Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10082-H10113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1200
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 315

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is
left behind. All points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are waived. The
conference report shall be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my colleague and friend, pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 is a standard rule waiving all
points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The rule also waives all points of
order against its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, today we take an historic leap forward on behalf of our
children, parents and teachers across this great Nation. While lately,
the attention of Americans has been focused on the war on terror, the
Congress has continued to focus its attention on our Nation's most
precious resource, our children. This conference report does just that
and recognizes that investing in our children today will prepare them
for the challenges of tomorrow.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, assigned the demanding
task of reforming our Nation's failing Federal education policy, has
reported back a conference report that we all can and should support. I
am pleased to

[[Page H10083]]

stand before my colleagues today to present a rule on a bipartisan
piece of legislation that will transform the Federal role in education
to ensure that indeed no child is left behind.
The education of our children is the top priority for our President
and a major concern of most Americans. H.R. 1 represents the most
sweeping, comprehensive education legislation to be brought before the
House during our tenure.
I would like to take a moment to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), my colleague and very good friend, for his hard work and
commitment to improving the educational system for our children. I
would also like to commend the ranking member of the committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for all his work and
support for this bipartisan legislation.
Despite a decade of economic growth and Federal spending of more than
$130 billion since 1965, the achievement gap dividing our Nation's
disadvantaged students and their peers has continued to widen.
Mr. Speaker, the message is loud and clear. Money alone is not the
answer. It is time for accountability. It is time for reform. It is
time for a renewed commitment to our children.
This conference report embodies President Bush's education vision and
stays true to his four principles of education reform, accountability,
flexibility and local control. It expands options for parents and funds
what really works.
It all starts with determining which students are in need of
additional help and which schools and school districts are in need of
improvement. H.R. 1 accomplishes this task by implementing annual
assessments in the core subjects of reading and math for students in
grades three through eight. However, the bill also recognizes that
communities know more about their children than Washington bureaucrats.
H.R. 1 respects local control, by allowing States to design and
implement these tests, and provides Federal funds to aid them in this
task. It also explicitly prohibits federally-sponsored national testing
or curricula.
Armed with knowledge, we will be able to determine which schools are
failing to educate our children. This information will be readily
available to parents in the form of annual school performance report
cards. Based on these facts, H.R. 1 provides a system of accountability
to ensure that students do not become trapped in chronically failing
schools.
H.R. 1 provides real options for parents with students in chronically
failing schools. Parents would be allowed to transfer students in
failing schools to better performing public or charter schools.
Supplemental services would be provided from Title I funds for
tutoring, after-school services, and summer school programs.
Finally, charter schools would be expanded to provide opportunities
for parents, educators and community leaders to create schools outside
the bureaucratic red tape of the educational establishment.
In exchange for these new accountability measures, the plan will
dramatically enhance flexibility for local school districts, granting
them the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the Federal education
dollars they receive among an assortment of ESEA programs and target
the true needs of their individual communities.
Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965, numerous programs and restrictions have been
piled on the Act, creating a bureaucratic maze of duplicative policies,
all well-intentioned, but amazingly inefficient. H.R. 1 will give some
needed organization to this patchwork of programs by consolidating the
programs under ESEA and targeting resources to existing programs that
serve poor students.
We know that over 60 percent of children living in poverty are
reading below the very basic level. We cannot expect these children to
succeed. Children who cannot read are destined for academic
underachievement. We cannot allow children to be denied access to the
world that can be opened to them only through books. The President's
Reading and Early Reading First programs will introduce a scientific-
based comprehensive approach to reading instruction that will serve to
re-focus education policy on this fundamental skill.
The President's education plan, No Child Left Behind, also emphasizes
two other fundamental areas of education, through the establishment of
math and science partnerships. The United States cannot remain a world
leader in technology and scientific discovery without fundamental math
and science education.
I am pleased that H.R. 1 includes an initiative which will encourage
States to partner with institutions of higher learning, businesses and
nonprofit math and science entities to bring enhanced math and science
educational opportunities to our children.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is filled with calculated reforms that will
restructure Federal education policy. It includes provisions to
increase safety in our schools, promote English fluency and improve
teacher quality, and provides the most important change in Federal
education policy in almost 40 years.
Every Member of this House has a vested interest in the education of
our children. We cannot afford to sit idly by or be timid in fulfilling
our responsibility to ensure that every child has access to an
education that gives them every chance to reach their full potential
and exceed their goals and their parents' dreams for their future.
I urge my colleagues to keep the children at the forefront of our
focus. Support this rule, adopt this conference report and send this
historic legislation to the President of the United States so that no
child is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a measure that many of us have been worried
might not ever see the light of day. As the measure moved through the
House, the thoughtful and carefully crafted compromise almost collapsed
as extreme measures such as vouchers and block grants became attached.
I am pleased to report cooler heads have prevailed in conference.
What has emerged is one of the most critical pieces of one of the most
important pieces of domestic policy to emerge from the Congress this
year.
This education bill has the potential to truly make a difference in
the lives of our children. Congress, for the first time, has tackled
the inexcusable achievement gap between rich and poor students and
minority and nonminority students that has plagued our educational
system for decades.
In addition, for the first time in history we set as Federal law that
teachers must be qualified in their subject area within four years.
That is a very important step. Moreover, this measure provides funding
adequate enough to match our rhetoric. Over $27 billion has been
authorized in fiscal year 2002 for Federal elementary and secondary
education programs. This is $3.5 billion more than the amount
authorized by the House and is well needed.
For the first time, Congress is giving teachers the resources for
training, support and mentoring that they need to reach the goals. Many
of us were concerned that the administration failed to request any
significant increase in funding to back up the broad outline of the
President's for reform.
It is now my understanding that labor HHS appropriations bill which
will be considered shortly will provide nearly $4 billion more in
funding for all elementary and secondary education programs funded by
the Federal Government, nearly a 20 percent increase in appropriations.
This is a historic bill because it targets Federal dollars better
than ever before to those students who need it most. Moreover, this
bill finally fulfills the promise made in 1965 with the passage of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The promise to ensure that all
children have an opportunity to learn regardless of income, background
or ethnic identity.
Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame that it has taken us from 1965 to
call for a quality and equity in education.
Finally, Congress will back up our commitment with a set of
unambiguous expectations, time lines and resources and accountability
will be a

[[Page H10084]]

part of it. I am really pleased to support this rule and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and someone very instrumental
in the good work that has gone into this bill.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for her leadership and for yielding me time. I thank the Members
on both sides of the aisle for the words that have been spoken and will
be spoken about No Child Left Behind.
A year ago next Friday, then President-elect George Bush invited 16
members of House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, all members of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He expressed his vision
for No Child Left Behind, and then did what is so exemplary of our
President. He asked all of our opinions on what we thought. And it was
from that basis that House Resolution 1 was introduced about 12 months
ago and we began the work which results today in the final conference
committee report on No Child Left Behind.
Everyone had a chance to have their say. Every issue of importance
had its chance to have a vote. And in the end, bipartisanship prevailed
and the interests of the America's poorest students most in need has
been met, and, in fact, I believe exceeded beyond the wildest dreams of
me or our President or the other members some 12 months ago.
Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate. I was born to a loving mother and
father who nurtured me and made education important, who gave me the
resources and the discipline and made the demands to ensure that I
learned to read and to write. I owe them very much. On the other hand,
I also recognize I owe very much to those who were not nearly as
fortunate as I was.
No one should mistake what this bill is all about. It is about seeing
to it that those who are the most disadvantaged, those who are the most
poor, those who are the most at risk are given the resources and the
institutions that teach them the accountability to ensure that they are
not left behind, that they can read, that they can compute, that they
can graduate, and they can realize the American dream.
While someone may nitpick over something they did not get in this
bill, every child in America and every American taxpayer is getting the
benefit of a better, more intelligently, more proud and more self-
assured population in the future because we will leave no child behind.
And today this Congress will adopt the dream of this President in his
most important promise of his campaign just a year ago.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the conference
report. The work that has been done on this bill by the President, by
the leaders of our efforts, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner)
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) are
to be commended, as well as the efforts of Senator Kennedy and Senator
Gregg.
We will hear more about the overall themes of this bill during the
general debate. I wanted to extend my appreciation to these leaders for
including in this legislation two initiatives which have great
importance to me that I have worked on throughout this process. The
first is a provision that will permit for the first time Title IV money
to be used to broaden prekindergarten opportunities for 3, 4 and 5 year
olds across the country.
The evidence is overwhelming that children who receive a high quality
prekindergarten education perform better throughout their school
careers and throughout their lives. For the first time, because of the
inclusion of this provision, we will be able to reach more children.
Second, we have had an epidemic of school violence in our country
which we all regret. One of the ways that has been proven successful to
deal with school violence is peer mediation programs among students.
Because of a provision that is in this bill, we have been able to
provide for the use of Safe and Drug Free Schools money to promote the
use of peer mediation programs among students across the country so
they may learn to talk about their differences and resolve them before
those differences spill over to bloodshed and violence in our schools.
There are many good things in this legislation. I am appreciative of
the cooperation of the bipartisan leadership in including these two
initiatives in the bill. I would urge my colleagues to support both the
rule and the bill.

{time} 1215

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to 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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. The poet Shelley once wrote that it is very important that
children believe in belief; that children believe in Santa Claus; that
children believe that pumpkins can turn into carriages; and that
children believe that little elves can whisper into people's ears.
For too long, Mr. Speaker, we have believed that we provide a good,
excellent education to all children in this country and that title I
helps the disadvantaged. With this bill we shatter and attempt to
destroy the myth that poor children cannot learn as well as wealthier
children and that we really have targeted resources to help these
disadvantaged children over the last 30 years.
This bill, with good people working on a good product, achieving good
results in a bipartisan way, has really brought great credit to this
institution. And a lot of people deserve credit for that achievement.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our Republican chairman and my
classmate, has worked hard on this bill and brought trust to the
process; the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has fought
hard for accountability and new ideas so that poor children can get
great teachers; the President brought many of us together in Austin,
Texas, and showed passion on this issue; new Democrats helped put
together a bill that probably is 65 to 70 percent in this bill,
demanding results for the poorest children.
I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, and I will talk more on the
bill itself later, that this bill, this achievement of good people with
good policy brings great credit to the institution of Congress. I wish
and pray that this is a model for more of this behavior and these
results in future Congresses.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller),
a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today as a strong supporter of President Bush's No
Child Left Behind Act.
I support this important education reform legislation because it will
bring about a meaningful change in what I call the three R's: reading,
resources, and red tape relief.
First, I will address the reading issue. A child's success in school,
and indeed in life, is dependent on his or her ability to read.
Unfortunately, 70 percent of the fourth graders in our inner-city
schools cannot read at a basic level. In other words, they cannot read
and understand a short paragraph that one would find in a simple
children's book.
This legislation addresses that issue head on by investing $5 billion
over the next 5 years in reading for children in grades K through 2.
That means that next year Federal funds for improving reading will be
triple.
The second reason I support this legislation is because this bill
represents the single largest investment of Federal dollars in K
through 12 education in the history of the United States.
For example, we are investing 43 percent more dollars in education
than last year, and we have a 57 percent increase in the amount of
money we are investing in title I. This will help to

[[Page H10085]]

make sure that all children, rich or poor, will have the opportunity
for a first-class education.
The third reason I am supporting this legislation is because of red
tape relief. This bill gives our local school boards the freedom to do
their job without a lot of unnecessary red tape from Washington.
For example, under this legislation, local school districts will have
the flexibility to spend up to 50 percent of the Federal dollars they
receive on locally determined priorities, from class size reduction, to
higher teacher salaries, to more computers in the classroom. And 95
percent of the funds will go directly to the classroom.
In short, this education reform legislation achieves the three R's of
reading improvement, resources, and red tape relief. For these reasons,
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise
in support of the rule and also in support of the reauthorization act
before us today. President Lyndon Baines Johnson helped usher the first
Elementary and Secondary Education Act through Congress back in 1965,
and he was fond of saying that nothing matters more to the future of
our country than education. I believe that, and I believe the American
people believe that. That is why there is such overwhelming support
throughout the country for us to do more to improve the education for
all our children.
Is this a perfect bill? No. But it is a bill that is the product of a
good process. And for that I commend the chairman of our committee, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the ranking member, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller); my colleagues on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce; and those who served on the conference
committee for helping make the process work in away in which it is
intended.
This was a product of much compromise and much negotiation. The
administration and the President himself injected himself in the
process when we needed some logjams to be broken. I commend Sandy Kress
in the role he played; Secretary Paige and the role he played; because
overall this is a very good bill that advances the cause of education.
It has a lot of good features in it: more funding and better targeted
assistance to the most disadvantaged students in our country, the
consolidation of Federal programs, and greater flexibility to school
districts to better target the money in the ways they see fit to work
in their own local area. There is a heavy emphasis on professional
development and the recognition that we need quality teachers in the
classroom. And in an area I did particular work on, an emphasis on
professional development of the leadership of our school districts,
principals and superintendents.
But I also think there are some question marks remaining in regards
to the overall bill, and one is the testing element and the
accountability; whether we are providing enough resources to allow the
school districts to develop and implement these tests for diagnostic
purposes, and whether we are providing enough resources for remediation
of those students who are falling behind.
Another glaring absence is the failure of this Congress to recognize
our obligation to fully fund special education. We are supposed to fund
it at 40 percent. We are only funding it at 15 percent. And that is the
number one most pressing financial issue affecting school districts
throughout our country. It is an issue we need to address next year
with the reauthorization of IDEA, while also addressing the funding
issue for special education.
At the beginning of this year, Congress set out to improve the
quality of education in America's public schools through the
reauthorization of the 35-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA). As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am
pleased that I had the opportunity to work on reauthorization of ESEA
and I would like to praise my colleagues for the bipartisan effort that
was put forth to enact true education reform; it is a victory for
America's students.

Professional Development

This bill will continue the federal government's commitment to assist
schools in teaching low-income and low-achieving students by offering
more flexibility to schools using federal funds while requiring them to
show that their student's learning is improved by the investment. While
this bill encompasses many reforms, one issue in which I was actively
involved during committee consideration of ESEA was improving
professional development for our teachers, principals, and
administrators. They are key to our children's success in school and we
need to acknowledge their hard work and dedication.
That is why I offered two amendments to ESEA that focused on
professional development. The first amendment establishes teacher and
principal corps, which are designed to recruit, prepare, and support
college graduates or mid-career professionals as they begin a teaching
career or pursue further professional development to become a
principal.
The second amendment I offered develops leadership academies, which
will train the best and brightest candidates to become effective
educators. The academies will focus their efforts on training current
principals and superintendents to become outstanding managers and
educational leaders. I am pleased that my colleagues recognize our
country's need for strong leadership for our students. It is not only
important to have the best principals, but recent reports estimate that
40% of today's principals are eligible to retire in the next five
years, and 50% of school districts nationwide are already experiencing
a principal shortage.

Education Technology

Technology is another tool that is critical in educating our youth in
the 21st century. Technology, when used effectively, can stimulate
learning, enrich lives, and create greater opportunity for our
students. All students, regardless of the socioeconomic conditions of
their communities or families, should be able to access and use the
technology that is driving the New Economy. It is also very important
to ensure that our teachers are equipped with the necessary tools and
skills to use technology effectively in the classroom. I am pleased
that after the initial proposed cuts in funding for technology is ESEA,
that the final agreement authorized the education technology program at
one billion dollars.

Rural Education Initiative

During committee consideration of ESEA, I also worked with several of
my colleagues to ensure that ESEA included the Rural Education
Initiative. This program authorizes new funding and increased
flexibility for rural school districts. Across the nation, many of our
rural schools cannot compete for federal education grants because they
do not have adequate resources. As a result, many of our students'
academic performance suffers.
Furthermore, due to the fact that rural school districts do not lie
near population or commercial centers and generally have small staffs,
their schools have a harder time attracting personnel and taking
advantage of training and technical assistance. Rural schools also
frequently face higher costs associated with building infrastructure
and upgrading technology.

individuals with disabilities in education act (idea)

Although I am pleased with the ESEA conference report, I am concerned
that the government continues to impose federal mandates on the states
in the area for special education, while not providing the necessary
resources. In addition, these mandates are occurring when many of these
states are already facing budget shortfalls.
Since 1975, when IDEA was enacted, Congress told the states they must
educate all children with disabilities, regardless of costs. Yet,
because educating students with disabilities is typically twice as
expensive as educating non-disabled students, Congress made a
commitment to the states that the federal government would pay 40% of
the cost of educating disabled children. But 26 years later, we have
not kept that promise. Congress funds only 15% of the cost of special
education.
The financial burden of meeting the costs of this important program
falls directly on states and local communities in every congressional
district. We have an obligation to ensure that a fundamental and fair
educational opportunity exists for all our students, regardless of
physical or developmental ability. The lack of adequate funding for
special education misses the opportunity to truly leave no child
behind.

mandatory testing

Futhermore, I fear that this lack of funding for IDEA will ultimately
result in inadequate resources for states to being implementing the
mandatory annual tests. This bill imposes significant new demands on
schools to annually test 3rd-8th grade students in reading and math.
Although there are assurances that the Federal Government will pay its
required share of the costs for the new tests if the government fails
to pay its share, then the state

[[Page H10086]]

will not be required to implement the annual tests. This is troublesome
because in the end if there is not enough money to ensure
accountability, then it will be the students whole will suffer.

conclusion

Nonetheless, I am pleased with the overall outcome of the conference
report and I commend the conference committee for the hard work and
dedication over the past couple of months. I am honored to have worked
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the past year on
this piece of legislation, which is guaranteed to make a difference in
the nation's public schools. I find satisfaction in knowing that it is
within those public schools back in western Wisconsin and throughout
the nation where we will find our future leaders.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), also a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, certainly in response to my colleague who
last spoke, let me say that if he looks historically over the last
several years in the funding for IDEA, he will find that since the
Republicans have taken control of Congress, percentage-wise we have
increased the funding for IDEA substantially over what previously had
been funded, and I think we are doing a remarkable job as we increase
the funding for that.
I also rise to lend my enthusiastic support to President Bush's
education reform plan, No Child Left Behind. First, I would like to
congratulate the Committee on Education and the Workforce chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for this landmark piece
of legislation and thank them for nearly one full year of work to
produce a true education reform bill. I would like also to thank the
conferees, both those in the House and the other body, whose work and
support were vital to this bill.
President Bush took office and immediately began his efforts to
reform education in America. We tried to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act in the 106th Congress; but at that time,
because of partisanship, even though we had crafted a good bill under
Mr. Goodling, we were unable to overcome that partisanship to get that
legislation enacted.
This year, H.R. 1 is not just a good bill, it represents true
education reform in America and will begin to correct the shortcomings
and failures of the Federal role in education in America since ESEA was
first authorized in the 1960s.
We will hear a lot today about funding for education and how
important that is and how some Members in this body do not believe
there is enough funding for education. I believe we should provide
funding for education, and I have supported that idea with my votes
here in the House since elected to Congress.
A little over 2 months ago, the House approved the education spending
package for this fiscal year that provided $3.5 billion over the budget
request for the programs included in the President's elementary and
secondary education initiatives authorized in H.R. 1 and special
education programs. Total funding for elementary and secondary
education funds was $29.9 billion, $4.9 billion over last year's
levels.
But just throwing money at problems we face in the education of
America's children is not enough. President Bush has made it clear we
must tie funding and resources to reform. The President outlined four
pillars of education reform, and the conference report we are
considering today has all of them: flexibility and local control;
accountability; expanded choices for parents and a reemphasis on the
role of the parent in education; and, finally, the idea that we need to
fund programs that work, including the President's newly created
Reading First and Early Reading First initiative, which is a
scientifically based approach to overcoming illiteracy in America.
The President has stated, since taking office, that the Federal role
in education is not to serve the system, it is to serve the children. I
am glad we have someone in the White House who is willing to hammer
home this truth, and I am proud to support this rule and urge my
colleagues to vote both for the rule and the passage of the conference
report.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
For the second day in a row, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the House
move forward with important items for America's future. Yesterday, it
was election reform. Today, education is our priority. We are moving in
the right direction, not necessarily allowing the perfect to be the
enemy of the good. There is something in this legislation for everyone
to support.
I personally am deeply appreciative for the work of the committee
dealing with areas of special education and school modernization. But I
would, Mr. Speaker, just like to say a word about leadership. I have
been somewhat critical of some things that our President has done in
the domestic area. This showed what our President can do when he
focuses and works with the congressional leadership, and I think the
product has been worth his efforts and I commend him.
I think it is important also to acknowledge the chairmanship of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who much has been said about
already, much more will be said on the floor, and I think it is all
deserved.
But I would, if I may, Mr. Speaker, say a word about the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), our friend from California. He is
a man of great passion about a whole range of issues, but he has
dedicated years of his life to advancing the interests of America's
children. Nobody in this Chamber has worked longer or harder than the
gentleman from California, not just publicly in this arena but doing
private things. I know that for months he would teach children in an
alternative high school before getting on a plane and flying back here
to Washington, D.C. Fighting on behalf of America's children and their
future is something that has been worth doing. This legislation would
not have happened without him.
I hope the hard work of the gentleman from California, Chairman
Boehner, and the President will set the tone for the progress of this
Congress in the last year of this session. I think America needs it.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 19 minutes remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for this
opportunity, and I commend the entire conference committee and staff
for their hard work in getting this report, and certainly thank the
Committee on Rules for a fair rule.
One aspect of the bill that is especially important to me are the
provisions for math and science education. In the Subcommittee on
Research that I chair, we held several hearings on how to improve math
and science education, where we have not been doing very well,
especially considering the challenges ahead of us and the high-tech
world that young people will be entering into.

