I was in the State legislature in 1972 when we passed the Education
for All Act in the State of Washington. Along came the Feds about four
years later and said we are going to have education for all in this
whole country, and we will give you 100 percent of the rules and
regulation, and we will give you 5 percent of the money. They have been
doing that to States like Washington since 1972.
This is 28 years of an unfunded mandate. It is about time for the
guys who want to talk about unfunded mandates to get up here and put
the money on the bar. I know, I was there. I saw what was done in the
State legislature, and then I come up here. Now my colleagues are
saying we want to wait until next year. We are going to be waiting
until next year to the year 2050. Mr. Speaker, this ought to pass.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the members of the committee on both
sides of the aisle and thank all of the professional staff of the
committee, which is the entire staff, who have spent an incredible
amount of time working through all of the difficult matters that are of
concern and controversy and where there were differences of opinion and
helped the membership arrive at this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to going to conference under the
leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and
believe that we can bring back to the House a bill that will continue
to have bipartisan support that again will dramatically change the
outcomes and the results in this education system, in the title I
system, and that will dramatically improve our opportunities to have
qualified teachers, accountability and have the resources necessary to
carry out the educational mandates that are contained in this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for all who joined in this
discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, who has worked closely with myself and members on both sides
of the aisle; and I have to say, as I said when we closed debate on the
bill when it came through the House, I could not have had a more
perfect gentleman and a more perfect partner to work with as we went
through this process.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank our drafting team on both sides of the
aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) who spent hours
and hours trying to bridge the differences, always, though, with a view
and a vision toward how do we help the neediest children in our society
have a shot at a good education like our children get.
I think we achieved that when this House bill came through here. Is
it the bill I would have written by myself? No. Is it the bill that the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) would have written by
himself? No. But it is a bill both parties worked together on, and we
have built a solid piece of legislation that will change the way that
we educate low income and minority students in our country.
My commitment to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
and my commitment to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that
when we bring the conference report back to this House that we will in
fact have a fundamental change in giving schools more flexibility,
holding schools more accountable for real results and additional
resources to help meet those new standards that we hope to put in
place.
Mr. Speaker, when we brought our bill to the floor back in May, I
asked all of my colleagues whether they would be able to stand up on
that day and have the courage, the courage to vote with us and the
courage to do the right thing even though not everyone was in full
agreement. I think the House exercised its prerogative and did show the
courage by a strong vote of 384-43 in support of our bill.
Mr. Speaker, as we go to conference, I feel confident that members on
both sides of the aisle will continue to work together and to bring
back to this House a bill that we can be proud of, a bill that the
President can be proud of, and the most important goal, to make sure
that we bring a bill back that helps the neediest of our society get
the education they are going to need if they are going to have an
opportunity at securing the American dream that every child deserves.
And every parent of every child in America wants their child to have
that opportunity.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
the tabling of Mr. Baldacci's motion to instruct the Conferees who will
consider the Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act. This
motion would direct the managers to accept an amendment that would give
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Title I status, even
though this amendment was not included in the bill passed by the House.
First, let me state that as a former school teacher, I am in full
support of providing as much funding as is needed to insure that all of
our children in this country receive a quality education that meets
their intellectual and physical needs. I do not know of anyone in this
House who is not in support of providing our children with what they
need to grow and learn in an appropriate environment. This includes
providing funds to assist students who are in need of special
assistance due to a physical or mental disability. How could anyone not
be in support of assisting these children? However, it does not make
for ``good'' education policy if we single out just one program and
instruct the Conferees to give it Title I status by making it an
entitlement.
The ESEA bill is overflowing with good and valuable programs, all of
which deserve to receive the funds that were authorized for them, if
not more. Therefore, I cannot support singling out just one program for
entitlement status. I would hope that not only would we fully fund the
programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but
also the class size reduction programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools
and Communities Act, and the Homeless Education Assistance Improvement
Act, as well as all of the other beneficial programs within ESEA. A
program should not have to have entitlement status in order to receive
full funding.
I trust in the ability of my colleagues who will serve as conferees
on this bill to see the importance of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. The programs included in this Act will provide children
who have a disability with a quality education that factors in their
special needs, and is of no cost to the parents. The conferees do not
need to be instructed to give Title I status to a program in order to
fully fund it. If this was the case, I would be standing here before
you arguing that entitlement status should be given to all of the
programs included in the ESEA.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 5, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page H4129]]

[Roll No. 237]

YEAS--424

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
Cubin
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
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
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
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.
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
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
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
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
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
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--5

Goode
Hostettler
Sabo
Scarborough
Tiahrt

NOT VOTING--4

Gibbons
Myrick
Riley
Spence

{time} 1223

Mr. COX changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Baldacci

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Baldacci of Maine moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be
instructed to agree to provisions to fully fund part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for the purpose
of providing every child with a disability a free appropriate
public education to the extent that the provision of such
full funding will not result in an on-budget surplus that is
less than the surplus in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to instruct
conferees on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion
to table offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 296,
noes 126, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 238]

AYES--296

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Scarborough
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak

[[Page H4130]]

Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--126

Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Owens
Payne
Platts
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rivers
Roemer
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Sununu
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--11

Brady (PA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Gibbons
Goode
Hinchey
Myrick
Oxley
Pitts
Riley
Spence
Walsh

{time} 1246

Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri and Messrs. SUNUNU, DELAHUNT, KIRK, REHBERG,
INSLEE, and FORD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SWEENEY, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Messrs. UPTON, SCOTT, SPRATT,
TIAHRT, TOWNS and BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the motion to table the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 236, on approving the
Journal, and rollcall No. 238 on the motion to table the motion to
instruct conferees, I was unavoidably detained while chairing a
committee hearing to receive Chairman Greenspan's semi-annual testimony
on the economy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both
motions.
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permisson to speak out of order for
1 minute.)

Funding for IDEA

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, this issue is a very important issue to
almost every Member of this Chamber, if not every Member of this
Chamber, regardless of party. This issue of special education funding
is something that we have worked at bipartisanly and in special orders
and after hours, and between myself and the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and many other Members on the other side of the
aisle, and it is something we all care deeply about.
Twenty-six years ago, we promised to fund 40 percent of the special
education costs in our country, and we are now at 14 percent. We will
never have an opportunity, I believe, to be able to address this issue,
given the uncertain economics and budgetary constraints that have been
placed before us and that will be before us in the future.
We have no better time to address this issue. This was an instruction
to the conferees to go about fully funding special education costs.
This is an issue which costs all of our States, regardless of party and
location, billions of dollars in property tax payments by local
citizens. This is something that would have benefited, if it was fully
funded, not just the disabled but the nondisabled.
I was disappointed that we did not have the opportunity for a free
and open discussion, but as most of the Members know, this issue is not
going to go away. We will be bringing this issue back before us. We
will be doing it in a bipartisan fashion, because we all know how
important these issues are to local communities.
In our State alone, we are looking at trying to make up the
difference of between $100 million of special education costs and the
$32 million that is being provided, and that is $68 million in a small
State like Maine, of a population of 1.2 million that are facing
increased property taxes and burdens that they have to bear. We
recognize sometimes there is competition for those dollars at the local
level, and that places a lot of those disabled families at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesies that have been afforded, and
look forward to working with the Members on both sides of the aisle and
in the Congress on this very important issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees: Mr. Boehner, Mr. Petri, Mrs. Roukema, Messrs.
McKeon, Castle, Graham, Hilleary, Isakson, George Miller of California,
Kildee, and Owens, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Roemer.
There was no objection.

____________________