[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.

                          ____________________