{time} 1230

Today's information-driven economy and high-tech industry require
workers, not just the specialists, not just the scientists, but the
workers to have more math and science and technology skills than ever
before. Understanding basic math and science is essential for
individual prosperity and our Nation's continued economic growth.
In this bill, we call on our world-class universities to play a
greater role in improving the K-12 education, especially in math and
science. And through research, through partnerships with local schools
to develop better and more rigorous math and science curricula, and
fellowships for elementary and secondary teachers, we can improve our
math and science education in this country.
I hope this legislation helps to ensure that every child develops the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. I support
the rule, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

[[Page H10087]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, so many of us in this body are
products of the public school system. So many of us got our start
because teachers gave us an opportunity. I represent many districts in
my congressional district, school districts, which do not have the
necessary resources, pens, paper and computers to teach the students as
they should.
I rise to support this rule and this bill and to support this
concept. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for working together. I
thank the committee for working together, the conference for working
together. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and many
others.
I know that Secretary Paige coming from Houston had a hand in a lot
of this because we have made some strides in Houston, Texas, and I
thank him for putting his handprint, along with the aggressive
leadership of President Bush.
There are some good points in this legislation we should note. The
commitment to close over a 12-year period the gap between poor and
disadvantaged children and those in more influential and wealthier
schools. It is also very important that we emphasize the importance of
making sure that in testing the children, it is diagnostic testing and
that we provide in the diagnostic testing the resources. I hope to have
more resources, but the one point that is very good is that parents,
when they find out that the children are not making the grade, will be
able to secure resources from the school districts to provide extra
tutoring for the children. They will be able to secure the type of
tutoring that is most helpful to their child. In addition, we have
restored funding for school construction and after-school programs,
teacher development, principal development and administrative
development will be funded.
I believe the important challenge that we have in the future is to
continue education and work with the special needs children. It is a
difficult hurdle for parents with special needs children. We have done
great things today, and I hope that we pass this legislation so we can
support the education of the Nation's children.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for his leadership, not only in the committee, but in the
conference. It has been a long, arduous task. I also thank the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who I think
has shown exceptional leadership throughout the process, and to the
staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce which I
understand basically has not been to bed for 2-3 days.
Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new here and I have been told how
contentious the Committee on Education and the Workforce is, but I saw
little of that. I was impressed with the spirit of cooperation and the
fact that this is truly a bipartisan bill. Something had to be done.
When we think about the fact that 40 percent of our 4th graders are
functionally illiterate, we rank something like 19 out 21 countries on
international math scores. I think there are 3 or 4 things that I would
like to mention that are particularly noteworthy about this particular
bill.
First of all, the issue of accountability. It has been my experience,
unless there is accountability, there is no possible way to have
excellence. In this bill we hold the teachers, the students and the
schools to a relatively high standard of accountability. I think this
will pay off.
Secondly, I think the flexibility, the ability to use Federal funds
at the local level in ways that the local school boards feel is
important will help education and help our local agencies.
Thirdly, small schools really have suffered in terms of competing for
grants. They do not have grant writers. This allows schools with 600
students to receive at least $20,000 and to pool their funds.
On the issue of mentoring, we find that many young people today are
in dysfunctional situations. For children in dysfunctional situations,
it is difficult to come to school with any ability to learn anything.
We find that pairing a student with a caring adult who is an adequate
role model certainly helps.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 1, and want to commend those who
have been involved in authoring it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this rule. I commend the
committee on a bipartisan effort. We really have come together and
compromised. Education is our top priority, and should always be our
top priority. We want to make sure that every child has an opportunity
to learn and be all that he or she can be.
We believe that H.R. 1 returns those original goals to targeting the
funding for students who need it most, closing the achievement gap
between the rich and poor, minority and non-minority. If we state that
no child is left behind, we have to address this issue. H.R. 1 begins
to address that issue, and I commend President Bush in making the
statement that no child be left behind. This begins to address that.
It is important that each and every one of our students receive the
appropriate education, the training, and that we do have
accountability. This provides for accountability in our schools. It
provides opportunity for parental involvement in our schools which is
very important. It is important that our students receive motivation,
self-esteem, that they are able to go on. It is with dedicated teachers
and accountability. I know because my son, Joe Baca, Jr., is a teacher
in secondary schools. My wife has been a substitute teacher for over 20
years. My daughter is a teacher's aide.
This is a step in the right direction. We still have a lot of work
ahead of us as we look at class size reduction, school modernization
and special ed. We want to make sure that every child is prepared to go
into the 21st century, to make sure that he or she can be all that they
want to be, that they can obtain jobs and employment, but have the same
advantages as others.
This also addresses a critical issue, the Hispanic dropout rate. When
we look at the dropout rate, we have a 30 percent high school dropout
rate. It addresses issues which are important to us, and hopefully we
can reduce those numbers and provide opportunities and ensure that
these students finish high school and go on. With that I say, let us
support this bill. It is moving in the right direction.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, while the conference report that we are considering
today includes some important and exciting education reforms, I will
not be able to support this bill. However, I do encourage my colleagues
to vote for the rule and move the bill forward. The bill is an
important component that the President has outlined for education
reform. However, it is only part of the President's vision.
The mandates and the testing requirements in this bill are not
balanced with the remainder of the President's bill, the parts that
empower parents and free schools from the Federal bureaucracy. New
mandates should not be the first step in education reform. I am
encouraged that this bill has seen some progress since the original
bill that left the House. High stakes testing, testing with rewards and
sanctions tied to test performance, that has been removed. There are
provisions that will hold schools accountable for student performance,
and give children in failing schools opportunities for a better
education.
Also, States will only have to implement new testing requirements if
the Federal Government steps up and fully funds this new mandate.
As I said, I am also most encouraged that this bill is only a part of
the

[[Page H10088]]

President's vision. I look forward to working with the President and
the administration in implementing the remainder of the vision that he
outlined to the American people. These important steps, including
empowering parents, giving States and schools more flexibility and
fully funding our commitment to special education, with these
opportunities, the accountability that is outlined in H.R. 1 becomes a
reality because information is only useful if parents and schools can
act on the information that they receive.
As the President's No Child Left Behind plan originally stated,
systems are often resistant to change, no matter how good the
intentions of those who lead them. Information and parental empowerment
can be the stimulus a bureaucracy needs in order to change. Once these
additional steps that the President has outlined are taken, I believe
we will have completed the goal of education reform that will give all
students a chance to learn and succeed. We will have completed the
remainder of the plan and vision of the President that was left behind.
Through accountability, through parental empowerment and through
flexibility at the State and local level, we will have a plan that will
leave no child behind.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule. Let us
move this process forward and let us move on to the other parts of the
President's agenda.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens), a valued member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in praising this bill,
and I would like to point out a few things. The conference report
maintains strong civil right protections prohibiting organizations from
discriminating against employee and program participants.
The conference report increases funding for after-school programs by
about 18 percent over the amount appropriated last year. Unfortunately,
the conference report does not provide increased funding for school
construction. School construction and repairs are totally ignored, and
that is unfortunate.
H.R. 1 increases support for teachers through increased professional
development, mentoring and recruitment. However, the failure to provide
greater funding does not relieve local school districts of certain
burdens that would allow them to transfer funds into teacher salaries.
We have a serious problem with teachers' salaries in New York City.
In Middleton, Connecticut there was a strike by teachers. Members might
have seen them humiliated before the television cameras, in handcuffs
and prison suits. Those teachers are fighting for a decent health care
plan. Teachers should not be held in contempt and treated as if they
are at the bottom of the professional ladder. They need decent salaries
and benefits.
The testing provisions ensure that States can no longer ignore the
academic performance of poor and minority children. That is a big plus.
H.R. 1 improves targeting for schools located in underserved
communities. The President is to be applauded for interfering with a
trend that had taken place to spread out the money and lessen its
effectiveness. Title I was originally intended to target poor children
in poor districts, and we have returned to that.
The Reading First Program is a great step forward, almost $1 billion
to focus primarily on reading in K-3. The conference report includes
$250 million for school libraries which shows that we mean business
about reading.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good new beginning. President Johnson made a
great step forward in this area, and this bill follows in those
footsteps. We need more funding and resources for education.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying conference
report. I am particularly proud of two provisions that the conference
committee adopted that I have championed since coming to Congress. I am
very happy that the conferees have seen fit to authorize significant
increases in funding for after-school programs. In 1999, the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and I first introduced the After
School Education and Anti-Crime Act, a bill to increase funding for
after-school programs. Since then, we have worked to see federally
funded after-school programs grow from a few million dollars in fiscal
year 1999 to today's landmark increase. These funding levels will
provide nearly 4 million children in need access to after-school
programs by 2007.
I am also proud that the conferees have included in the final report
the High Performance Schools Act, a bill I first introduced in 1999.
High performance schools are a win for energy savings and a win for the
environment, but best of all they are also a win for student
performance. A growing number of studies link student achievement and
behavior to the physical building conditions.
We have an enormous opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to build a new
generation of sustainable schools, schools that incorporate the best of
today's designs and technologies and as a result provide better
learning environments for our children, cost less to operate and help
protect our local and global environment. I am glad that the conferees
agreed with me on the importance of this opportunity. I thank them
again for including the High Performance Schools Act in H.R. 1. I
support the rule and I support the underlying bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support for this education bill. I want to take this opportunity to
thank Chairman Boehner, Ranking Member Miller, and the rest of the
conference committee members for their hard work on behalf of all of
our children.
I am really proud of this bill. This bill not only puts $26.5 billion
into education, it provides accountability measures for these Federal
dollars. In addition, it gives flexibility to schools on how they spend
their Federal dollars. Today's bill includes my amendment that gives
our school Federal funds to pay for their own school nurse. Never
before have schools been able to use Federal dollars to pay for school
nurses. No longer will school districts have to share a nurse.
This bill also provides essential teacher mentoring programs. Through
my mentoring amendment, we are providing new teachers with one-on-one
mentoring by veteran teachers. Now our new teachers will find the
support they need to stay in the profession. With the dropout
especially in teaching after 5 years, we have to do more to retain our
teachers. As a member of the committee, I am thrilled to mention that
today's bill invests an additional $154 million in after-school
programs, for a total of $1 billion. After-school programs, as we all
know, are the cornerstones to keeping our children safe and giving them
extra time to learn.
Finally, this bill, through my academic intervention amendment,
schools can develop programs to help troubled students stay focused and
achieve their goals. I certainly urge all of my colleagues to support
this education bill. I am looking forward to next year when we will be
tackling the problems that we are having with IDEA. Certainly I know
with our committee we will be fighting to increase the funding to help
those children with disability.
I thank the staff. I know how long and hard it has been for all of
them. It has been a long battle, because both sides had disagreements.
But it kind of shows when we work together, we can get this done. I
thank everyone who was involved.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

[[Page H10089]]

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
conference report. I commend Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller
for their leadership and their diligence in bringing this bipartisan
bill to us. It is certainly an example of excellent bipartisanship and
compromise. Although it has not been an easy process, it shows that we
have all agreed that children are the future of our great democracy and
the foundation of our global economic leadership. I truly believe that
this bill will prove to be landmark legislation. Also, I should commend
President Bush for his leadership on this.
But in any case, I do want to point out a couple of particular areas
where it is especially advanced in giving leadership. One is the
accountability demands here. We are not saying again that we just give
money to State and local school systems, unless they demonstrate
clearly accountability standards are being met in terms of math,
English and reading, reading abilities, and the science abilities.
These tests are specifically evaluated not only by State standards but
also verify the State standards by sampling through the national
assessment test. That is good, it is objective, and it really demands
that students and staff and school boards are being held accountable
for national standards.
I do want to make a point about the mental health provisions here. I
was a leader on the bill; and I was more than a little disappointed
that we did not receive a separate authorization in one area in the
final conference report, but we do have in the final bill,
nevertheless, important school-based mental health provisions in the
safe and drug-free school programs, and certainly that is an
advancement certainly with the kinds of violence that we have seen in
our schools today. It is not as much as I wanted, but it is an
excellent giant step forward.
I do want to also point out, and this is something that was rather
controversial in the bill and in the final, but it has to do with the
IDEA, special education. Here I want to make the commitment. This was
inappropriate to put in this particular bill, but the commitment for
next year, and I plan to take leadership on this, is that our education
committee deals with IDEA reauthorization and deals with those
controversial issues that have come up about discipline and
specialization and integration, et cetera. So we are going to reform
IDEA based on legitimacy of the questions that are involved and bring
all the proper authorities in to discuss this. That is something that
has been postponed until next year. It was appropriate to do. I just
ask our colleagues to strongly support this landmark legislation. Leave
no child behind.
I rise in strong support of the conference report. First and
foremost, I would like to commend the Education and Workforce Committee
Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member George Miller for their leadership,
hard work, and diligence to complete our work on education reform.
This bill is truly an example of bipartisanship and compromise. But
make no mistake--this has not been an easy process. There were many
hurdles along the way and many times we all thought an impasse had been
reached. But no one on either side ever lost sight of the goal: to
ensure that every child, in every public school in America receive a
quality education. This process has not been about politics. This
process has been about the children who are the future of our great
democracy and the foundation of our global economic leadership.

bush plan

On his second day in office, President Bush made it his first
priority to ensure that every child in America learns. I am pleased
that this conference report reflects President Bush's vision for
education reform--to have the best education system possible to ensure
that no child is left behind. The H.R. 1 conference report ensures
accountability through testing and provides flexibility and local
control.
H.R. 1 provides unprecedented flexibility and local control.
Educators are given the flexibility to shape federal education programs
in ways that work best for our teachers and students. Cutting federal
education regulations and providing more flexibility to states and
local school districts is vitally important. Flexibility allows school
districts the ability to target federal resources where they are needed
the most. This will ensure that state and local officials can meet the
unique needs of their students.
H.R. 1 dramatically enhances flexibility for local schools. H.R. 1
allows school districts to transfer a portion of their funds among an
assortment of ESEA programs as long as they demonstrate results. Every
local school district in America will immediately receive the freedom
to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal dollars they receive among
an assortment of programs. In addition, the bill provides for the
establishment of up to 150 local flexibility demonstration projects
across the nation. Local school districts choosing to participate would
receive a virtual waiver from federal education rules in exchange for
signing an ``accountability contract'' with the Education Secretary, in
which the school district would agree to improve student achievement.
The conference report provides more state flexibility than the House
passed bill. All 50 states would immediately receive the freedom to
transfer up to 50 percent of the non-Title I state activity funds they
receive from the federal government among an assortment of ESEA
programs. In addition seven states would be allowed flexibility in the
use of 100 percent of non-Title I federal funds in a variety of
categories.

h.r. 1 enhances accountability and demands results

As we provide more flexibility, we must also ensure that federal
education programs produce real, accountable results. Too many federal
education programs have failed. For example, even though the federal
government has spent more than $120 billion on the Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA) since its inception in 1965, it is not clear that
ESEA has led to higher academic achievement. Federal education programs
must contain mechanisms that make it possible for the American people
to evaluate whether they work. This bill provides accountability and
demands results through high standards and assessments. And it provides
appropriate responses to address failure.
Specifically, the H.R. 1 Conference Report requires states using
federal education dollars to demonstrate results through annual reading
and math assessments for students in grades 3 through 8. $400 million
is authorized to help states design and administer these tests. To
demonstrate not just that overall student achievement is improving, but
also that achievement gaps are closing between disadvantaged students
and other groups of students, states would be required to disaggregate
test results by race, gender, and other criteria. Further, in order to
provide parents with information about the quality of their children's
schools, the qualifications of the teachers teaching their children,
and their children's progress in key subjects, the bill requires annual
report cards on school performance and statewide results.
As a means of verifying the results of statewide assessments, the
conference report requires a small sample of students in each state to
participate in the fourth and eighth grade National Assessment
Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and math every other year. The
bill includes a number of improvements to the NAEP to ensure that the
test remains an independent, high-quality, accurately-reported test.
This bill does not just require assessments. It also ensures results
by focusing funding on what works.
Reading: The bill is grounded in the principle that every child
should be reading by the third grade. The Reading First initiative will
work to accomplish this goal by using federal dollars to improve
literacy and by promoting research based reading instruction in the
classroom. In addition, allocating funds to ensure that children begin
school with the pre-reading skills they need to be able to read by
third grade.
Teachers. To help school improve states will be required to have a
highly-qualified teacher in every classroom by 2005. We make it easier
for local schools to recruit and retain excellent teachers: current
programs are consolidated into a new Teacher Quality Program that would
allow greater flexibility for local school districts in achieving a
quality teaching force. Teacher Opportunity Payments provide funds for
teachers to choose professional development activities.
Technology: H.R. 1 streamlines duplicative technology programs into a
performance based technology grant program that sends more money to
schools. In doing so, it facilitates comprehensive and integrated
education technology strategies that target the specific needs of
individual schools. It also ensures that schools will not have to
submit multiple grant applications and incur the associated
administrative burdens to obtain education technology funding. States
and local school districts may use this funding to increase access to
technology, improve or expand teacher professional development in
technology, or promote innovative state and local technology
initiatives that increase academic achievement.

mental health provisions

I am pleased that the final conference report retains important
mental health provisions from the House bill. Currently, schools are
not adequately equipped to address the mental

[[Page H10090]]

health needs of students. Even before September 11, our nation was
experiencing an urgent need for school-based mental health services.
The serious shortage of counseling programs in America's schools has
further undermined efforts to make our schools safe. In addressing
school safety, it is critical that we ensure that children with mental
health problems are identified early and provided with services they so
desperately need. Many youth who may be headed toward school violence
or other tragedies can be helped if we address their early symptoms.
I should say that I am disappointed that the Elementary and Secondary
Counseling program did not receive a separate authorization in the
final Conference report, as was done in the House bill. The School
Counseling Program has a track record of preventing school violence.
This is a vital program that helps students develop the tools they need
to interact with their peers, make healthy decisions, and succeed in
school. Currently, this is only federal program designed to increase
students' access to qualified school-based mental health professionals.
The School Counseling Program directs much-needed federal resources
for school-based mental health programs. At the current funding level,
382 schools in 29 states benefit from counseling programs under this
provision. It is obvious that many more schools are in need of these
funds to provide counseling services to their students. I will work
diligently to ensure that funding for this program will grow to meet
the mental health needs of our nation's children.
The final bill does retain the important school-based mental health
provisions in the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that I worked to
include in the House bill. These provisions provide resources to ensure
that mental health screening and services are made available to young
people.
At the local level, school districts are allowed to use their Safe
and Drug-Free Schools funds for the expansion and improvement of mental
health services. In addition, governors are required to give special
consideration in awarding competitive Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants
to those school districts that incorporate school based mental health
services programs in their drug and violence prevention activities.

idea mandatory funding

One of the major hurdles in this Conference was the issue of full
funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Everyone
agrees that the federal government is failing to pay its fair share of
the costs of special education and all sides agree on the need for more
money for students with disabilities. The problem is that this bill is
not the appropriate vehicle to address the IDEA funding problem because
funding and reform must be linked.
I want to alert and focus the attention of my colleagues on the fact
that IDEA reauthorization is the next major education priority for the
Education Committee. We must focus on reforms that would ease the
special education burden on states and local schools while making the
system work properly for students with disabilities. The Department of
Education and the President's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education is preparing to assist Congress in a comprehensive, evidence-
based review of IDEA's programs.

vote for the conference report

I am confident that this bill will prove to be landmark legislation--
it is not perfect, but provides a firm foundation for reforming our
nation's education system. I recognize that we cannot allow the perfect
be the enemy of the good. Is this a good bill? Yes. Does it reflect the
President's priorities? Absolutely. Will it improve education in
America today? I have no doubt about that. The bill we are voting on
today takes a meaningful step towards leaving no child behind. I urge
all of my colleague to support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and
the conference report and want to highlight two points in particular
from the conference report.
The first is that this bill authorizes for the first time a proposal
that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), and myself introduced a couple of years ago
called the Transition to Teaching Act which provides a financial
incentive for people to consider making a midlife career change into
teaching, subject to the same rigorous standards that anybody has to
meet to be certified as a teacher in a State. This bill will authorize
up to $150 million for that program. Universities, colleges of
education, school districts can team up with the private sector to
provide this way to deal with our growing crisis in this country as we
face the need for over 160,000 new school teachers in my State alone,
Florida, and 2.2 million nationally.
The second thing I want to highlight about this bill has to do with
the standardized testing section. I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), and Senator Kennedy for working hard to include in the
reporting language the requirement that testing provide diagnostic
value. By that, I mean that when a child is subjected to a standardized
test, as that child's parent, if my son is not doing well in fourth
grade math, I want to know what the problem is; and most importantly, I
want to know how to fix it. The reporting language in this bill says
that a State should take that testing information, should share it with
teachers, share it with principals, share it with parents, share it
with students so they understand what the problem is and how to fix it,
because that is the purpose of testing.
Please do not let happen to your State what has happened to my
wonderful State, Florida. The politicians have hijacked standardized
testing in Florida. It is a crime in my State to share the content of
the test or the test results with a parent, a teacher or principal.
That is a crime in and of itself. Testing should be used to help
teachers teach, children learn, and parents take responsibility for
their children's education. Let us do standardized testing the right
way. It should have diagnostic value. That should be the principal
purpose of testing. This bill provides a model for those States that
are going to develop standardized testing and hopefully a first step
towards getting States like mine back on the right track.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
(Mr. GILCHREST asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reemphasize some of the comments. I also
support the rule. I will vote for the rule, but I will not vote for the
conference report. There are many good things in this legislation. The
President has helped the House and the Senate develop a lot of positive
things that the Federal Government can do to become involved in the
process of stimulating curiosity, intellectual curiosity and knowledge.
But the critical area that fails in this legislation in my opinion is
based on the conversation that the gentleman from Florida just
mentioned, and, that is, that the Federal Government is requiring,
through a pretty heavy hand, that the State governments create a
testing tool, whether it is diagnostic or not, that will have a fairly
riveting effect, in my judgment, of sterilizing and taking away the
uniqueness of each individual teacher's expertise. When you do that,
you do not create an academic environment that the teachers thrive on
or the parents or the students.
Unfortunately, I rise to support the rule but oppose the conference
report.
I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on HR 1. While I am
thankful for the President's commitment to improving America's schools,
particularly those failing our most vulnerable children, I feel
strongly that this legislation will take us in the wrong direction,
and, in the end, alienate parents from their local schools, rob
teachers of their passions and gifts, and deprive children of not only
the opportunity to learn through curiosity, imagination, and
investigation, but also the realization that a lifetime of education
can be exciting and invigorating.
Although this debate over how best to address the problems of our
public schools has focused our attention on an issue we all cherish--
but too often neglect--and forced us to search for common ground--
something we too often forgo--I am more convinced now than ever that,
through this legislation, we will be turning our backs on the heart of
successful public education: local control of curriculum, parental and
community involvement in school decisions, and the utilization of
individual teachers' unique excitement and expertise. For this reason,
I will not vote for the Conference Report.
Throughout much of the 20th Century, Congress often followed a single
formula when addressing domestic problems: take away the

