[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''.

                          ____________________