[[Page H10091]]

authority of local governments and rely on federal control. In many
instances this formula left citizens and communities out of the process
and forced federal taxes and spending through the roof. We also know
that this formula failed to solve--and often made worse--many of our
most serious problems. And yet, despite these lessons, this House is
going to apply this same failed formula to public education.
The testing provisions in the Conference Report are most indicative
of this continued mindset and are the elements that trouble me the
most. Because many here in Washington have decided testing is the key
to school reform and accountability, this legislation will force states
to create monolithic tests and subject curriculums, which the states
will force upon local schools. Once again, we revert to believing all
wisdom flows from Washington and state capitals.
The unavoidable consequence of this legislation will be less freedom
for school boards, principals, teachers, and parents to decide what is
best for their schools. Tests, ordered by federal bureaucrats and
crafted by state bureaucrats, will be the dim light guiding our
schools. Tests will determine what gets taught, what gets left out,
which schools get more funding, and which teachers get raises. All the
while, parents and teachers, those most committed to the well being of
our children, will be left with their hands tied, interpreting test
results published in the newspapers.
At times, however, this Conference Report seems to realize, though
vaguely, that our schools should not be simply creatures of the Federal
Government. It provides for increased funding going directly to
localities and greater flexibility in the use of these funds. But if we
trust the towns, counties, and neighborhoods of this country to make
the right decisions with all of these federal dollars, why do we fail
to trust them when it comes to what should be taught on the front line,
day-to-day in the classroom?
We are putting power in the wrong place, creating an environment
where vindictive behavior can thrive, sterilizing curiosity and
creativity and ensuring mediocrity. Competition between schools will
not be academically motivated, but rather more politicized.
Whether we are fighting for peace and stability around the globe,
trying to create a more productive work place, or attempting to build
dynamic research institutions, Americans have learned that one rule
predominates: give honorable, hardworking, dedicated humans the freedom
to think and create, and they will excel every time. Constant testing
is not the answer. Empowering parents, teachers, and principals is.
Democracy of the intellect is preferable to an aristocracy of the
intellect.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), a member of the committee.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also want to join my colleagues in support
of the rule and the conference report. I am proud to be here to support
this education reform legislation. I know this measure is going to go a
long way in helping all the students that I represent in my district. I
want to applaud our chairman and our ranking member and all the members
of the conference committee for their hard work in compromising in this
whole area of education reform and making it work so that kids in my
district, kids who do not have a fighting chance in many cases, will
have an opportunity to learn, and those that are limited-English
proficient will be able to acquire those skills, have testing and also
be served by teachers that will have enough funding to be credentialed
or get that credential.
Not only that, I am very, very pleased that the conference committee
also encouraged more support for paraprofessionals, paraprofessionals
that also work sometimes as instructors with our students, and they
help provide a helping hand to many of our students. I want to also
commend our side as well as the other side for providing so much
support in title I funding for low-income disadvantaged students. Now
we can honestly say that we are doing the right thing; that hopefully
no child will be left behind; and that in years to come when we look
back at the work that has been done here, we can with all assurances
know that our effort was not for naught, that we really did do
something good to make our children of all cultures and all races a
part of the American dream. That American dream means do not leave any
child behind and make education available to them in what language they
need to acquire English skills. I applaud the conference committee.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a hard-
working and very important member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the rule on H.R.
1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This bill empowers parents,
helps children learn to read at an early age, and grants unprecedented
new flexibility to local school districts while demanding
accountability.
I would like to focus on two sections of H.R. 1 that have not
received as much attention as others. First, I am proud that this
legislation authorizes $70 million per year for homeless education.
This will have a profound impact on the estimated 1 million homeless
children in our Nation. Being without a home should not mean being
without an education. This legislation expands our commitment to these
special kids who face desperate circumstances.
I am also pleased that this legislation provides $450 million for
math and science teacher training. Our new high-tech economy demands
that children have stronger math and science skills. That means that
teachers also need better training in these areas.

{time} 1300

This new program will help teachers prepare better for students for
careers in engineering or the hard sciences. This result will be a
workforce better able to compete globally. Congress is giving America's
teachers and students the best possible holiday present through this
legislation. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner)
and the conferees for their hard work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Susan Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support
the rule and the report today. We have heard today the results of
months of work by the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House and the Senate Education Committee, and following that, by the
conference committee, and I honor those Members who have struggled so
diligently to reach this goal.
As a Member of the California Assembly, I worked to establish similar
accountability measures for California schools, programs which began 2
years ago. I applaud the committees for bringing this reform to all of
the States.
It will not be easy, nor will it be troublefree. However, requiring
testing and accountability reporting which tracks the progress of
distinct groups of children also encompasses the need for local schools
and states to identify curriculum goals and academic standards. This is
a good foundation for improving the focus of teaching. And, most
important, as stated earlier by my colleagues, the critical aspect of
our testing should be diagnostic. I am pleased that this is clearly
stated in our rationale and implementation support.
Important parts of this program are those that will enable teachers
to improve their teaching skills. High quality teachers are the most
critical predictor of student achievement. I am particularly pleased
that the bill will continue to support programs like the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards Credential Program that provide the
opportunity for teachers to demonstrate high standards of their actual
teaching accomplishment over a year of classroom performance.
Like many of my colleagues and a majority of the Senate conferees, I
am disappointed that as we are mandating programs to local school
districts and have expressed our intent to fund them adequately, while
we have done that, we have failed to phase in funding to meet the
commitment Congress made 26 years ago to fund special education. It is
particularly ironic that as we have rightly focused H.R. 1 on the needs
of the poorest children through Title I, we have failed to recognize
that two-thirds of all children with disabilities are also eligible for
Title I funds. We must work forcibly next year to meet this promise.
There is much hope in H.R. 1, and I am happy to support this new
focus on

[[Page H10092]]

the importance of teaching all of our children.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying this is a standard
rule for the consideration of a conference report, and it will allow us
to consider historic education that will provide parents, schools and
communities with the tools needed to better educate our children. H.R.
1, the No Child Left Behind Act, is the vision of our President, and
promises to bring accountability, flexibility and consolidation to
Federal education policy.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this Nation owes a
big thank you to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and
for our President for showing us that this Congress can work together
in a bipartisan basis and, at the same time, do what is right and good
for our kids.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this straightforward
rule and the bipartisan bill which it backs up.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 315, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1), to close the achievement
gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is
left behind.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
December 13, 2001, Part II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, almost 37 years ago, the Federal Government made a
promise to the children of our Nation, a promise that all children,
regardless of race, income, faith or disability, would have an equal
chance to learn and to succeed. Thirty-seven years later, the Federal
Government is still failing to meet that promise, and Republicans and
Democrats have come together to say enough is enough. No more false
hope for our children, no more broken promises, and no more mixed
results.
The legislation before us today lays the foundation for the most
significant Federal education reforms in a generation. If properly
implemented, these reforms will bring purpose to a Federal law that has
lost its focus and never met its promise. It will mean immediate new
hope for students in failing schools and new choices for parents who
want the best education possible for their children. It will mean new
freedom for teachers and school districts to meet higher expectations
and give our children the chance to learn and to succeed.
Others before us have renewed this law, and have made similar claims.
We must have the courage not just to vote for these reforms today, but
to ensure that they are implemented.
This process began nearly a year ago in Austin, Texas, thanks to the
leadership and courage of President Bush. It is marked not just by
bipartisanship, but by a willingness on the part of those involved to
take a gamble on behalf of our poorest students. It has been marked by
the courage of legislators on both sides of the aisle to challenge
conventional thinking and party orthodoxy for the sake of meaningful
change.
I want to acknowledge my partner in this process, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller). We have many different views and we
disagree instinctively on many things, but I would suggest that when it
comes to the education of our children, there is no Member of this body
who is less content to accept the status quo than the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller). His courage, his honesty and his
leadership throughout this process has been instrumental, and, without
it, we would not be standing here today.
I also want to thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
have worked so hard on behalf of America's students: The gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), and the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham); and on the Democrat side, let me recognize the
contributions of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), all who have been vital to the success of
this very important bill.
I know the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) joins me in
giving particular thanks to our staff, who have made incredible
sacrifices to bring this bill to completion.
I want to thank Sally Lovejoy of the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce majority staff, who has put her heart and soul into this,
and her counterpart on the Democrat side, Charlie Barone, who have
worked literally 10 times more hours than the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) and I in putting all of the incredible intricate
legislative language together that allows us to be here today.
I also want to thank Danica Petroshius of Senator Kennedy's staff,
Townsend McNitt of Senator Gregg's staff and Denzel McGuire of the
Senate HELP Committee, who worked with us day and night over the last
year to bring this bill together.
I also want to thank my own committee staff, George Conant, Pam
Davidson, Kirsten Duncan, Scott Galupo, Joyce Gates, Kate Gorton, Blake
Hegeman, Cindy Herrle, Charles Hokanson, Patrick Lyden, Doug Mesecar,
Maria Miller, Paula Nowakowski, Lisa Paschal, Krisann Pearce, Kim
Proctor, Ron Reese, Whitney Rhoades, Deborah Samantar, David
Schnittger, Kevin Smith, Kathleen Smith, Jo-Marie St. Martin, Linda
Stevens, Rich Stombres, Bob Sweet, Holli Traud and Heather Valentine,
who all have participated in this very worthwhile project.
Let me also thank the staff of our conferees, James Bergeron, Jeff
Dobrozsi on my staff, Jessica Efird, Kara Hass, Mike Kennedy, Lesli
McCollum, Janel Prescott and Glee Smith, for all of their efforts.
We are also grateful for the enormous efforts and assistance that we
have received from the Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, and his staff
at the Department of Education. His expertise as a former
superintendent of a major urban school system has been invaluable. Let
me also recognize Margaret Spellings and Sandy Kress from the White
House staff, who I expect will be here today with us, for the
instrumental role that they played in this process.
But, most of all, however, I believe we should recognize the role of
our President. Without his courage in proposing these reforms and his
courage in continuing to press for them after taking office, none of
this would have been possible. These reforms mark the first time in a
generation that Washington has returned a meaningful degree of
authority to parents at the expense of the education bureaucracy. They
will streamline a significant share of the Federal education
bureaucracy in one stroke, and, most importantly, they will provide new
hope for the next generation of disadvantaged students, and we can help
them avoid the misery of low expectations. If implemented properly and
reinforced by a continuing commitment to real reform, it will bring an
era of false hope to a long overdue end.
I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have
worked hard to turn the President's vision for education reform into a
reality. I believe we produced a plan that is worthy not just of the
support of Republicans

[[Page H10093]]

and Democrats and independents, but also of teachers, parents and, most
of all, our children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I believe that today the
Committee on Education and the Workforce brings a product that we can
all be very proud of and that I believe everyone in this House can
support.
I want to begin by thanking a lot of people that made this possible.
The merits of this bill and the content of this bill is pretty widely
disbursed right now, so I want to take a moment to thank those
individuals that made this bipartisan product possible.
I want to begin with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). It
just simply can be said that without him, this conference would have
never been successful, and without him, we would not be standing here
today to present a dramatically new reform of a 30-year-old program
that is going to provide, I think, a greater educational opportunity
for America's disadvantaged children. He kept his word about where we
were going, he worked hard to see that we got there, and he worked very
hard the last 24 hours to drag us across the finish line. I cannot
think of a better working experience I could have had with the chairman
of my committee.
I also want to thank my Democratic Members of the conference
committee: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who probably knows
more about reauthorizing ESCA than anybody else in the House of
Representatives, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), all of whom contributed an
immense amount of time, an immense amount of knowledge on this subject,
and a commitment to our children.
I want to say the same for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson),
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Republican Members of our working group who helped us
frame this piece of legislation, to present it to the committee, and,
ultimately, to present it to the House, where we received an
overwhelming vote of 384 to 45.
I want to thank our Senate counterparts, Chairman Ted Kennedy of the
Senate Committee on Education, and Senator Judd Gregg, the senior
Republican on that committee, that were so helpful to us in the
conference committee.
Clearly the involvement and the support of Secretary Paige and the
President's special assistant on this matter, Sandy Kress, who, again,
helped guide us through this process.
The staff of this committee has worked long and hard. They have spent
many days where they worked 24 hours, or longer, 30 hours, going
through this legislation and getting it in shape so we could bring it
before you. I want to begin by thanking Charles Barone, John Lawrence
and Danny Weiss of my staff and of the committee staff, and special
thanks to Alex Nock, who worked for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee), who, again, just had a tremendous amount of expertise on the
history of this bill, the intent of this bill, the purpose of this
bill, and where we should be going would it. To Denise Forte, who
worked hard on civil rights.

{time} 1315

I want to thank Denise Forte, who worked hard on the civil rights,
and Mark Zuckerman, who was our pit bull here, our House attorney, and
to Ruth Friedman and James Kvall, all of whom provided support for this
legislation. I just want to mention that Denise Forte cannot be here
today as we pass this legislation because she is out receiving an award
from the National Youth Law Center for her work on juvenile justice
legislation that we addressed earlier in the year.
I also want to give special thanks to Brendan O'Neil, who works for
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who was very, very helpful to
us, and Maggie McDow who works for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), who was helpful in constructing a way out of a room that maybe
I had painted our conferees into, but she constructed a way out that I
think is going to provide a new day for local districts and the
flexible use of their fundings.
I want to thank Danica Petroshius from Senator Kennedy's office, who
really led much of the effort on our side. To Sally Lovejoy, let me
just say thank you. Thank you. Thank you for urging us on all of the
time and thank you for your cooperation in working with our staff. And
to Paula, thank you for overseeing this. Sometimes just sitting there
kind of silently rolling her eyes thinking, what is it you are talking
about and why do you not stop talking and move on. But we thank you for
that effort.
Obviously, when we do a reform of this magnitude and this nature and
this far-reaching, there is a lot of people on the outside who have
serious concerns about the impact on this Nation's children. I want to
thank the individuals from Education Trust, Kati Haycock and Amy
Wilkins, and I want to thank Bill Taylor and Dianne Piche from the
Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights, and the people from the Center
for Law and Education, Paul Weckstein from the Center for Law and
Education for their help and guidance that they gave us in making sure
that this bill really was an improvement for disadvantaged children in
this Nation. That was our intent. I believe that is what we
accomplished.
I will have a little bit more to say about it, but I want to make
sure that we have time for the members of the conference committee and
members of the committee to talk in support of this legislation and
give us the benefit of their thoughts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a valued member of the committee
and one of our conferees who has worked diligently over the years on
behalf of our children.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for his leadership on
this important issue.
I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1. This
is a significant accomplishment of this Congress and a great
achievement for President Bush, who made education the top priority of
his domestic agenda. The conference report largely reflects his
priorities and his active support and involvement in this process,
which has been crucial in bringing us to this point.
There are many features of this bill that represent significant
departures in Federal education policy. In this bill, we have given
States and school districts more flexibility to use Federal funds as
they see fit. We have included, as one of the many new options for
children trapped in failing schools, an opportunity to use title I
money to purchase supplemental services such as tutoring, which is a
reform that many in this House have advocated for years. We have also
consolidated many of the current duplicative education programs to
better focus money to the students who need help the most, while
continuing proven initiatives such as the Troops to Teachers program
which has put several thousand high-quality teachers in our high-need
schools since 1993.
To be sure, I have some misgivings about the new accountability
provisions in this conference report. Many States such as Wisconsin
have spent years developing successful accountability systems that do
not necessarily involve testing all students on an annual basis. For
the Federal Government to now demand that annual testing in reading and
math take place every year in grades 3 through 8 amounts to a new
mandate placed on the States.
On the other hand, given that the national government has poured
upwards of some $130 billion in the elementary and secondary education
over the last 36 years with no discernible improvement in educational
outcomes for our most disadvantaged students, I fully understand the
urgent need to find some ways to make sure that new Federal resources
are tied to results.
In any case, I am pleased that this conference report makes a
credible attempt to address my concerns about saddling States with this
new responsibility. This conference increases the

[[Page H10094]]

amount of money authorized to help States develop and administer the
tests.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is our ranking member on
the Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education; and I want to
publicly thank him for his work to make sure that we had an
independent, freestanding after-school program as a part of this
legislation.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to start by thanking both the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their
strong leadership during this very historic conference. Their
bipartisan mission was to produce a bill that will truly help the most
disadvantaged children. The conference report before the House
accomplishes this feat, and I urge Members to support its passage. This
legislation has many, many positive aspects; but in the short time I
have, I will only touch upon a few of them.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 rejects attempts to authorize private school
vouchers and Straight A block grants. The conference report does, under
the Roemer provision enacted in the House, authorize additional
flexibility for local school districts while maintaining accountability
and targeting of resources. In short, this bill returns ESEA to its
original focus by primarily centering on increasing educational
opportunity for disadvantaged children.
H.R. 1 also does not block grant the 21st Century and Safe and Drug-
Free Schools programs. It maintains both of these authorities
separately.
In addition, the conference report will make much-needed improvements
to the 21st Century program to increase community involvement, extend
the grant cycle, and require a match of local resources. Most
importantly, the 21st Century program will have a renewed focus on
quality and academics, reinforcing current administration of the
program.
This bill will build upon the disaggregation requirements of the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA by ensuring that State accountability systems
do not mask the failure of at-risk subgroups of children. No longer
will subpar results for minority, low-income, disabled, and limited-
English proficiency children be masked by the higher performance of the
majority.
In addition, H.R. 1 vastly improves the targeting of resources to
disadvantaged areas, while not stripping funds from localities which
presently receive them. One of the main points of contention during the
1994 reauthorization of ESEA was the difference between the two bodies
on title I formula. I believe the compromise that we will ratify here
today was reached through hard work and compromise on all sides.
When the Congress last reauthorized ESEA in 1994, I was chairman of
the subcommittee. We produced a strong, bipartisan bill in 1994 that
gained the support of a large majority of the House. But under the
leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), we have produced a much better
bill today. I urge all Members to support this conference report.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their leadership during this conference.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), one of our conferees and one of
our real partners throughout the process, a former president of the
State school board of the State of Georgia and a member of our
committee.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well in lieu of the desk so I
can look the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the
committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
ranking member, in the eye and say ``thank you,'' not out of courtesy,
but out of great admiration for the great job these two men have done.
Both had the opportunity to succumb to unbelievable pressures, both
partisan and political, and neither did. They kept the interest of
America's children and the number one issue of our President paramount.
Because of them and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), and the hard work of Ms. Lovejoy and, for me, without the
help of Glee Smith, it would have been impossible to spend the time.
I am a subscriber to a great quote: ``Our children are a message we
send to a time we will never see.'' The last generation of American
politicians, though unintended, sent a mixed message. Our richest and
most affluent children have prospered and succeeded and grown, but our
poorest and our most disadvantaged have not progressed; and in fact,
the gap between them and our best and most affluent has widened.
We will send a new message to a generation that we probably will not
see with the development of this legislation.
Robert Browning said that education is a journey, it is not a
destination; and I know from my work in Georgia that it is a process,
it is not an event. Over time, the investment of this bill means that
13 years from now when this year's kindergartner graduates from high
school, our dropout rate will be lower, our reading comprehension rate
will be higher, and America's children will enjoy the promise of
America: employment, wealth, and, most of all, self-pride.
I could talk for hours about the opportunity this bill gives, but I
want to summarize by saying this: to parents, it gives choices of
academic enrichment; to students, it gives the investment of resources
they have never had; to teachers, the flexibility to use the materials
they believe are right; to school boards, it gives the direct order, we
are going to leave no child behind. You will have the resources, but
you will also have the responsibility. And to America's taxpayer, for
the first time, it gives accountability for the dollars that are
invested in America's children.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long I will serve in Congress, and I
have been fortunate enough to be in public life for 24 years. Today is
the most important day, and this is the most important event, I have
ever been a part of; and I would venture to say, regardless of what the
future holds, when my career is over, I will say the same. I have had
the occasion to work for a great chairman, a great ranking member, and
with men and women who are dedicated to leaving no child behind. I am
pleased to serve under a President who has led our party in a positive
direction toward the education of our children, all of our children,
rich and poor alike. We are a great Nation and the generation that we
are about to send into the future will be better off because of the
efforts of this Congress and this President.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). Again, I want to thank her so
much for really being so tenacious on the question of making sure that
these resources were targeted and that they were going to be there for
the disadvantaged population and also for her outspoken support of the
Women's Equity program in this legislation.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of our committee,
for his kind words and for giving me the opportunity to serve on the
small task force that worked on this bill prior to its coming to the
floor of the House, and again, appointing me to the conference
committee so that I could have a chance to monitor the discussions and
the debates on this bill.
I want to join the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and commendations to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) and all of the Members on his side for their great efforts in
bringing us to this point today. I would not want to describe it as a
miracle, but a near miracle that we were able to put such a monumental
piece of legislation together and to win the consensus of such a wide-
ranging group of people that come to the table with some very, very
strong ideas about education.

[[Page H10095]]

{time} 1330

This bill was in the making for well over 3 years. We have debated
many, many issues. In the process, we have worked together by consensus
to an agreement on the importance of developing legislation that
prescribes programs and allocates money and encourages school districts
to perform so that our children can have a better opportunity in the
end.
What is remarkably different about this bill is that it sets
guidelines in a very forceful way which will challenge our school
districts to do better because they will have the opportunity to use
the resources that the Congress will be providing in a way that will be
helpful to children.
I know there has been a long harangue about the tests. I was one of
them who said that this is a very onerous burden to place upon our
schools, to have testing each of the years from 3 to 8, and the
inability of many school districts to pay for it was also part of the
discussion.
But in the end, with the tests, which will be put together by the
States, it will be under their judgment; and we will have a chance to
look at all the school districts in the country and measure them
against national standards. Parents all across this country will
finally have an opportunity to know whether their schools are
performing to the best interests of their children. So I think that is
a remarkable difference.
In the end, what is going to make this bill an opportunity for our
children and allow the promise of the President that no child shall be
left behind to be fulfilled, that will happen only if our local
administrators will read this bill and take to heart that they have a
special responsibility and challenge to use the tools that this
legislation will provide.
My district has a horrible problem in getting teachers, and there are
500 or 600 vacancies every September that cannot be filled. We have
roamed the country to try to find teachers. But in this bill is the way
and the method for our school districts to use the monies that are
being provided to take care of the essential requirements of our school
districts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this legislation.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), one of the integral members
of this conference who helped push us along.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will lend my voice to the chorus. I feel
like we are preaching the eulogy for the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) here; and they
are still alive and well, for people listening in.
But these two gentlemen deserve our praise, and they are going to add
much more to the future of education to come. This is not the end of
our work day; this is just the beginning. But it was a great job well
done in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great move forward; but at the end of the day,
local control is still dominant in education. We have increased funding
dramatically under the bill; but 90 percent-plus of funds for education
come from the local area, from the State area. The formula for
education excellence has not changed at all. It is a parent and a child
with a good teacher and a caring community, and that is still the
formula for success.
But what we have tried to do is build on that formula and change the
way we do business in Washington. The President gave Congress a test
when he came into power. He asked us, is the current situation okay?
And the right answer was, ``no.'' So we passed the test. The answer was
``reform.'' This bill is big on reform, and the students are at the
center of everything we have done. There is more money, but that is not
the answer. There is more accountability; that is not the answer. The
two together are the answer: more accountability and the funds to get
there.
I am proud to be part of this work product. Our children are going to
benefit. We have a good mix of local control with national standards to
be implemented at the local level, and we are going to actually see how
our children are doing in the area of math and reading from the third
through the eighth grade nationwide, and let each State move forward.
If we have a school district that fails our children, we are not
going to just sit on the sidelines anymore; we are going to make that
school district better, and we are going to give some options they
never had.
We are getting close to the holidays, and I think this is Congress'
holiday present to the American people and the schoolchildren of this
country: a bill that focuses on the student and not on bureaucracy;
more money, more accountability.
I am proud to be part of a Congress that actually delivered and
passed the test.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I would thank him for
all of his help here with the preschool portions of this bill and also
the efforts to expand and support charter schools. I thank him for his
work.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I begin by offering my thanks and
appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our ranking member, for
their very gifted leadership; for the diligence of my Republican and
Democratic colleagues on this conference; for the professionalism of
the staff on both sides that did such an outstanding and hard-working
job; and especially to Matt Walker of my own staff.
Mr. Speaker, this is an achievement that presents us with both a
golden opportunity and a great responsibility. To understand that
golden opportunity, we need to understand what life has been like for
one of the children who have had the misfortune of attending one of the
dark and often violent places called schools where not much learning
has gone on in recent years in America.
When that child fails year after year, or when that child is failed
by her school or his school year after year, they just move on to third
grade or fourth grade or fifth grade, and then fifth grade becomes
junior high school, and then too often junior high school leads to the
streets or to a drug rehab center or to a dead end job, or to a morgue.
These schools have failed these children year after year, and this
bill I believe can make a great difference because this bill says that
America's taxpayers will no longer sit back and permit that failure to
occur.
If a school continues to fail its children year after year, something
is going to happen. Instead of spending money on public relations for
the board of education or a new hire who is the Mayor's brother-in-law,
the money is going to go to tutors and technology and summer school and
after-school programs.
And if it does not, something is going to change. The people who
refused to make that change will be replaced and removed, and that
child will have a new opportunity.
We have a great responsibility that accompanies that golden
opportunity, because we have to make this work. We have given the
Department of Education and the States and the teachers and the school
districts and the students of this country tools to make this happen,
but we need to make sure that it works; that the excuses are cast aside
and the attempts to evade this new responsibility are not tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, this conference, of which I have been honored to be a
part, has done a great job to write what I believe is a strong law; but
we all have ahead of us a new responsibility to make sure it works.
When it does, I believe people will look back on this day as a day
that education changed for the least fortunate students in this country
and became more than just a promise, but became a reality in their
lives and in the lives of our Nation.
I would urge an overwhelming ``yes'' vote for this great piece of
legislation, and again thank our leadership for this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), who provided a special focus
on this conference to the needs of rural schoolchildren.

[[Page H10096]]

Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for
everything that he has done, along with the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), as well as all our
colleagues on the conference committee, and the staffs, the staffs from
both ends of this building, for putting together what I think is a
great product here today.
I am also thankful to the administration, President Bush and
Secretary Paige, who I think is exactly the right man at the right time
with the right qualifications to get the job done for our children in
this country as Secretary of Education.
Education must remain a primary responsibility of State and local
school systems. I hope it will always remain so. But in many cases,
even though we have many diamonds in the rough, in many cases that job
is not getting done; and it is simply not fair for the children to
continue to fall through the cracks while we are waiting for them to
get their acts together.
That is what this bill does, in effect. It does have more flexibility
for local school systems, it requires more accountability; and in
exchange for that, it provides more dollars so that they can get the
job done.
As the chairman of the committee mentioned, a special part of this
bill was the part that I was able to have a big part in, and that was
providing a little more money for rural school systems. They sometimes
operate at a competitive disadvantage to their affluent suburban
counterparts and their inner-city counterparts because of the formula
scheme with title I, as well as the fact that rural school systems do
not have an army of grant-writers to compete really on an even playing
field. So hopefully we will begin the process of evening the playing
field.
We also protected the Boy Scouts in this legislation, which I also
authored, which I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation in in keeping
that in the bill; and we have required that military recruiters have
access to the schools, so that especially at a time like now, when it
is so important, they can recruit the best and brightest, and at least
give the young high school graduates an opportunity to serve in the
military.
Finally, I just want to say that we have worked awfully hard on this,
and it is a great product. I just hope that everybody will give the
children of this country a Christmas present this year by voting for
this bill. I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and publicly again I just want
to thank him for all of the work that he did on flexibility, where he
helped us overcome what was going to be a terrible, terrible political
stalemate and I think worked out to the satisfaction of all of the
members of the conference committee.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it has been
almost a perfect process.
Due to the integrity and the leadership and the skills of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), we are at a point of passing landmark and historic
legislation to help poor children get a truly good opportunity in this
country to get a great education.
There is a lot of credit that goes around. I want to thank the
working group, a number of Republicans and Democrats that have met for
the last 10 months and with tenacity and intelligence worked through
these issues.
I want to thank my staff member, Maggie McDowell, who helped us
balance principle and politics. I want to thank the professional staff
on both sides. I want to thank the New Democrats that helped us design
a bill that is 65 or 70 percent of this bill.
Also, I want to thank the President of the United States for his
leadership and passion on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this country, with the passage of this bill, will no
longer tolerate meaningless degrees. We will no longer tolerate saying
that children who come from poor backgrounds can get less of an
education. We will no longer tolerate unqualified teachers in poor
schools that are not working well.
How do we achieve all this? Briefly, we have diagnostic tests, not
high-stakes punitive tests, but tests that will help us actually find
out why that child is not reading well, and remediate.
Secondly, we have the resources to help get the tutoring from private
and public sources to help these children; and we will have to fight
for more resources, especially for IDEA, children with disabilities.
Thirdly, we have set a standard, 4 years for all teachers to be
qualified.
Fourth, we have the flexibility that the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) mentioned: flexibility to move funds within
different accounts, except title I, and to transfer when they meet
those programmatic goals in technology, or with qualified teachers. If
they have met those goals, we provide the transferability and
flexibility to move some money around from account to account.
We have public school choice and charter schools, and more help for
those needed charter schools; and we have the NAPE test, a test that
will help us gauge the strength of our State tests.
Mr. Speaker, in my 11 years as a Member of this body, today
especially I am proud to be a Member of this great institution, this
law-making body that combined process with product to help our Nation's
poorest children get a better education. I am very proud of this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and a valued member of our team.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference for H.R. 1,
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This landmark legislation will
reform our Nation's public school system.
As a grandfather of 24, all of whom having reached the proper age and
are attending public schools, I stand here with great pride to support
a bill which embodies the principles President Bush has championed
since taking office in January of this year.
Leadership really does make a difference; and last year, many of us
on the committee, along with Senators on education, were called to
Austin to meet with then President-elect Bush. He put forth the
principles that he believed in, and he gave us all an opportunity to
tell him how we felt.
And then the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) took up that challenge, and they
have worked together very diligently. They have provided an atmosphere
where all of us could participate and be a part of working on this
great bill. I want to thank them for that.

{time} 1345

This bill contains the President's vision that the best way to
improve America's schools is to hold them accountable, to increase
local and State flexibility, to fund what works and to expand parental
options.
Even though the centerpiece of the President's proposal is the annual
testing, where problems can be found before it is too late to fix them,
and parents can be given information to choose a better performing
school, I would like to touch on a few other provisions which I believe
are very important.
First, the bill will provide unprecedented new flexibility for all 50
States in every local school district in America in the use of Federal
education funds. Having served on a local school board for 9 years I
know that those school boards will appreciate that flexibility. I know
that the superintendents will appreciate that flexibility.
Under the conference report, every local school district will
immediately receive freedom from red tape to transfer up to 50 percent
of the Federal dollars that they receive among an assortment of
programs. It will also allow up to 150 local flexibility demonstration
projects, where locals can receive a waiver from Federal education
rules in exchange for signing an accountability contract with the
Department of Education, and it will allow seven States

[[Page H10097]]

to receive waivers from various Federal education requirements.
Hopefully these demonstration projects will help us in further moving
more freedom of flexibility to all the other local schools.
State and local officials know best how to educate our children. This
bill will allow States and local school districts to advance their own
priorities such as reducing class size, hiring new teachers or buying
new textbooks and computers.
Next, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the 21st Century
Competitiveness, I am especially pleased to see this conference report
includes strong teacher professional and education technology sections.
The bill retains key provisions that the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), my colleague and good friend, and I, along with many
others, have been working on over the last Congress with the
flexibility to decide whether to spend funds on hiring new teachers or
improving the skills of the teachers already in the classroom.
Technology can be a powerful means for improving student achievement
and academic achievement. In fact, States and local school districts
are already experimenting with promising technology programs,
everything from online research to distance learning. Such innovation
should be encouraged by the Federal Government and bolstered by Federal
spending.
To help further the effort to integrate technology into teaching, we
need to make sure teachers know how to use that technology in their
teaching and increase access to technology for their students.
The conference report on H.R. 1 accomplishes this by consolidating a
number of technology programs into a single stream of funding to our
local school districts. Further, the bill fully integrates technology
into the curriculum by increasing access to the highest quality
teachers and courses possible, regardless of where the students live.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to again thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and all
those who have worked so diligently to pass this bill that will help
further the education of all of our children and leave none of them
behind.
I urge support of this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and thank him for all of his
work. He probably said it many times in this committee, that if we gave
disadvantaged children an opportunity to learn with all of the
resources necessary and the well-trained teacher, he was fully prepared
to accept the accountability, believing that those children could meet
and exceed those marks of accountability, and I think it kept us
focused on that central theme of this legislation.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my leader, the ranking
Democrat on the committee, and thank and congratulate the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee. They did a
marvelous job of fashioning this bill through a process with a lot of
creative, independent minds on both sides of the aisle, and we have
arrived at a bill I think we can all be proud of.
It is in the details. If my colleagues look in the details, we find a
lot of hard work has been done, a lot of creative work has been done
here, and we should not leave out congratulations and thanks to a job
well done by a hardworking staff. I think the leadership of Sally
Lovejoy in her stern, productive way, has produced some details in this
bill which carry forth the real meaning of what we do in education
reform.
I also want to thank my staff member, Larry Walker. They spent a
large part of the summer here and late nights and long days, and they
are to be congratulated for producing the document which in the details
we will find a lot of creativity.
I also want to note the fact that this is great step forward. Lyndon
Johnson took the first great step forward when he initiated the
Elementary Secondary Education Assistance Act after many long years of
the Federal Government insisting that it had no role in elementary
secondary education, and now we are taking the next great step forward
building on what Lyndon Johnson started.
The President is to be congratulated for taking such divisive
nonproductive items as vouchers off the table as Federal policy. He
needs to be congratulated for concentrating back on the poor and the
disabled, as Lyndon Johnson originally intended. We can go forward
within this framework.
The only problem is the problem we ended up with in the committee, a
fervent plea for the funding of IDEA. If we funded special education,
we would be on our way toward providing more resources for education at
a level that is great enough to make a significant difference. There
are increases here, make no bones about that. There are increases here,
but they are not great enough.
We have a situation where the Federal Government of the United States
only covers 7 percent of the overall expenditure for education, and
this includes higher education. It is far too little. We should move
toward a more rational figure like 25 percent. We are the only
industrialized Nation that has such meager support at the national
level for education. It is an extreme. We are at the extreme with 7
percent. We do not want to centralize our education. We do not think
there is any great virtue there, but why be at the extreme? There ought
to be a medium, a means somewhere that we could strive for, where more
resources are given for education to relieve the local education
agencies and the States of the great burdens they have.
I am proud to be a part of this effort, and we must take the next
step in terms of providing more resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would announce
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 10 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 10 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform, a gentleman who has been at the heart of this process for a
number of years, and the former governor of the State of Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, not just for his kind
words of introduction but for the work that he and the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) did which has been stated by practically
everybody which very sincerely was extraordinary on this legislation.
Thirty-five years ago, Congress made equal access to a quality public
education a birthright for all Americans. Today education is the
foundation for future success as an individual and a source of strength
for our Nation. Yet too many Americans are unable to participate fully
in the American dream. Worse, those with the greatest academic
difficulties include a disproportionate share of children from low
income families and racial and ethnic minority groups.
For these reasons I am pleased to express my strong support for the
conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Over the
course of the year Republicans and Democrats put an end to the divisive
tactics that have stymied recent reform efforts and produced a serious
bipartisan agreement to improve the way we educate our children for the
better.
As a primary goal, this legislation strives for excellence in
education by encouraging improvements in academic achievement while
also securing greater assistance for those who are having the most
difficulty mastering academic content and as a result, have fallen
behind their peers. To that I want to discuss just three reasons, and
there are many, many more why we should embrace this agreement.
First, H.R. 1 fully authorizes the President's request for $975
million to ensure that every child can read by third grade. The reading
programs contained in this bill will identify students at risk for
reading failure and then provide intensive instruction by trained
educators to bring them up to a proficient level. In this way, we will
reduce the number of learning disabled students referred to special
education and we will give all students the tools

[[Page H10098]]

they need to master more advanced course work.
Second, to ensure our children are learning, H.R. 1 asks States to
access students in grades 3 through 8 annually in math and reading. The
results of these assessments will provides parents and the public an
effective, highly visible measure of how well their children are
performing in school. This in turn will help parents, teachers and
school officials diagnose problems and design remedies to improve
student achievement.
The bill also recognizes the best way to ensure achievement is to
hold the system accountable at all levels, not just the individual
student level. For this reason, H.R. 1 gauges each school's academic
success by the progress of every student in that school, not just the
average student.
Finally, the new flexibility in this bill will allow State and local
districts to better align Federal dollars for their own education
priorities. In addition, the 2 new flexibility demonstrations, H.R. 1
allows States and locals to transfer up to 50 percent of Federal
formula grants between programs. Unlike earlier flexibility provisions,
this option is available to any State or school division and it is
automatic.
For too long we have allowed our most disadvantaged children to be
promoted through our public schools without regard to actual
achievement. For too long we have allowed Federal dollars to flow to
failure, convincing ourselves that some children were simply beyond our
reach. For the first time, H.R. 1 fulfills the promise of education and
opportunity for all children, rich and poor, black and white.
Finally, to those who will argue that Members should oppose or
recommit this legislation because it does not include IDEA mandatory
funding, I ask that you not scuttle a generally good bill. Forty-eight
million public school students have waited patiently for the Congress
to take notice of their plight and provide the help they so desperately
need. Let us not make them wait any longer. Let us approve this bill
and send it to the President this year and then beginning next year, I
invite you to work with me when this committee takes a comprehensive
look at the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. In that way,
we will ensure that our special needs children get the financial
resources and the academic support they need to realize their greatest
potential.
I do want to express their gratitude to the chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and to the ranking member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and to all the other colleagues on
this. As everyone knows, this was a great team and a great staff effort
by everybody. Those who sacrificed many weekends and summer vacations
to produce a legislation. My staff in particular, Kara Haas; and the
President of the United States, who was so involved in this. We thank
President Bush as well.
I encourage everyone to support this legislation which will help all
children.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
First, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for their responsible leadership in holding our
bipartisan coalition together and for crucial support for individual
members' concerns regarding the policy and resource allocation and
recommendations. It was an honor for me to work with all the members of
Committee on Education and the Workforce. I also congratulate Senator
Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their valuable contribution and I thank
President Bush and his administration.
I also wish to recognize the extremely important support of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes) in fighting for provisions very important to the Hispanic
community.
There are many positive features to commend in the conference
agreement, and I wish to mention just a few of them. This bill will
give many disadvantaged students a great opportunity to excel and to
reach as high as they can dream. The conference agreement protects the
principle of public funds for public schools.
There are many, many things, and there is not enough time to thank
everyone and to mention all of these things in the provision, but I
urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
It was an honor for me to work with all the members of the Education
Committee. I also congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for
their valuable contribution and I thank President Bush and his
administration. I also wish to recognize the extremely important
support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, lead by Chairman Reyes in
fighting for provisions very important to the Hispanic Community.
There are many positive features to commend in the conference
agreement and I wish to mention a few of them. The bill will provide
local flexibility, with accountability for reaching performance goals
and formulas that target funds to schools with the greatest needs. This
bill will give many disadvantaged students a great opportunity to excel
and to reach as high as they can dream.
The conference agreement protects the principal of public funds for
public schools. Program authorization and funding will be provided for
school construction and modernization as well as for funding for
separate federal after-school and violence prevention programs. Civil
rights protections are still included and teacher quality programs will
be increased in funding authority by forty percent.
I am very pleased that the Bilingual and Immigrant Education programs
will be protected and expanded and that program accountability and
funding for teacher-training will be increased. Hispanic parents will
find some previously established barriers removed and will find it
easier to participate in school improvement committees.
Migrant students will be provided additional resources and both
bilingual and migrant students will be assisted in program enhancement
with the continuation of national information clearinghouse for
research and evaluation. The Department of Education will assist the
states in the interstate electronic transfer of crucial migrant
records. Time does not permit me to point out other positive
provisions. However, I do want to encourage the members of the
Appropriations Committees in both chambers to accept the
recommendations of the authorizing committees and to fully fund these
programs. Reform without resources is meaningless. I urge all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us pass this bipartisan
conference report on H.R. 1.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 rise also to support this conference
report. And I say, good job, gentlemen. It was hard but they made it
happen.
I would prefer a bill, however, that includes more funding for all
that we are asking of our schools and of our teachers. We have made
quite a list of accomplishments. We need to fund them so they can have
the help they need.
I particularly regret that we are not fully funding our Federal share
of special education. There is not a school district in this Nation
that is not having trouble meeting those costs.
I am pleased, however, that the bill keeps funding for hate crime
prevention intact. It is so important because as a result of the 11th
of September, there has been a dramatic increase in hate crimes,
particularly crimes directed at innocent people and innocent children,
including school children.

{time} 1400

Now, more than ever, because we have this in the bill, we will be
able to teach our children constructive ways to express their feelings.
Nothing matters more to the future of this country than the education
of our children. They are the workers, the soldiers, the diplomats, and
voters of tomorrow. Congratulations, gentlemen.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would like to thank both the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for the bill
we have before us today.
I rise in support of H.R. 1, a bill that truly takes a step forward
in helping

[[Page H10099]]

our children get an education in the United States. Under this bill,
our Nation's schools will now take steps to narrow the achievement gap
between high- and low-income students.
For example, in Santa Ana Unified or Anaheim High School District or
the Anaheim Elementary School District, these are all some of the
poorest school districts in our Nation and certainly some of the most
overcrowded in our Nation. Over 50 percent of the students who are
taught in these districts go to school in portable classrooms. H.R. 1
will help our Nation take a significant step forward in helping
students like those in these school districts that I have the pleasure
of representing.
This bill increases funding for title I programs, increases funding
for bilingual education and authorizes funding for school construction
and modernization. It also includes funding for pedestrian and bicycle
safety, a great issue of importance in my district.
Although Congress still needs to do more to assist schools that teach
children with special needs, H.R. 1 is a critical step in ensuring that
no child is left behind.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of H.R. 1, a truly landmark piece of
legislation. I think it shows what we as a Congress can accomplish when
we are willing to sit down and work together.
Along those lines, I would like to heap more praise on the chairman
and the gentleman from California, and I think the President deserves a
good measure of praise for his constructive role in this, too.
The agreement, I am pleased to see, addresses the subject of math and
science education, especially the recruitment and professional
development of teachers. And if we are going to continue to grow as a
Nation, science and math education is critical.
I am also pleased that the legislation authorizes increased funding
for a number of programs targeted to the neediest and poorest, programs
for title I and teacher quality, bilingual and immigrant education.
But I do want to raise two items that I am disappointed about. I am
disappointed this legislation does not adequately address the Federal
Government's share of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In
New Jersey, the communities I represent tell me this is one of the
biggest challenges they face.
Secondly, I am disappointed this legislation does not address the
issue of pesticides in our schools and does not include notification of
parents and teachers when potentially dangerous chemicals are used
around their children.
But despite these concerns, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate
my support for the bill and thank the conferees for work very well
done.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the conferees for a job
well done.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the conference report on H.R. 1,
the Leave No Child Behind Act. I want to commend Ranking Democrat
George Miller, Chairmen John Boehner and Congressmen Dale Kildee and
Mike Castle for their leadership over the past many months on this most
important issue.
As the only Member of the United States Congress who has actually run
a state school system, I have a unique perspective on federal support
for public education. Perhaps the most important provisions of this
legislation are those that are not contained in this conference report.
There are no vouchers to siphon public dollars to private schools.
There are no irresponsible block grants like those that have been
proposed before in this Chamber. There is no effort to close the U.S.
Education Department by the Republican Leadership. And there are no
massive cuts to public education like those we have defeated time and
again in this body. Those are very significant accomplishments, and I
especially commend my Democratic colleagues for maintaining our party's
historic commitment to quality public education for all children.
As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, I
know firsthand what it takes to achieve real results in academic
improvement. It takes setting high standards and ensuring
accountability. But most importantly, it takes a commitment to ensure
that all of our children have quality educational opportunities to
achieve the goal of ``no child left behind.''
Although this bill falls short of fulfilling our commitment to fund
the federal mandate on special education, I am pleased that this
conference report takes significant steps toward substantial
improvement in education. The bill targets federal funds toward the
neediest students to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged
children and their more affluent peers and between minority and non-
minority students. The conference report strengthens teacher training
so that our school teachers are qualified to teach in their subject
matter. It provides new resources for mentoring, training, salary
enhancement and other improvements that give teachers the resources
they need to do their very important jobs.
For the first time in federal law, this bill will require that
parents are clearly informed about the quality of their children's
education. And it makes a significant new commitment to bilingual and
immigrant education.
I am disappointed that the conferees did not include the Wamp-
Etheridge amendment to provide $50 million in dedicated funding for
character education. The conference report instead includes character
education in the Secretary's discretionary Fund for the Improvement of
Education, and I call on the Secretary to fully fund character
education, which we have pioneered in North Carolina to strengthen
values-based lessons for our children.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this country faces several critical educational
challenges beyond the scope of this legislation. First, we must take
action to relieve the crisis of the lack of adequate school facilities
in this country. In my district, our schools are bursting at the seams,
and too many children are stuffed into overcrowded classrooms or second
rate trailers. We must pass school construction legislation to help
build new schools for our children. We must invest in science and math
to ensure America's global economic leadership in the 21st century. We
must increase aid for college so middle class families have the
opportunity to achieve the American Dream. We have so many educational
challenges ahead of us that we must treat this bill as the very
beginning of our commitment to improving education and not the end of
the process.
In conclusion, this legislation will only work if we back up its
requirements with the resources to get the job done. Tough reform
without resources simply amounts to cruelty to our children. I
understand that the appropriations bill nearing completion contains
enhanced education resources for next year. We still must do much more
to live up to the federal commitment under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and I will be working during next
year's reform of that statute to fulfill that commit. My biggest
concern is that in the hears to come, especially when the full effects
of this year's massive tax bill are felt, Congress will neglect to
provide the necessary resources to fulfill the promises of H.R. 1. I
will fight every step of the way to make sure that does not happen.
Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a hopeful first step toward better
schools for all children in America. I will vote to pass the conference
report on H.R. 1, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
(Ms. WATSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the ``No Child Left
Behind Act.'' I comment the sponsors and conferees of this ambitious
bill that seeks to address many educational reform goals. H.R. 1 is a
bill with good intentions that moves education in the right direction.
My question is, ``Are we going to see the results that we want, given
the proposed authorization levels?''
Mr. Speaker, new federal mandates without providing the necessary
resources to implement them will simply set children and schools up for
failure. Funding has increased, yet many key education programs, such
as Title I, are currently unable to serve all eligible students. In
addition, states facing serious economic downturn coupled with rising
school enrollments are already moving to cut critical education
programs.
Mr. Speaker, directly after the tragic events of 9-11, President Bush
asked for $40 billion dollars to fund home land security and emergency
relief efforts. Congress moved quickly, in a bipartisan manner, to
address our national security needs. Education funding is just as
critical to our national security. Education is the cornerstone of our
society. Education of our children is important to the American ideal
of democracy.

[[Page H10100]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to consider seriously increases
in education funding next session so that we can truly ``Leave No Child
Behind.''
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the NSBA regarding
this bill:
National School Boards

Association,

Alexandria, VA, December 12, 2001.
Re Conference Report on the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.

Member,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's 95,000 local
school board members, we wish to express our disappointment
that the conference report on the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) fails to address the ever-expanding
financial burdens that the federal government imposes on the
nation's school systems and local taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the conference committee rejected an
opportunity that would have recognized both the financial
realities confronting local school systems and the
opportunity to make this legislation the full success it
should be. Had the conferees accepted the Senate provision
for the mandatory funding of the federal share of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), some of
the pressure that this special education mandate places on
school districts would have been relieved and more local
funds would have been released to at least partially support
compliance with the new federal ESEA provisions.
The legislation does provide a promising framework for
raising standards and accountability for all students--with
an important emphasis on raising the achievement of
educationally disadvantaged students. However, the
accomplishment of that goal also involves new mandates; some
are explicitly set forth in the legislation while others will
naturally result from the additional classroom resources that
will be needed. Unfortunately, the legislation does not
contain any commitment by the federal government to
adequately fund these new costs or its ongoing obligation
under IDEA.
Meanwhile, across the nation virtually every state is
experiencing revenue shortfalls. Even small states are
experiencing shortfalls in the billion-dollar range over
their biennial budgets. As a result, reductions in state aid
are forcing cuts in school district budgets. Now, as school
systems must also look toward funding the new requirements in
this bill, as well as serving expanding enrollments of Title
I eligible students, as well as meeting the expanding costs
of the under-funded federal special education mandate (IDEA),
they will have no choice but to raise local property taxes
where they can or suffer severe cut backs in their general
programming. This should not become the local legacy of ESEA.
Given the unique and historic role that this important
legislation can play in American education, state and local
policy makers should not, as a result of inadequate funding,
be forced to lower their sights on high academic standards,
limit their use of the many public school choice options that
are now available, or lose the opportunity to enrich
classroom instruction by having to settle for cheap test
prep programs to drill lower achieving students to pass a
test. Without adequate resources what other results can we
expect? With the shortfall in state and federal funding,
what other impact can we expect than increases in local
taxation?
The stark financial reality of the ESEA reauthorization
will become clear across the nation when school opens next
fall. As attractive as the incremental increase to the
pending FY 2002 education appropriations bill may appear, it
does not match the needs under IDEA or the new ESEA
requirements, which the Congress is about to adopt.
Local educators and local school board members want this
legislation to work, and more importantly, they want the
nation's 47 million public schoolchildren to reach higher
levels of academic achievement. They are also very
appreciative of the increased flexibility that the
legislation provides in their use of federal funds. But they
do not want to be set up to fail because of a lack of
financial accountability by the federal government.
Despite our financial concerns, NSBA does not oppose the
passage of this legislation because the bill does establish a
promising framework for raising student achievement. However,
we urge Congress to view the passage as the first of a series
of steps during the remainder of the 107th Congress to ensure
that both the new requirements of ESEA and the federal share
of the cost of IDEA are fully funded.
Sincerely,
James R. Ruhland,
President.
Anne L. Bryant,
Executive Director.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my support for
H.R. 1.
It gives appropriators the authority to allocate a 20 percent
increase in federal education spending, over the 3 percent the
President requested. It allows for the creation of a formula to target
federal aid to where the greatest needs in bi-lingual education exist.
It provides new resources for mentoring, training, salary enhancement,
and other improvements.
This bill provides a promising framework for raising standards and
accountability for all students, and this bill will mean a great deal
to New York City.
It allocates approximately $636 million for FY2002 to New York City,
a 28 percent increase from last year, and $141 million in Title I
funding, a 20 percent increase.
With New York City threatening massive across the board cuts, this
increased Federal funding is more important than ever.
And, while I am disappointed that this bill doesn't make federal
spending on disabled students an entitlement program, and that it does
not include desperately needed funding for the rebuilding and
modernization of crumbling overcrowded schools in my district I
nevertheless applaud the hard work of the House and Senate conferees in
bringing this long overdue reform bill to the floor today.
H.R. 1 gives students a chance, parents a choice, and America's
schools the mandate to be the best in the world.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). As
an alumni of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I can say
that this is great work that they did on this, which provides
additional funding for bilingual education, ESA, and the commitment for
special education.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, legislation to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. ESEA, and Title
I in particular, has meant so much to low-income students across this
country. This legislation provides crucial funding for school districts
that might not otherwise have the resources they need to provide a
quality education.
I think we can all agree that we must hold school districts
accountable for the federal dollars they receive. And this legislation
has a number of important testing provisions to ensure that our
students are receiving the education they need to thrive in the 21st
Century. But equally, perhaps even more important, we must provide
schools with the resources they need to meet those standards. By
doubling Title I funding over the next five years, I believe we will
see a dramatic improvement in low-income, lower-achieving schools.
I am also pleased to see increases to the Bilingual and Immigrant
Education programs. As our most recent census reports, there has been
incredible growth among Latino populations. Many of these first-
generation Americans are not exposed to English in their homes, and
have limited English proficiency. We must target resources at school
districts with high populations of Limited English Proficiency
students, to ensure that all children, regardless of their ethnic
background, receive a high quality education.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the testing
provisions. In Texas, we have annual testing for children in grades
three through eight. Because our state standardized test are
equivalent, Texas will not have to implement new tests. I hope that all
other states which adopt these tests will have the same successes that
we've seen in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, bipartisan, consensus bill. It is
probably the first truly bipartisan bill we've seen this Congress.
Support H.R. 1, and let our parents, teachers and administrators
prepare our next greatest generation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I rise today in support of the conference report on the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). I
commend Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member George Miller for their
commitment to our students in working to ensure the development of a
strong law to govern our schools.
The bill before us today will ensure that all children have an
opportunity to learn and that we will not tolerate the failure of our
poorest students. For the first time, we have established clear goals
and a timeline for narrowing

[[Page H10101]]

the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their more
affluent peers and between minority and non-minority students. I would
also like to point out that this bill provides a significant increase
in funding levels for ESEA programs. This bill provides our
appropriators with the authority to increase education funding by 20
percent for the next fiscal year. This a great achievement for which I
again applaud Mr. Boehner and Mr. Miller.
Today, however, I would like to focus on two matters that I have
spent a significant amount time pushing for. First, I would like to
talk about the need to recruit and train qualified teachers, which is
addressed in H.R. 1.
As we all know, we are approaching an education crisis in our
country. Over the next decade, school districts throughout the country
will need to hire 2 million new teachers. In my home, Hillsborough
Country, Florida, our school district needs to hire more than 7,000 new
teachers over the next decade. To meet this need, talented Americans of
all ages should be recruited to become successful, qualified teachers.
We need to find creative ways to address the critical shortage of
teachers that our school districts are facing. For that reason, my
colleague from Indiana, Tim Roemer, and I, passed legislation in the
106th Congress, the Transition to Teaching Act, to target mid-career
professionals who are looking for a career change and want to be a
teacher. The Transition to Teaching program will help move people from
the boardroom to the classroom, from the firehouse to the schoolhouse
or from the police station on Main Street to the classroom on Main
Street.
During the last Congress, we were successful in getting a temporary
authorization for this program and small amount of initial funding. I
am pleased today that the Conference Report to H.R. 1 provides
permanent authorization for their very valuable program. In addition,
this bill provides a significant increase in funding for the Transition
to Teaching program. Under this bill, our appropriators will be able to
provide $150 million to help us recruit new, qualified teachers under
this program for Fiscal Year 2002. While this is only the one step in
helping our schools deal with the teacher crisis over the next decade,
it is a significant step in the right direction.
Now, I would like to address student testing. At the beginning of
this year, I got an earful from parents, teachers and students who are
concerned that standardized educational testing in Florida has run
amuck. When the House considered H.R. 1 earlier this year, I rose on
behalf of hundreds of thousands of Florida public school students
subjected to these tests and expressed my concerns that the principal
purpose of testing should be diagnostic--to help teachers teach and
students learn. I had previously expressed my concerns on this issue to
the Secretary of Education and the President's Chief Advisor on his
education proposal. Both of them said they agreed with me.
Testing should determine where my child is at the beginning of the
school year and what he needs to work on to get where he should be at
the end of that school year. Testing should tell my child, his teacher,
my wife and me what we need to know to help him improve as a student.
As many of you know, Florida is already testing students in grades
three through eight in reading and math. The Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test (FCAT) also tests writing in grades four, eight and
ten. Unfortunately, as I stated above, the purpose of the FCAT is to
grade our schools and implement high stakes penalties or rewards based
on their scores, not to see where our students need help to boost their
performance.
That's right. Under the FCAT, teachers, principals, parents and
students get no information from the test identifying the needs of
individual students and how to help them improve. Therefore, it was
important that the federal law provide some direction on this matter.
The original House bill was silent on this issue. However, I am very
pleased that the Conference Report before us today is no longer silent
on the need for diagnostic testing of our students. This bill contains
a reporting requirement that requires our schools to produce individual
student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports. This new
requirement will ensure that our parents, teachers, and principals will
know and be able to address the specific academic needs of students.
More importantly, this new requirement will ensure that as soon as is
practicably possible after the test is given, this diagnostic
information will be provided in an understandable and uniform format,
and to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can
understand.
With the diagnostic provisions included in this Conference Report, we
will give our teachers the tools they need to teach and to make sure
that our students are learning. I commend the House conferees for
fighting for this very important student centered testing. I look
forward to our states, including Florida, making the necessary changes
under this new law.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Conference
Report to H.R. 1, which is truly a bipartisan effort. This is a
significant step in the right direction to make sure that our public
schools continue on the right track.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. I support the bill, I think
the bill does what it says, and I appreciate all the hard work the
chairman and ranking member have put into this bill.
But I am extremely upset about one single provision that only affects
New York City and Hawaii. The provision known as the County Provision
divides New York City as no other Federal law does. New York City is
one unique local education agency; yet this provision mandates that the
city be treated as five separate LEAs when it comes to title I funding.
The provision, which was added in 1994 to the ESEA, allows for Staten
Island to receive almost 150 percent more in title I funds than the
city-wide average. In fiscal year 2001, Staten Island received $1,718
for a title I student, whereas Brooklyn receive $811 and the Bronx,
which I represent, receives only $552 per title I student.
This provision undermines the very premise of the bill. We tried to
eliminate this provision. We thought we had a compromise, but we did
not quite reach it.
Overall I support this bill. It ensures that all teachers are
qualified to teach in their subject matter, supports teachers by giving
them the resources they need to do their jobs, targets federal aid for
bilingual and immigrant education to those students who need it the
most, and expands after-school programs.
A compromise that was reached by the conferees from New York would
have held Staten Island harmless, keeping it at $1718 for the life of
this authorization while allowing the per pupil allocations in the
other boroughs to creep up, was rejected.
I am extremely upset that while the title of this bill is ``No Child
Left Behind'' the poor children in the Bronx will continue to be left
behind.
I would like to thank the Chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Owens, and Senator Clinton for all of the work they have done to right
this wrong. I look forward to working with them in the future to put an
end to the County Provision.
I would say to the chairman that this county provision needs to be
revisited, and I would like his comments on it because I know he has
publicly said they were going to make this more equitable.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I understand the discrepancy in the funding in New York City. This
was part of the 1994 act, under agreement by the Members from New York
City, and I do think it had unintended consequences. We sat out early
this year to try to bring some resolution, and the conference committee
believed that the Members from New York should work this out amongst
themselves and, frankly, they were unable to.
As I have learned more about this issue, I do understand the
gentleman's concerns, and I have expressed to other Members of the New
York City delegation and to Senator Clinton that as we proceed in the
coming years, that we would continue to look at this and to work with
this to see if we cannot bring about some better resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I add to the compliments for my colleague,
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). This is a
great product that the conference committee has delivered, and it goes
a long way to addressing some very important issues.
I particularly want to mention a provision that would require States,
over a number of years, to do a much better job in terms of providing
an effective quality teacher in every classroom and also the targeting
provisions of title I.
There is more work that will be required of us as we go forward, but
I think this is a conference committee that we can all embrace. It is a
giant

[[Page H10102]]

step forward, but we are still a long way from making sure that poor
children do not end up with a poor quality instructor and poor quality
textbooks and educational materials. This is, as a Federal Government,
I think, an appropriate role for us to play.
But I want to commend the gentlemen for their work and the work of
all of those on the conference committee from both Chambers, and I look
forward to additional work in the future.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of the conference
report for H.R. 1, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
Nearly a year ago, Congress embarked on a mission to improve the
education of America's public school students. Today, I am proud to say
that we have produced a consensus bill that, when implemented by the
Administration as intended by Congress, will dramatically expand the
opportunity for all children in our country to learn.

a cooperative and bipartisan process

This bill is the result of many people's labor and ideas. I deeply
appreciate Chairman John Boehner for the leadership, candor and honesty
that he displayed throughout his process. He has been a man of his
word.
President Bush told us a year ago in Texas that he wanted to make
education reform the hallmark of his administration, and that his
central goal was to target federal resources towards the neediest
students. We have worked with him throughout this long process, and the
bill we have written meets those objections.
Senator Judd Gregg has been deeply engaged throughout this effort,
and, while we often disagreed, we were able to work successfully to
resolve our differences.
And I am particularly pleased to have been able again to work closely
with my longtime friend and colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom I
have participated in so many efforts on behalf of those who need our
help the most but who are most often ignored. His commitment to a
strong reform bill on behalf of all of America's children was critical
to forming this final product.
Great credit, of course, goes to all of the members of the Conference
Committee that produced this bill, and I also want to thank all of the
members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce who
crafted this bill earlier in the year.
In particular, I want to express my appreciation for Congressman
Roemer of Indiana, whose creative contribution to the issue of
flexibility formed the basis for our successful resolution to the fight
over state block grants, one of the issues that delayed completion of
work on this legislation earlier this year.
Last, I wish to express my appreciation to the staff of the House and
the Senate education committees who worked diligently, through many
nights, weekends and vacations, to see this bill through to the end. I
feel particularly privileged to have as my lead education adviser
Charles Barone, an enormously dedicated and capable public servant
whose expertise and insight were invaluable to the successful
completion of this bill.

An Urgently Needed Bill

Despite a commitment by our government to the contrary, our
educational system has tolerated extremely low educational achievement
for decades. Many thousands of schools throughout this nation,
disproportionately in neighborhoods serving low income and
disadvantaged youth, have unacceptably high percentages of children who
cannot read, write or do math at their grade level. The problem is not
that they do not have the ability to succeed or that they are not
capable of higher levels of achievement. The problem is that states and
school districts have not provided them the opportunity to do so. Those
same schools have the least qualified teachers, the highest dropout
rates, and are in the greatest physical state of disrepair.
Report after report on the weakness of our educational system was
published over the years with an inadequate response:
25 percent of teachers who are not qualified to teach in their
subject area;
68 percent of 4th graders not able to read at a proficient level;
73 percent of 8th graders not able to conduct math at a proficient
level;
An unmet school construction and repair bill of $127 billion.
Now, with this legislation, we are not only once again committing
ourselves to opening the door to quality schools for every child and
closing the door on acceptable losses, but we are backing up that
commitment with resources and a strong accountability system.
This year's effort is rooted in my firm belief that if teachers and
their schools have adequate resources and high standards, and not just
rhetorical support, America can have a world-class K-12 public school
system for all its students.
I know that we can do better. Having spent over 25 years on the House
education committee, 10 years as chairman of the House Select Committee
on Children, Youth and Families, and having worked with and taught in
schools in my congressional district over the years, I know that we can
do much more to ensure that all children get the kind of education each
of us would want for our own sons or daughters.
I have spent much of the past decade fighting to pass the key
provisions of this bill: teacher quality, parental notification, school
accountability, and new and unprecedented targeting of resources.
Given the broad support this legislation enjoys, it is difficult to
believe that fewer than ten years ago, my efforts to guarantee every
child a qualified teacher were dismissed by the Congress. Today we do
that, and much more.

An Emphasis on Accountability, Resources, and Quality

As a result of the changes we have made in the conference committee
to the bill introduced earlier this year, this bill will help return
our school system to the original goals of the 1965 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act--to ensure that all children have an
opportunity to learn regardless of income, background or racial or
ethnic identity. But unlike the laws on the books over the past 35
years, we will back up our commitment with a set of unambiguous
expectations, time-lines, and resources.
In this bill, we are prepared to offer a significant increase in
resources in exchange for meeting real goals--teachers who teach,
students who learn, and schools that succeed.
Our bill, for the first time in federal law, establishes clear goals
to close the educational achievement gap over a 12-year period. Through
a system of state-based annual tests in grades three through eight that
will act as a diagnostic tool, we will identify schools in need of
improvement and ensure they receive adequate resources to improve.
Our bill provides for the unprecedented targeting of federal dollars
to the neediest students, including a change in the Title I formula
that will reward states who make strides to reduce school finance
inequity.
Our bill sets the clearest educational standards in history.
For the first time in federal law we establish a clear goal of
requiring that every teacher is fully qualified to teach in his or her
subject area within four years. And we offer the greatest support for
our teachers in history.
For the first time in federal law we establish a formula to target
federal aid for bilingual education based on the number of children in
a particular school district who need it.
For the first time in federal law we will require that parents
receive report cards with clear and precise information on the quality
of their child's school.
We will allow for unprecedented flexibility in administering programs
at the local level.
We greatly expand the reading program initiated by Democrats in 1998
and favored by President Bush, including a new pre-K program.
We also ensure that all state tests would be compared against one,
credible national benchmark test, the NAEP test, and not a smattering
of different benchmark tests as the House bill had called for. The NAEP
test is already used in a majority of states.
To ensure that the requirements of this bill can be met, we provide
new resources to schools:
New money for teachers to receive mentoring, professional training,
and salary enhancements. We are supporting teachers by giving them the
resources they need to meet our new standards;
We significantly increase funding for Title I, the program for
disadvantaged students, and better target the money to the neediest
students;
We provide assistance for struggling schools;
We significantly increase funding for technology, after-school, and
other programs that have proven to enhance educational quality.
Both on the House floor earlier this year, and then again during the
conference committee, we successfully defeated a negative, conservative
education agenda that threatened to undermine the original goals of
this effort.
There are no vouchers in this bill to divert public school money to
private schools.
There is no ``Straight A's'' state block grant to eviscerate the
federal targeting of dollars to the neediest students and to waste
critical education dollars on state bureaucracies.
We maintain and expand the After-School program, despite the
President's attempt to eliminate it as a separate program.
We provide authority and resources for school construction, despite
opposition to a federal role in modernizing school facilities by the
President and Republicans in Congress.
We also defeated a negative, conservative social agenda that some
attempted to insert into this bill. They wanted to eliminate the Hate
Crimes program that teaches tolerance

[[Page H10103]]

in our schools, but we kept the bill. They wanted to weaken civil
rights protections in current law, but we stopped them.

a real increase in resources

Finally, as I mentioned above, we have made great strides in boosting
funding over and above what the President and Republicans in Congress
offered.
The President began this effort with virtually no increase at all for
education:
The President asked for only a 3% increase in ESEA. We will now see a
20% increase in ESEA in real appropriations under the FY 02 Labor-HHS
appropriations bill;
The President asked for only a 3% increase for Title 1. We won a 16-
20% increase in appropriations,
The President asked for only a 3% increase for teacher quality. We
won more than a 40% increase in appropriations;
The President asked for zero percent (0%) for After-School programs.
We won an 18% increase in appropriations.

commitment to special education funding still unmet

Mr. Speaker, there is one final point, regrettably, that I must
raise. In this bill, unfortunately, the conferees were not able to
reach an agreement on providing additional funding for special
education. The Senate bill would have fully funded our federal
commitment to special education, whereas the House rejected that
provision. But you cannot fund only two-fifths of our commitment to
special education and still ``leave no child behind.''

Yet, despite strong, bipartisan and bicameral support for full and
mandatory funding for special education, the conference committee twice
refused to provide the funding we promised school districts and parents
26 years ago.

Conclusion

Despite our serious disagreement over the critical issue of special
education, I believe that the other reforms and resources that we
provide for America's school children in this bill are unprecedented
achievements that deserve to be enacted into law without delay and
implemented by the Administration in the very manner in which the
conference committee intended.
There now lies a tremendous obligation by the Bush Administration to
write the regulations for this bill and implement those regulations in
a manner consistent with the urgent need that led us to write this bill
in the first place.
This is a strong bill, it is a reasonable bill, and it is a historic
bill that draws bright lines for our students and provides new
resources to where they are needed most. I look forward to the
enactment of this bill before the end of this year.

Acknowledgements--H.R. 1

I would like to acknowledge a number of people who helped to make
this bill a reality. As I said at the outset, it was a bi-partisan and
cooperative process.
I would like to acknowledge and thank President George W. Bush,
Committee Chairman John Boehner, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator Judd
Gregg. I would like to acknowledge and thank the other House Democratic
conferees for their contributions, Representatives Dale Kildee, Patsy
Mink, Major Owens, Rob Andrews and Tim Roemer.
I would like to express my grateful appreciation for the hard work of
my committee staff, including my top education advisor Charles Barone,
as well as John Lawrence, Daniel Weiss, Alex Nock, Denise Forte, Mark
Zuckerman, Ruth Friedman and James Kvall, and also the staff for
Congresswoman Mink, Brendan O'Neil, for Congressman Roemer, Maggie
McDow, and for Senator Kennedy, his top education aide, Danica
Petroshius.
I would like to thank Chairman Boehner's committee staff, his top
education aide, Sally Lovejoy, and his staff director, Paula
Nowakowski.
In addition, there were many experts and organizations who provided
invaluable expertise to our committee as we developed this legislation.
Some in particular whom I would like to thank for their help include
Bill Taylor and Dianne Piche at the Citizen's Commission on Civil
Rights, Kati Haycock and Amy Wilkins at the Education Trust, and Paul
Weckstein at the Center for Law and Education.
I hope that everyone who had a hand in this enormous effort feels as
proud as I do today about this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, back in May, this House spoke with almost a unanimous
voice, with a strong voice, regarding the kind of education bill that
they wanted. I believe that we can say to the Members of this House
that we have brought them back a better bill than the bill we passed.
My colleagues said they wanted accountability for closing the
achievement gap, and we have provided that. They said they wanted to
improve the targeting of funds on poor districts and disadvantaged
children, and we have done that. They said they wanted new investments
and a stronger commitment to teacher and professional development,
support and mentoring, and we have done that.
They said they wanted a new formula program for bilingual students so
the money would go where the students in needs are, and we have done
that. They wanted assistance for those schools struggling to turn
themselves around, and this legislation does that. They said they
wanted the expansion of the reading program, as outlined by the
President and other people who are critical of the current reading
resources in the Federal program, and we have done that. They wanted
the use of nationwide tests so we could test whether or not the
assessments made at the State level were accurately reflecting the
educational achievement of those children. They also said they did not
want Straight A's, and we do not have that. They said they did not want
vouchers, and we do not have that. But they wanted flexibility, and we
provided that flexibility without the Straight A's.
So I think we have delivered a bill that this Congress on both sides
of the aisle have overwhelmingly spoken on behalf of for many years,
and the results are now here.
But let me just say one thing this bill does and what it is built
upon. It is built upon a deep and uncompromising belief by the chairman
of this committee, by the President of the United States, by Chairman
Kennedy, by Senator Gregg and myself, and so many other Members of this
Congress and this committee that all of America's children can learn.
We believe that an impoverished child does not mean a child that cannot
learn. We believe that because an individual is a minority does not
mean they cannot learn. And the evidence is overwhelming that we are
right.
What we did with this legislation was redirect those resources to
dramatically enhance the opportunities for success by America's
children. The opportunity for success. We cannot guaranty the success,
but we can provide the opportunity.
Yesterday, the Education Trust put out a report on the eve of our
consideration of this bill that identified 1,320 districts with high-
poverty students, high percentage of poverty, high minority schools
that are excelling in the top third of their States. We can no longer
accept the level of failure that we have in the past, and this
legislation says that we will not.
Yes, it is going to be hard to meet these achievements; yes it will
be hard to meet these goals; and yes, it will be hard to hold ourselves
accountable, but there is no option to our doing this on behalf of
America's children.
We heard back in August when many people said this is impossible. I
was shocked to hear it from so many educators. Maybe they are in the
wrong field. Because here are 1,300 schools that are using the basic
tools that are provided in this legislation, that are strengthened in
this legislation, that are enhanced with the resources in this
legislation, using the very tools in this bill, these 1,320 schools are
among the top performers in their States. We want to replicate that all
over this Nation for all of America's children.
Again, I want to thank the chairman for making this possible. I
believe we will do all this with an ``aye'' vote on the passage of this
legislation.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I feel today like I did on the day of the birth of my
two daughters: exhausted. It has been a long process and a long year.
And as tired as I and the ranking member, the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), and the members of the committee are, I think all
of us understand that our staffs have done much, much more than we
have, and have spent much, much more time. And I think that the Members
here deserve to give our staff a big round of applause.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of thank-yous that have gone around
today, and a number of people have mentioned the President. I think a
lot of us know that President Bush, during his campaign last year, took
a courageous stand, as a Republican candidate for President, when he
took the issue of education and our party in a new direction. It was a
bold and courageous move on his part, but he did it.
But not only did he do it during the campaign, he maintained that
effort

[[Page H10104]]

and that focus to make this his number one domestic priority. That is
when the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I, and
others, were brought down to Austin, Texas, to talk about the
foundations of this bill. That is why the first full day in office, on
January 22, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator
Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, and I were in the Oval Office with the President
telling us how important this bill was.
The President believed that we needed more accountability in our
Nation's schools; that we needed more flexibility for our local schools
and our teachers at the local level; that we needed a new investment in
early childhood reading programs and early grade reading programs; and
that we needed to consolidate the number of Federal programs; and,
lastly, to refocus the Federal Government's efforts at the neediest of
our students.

{time} 1415

But as important as this bill is, there is another important dynamic
that occurred over the course of the year, and that is how this bill is
going to become a law.
If we go back to last year during the campaign, the President talked
about the need for a new tone in Washington. The President said that we
needed to be more bipartisan here in Washington, and the American
people applauded him for his willingness to say that. When the
President brought us to Texas on December 21 of last year, he brought
us down there to talk about education, but he also talked to us about
wanting to move ahead together.
And on January 22 when we were in the Oval Office, it was the
President who once again said that we need to move this process
together, and we need to work together. I can tell Members that I
believed the President when he was a candidate, and I believed him all
during this year. And I believe, as many of our Members on both sides
of the aisle believe, that it is time that this body become more
bipartisan.
Now if the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who, as he
said, have spent 10 years throwing bricks at each other, and every
Member knows that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and
I can be as partisan and as hard-nosed as anybody on either side of the
aisle, if we can work together with the members of our committee, which
is a very partisan committee, it has been the most partisan committee
in this House for the last 3 decades, if we can do it, there is no
reason why any other committee in this House cannot do it.
I can tell Members during the 20 years that I have been in this
business, this is by far the most important piece of legislation that I
have ever worked on. It is my proudest accomplishment. It is the work
product that I am proud of; but, as importantly, the way that we did
this. Bipartisanship means that Members have to trust each other.
Bipartisanship means that Members need to work together and find common
ground.
To the pundits who said that the bill was stalled, were not sure we
were going to get it, let me suggest the bill was never stalled. It
took a great deal of patience and listening, and it took a great deal
of trust to actually bring this product to where we are today.
As I said earlier, I could not have had a better partner in this
process than the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). We did
not know each other very well when this year started, but I laid out a
vision for our committee and a vision for how this bill could become
law, a vision of starting in the right place in order to end up in the
right place.
The gentleman from California had his critics on his side of the
aisle who could not understand how he could support a bill that I was
supporting; and I clearly had my share of problems with Members that
could not believe I could be supporting a bill that the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) was supporting.
Mr. Speaker, we went through this process together, and I could not
have enjoyed our experience, nor could I have developed a better friend
than the gentleman from California.
Let me say to my colleagues in the other body who worked with us over
the last 4 or 5 months, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, their
willingness to sit and work through this process, their willingness to
take the time and to trust each other, helped to develop what I think
is a landmark piece of legislation. I thank all of them for their
efforts.
When we step back and look at what we are trying to do here, it is
simple. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said it in
his closing remark, and that is the gentleman from California and I,
Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Members on both sides of the aisle
are committed to the concept that every child in America can learn, and
that every child in America should have the opportunity to get a sound,
basic education.
Every Member in this body understands that without a sound, basic
education, the chance at the American dream does not exist. For 35
years we have promised from the Federal Government that we would help
the poorest of our children. We failed, and we failed miserably.
This is not the end of this process. Let me suggest to Members, this
is the beginning of the process. The writing of the rules, the
implementation of this bill in each of our 50 States is going to be a
Herculean battle, not unlike what we have seen over the course of this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only vote for this bill
today, but to keep up their vigilance at home to get this bill
implemented correctly because at the core of it, what we are trying to
accomplish here is to ensure that every child in America has a chance
at a good education, and that every child in America has a chance at
the American dream.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1. This
bill addresses the vital school construction needs unique to federally
impacted schools by authorizing a new competitive construction
component within the federal Impact Aid program. In many cases the
local tax base does not have the needed resources to draw upon to meet
the needs of our military and Indian schools. As a result, lack of
funds has until now left those schools without the resources for new
construction, renovation, or modernization initiatives. H.R. 1 adds the
new construction component that will allow these schools to complete
important projects by enabling them to compete for funding, on the
basis of need.
However, I am disappointed that this bill does not allow for separate
construction funding sources for all eligible categories of federally
impacted schools. While the current provision appears to benefit the
entire Impact Aid community, the military component of the program has
little prospect to successfully compete for discretionary money, as
Indian districts have the greatest need for emergency funds. While
unintentional this Bill would leave military districts with pressing
construction needs on the side of the road once again. From my own
travels to several military installations, it is clear that more--much
more--needs to be done to ensure adequate funding for both of these
eligible categories.
In closing, I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues for
their concern in addressing this problem overall and I look forward to
working together in the future to create a division of these
construction funds to ensure the unique needs of the two major
categories of federally connected school districts are met.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act Conference Report.
I would like to join my colleagues in commending the members of the
Conference Committee, namely Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Boehner, and
Ranking Member George Miller, for their hard work and commitment on
this conference report. This bill was truly the product of
bipartisanship. The best interests of our children and teachers took
priority, and because of that they will continue to prosper.
The goal of this bill was to eliminate the achievement gap between
rich and poor students and minority and non-minority students that has
burdened our schools for years. Not only does this bill begin to
address these issues but it puts forth a realistic twelve year time
frame to achieve it.
I am particularly pleased with the agreements made in regards to
bilingual education. This bill will empower our parents and given them
the option to remove their children from bilingual education at any
time. Also, no time limit will be imposed on our students regarding
their length of enrollment. The funding formula for bilingual education
will base its funding levels on the size of its limited english
proficiency student population. Our teachers will also be provided
funds for training and professional development.

[[Page H10105]]

This bill also authorizes a funding increase of nearly twenty percent
for elementary and secondary education programs. This is a significant
and well deserved increase. Students and teachers of El Paso will
surely benefit and I am pleased to show my support for its passage.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote for The No Child Left
Behind Act, H.R. 1. While I support this legislation it is not without
some reservations, particularly the inadequate federal support that the
bill provides for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Overall, this bi-partisan legislation strengthens our
commitment to closing the achievement gap between rich/poor, minority/
non-minority students, improves targeting of funds to low-performing
students, improves teacher quality, preserves the After-School program
and key civil rights safeguards, and expands local flexibility in the
use of certain federal education funds. And this bill contains the high
levels of authorizations needed to assure that adequate resources will
be provided to carry out the mandates of this new law.
I do, however, find the level of funding for special education to be
cause for grave concern. Twenty-one years ago the federal government
said it would spend 40 percent of the cost of educating children with
disabilities. Yet today the government provides only 15 percent of that
cost. Children with special needs often require additional resources
that put a great burden upon states and local school systems.
That is why I asked the Conferees to provide the 40 percent funding
that the federal government promised so long ago. I am very
disappointed that they decided to wait until next year to address this
issue. In the meantime, states, local school systems and families of
these children will continue to suffer.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a flawless bill, but it is a very good
start. Despite my concerns about funding for special education programs
I am going to vote in favor of the legislation. Our children's
education is far too important to let the Perfect be the enemy of the
Good.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
to accompany H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Reauthorization bill, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001.
At the outset, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman
Boehner and our Ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for bringing to the Floor a good conference report.
This legislation reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act for six years and authorizes $26.5 billion for its programs in
fiscal year 2002. While President Bush made education a priority at the
beginning of this year, he failed to request any significant increase
in funding to back up his broad outline for reform. But Congress has
stepped in to provide a significant increase in real funding. The
appropriations bill that goes with this reform bill will provide nearly
$4 billion more in funding for all elementary and secondary education
programs funded by the federal government, nearly a 20 percent increase
in appropriations. President Bush asked for only a three percent
increase.
Mr. Speaker, New York City's public schools face a host of difficult
challenges including: overcrowded and outdated facilities; more
students with special needs; increasing teacher shortages; and keeping
up with rapidly advancing technology. I am pleased that H.R. 1 contains
a number of important provisions that will help New York City meet its
goals of greater student achievement levels by supporting enhanced
efforts in these areas. For instance, NYC is estimated to receive an
increase of $140 million in Title I funds under pending agreements to
allocate most of the new Title I money to districts serving high
numbers of poor students. H.R. 1 also retains targeting for the newly
consolidated teacher quality program, which will be of great value to
our current teacher recruitment, retention, and training efforts.
The bill offers new flexibility to school systems through the 150-
district ``local A's'' provision and through the ``transferability''
language. The flexibility, moreover, is achieved without state block
grants, portability, vouchers, or other provisions that could have
diluted otherwise-targeted assistance.
As a native of Puerto Rico, I am pleased that this bill moved Puerto
Rico to full participation in Title I over the next 6 years in roughly
8 percent a year increments. Next year, for example, Puerto Rico's
Title I funds will increase by over $60 million, more than a 20 percent
addition. But that is not all.
Under this legislation and the upcoming appropriation bill, Puerto
Rico will also enjoy expanded funds for the teacher quality program
which will increase by $38 million, or 58 percent, the technology
program which will increase by $10 million, or 67 percent, and the
Bilingual Education program which will grow by $1 million, or 69
percent.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite endless negotiations between people of
good faith, I have to admit that I am disappointed that the conferees
did not omit the so-called ``County Provision.'' The County Provision
states that if a local education agency (LEA) contains two or more
counties in its entirety, then each county is treated as if it were a
separate LEA for the purpose of calculating Title I grants. The
provision singles out New York City for different treatment than any
other local education agency in the nation (other than Hawaii) in
determining the allocation of Title I funds. The counties of Kings
(Brooklyn), Manhattan, Richmond (Staten Island), Queens, and the Bronx
are treated as if they are five distinct LEAs; despite the fact that
under New York State law the New York City Board of Education is the
only LEA in New York City. As a result, Title I funds are now
distributed based on each borough's percentage of New York City's
federal Census poverty count. In short, poor children in different
boroughs receive differing amounts of federal education funding.
Retention of this provision continues to promote inequity in funding
among the counties within New York City.
This funding disparity occurs even though New York City Title I
schools, regardless of their location, have almost identical costs for
personnel, materials, equipment, and mandated costs to educate
youngsters. I hope that we will somehow find a way to strip this
inequitable provision so that needy children will receive the same
level of funding without regard to where they live.
Finally, Mr. Speaker I am pleased that the Conference Committee on
H.R. 1 has produced a bill that strengthens our commitment to closing
the achievement gap between rich and poor, minority and non-minority
students, improves targeting of funds to low-performing students,
improves teacher quality, preserves the After-School program and key
civil rights safeguards, and expands local flexibility in the use of
certain federal education funds. And this bill contains the high levels
of authorizations needed to assure that adequate resources will be
provided to carry out the mandates of this new law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act, which provides for increased
funding for our nations school system. This bill improves current law
by holding our schools accountable for providing quality education,
enhancing teacher training and targeting funds to underprivileged
students.
H.R. 1 makes a strong bipartisan effort to narrow the gap between the
academic achievement of poor children and their more advantaged peers.
It encourages schools to do a better job of educating our most
vulnerable citizens. By helping disadvantaged children read and
understand math, it starts them along the path to a better future. By
ensuring that low performing schools are provided additional
assistance, fewer underprivileged children will be ignored or allowed
to be the victims of low expectations.
This bill provides accountability in public education. In the
process, it makes sure that funding is available for teachers to
receive high quality professional development H.R. 1 targets schools
that need extra help and also offers additional funds for educating
poor children. The bill recognizes that some of our newest citizens may
have limited English proficiency and makes sure they are provided the
extra help they need. The state based testing system makes sure that we
can more strategically direct efforts to improve the performance of
children. Schools that do well will be recognized and schools that need
help will be provided the assistance they need. There is much in this
bill that merits our broad support.
I am also pleased with the things left out of this bill. I am pleased
that Congress made the wise decision to reject private school vouchers.
At the moment, public schools are under funded. Keeping money from
public education does not address the problem in our schools, it
exacerbates it. Vouchers assist a small proportion of children at the
expense of the rest of the student population.
While there is much to support about H.R. 1, I am disappointed that
the bill does not do more to improve special education. We must make
sure that the needs of disabled children are fully addressed before we
can truly say that no child is left behind. I look forward to future
bipartisan efforts to fulfill our promise to meet the needs of children
with disabilities.
In this paralyzed Congress, enactment of this solid bipartisan bill
is a great accomplishment and will improve our nations educational
system. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. H.R. 1 is a giant step forward in improving
schools for our children.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
conference report for H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. This bill
is a great improvement over the legislation passed by the House earlier
this year, both in terms of policy goals and adequate funding
authority. While this legislation is not

[[Page H10106]]

perfect, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
As a father and grandfather, I take the future of our education
system very seriously. I have always believed that the federal
government is an important junior partner in creating education policy.
As such, I believe sound federal education policy must include targeted
help for low-income kids and struggling schools, as well as local
control, flexibility and support for school officials and teachers.
Following House passage of H.R. 1, I wrote to the conferees and
requested that the conference committee meet minimum standards to
ensure my support of the bill. I believe that they have met my
requirements, and I will support the conference report.
Not only is education key to our country's economic success in the
twenty-first century, the right to a high quality public education goes
to the very core of the American values of fairness, opportunity, hard
work, and democracy. Ensuring that all American children can get an
adequate education, despite their family income, race, or accident of
geography, will pull families out of poverty and make our country
stronger. This conference report goes a long way towards targeting
funding and assistance to the schools and the kids that need it most.
The bill improves targeting of federal funds to low-income schools
districts. It also establishes a new, formula-driven Bilingual and
Immigrant Education program to provide services to English-language
learners that most need them. Additionally, the conference report
restores after-school and violence prevention program funding that was
eliminated from the original House bill.
I have made a commitment to parents and students in my district that
I will oppose any legislation that uses vouchers to siphon public money
into private schools. The conference report provides public school
choice for children in consistently failing schools. The bill also
includes provisions that help local school districts address the
practical matter of school choice, such as transportation costs.
Furthermore, the bill does not include block grants that undermine the
targeting of funds to students that need them the most.
Schools in my own Third District of Kansas are in severe need of
repair and reconstruction. Seventy-six percent of American schools are
currently in disrepair. Yet, the original House-passed H.R. 1 did not
include funding for locally-controlled school construction. The
conference report authorizes funding to continue the vital school
construction program created by President Clinton.
More, than ever, we need to ensure that low-income children get the
quality teachers certified in their area of instruction. The conference
report doubles President Bush's proposed funding for teacher quality
and will give teachers the support, mentoring and salary incentives
they need to ensure that we continue to have a strong, professional
teaching force.
Since taking office, superintendents and principals in the Third
District have told me that Congress needs to step back and allow them
to do the jobs they were hired to do without excessive red tape,
bureaucracy and federal micromanagement. This conference report reduces
the number of federal programs and significantly increases state and
local control of education decisions. It allows local school districts
to transfer up to 50 percent of funds between programs and gives states
additional flexibility to transfer funds between programs as long as
they demonstrate results.
The report gives the states the flexibility to design and select
their own tests for math and reading and has made a ``commitment'' to
states to cover the costs of administering the test. I am supporting
this legislation today, in part because I fully expect the House to
fulfill this funding commitment, as promised by the conferees, this
year. As I have long worked to fully fund the federal government's
commitment to special needs kids through IDEA, I will not support
creation of another unfunded mandate.
Additionally, the bill provides a national benchmark to ensure the
rigor of state tests without crating a new, overly burdensome national
test. The bill allows states to use their own report cards, so parents
will know their child's school measures up.
Although I was disappointed that the Class Size Reduction program and
the Eisenhower Professional Development programs were combined into one
grant, I am satisfied by the fact that funds were not cut for the
programs and school districts will be held harmless and receive at
least as much funding as they received in FY 2001.
Finally, I want to send a clear message to my colleagues regarding
funding of our national education priorities. It is critically
important that states and local school districts get the funding they
need to implement these new policies. Many promises have been made in
this bill, and as a Member of the Budget Committee, I will make every
effort next spring to ensure that these promises to fund these new
priorities are kept. I had hoped that the conferees would take a
stronger stand and make a commitment to fully fund IDEA and not put
this important job off until next year. Nevertheless, my commitment to
adequate funding for IDEA and other national education priorities, both
new and old, remains strong.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleagues
that worked together to bring this Education conference report to the
floor. This legislation is good to every child in America. The
President stated that ``no child be left behind,'' with this
legislation Congress makes sure that the expression ``no child'' would
include the Puerto Rican children.
In the area of Title I, Puerto Rico's funding was caped at 75 percent
of what other U.S. jurisdictions received. Puerto Rico has operated
under this unfair formula even though the Island must meet all Title I
program requirements.
Language in this report corrects the unfairness by increasing Puerto
Rico's Title I funds from 75 percent to 100 percent of our fair share
over a 6 year period. This is the most important federal legislation
for education that has been approved for Puerto Rico in the last 30
years.
In addition, Puerto Rico will benefit from other programs included in
the federal legislation, such as increased funds for reading and math
tests for students in the third through eight grades; teacher training
programs, after school tutoring and technology programs.
In these times of economic hardship, the best investment we can make
is in the education of our children. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this legislation, and to reaffirm to the American people that
education is still a top priority.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my reluctant support of the
conference report on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. While
this legislation makes a significant strides in the field of education
reform, it fails to honor an important commitment to our nation's
children.
Over the last quarter century, Congress has been shortchanging the
federal commitment to education by grossly underfunding the Individual
with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, in its annual appropriations
process. This failure on the part of Congress has hurt local school
districts in their efforts to fulfill their education mission, as they
struggle to meet the mandates of IDEA without sufficient federal
support. Earlier this year, I sent a letter signed by one hundred and
thirty-four Members of Congress urging support of mandatory, full
funding of IDEA. Despite the support of a bipartisan group of Members
and education groups across the country, this bill fails to fully fund
the federal share of IDEA. Congress made a promise to our nation's
children, and I will continue to fight to make sure this commitment is
met in the future.
Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that Congress failed to provide
this critical resource, I am pleased that this legislation establishes
a promising framework for raising student achievement. This legislation
will provide greater opportunities for our nation's disadvantaged
children and will hold schools accountable for the academic achievement
of students across this country. The bill will help schools in need,
rather than instantly punishing them; it will give greater flexibility
to local schools who make the day-to-day decisions about our children's
education; and it will dramatically expand and increase support for
locally-designed approaches to help students learn English and achieve
academically. I am particularly pleased that the bill increases funding
for teacher training, requires states to develop plans to ensure that
all teachers are provided professional development to become fully
qualified in four years, and does not require mandatory testing of
veteran teachers.
Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher and principal, I understand that
accountability is a two-way street. Education reform will only succeed
when it is adequately funded. Our nation's schools cannot be expected
to provide a top-quality education if they do not have the resources to
do so. This legislation is an important first step in improving our
nation's educational system, but it is not the last. Congress must
continue to commit the necessary resources to make reform a success.
Only then will we truly leave no child behind.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the reauthorization for arts in education in the Conference Report
of H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act. I
applaud the efforts of my colleagues in developing consensus on this
measure to improve elementary and secondary education for our
children--our future. According to the Conference Report, Subpart 15,
Section 5551, ``the purposes of this subpart are the following: (1) To
support systemic education reform by strengthening arts education as an
integral part of the elementary school and secondary school curriculum.
(2) To help ensure that all students meet challenging State academic
content standards and challenging State student academic achievement
standards in the

[[Page H10107]]

arts. (3) To support the national effort to enable all students to
demonstrate competence in the arts.'' I have long been a champion of
arts and music education in our schools. The investment in these
initiatives is one I remain committed to achieving.
H.R. 1 authorizes structural changes that will improve our country's
education system. As we implement these changes, we must continue to
provide opportunities in arts and music education programs for our
children. Arts in our school make a difference. The students who pick
up a saxophone, a paintbrush, or a pen channels their energies into
positive action. Affording children access to the arts through
education yields dividends to our society as they develop into
productive adults. Children who are involved in arts and music programs
have reduced criminal tendencies, increased academic success,
concentration, and self-discipline. These characteristics need to be
emphasized in our children. The provision of arts in education programs
is integral to the development of these qualities in our nation's
youth.
It is because of the documented benefits of arts and music education
that these programs should receive increased funding in the
appropriation process. While a start, merely authorizing these programs
is not enough. We must provide federal funding so that every child in
every school has the ability to access arts and music education
programs or we fail to allow children to utilize their full potential.
The structural changes authorized today will not be as successful if we
neglect the creative side of education. Arts and music education allow
children to flourish, not only in music, art, and drama, but also in
math and science and social skills.
I commend the conferees on their continued dedication to arts in
education and their commitment to enhancing the education of our
children through this comprehensive measure. I strongly support
increased resources in the upcoming Appropriations process and adoption
of this Conference Report.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I submit this statement today
in support of the Conference Report for Elementary and Secondary
Education Authorization Act. Although I could not be here today during
this debate because of a death in my family, I want to say for the
record that the bill before us today is the end result of a year-long
process between leaders in both parties to achieve compromise on what
is surely one of the most important issues on the national agenda: the
education and development of our nation's future, our children.
It is no secret that America has long recognized that its long-term
strength and security, and its ability to recover and sustain high
levels of economic growth, depends on maintaining its edge in the
quality of its workforce, its scientific achievement and the
technological innovation it produces. Biomedical advances have
permitted us to live longer, healthier, and more productively. Advances
in agricultural technology have permitted us to be able to feed more
and healthier people at a cheaper cost, more efficiently. The
information revolution can be seen today in the advanced instruments
schools are using to instruct our children and in the vast information
resources that are opened up as a result of the linkages created by a
networked global society. Our children today can grow up to know, see,
and read more, be more diverse, and have more options in their lives
for learning and growing. Some emerging technologies--such as
nanotechnology and biotechnology--have untold potential to make our
lives more exciting, secure, prosperous, and challenging.
Many countries also recognize this and they, therefore, focus their
industrial, economic, and security policies on nurturing and developing
an educational system that responds to the needs of its citizens and
their societies. Countries that follow this path of nurturing
educational achievement focus their efforts into ensuring that a
pipeline which pumps talented and imaginative minds and skills is
connected to the needs of the country's socio-economic and security
enterprise.
Yet here in this country, this pipeline is broken, threatening the
competitive edge we enjoy in the business of personal and economic
growth, and technological innovation.
The only acceptable course of action for a country that wishes to
maintain its edge in the global system is to have a long-term
educational policy that responds to the challenge of a declining public
school system with vigorous and renewed effort and commitment. That is
why this bill before us today is truly historic.
This bill strengthens education in this country by enhancing
accountability of our public schools, increasing overall funding for
education for disadvantaged students, for science and math education,
and for technology programs.
I am heartened that the bill would provide nearly $1 billion for a
new program aimed at having all children reading by the third grade. It
would require states to develop a plan to have a qualified teacher in
every classroom within four years. It also would give local school
districts greater flexibility in spending federal money.
The bill increases federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act by $3.7 billion. Funding for Title I, the federal
government's main education program for the disadvantaged, would
increase by $1.7 billion under the law and technology programs would be
increased by about $150 million.
But the bill is not perfect however. Currently, the federal
government does not meet the financial obligations for special
education it committed to in 1975 when the Education for all
Handicapped Children Act (renamed Individuals with Disabilities Act in
1990) was first passed by Congress. This shortfall places an onerous
financial burden on local communities who must find alternate
resources, such as higher property taxes, to fund special education.
The bill before us today does not address this injustice.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a civil
rights statute that provides funding to states and helps states fulfill
their constitutional obligation to provide a public education for all
children with disabilities. IDEA serves more than six and a half
million children today. Underlying IDEA is the basic principle that
states and school districts must make available a free and appropriate
public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities between the ages
of 3 and 21, and must be educated with children who are not disabled
``to the maximum extent appropriate.''
Since 1975, Congress has authorized a federal commitment to special
education funding at a level of 40 percent of the average per pupil
expenditure (APPE) on special education services. However, Congress has
only appropriated funds to meet between 5 and 14 percent of APPE, with
FY 2001 appropriations setting a record at 14.9 percent, or about $7.4
billion. But that is still only little more than third of the, so far
embarrassingly unfulfilled, Federal commitment to our children.
As a former teacher, member of a school board, State Senator, and now
Congressman, I have constantly heard a clear message from local
educators and administrators that more resources must be committed to
provide fair and adequate educational opportunities to children with
special needs, and that the federal government must meet its commitment
under IDEA. In the past, ``fully funding'' IDEA (meeting the 40%
authorization) has generally been a theme for a handful of Republicans,
but with the trade-off that other educational programming must be
sacrificed.
Let me be clear, this is a constitutional right. Local school
districts do not have the discretion to not fulfill their obligations
to children with special needs. Where does the approximately $10
billion in unfulfilled Federal pledges to the States come from? It has
to be made up somewhere and will most likely come from other important,
but not constitutionally mandated, priorities. This is the real cost of
our inaction. It is either a tradeoff in spending or a property tax
increase. It does not have to be this way, of course. And I believe the
American people deserve better from us.
Still, failure to include this important provision will not stop me
from fully supporting the underlying bill. It is a very good bill and I
support it for the opportunity--the hope--that it represents for this
country: commitment to our education system and a good start. And since
I see as merely a start, I will not stop my efforts to enact
legislation--such as my bill, H.R. 1829--that would fulfill our
commitment to our children, to our communities, and to our public
schools by fully funding IDEA--and together with the bill before us
today, our promise to the nation.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a product of the Los Angeles public
school system, I know the value of public education.
As a businesswoman, I also know the value of flexibility to allow our
schools to develop innovative solutions to the problems our public
education system faces today.
Too many of our schools today are starved for funding, frustrated by
regulations that hamstring their ability to create the programs they
know will help students, or held unaccountable for providing a
substandard education to students.
The status quo for public education is unacceptable. Thoughtful
reform that improves opportunities for all students is the only path
that builds an exceptional education system.
By improving our public education system, we reduce inequalities
between individuals of different economic and racial backgrounds. I
firmly believe that a quality education for all students is the best
affirmative action program for our nation.
To achieve this goal, elementary and secondary education must provide
students the skills they need to excel in the new economy. This means
first and foremost an emphasis on basic skills--schools cannot graduate
students without strong reading, writing, and analytical skills. But we
must also ensure that students are well versed in the latest
technologies and

[[Page H10108]]

have the opportunity to develop their full potential in the arts,
sciences, or literature.
The Conference Report helps us take the first step toward
reinvigorating our public education system--and provides schools the
resources they need to implement reform.
This legislation will require an unprecedented testing regime to hold
schools accountable for improving the achievement of all students.
Schools that fail to make the grade will at first receive more federal
assistance to improve their curricula, then if they continue to fail,
will have to provide funds to their students for tutoring or to travel
to another public school.
The bill provides funds to local school districts to implement these
reforms. It increases federal education funding by 20 percent--an
increase of almost $4 billion--to allow schools to develop accurate
tests, improve the training and recruitment of teachers, buy computers,
and develop afterschool programs. It targets these funds at the school
districts that need it most--those with a large number of low income
students--while allowing all school districts more flexibility in how
they use federal funds.
I am however, deeply disappointed that this Conference Report did not
increase federal funding for special education. Special education
remains the biggest constraint on the budget for school districts in my
district and the federal government must live up to its commitment to
pay 40 percent of the cost of educating students with special needs. I
will continue to fight for increased appropriations for special
education while I am in Congress. There are legitimate arguments for
why this program needs reform, but these concerns cannot be an excuse
for not meeting our federal obligation on special education.
I support this Conference Report as a strong and significant step
toward an education system for the 21st century.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation fulfills President Bush's
promise to provide every child the opportunity to learn and to hold
schools accountable to parents, and I commend the President and my
colleagues, particularly Chairman Boehner, for all of their hard work
on this important legislation.
First, Mr. Speaker, our local schools will immediately have
additional resources at their disposal as a result of this
legislation's requirement that 95 percent of federal education dollars
go directly to America's classrooms. Currently, as a result of 40 years
of Democratic control of this body, the federal education system takes
more than 30 cents of every education dollar to support its own
administrative bureaucracy, rather than the needs of our children. This
sad situation will end because of the legislation we are passing today;
almost all of the funding now will go to provide our teachers with the
technology, textbooks, and training they need to help our students
succeed.
Having taught in the California Community College system for 10 years
before being elected to the California State Assembly, I want to
address what enactment of H.R. 1 will mean for America's teachers. Our
teachers face an enormous task every day to provide our young people
with the tools needed to succeed in the 21st Century world. Teachers
make sacrifices often at the expense of their own time, and in some
cases, their own funds. Furthermore, our current educational system has
for too long fostered mediocrity and stifled creativity. This
legislation will give teachers the resources they need and will
financially reward them for their excellence when their students make
significant achievement gains.
Of great importance, the No Child Left Behind Act will also give
teachers the help they need to control their classrooms by directing
schools to develop policies which will discipline disruptive students
and control classroom behavior. Finally, the Act will make it easier
for school districts to recruit and train qualified teachers, and
encourages school districts to hire secondary teachers who have
advanced education in the subject they will teach.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is good for America's
teachers, America's parents, and most importantly, America's children.
Thus, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference
report which reauthorizes and reforms the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act H.R. 1. I am pleased that the House and Senate conferees
have drafted a bipartisan bill which will bring about the most
significant federal education reforms in a generation, providing local
school districts with the opportunity to use federal funds for a
variety of programs that will benefit both educators and students.
This measure provides states and local school districts the authority
to participate in state and local flexibility demonstration projects,
to ensure that federal education funds are used most effectively to
meet the unique needs of our students. Moreover, the conference report
consolidates and streamlines programs and targets resources to existing
programs that serve poor students and it also allows federal Title I
funds, approximately $500 to $1,000 per child, to be used to provide
supplemental educational services--including tutoring, after school
services, and summer school programs--for children in failing schools.
The conference report also helps school districts with the
evergrowing teacher shortage problem by giving local schools new
freedom to make spending decisions in up to 50 percent of the non-Title
I federal funds they receive. With this new freedom, a local school
district can decide to use additional funds for hiring new teachers,
increasing teacher pay, improving teacher training and development or
other uses. This measure will make it easier for local schools to
recruit and retain excellent teachers. It also consolidates current
programs into a new Teacher Quality Program which allows greater
flexibility for local school districts. In addition, the report
includes Teacher Opportunity Payments, which provides funds for
teachers to be able to choose their own professional development
activities.
I am particularly pleased that language from the Foundations for
Learning Act, which I worked on with Representative and Co-Sponsored
Patrick Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy is included in this conference
report, allowing local school districts to use federal funds to
establish or contribute to existing prekindergarten programs. These
programs will help our children to be better prepared for kindergarten
by focusing on social and emotional growth, in addition to educational
instruction. By preparing these children for kindergarten, they can
enter school at higher social and emotional levels. They will know how
to work with their classmates and will be accustomed to the basic rules
of a classroom setting. This will allow teachers to focus more of their
attention on actually teaching the class rather than working on
acceptable social behaviors.
Moreover, this legislation includes funding for youth violence
prevention and before and after school activities, two issues in which
I have spent a great deal of time working on over the past 5 years. By
providing children with options during non-school hours, we are giving
them the guidance and tools they need to reject violent and destructive
behaviors and giving them the chance to grow up and mature into
productive and happy young adults. With many single parent families and
families with two working parents, millions of children need a place to
go to before and after school. By allowing school districts to use
federal funds for these programs, many children across the nation will
not be sitting home alone or getting involved with a bad crowd while
waiting for their parents to get home from work.
Although this bill does not address the issue of fully funding the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, it does lay the groundwork
for important reforms in the program, which will be the next major
education reform project the Congress should address. I look forward to
working on legislation that will finally fulfill the federal
government's commitment to fully fund IDEA.
I commend my colleagues who have spent the last few months working on
this conference report, especially the gentleman from Ohio, the
distinguished Chairman of our Education and Workforce Committee, Mr.
Boehner. Accordingly I urge my colleagues to support this conference
report which will improve the nation's education system, ensuring that
we ``Leave No Child Behind.''
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
which provides for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. H.R. 1 provides for a reform of the basic federal laws
that support America's elementary and secondary public schools. Passage
of this legislation will help return our school system to the original
goals of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act--to ensure
that all children have an opportunity to learn regardless of income or
background.
I applaud the work of the conferees on this legislation, who have
produced a bill that strengthens our commitment to closing the
achievement gap between rich and poor students, improves targeting of
funds for low-performing students, improves teacher quality, preserves
critical after-school programs and expands local flexibility in the use
of federal education funds. With respect to overall funding levels,
this conference report provides a significant increase in funding for
assistance to school districts to help improve student achievement,
including a 57 percent increase in Title I resources, which are
targeted for economically disadvantaged students. The agreement also
reauthorizes most federal elementary and secondary education programs,
bilingual education, teacher training and safe-school programs for six
years. Perhaps most importantly, this bill contains the necessary
authorization levels to assure that adequate resources are provided to
carry out the mandates provided under this new law.

[[Page H10109]]

I am also pleased that the Conference Agreement contains language
included in the original House bill that establishes annual student
testing in grades three through eight in math and science. The testing
provision is designed to better inform parents and school officials
about students' academic progress. For students in low-performing
schools, the agreement requires districts to implement certain
corrective actions, and if adequate progress is not achieved after one
year, school districts would have to allow students to transfer to
other public schools, and assist parents with the associated
transportation costs. Rightly, this agreement does not mandate or
impose a federal testing provision. Instead, under H.R. 1, states will
design and select their own tests, and allows states 4 years to develop
and implement the tests for every child in these six grades.
Along with annual testing, this legislation includes a number of
accountability provisions intended to help hold schools reach high
levels of academic achievement for their students, including state,
school district and school ``report cards'' to parents and the public
on school performance and teacher qualification. These provisions are
critical to ensure that while we are asking much of our students
academically, we are asking schools to maintain a high degree
of professional standards and excellence. For the first time, this
legislation establishes a federal law that teachers must be qualified
in their subject area within four years. And this measure provides them
with the resources for training, support and mentoring that they need
to reach that goal.

The conference report also provides a significant new commitment to
bilingual and immigrant education. For the first time in federal law,
this measure establishes a formula that will target federal aid to
where the greatest need in bilingual education exists. Under this
provision, the Department of Education would distribute the funds to
states according to a formula based 80 percent on the number of
children with limited English proficiency in the state and 20 percent
on the number of immigrant children in the state. Further, the
agreement eliminates the existing requirement that 75 percent of the
funds be used to support programs in which the child is taught in his
or her native tongue, and allows local school districts to determine
the best method of instruction to teach children with limited English
proficiency. As a representative of Texas, a border state, I strongly
support these provisions, which will provide school districts with
expanded resources and flexibility to assist students with limited
English proficiency.
While on balance, this bill is an important achievement, I am
disappointed that the conferees did not include a provision to convert
the special education programs from a discretionary spending program
into a mandatory spending program. Earlier this year, with my colleague
Charles Bass (R-NH), I introduced legislation (H.R. 737) that would
make IDEA funding mandatory. Under H.R. 737, the federal government
would be obligated to increase its share of funding by 5 percent a year
for the next five years until full funding for IDEA is reached in 2006.
It is important to point out that since its enactment in 1975, IDEA
committed the federal government to fund up to 40 percent of the
educational costs for children with disabilities. However, the federal
government's contribution has never exceeded 15 percent, a shortfall
that has caused financial hardships and difficult curriculum choices in
local school districts. I believe Congress must abide by its commitment
and provide the financial resources to help local school districts
provide a first rate education to students with disabilities, and I am
hopeful that the leadership of the House and Senate, as well as the
Administration will address this issues next year when we consider
reauthorization of IDEA.
Like many of my colleagues, I have long sought many of the key
provisions of this bill, including enhanced teacher quality, parental
notification, school accountability, and new and better targeted
resources. Given the broad support this legislation enjoys, it is clear
that a bipartisan majority in the Congress support these critical
provisions. H.R. 1 offers the right combination of accountability and
resources and I am proud to support its passage today.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, although I rise in strong
support for the Elementary and Secondary Education bill, I am
disappointed that it does not fully fund the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The basic principle of IDEA is that
a free and appropriate public education should be provided to children
with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21, and that these children
should be educated with children who are not disabled ``to the maximum
extent appropriate.''
In the 1975 law, Congress pledged to provide up to 40 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure on special education services. However,
we have not kept our promise. Congress has appropriated only funds to
meet between 5 and 14 percent of the average per pupil expenditure with
FY2001 appropriations setting a record at 14.9 percent.
Since Congress has not fully funded IDEA, our schools must spend more
of their own money to meet the regulation of providing free and
appropriate education to children with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, when
everyone in government is finally making education a top priority, we
must provide our schools with the funding we promised them.
As I meet with my schools each week, I've been hearing a clear
message from my superintendents and principal that more resources must
be committed to provide fair and adequate educational opportunities to
children with special needs, and that the federal government can help
in a dramatic way by moving towards the maximum authorization level.
In the past, ``fully funding'' IDEA (meeting the 40 percent
authorization) has generally been a trade-off that for sacrificing
other educational programming.
And although today I believe we have missed a historic opportunity to
meet our federal commitment to local schools this year, I believe in
Chairman Boehner's commitment to passing this legislation next year.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
Education and Workforce Committee to fully fund IDEA when we
reauthorize the program next year.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on H.R. 1.
This bill represents a major step forward in education policy. For
the first time, federal funding will be tied to results, to actual
student achievement. The system of accountability and standards
implemented by H.R. 1 is long past due.
Results cannot be achieved without resources--for good reason, the
consideration of H.R. 1 has been linked to substantial increases in
appropriations. For decades, the federal government has made promises
to local schools that we will provide them with the resources they need
to raise student achievement.
Now, we are imposing accountability measures requiring schools to
perform. So it is absolutely crucial that the resources be there. And
we are providing substantial increases for ESEA funding to school
districts.
That said, this legislation, by itself, cannot fulfill some of the
claims that have been made. Calling it the ``No Child Left Behind Act''
exaggerates what we are doing here, and I fear it makes false promises
to the children who will still be left behind.
This week, this Congress passed up a historic opportunity to make
good on a commitment we made to children with disabilities in 1975 with
the passage of IDEA. With IDEA, the federal government promised to fund
40% of the costs to states of providing a quality education for
children with special needs.
But year after year, Congress has fallen well short of making good on
that promise. This week, we fell short once again. We owe it to
children with disabilities--and to all of our children--to come back
here next year and ensure that IDEA is fully funded.
Another shortcoming of this legislation is its silence on school
construction and renovation. Millions of students, including thousands
of children in my district, attend schools that are in desperate need
of extensive repair or outright replacement. This problem has not gone
away. Our children deserve safe, comfortable, modern schools.
And while this bill dramatically raises authorization levels, it
provides true funding increases only for fiscal year 2002. I recognize
that compromises had to be made to gain the broad bipartisan support
that this bill enjoys. But if we are serious about leaving no child
behind, we have to continue our commitment to education funding next
year, and every year.
This conference report represents a large step forward for education.
I commend Chairman Boehner, Ranking Member Miller, and the conferees
for working hard over many months to produce this bipartisan
legislation. We have lifted the hopes and brightened the futures of
million of children.
However, to close the achievement gap, to improve our schools, to
give every American child the same opportunities to succeed in the 21st
century workforce--our work is far from done.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote in favor of H.R. 1,
the Leave No Child Behind Act. Since coming to Congress my goal has
been to ensure that the Federal Government is a better partner in
building more livable communities. Access to quality public education
is a key component of a community that is safe, healthy and
economically secure.
While not perfect, the final version of H.R. 1 represents a
bipartisan agreement that will move us in the right direction by
providing more support and investment for public education. This bill
establishes clear goals and a timeline for narrowing the achievement
gap and targets federal dollars toward the neediest children. It sets a
four-year goal for ensuring that all teachers are qualified to teach in
their

[[Page H10110]]

subject matter and provides resources for mentoring, training and
salary enhancements to help us meet this critical four-year goal. It
helps bilingual education and eliminates the highly punitive elements
of the President's original plan. Also important is what is not in the
bill, efforts to repeal after-school program funding or divert money
away from our public schools were rejected. I applaud the addition of a
section dealing with school construction.
I support the overall framework that the bill provides, but I have
concerns about imposing new multi-year mandates without matching multi-
year funding, failing to help local communities deal with their growing
education budget shortfalls in the wake of September's events and the
lack of full funding for special education.
The federal government should lead by example in offering the best
possible public education to our nation's children. H.R. 1 is a good
start and it will certainly help return our school systems to the
original goals of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
ensure that all students have an opportunity to grow academically.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to add his support for
the H.R. 1 conference report, and his appreciation to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the Chairman of the House Education
and the Workforce Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the House Education and
the Workforce Committee, for bringing this important legislation to the
House Floor today.
This is the most important action we have taken regarding elementary
and secondary education since this Member first came to Congress. The
H.R. 1 conference report, makes states that use Federal dollars
accountable for improving student achievement, grants unprecedented new
flexibility to local school districts, empowers parents and provides an
escape route for children trapped in failing schools.
The No Child Left Behind Act enhances flexibility for local school
districts by allowing them to transfer up to 50 percent of their
Federal education dollars among an assortment of ESEA programs as long
as they demonstrate results. In addition, the H.R. 1 conference report
consolidates a host of duplicative programs to ensure that state and
local officials can meet the unique needs of students. The legislation
also gives low-performing schools the chance to improve by offering
necessary financial and other technical assistance.
In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act provides a ``safety value''
for children trapped in failing schools. The conference report provides
that if a school fails to make adequate yearly progress for two
consecutive years, then a district would have to offer to the student
in that school the opportunity to transfer to another public school.
The legislation also allows children in failing schools to obtain
supplemental education services, such as tutoring.
Furthermore, the conference report for H.R. 1 continues and updates
the authorization for the National Writing Project. The legislation
supports the Center for Civic Education and its education program that
encourages instruction on the principles of our constitutional
democracy, the history of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The measure also supports annual competitions of stimulated
congressional hearings for secondary school students. This Member is
pleased that the conference report also includes reauthorization of the
Close Up Program.

When the House initially considered H.R. 1, this Member voted against
an amendment that required states to annually test students in grades
3-8 in reading and math. This Member believes that the Federal
Government's role in education should be to support proven state and
local reform efforts rather than to create additional requirements for
out local schools. By mandating new testing requirements on every
child, every year from grades 3-8, as is provided in the H.R. 1
conference report, this measure will take teachers and students out of
class, take dollars out of state and local education budgets, and
undermine successful reform efforts already underway in Nebraska. This
Member is also very concerned that this provision will force teachers
to ``teach-for-the-test.'' Although the conference report continues the
House decision to allow states to design and select their own test,
this Member continues to have these same concerns.
Mr. Speaker, this Member is also very concerned that the H.R. 1
conference report does not include a provision that would create
mandatory full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). Only July 19, 2001, this Member sent a joint letter to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], along with several
other Members of Congress, requesting that Mr. Boehner work with the
other House and Senate conferees on the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to improve the current
ESEA reauthorization bill by including a mandatory IDEA full funding
measure in the conference report. It is very unfortunate that such
language was not included in the agreement.
Currently, the Federal Government is funding an average of 12.6
percent of the per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities.
The other 27.4 percent of this unfilled congressional promise is a
burden for state and local governments as they are forced into
providing these funds. This Member has said, for many years now, that
the one significant way that Congress could possibly help decrease
property taxes for Nebraskans is to keep the congressional promise to
provide 40 percent of the costs of special education, as this would
enable a local school board to either lower property taxes or use such
funding for other priority school needs as determined by the local
school board. Therefore, this Member strongly urges this body to
revisit this issue immediately in the upcoming Second Session of the
current 107th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member asks his colleagues to support
the H.R. 1 conference report.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for their hard work to reach a consensus on
what we have come to know as the ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001''
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Authorization (H.R. 1) is a
good bill and will improve education for millions of America's
children. But Mr. Speaker we are leaving some of our children behind. I
am talking about America's children in dire need of special education.
I understand the agreement to deal with the funding issues posed by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also known as IDEA, when
it comes up for reauthorization next year. I do hope that Congress will
agree that time is of the essence and that it is time to fix IDEA.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that IDEA is one of the most important civil
rights laws ever signed into law. This legislation sends a message that
in America, education is not a privilege, but a fundamental right
belonging to all Americans. More than twenty-six years ago, on December
2, 1975 President Gerald Ford signed the ``Education for All
Handicapped Children Act.'' This later became known as IDEA, the basic
premise of this federal law, is that all children with disabilities
have a federally protected civil right to have a federally protected
civil right to have available to them a free appropriate public
education that meets their education and related services needs in the
least restrictive environment. The statutory right articulated in IDEA
is grounded in the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under
law and the constitutional power of Congress to authorize and place
conditions on participation in federal spending programs.
Mr. Speaker, in 1970, before enactment of the federal protections in
IDEA, schools in America educated only one in five students with
disabilities. More than one million students were excluded from public
schools, and another 3.5 million did not receive appropriate services.
Many states had laws excluding certain students, including those who
were blind, deaf, or labeled ``emotionally disturbed'' or ``mentally
retarded.'' Almost 200,000 school-age children with mental retardation
or emotional disabilities were institutionalized. The likelihood of
exclusion was greater for children with disabilities living in low-
income, ethnic and racial minority, or rural communities. A recent
government study published by the National Council on Disability finds
that 25 years after enactment of IDEA, not one single state is in
compliance. States cannot afford to be in compliance. States' school
boards are trying to meet the requirements of IDEA but are struggling
because the Federal government has not fulfilled its commitment to
provide funding at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist
with the costs of educating students with disabilities.
Today IDEA is funded at about 14.9% of the average per pupil
expenditure--much higher than the 7 percent of 5 years ago, but this,
as we all know in this room today, is not good enough. We must continue
to increase funding to reach the 40 percent of the average pupil
expenditure funding level mandated in law. I can tell you that the
schools in my district are struggling to carry out IDEA, and my concern
is that without the 40% percent federal support, we will see a backlash
against those students with disabilities. Congress must fulfill its
commitment assist States and localities with educating children with
disabilities. Congress must ensure that the Federal government lives up
to the promises it made to the students, parents, and schools more than
two decades ago. Congress needs to fully fund IDEA and maintain its
commitment to existing federal educational programs. We should ensure
that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public
education and at the same time ensure that all children have the best
education possible.
Mr. Speaker, IDEA is a landmark civil rights law that was intended to
open the doors to

[[Page H10111]]

education and success for more than six million American children each
year. This was followed by another landmark civil rights law, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was signed by President
Bush in 1990. It is my hope that this President will follow these
former Presidents and show our Nation that indeed no child will be left
behind and that when IDEA comes up for reauthorization that he too
leaves a legacy for protecting the rights or people with disabilities.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I
support this bill because it reauthorizes a broad array of targeted
programs that work toward improving public education. It focuses on
maintaining high standards in every classroom, strengthening teacher
and principal quality, supporting a safe, healthy, disciplined, and
drug-free learning environment and improving student performance.
H.R. 1 will help to close the gap between disadvantaged children and
their more affluent peers, and between minority and non-minority
students. The conference report includes unprecedented targeting of
Title I funds to the neediest communities. The 50 school districts with
the highest percentage of poor students will receive a 10% increase in
Title I funding solely as a result of proposed Title I formula grants.
In addition, Title I schools will receive more funds due to increases
in appropriations. Congress, and the country at-large, cannot continue
to ignore the gap between rich and poor and minority and non-minority
students. This bill represents a fight against the status quo.
H.R. 1 will ensure that all teachers are qualified to teach in the
subject matter for which they are responsible. The bill includes an
authorization of $3.2 billion for teacher training and class-size
reduction, a $1 billion (or 46%) increase from the FY 2001 funding
level. It provides new resources for mentoring, training, salary
enhancement and other improvements. We are supporting teachers by
giving them the resources they need to do their jobs. Our teachers will
now be better prepared to give students the tools and know-how to be
successful students.
H.R. 1 includes a historical 57% funding increase in bilingual
education programs. For the first time ever, our education legislation
has recognized that this country is growing closer and closer to our
creed, E Pluribus Unum, ``Out of Many, One''. This bill will ensure
that language barriers will not leave our many immigrant and bilingual
children behind.
Additionally, H.R. 1 contains no vouchers, no state block grants, and
no repeal of after-school programs and a section was added for school
construction. The bill also kept hate crimes programs and civil rights
protections. Efforts to hold schools accountable without providing the
resources and protections needed to meet high standards were defeated.
I contacted major disability groups, such as, The Arc and the Easter
Seal Society. These groups expressed their disappointment in the loss
of IDEA funding. The NEA, AFT, and NSBA offered similar opinions on the
bill. All three groups also express disappointment that Congress could
not agree to fulfill its promise to fully-fund IDEA at 40 percent.
Congress made a commitment 26 years ago to fund federally mandated
special education programs at 40 percent of average per pupil
expenditures. By simply fulfilling our promise to fully fund our share
of IDEA, Congress could improve public education three-fold. First,
school districts would have substantial resources freed up for other
essential or innovative educational programs. Second, we would remove
the unpredictability of the annual appropriations process, replacing
confusion with stability for local schools when formulating their
budgets. And last but not least--we would be giving special education
students the tools needed to overcome the many obstacles they face on a
daily basis. Despite this shortcoming, these groups support the goals
of raising achievement, increasing accountability, and improving
teacher quality, and I agree with them.
I believe the education of the 21st century must change to suit
different learning styles and include a wider variety of programming
that focuses on the application of classroom lessons--math, science,
social sciences--to real world situations. Too often, lessons are
taught in a way that makes it difficult to connect book lessons to the
real world; we must better bridge this gap. In a world that evolves
more closely everyday, 2nd language classes should be encouraged at
early ages. We simply must ensure that our education system keeps up
with our world. We are in a critical transition stage; new techniques,
new ideas, and new visions must be the order of the day, in order for
our students to remain competitive.
We have the opportunity to uncap a wealth of human resources that lay
under-appreciated and underestimated in urban and rural school
districts across the country. The next generation of great thinkers,
writers, scientists, doctors, educators, actors and lawmakers, are
waiting for us to activate and motivate them. It is our responsibility
to devise a new definition of success. We must let our students know
that our future is nothing without them. it is our responsibility to
show them that there is a world that they can--not only be a part of--
but also change and improve. If we invest in our students, we invest in
a future of innovation and growth. The H.R. 1 conference agreement is a
strong, positive step toward a new education system that focuses on
preparing our youth to make our world the best it can be. I urge all
may colleagues to support the passage of this conference report.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the No
Child Left Behind Act Conference Report. I commend our Chairman for his
strong leadership and members of the conference committee for their
tireless efforts to send a bill to the President's desk before we
adjourn this session. As a scientist and former professor with twenty-
two years of experience working at the K-12 level to improve math and
science education, I have tried to bring my expertise to the table in
the drafting of this legislation.
H.R. 1 encompasses the four elements of President Bush's education
reform plan: demanding results from states and schools, providing
flexibility in the use of federal funds, reducing the red tape in
federal programs, and expanding school choice. This legislation will do
much to close the achievement gap between our nation's rich and poor
students.
This legislation also addresses another achievement gap--the gap
between U.S. students and their international peers in science.
International tests place our students in the bottom third of
industrialized nations in their performance in science, and dead last
in high school physics. Recently, the Department of Education released
results from the 2000 NAEP and found no improvement in science literacy
in grades 4 and 8, and a decline in science performance in grade 12
since 1996. Science education is vitally important to our country's
economic and national security, and we must hold states and schools
accountable for student performance in science, as well as reading and
math.
The conferees recognize the importance of science education by
requiring states to set standards in science by the 2005-2006 school
year. I am pleased that the conference report also includes my
amendment to H.R. 1, which requires states and schools to test students
in science by the 2007-2008 school year.
Such testing requires that teachers be knowledgeable in--and skilled
in the teaching of--science and math. Professional development for
science and math teachers is vitally important, and I am pleased to see
the conference report incorporate my legislation to create summer
professional development institutes in the math-science partnership
program. These math-science partnerships of higher education
institutions, states, and schools will provide sustained, high-quality
professional development through these institutes for our Nation's math
and science teachers. I am hopeful that the conference report
authorization of $450 million for this crucial program will be fully
funded. While this bill will do much to improve our nation's math and
science education, work remains to ensure that sufficient resources are
made available in the appropriations process for math and science
professional development. I encourage my colleagues to finish the job
and fully fund the math and science partnerships for fiscal year 2002.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for working with me to
incorporate my science education provisions into the conference report
and I again thank the conferees for producing this excellent compromise
legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 1, ``The
Leave No Child Behind Act.'' I thank the leadership from both sides of
the aisle, Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller, for their
diligence and commitment in constructing a bipartisan bill that
represents a promising framework for our public educational system. The
promise of a brighter future for all our nation's children through
excellence in education should be the most important goal for Congress.
This Conference Report contains promising steps to improving
education for our nation's students by providing significant increases
in educational funding for key programs. The increase in Title I
funding will help to close the achievement gap that currently exists
between low-income, disadvantaged students and their more affluent
peers. It provides funding for after-school programs that ensure our
children have access to quality, enriching programs during non-school
hours. It provides funding to improve teacher quality in our nation's
classrooms and gives States and local districts flexibility over the
use of federal funds in order to improve the level of achievement for
all students. The Conference Report also includes funding for school
construction, strong civil rights protections and funding for hate-
crime prevention, which Democrats fought hard to

[[Page H10112]]

include. This bill also affords parents the tools they need to ensure
that their children are receiving a quality education.
However, as I do rise in support of this bill, it is not without
reservation. In a year where the President and Congress have pledged to
``leave no child behind,'' we, unfortunately, do not fulfill this
commitment to those children with special education needs. Congress
needs to make funding for special education mandatory, so that schools,
teachers, and students with special education needs will have the tools
they need to perform successfully. Congress also needs to continue its
commitment to excellence in education and realize the need to provide
more funding in the years ahead to ensure that our nation's public
schools are able to meet the requirements laid out in this bill and
face the challenges ahead of them.
I am hopeful that this bill puts us on the right track to meeting the
educational needs of all of America's students. I urge Congress to
commit to providing additional resources for educational programs and
providing full funding for special education. This will ensure that we
meet the goal of educational excellence for all our nation's youth.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, today the House takes up historic legislation.
We will consider the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, which will provide the most significant education
legislation since Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1965 and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the
original legislation and to play a small role in the landmark reforms
the legislation enacts.
As we all know, the cornerstone of H.R. 1 is increased flexibility
for local schools in exchange for greater accountability for student
progress. Every school and every school district is different and has
different needs. For the first time, states and local school districts
can target funds where they are needed most. For example, in my home
state of California, we have already begun to lower class size. Under
H.R. 1, we can use these funds in other areas where we desperately need
resources, such as teacher training or special education. Title I funds
are protected, ensuring that the needs of disadvantage students are
met. Spending decisions are made by state and local officials, who are
the most familiar with the particular strengths and needs of their
schools, and can best decide how to spend federal funds.
H.R. 1 also helps schools help themselves. If a school fails to
demonstrate adequate yearly progress, it is given the assistance it
needs to turn itself around. At the same time, students can transfer
out of that school. They are not stuck in a school that cannot teach
them what they need to know. Additionally, students in schools that
chronically fail to demonstrate progress are given the supplemental
education services they need to catch up with their peers in better
performing schools.
I am particularly pleased with the ``Reading First Initiative''
created by H.R. 1. Today, almost 70 percent of fourth graders in our
poorest schools cannot read. If a student cannot read by the fourth
grade, he or she will continue to fall further and further behind his
or her peers. Obviously, we must do something to make sure that these
children develop the skills necessary for a successful academic career
and a productive life. H.R. 1 triples federal funding for
scientifically based literacy programs to a total $900 million for next
year. This ``Reading First'' initiative will ensure that every child,
no matter his or her background, can read by the third grade.
Addressing reading problems early will also prevent children from being
mistakenly classified as special needs and entering an already over-
taxed and underfunded special education system.
H.R. 1 demonstrates our bipartisan commitment to improving
educational opportunities for every child. this is our chance to
radically reform education for all students. They deserve nothing less.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and make sure
that no child is left behind.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate has
expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1 will be
followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on the question of adopting H.
Res. 314.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 381,
noes 41, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 497]

AYES--381

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

NOES--41

Akin
Bartlett
Burton
Capuano
Crane
Culberson
DeLay
Duncan
Filner
Flake
Frank
Gilchrest
Goode
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hoekstra
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Lewis (KY)
Manzullo
McCollum
Moran (KS)
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions

[[Page H10113]]

Shadegg
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Cubin
Gonzalez
Hostettler
Larson (CT)
Luther
Meek (FL)
Olver
Ros-Lehtinen
Waters
Young (AK)

{time} 1442

Messrs. Sessions, Akins and Crane changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. Northup changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately was required
to attend a funeral in my Congressional District today and missed
rollcall Vote No. 497. Had I been present and voting, I would have
voted ``aye''.

____________________