[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8295-8308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 143 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 143

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1) a bill to close the achievement gap with 
     accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is 
     left behind. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 143 makes in order the bill H.R. 1, the No Child 
Left Behind Act of 2001, under a structured rule. The rule provides 2 
hours of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, debatable for 
the time specified, equally controlled by a proponent and opponent. 
These amendments shall not be subject to amendment or demands for a 
division of the question.
  The Committee on Rules worked very hard to ensure that the amendments 
made in order reflect the variety of views in this House of 
Representatives on education policy. I think the result is a balanced 
rule that gives the House the opportunity to work its will on a

[[Page 8296]]

variety of issues related to the education of our children. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill as well as 
the amendments printed in the report. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic leap forward on behalf of our 
children, parents, and teachers across this great Nation. Lately, the 
attention of Americans has been drawn to the problems of high gas 
prices and sustainability of our resources. America, it is time to 
focus that attention on our Nation's most precious resource: our 
children. H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, does just that.
  We understand that the future of this great Nation lies in a global 
economy, and H.R. 1 recognizes that investing in our children today 
will prepare them and our country for the challenges of tomorrow. The 
Committee on Education and the Workforce was assigned the arduous task 
of reforming our Nation's failing Federal education policy. Although 
there have been many bumps in the road, I am pleased to 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 no 
child is left behind.
  During testimony in the Committee on Rules, we heard time and time 
again, from both Republicans and Democrats, that H.R. 1 represents the 
most sweeping comprehensive education legislation to be brought before 
the House during our tenure. It has been a long time in coming and this 
bill is truly historic. The education of our Nation's children is the 
number one concern of Americans, and H.R. 1 is the number one priority 
of our President.
  I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague and good 
friend from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his hard work and 
commitment to improving educational opportunities for our children, and 
I would also like to congratulate and commend the ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his 
hard work and support of this bipartisan legislation.
  Despite a decade of economic growth and a Federal outlay of more than 
$130 billion in the last 25 years, 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 cannot be the 
vehicle for change in our public schools. It is time for 
accountability, it is time for reform, and it is time for a commitment 
to our children.
  We must start by 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 
provide Federal funds to aid them in that task. It also explicitly 
prohibits federally sponsored national testing or curricula.
  Armed with knowledge from these assessments we will be able to 
determine which schools are failing to educate our children, and this 
information will be readily available to parents in the form of an 
annual school performance report card. Based on these facts, H.R. 1 
provides a system of accountability to ensure that students do not 
become trapped in chronically failing schools.
  As passed out of committee, H.R. 1 provides immediate public school 
choice for children in schools identified as failing after just 1 year. 
That is public school choice. This provision will give parents the 
freedom to choose a better-performing public or charter school to 
educate their children. The bill also allows parents to seek 
supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, after-school 
services, and summer school programs for their children if they are 
enrolled in a school that has been identified as a failing school for 
more than 3 years. This measure will act as a necessary safety valve to 
allow students to seek outside educational support for any state-
approved provider using Federal title I dollars.
  Now, 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. This 
decentralized approach will allow agencies to better target resources 
to fit the needs of their own communities.
  Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act in 1965, numerous programs and restrictions have been 
piled and piled and piled upon 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 or eliminating 34 programs under ESEA and cutting the 
Federal education bureaucracy in half. At the same time, the bill will 
target effective proven methods of reading through the implementation 
of the President's Reading First initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that over 60 percent of children living in 
poverty are reading below the very basic level. We cannot expect these 
children to exceed with this handicap. At the same time, we destine 
these children to academic underachievement by our failure to teach 
them to read; we are denying them access to the world that may be 
opened up to them only through books. The President's Reading and Early 
Reading First programs will introduce a scientific-based, comprehensive 
approach to reading instruction and will serve to refocus education 
policy on this most 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 without the math and science knowledge that has made us a leader 
in technology and scientific discovery. I am very 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 opportunities to 
local education agencies with a high need.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1,000-plus pages of H.R. 1 are 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. It encompasses the education plan 
laid out by our President and provides us with the most important 
change in Federal education policy in over 40 years.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House has a vested interest in the 
education of our children as the Nation's most precious resource. We 
cannot stand idly by or be timid in fulfilling our responsibility to 
ensure that every child, rich or poor, white or of color, gifted or 
disabled have 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. As we debate this historic legislation, I urge 
my colleagues to keep the children at the forefront of their minds. I 
urge Members to support this rule and the historic underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose the process it represents, 
and I oppose the duplicity by which this rule came about. Nearly 150 
amendments were submitted for this major legislative initiative, and 
only a handful have been made in order.
  Furthermore, many members of the Committee on Education and the

[[Page 8297]]

Workforce withheld offering amendments in that committee because of 
assurances by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, that 
they would be given an opportunity to do so on the floor. That did not 
happen. Cut out of the process were numerous good-faith efforts to 
build and improve on the underlying bill.
  My colleagues relied on the good-faith assurances of the Republican 
leadership, and learned a hard lesson instead. This is not a tone in 
Washington for which so many of us had hoped. For instance, this 
egregious rule will block consideration of an amendment by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). The gentleman's amendment would 
have provided $20 billion for needed school renovation, repair, and 
construction. Our schools are crumbling before our eyes.
  Mr. Speaker, at the basic level, surely we can all agree that schools 
should provide a safe and secure environment for learning and 
instruction with classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 
resources necessary for learning. In the same manner, the rule blocks 
my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), from offering an 
amendment to maintain a separate stream of funding for the class size 
reduction program.
  Overcrowded classrooms remain the number one obstacles to quality 
education in many communities. This rule does nothing to alleviate the 
problem. The process for this education bill began with a lot of 
promise.
  In recent days, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
approved, on a true bipartisan basis, a major education reform bill 
which will hold public schools accountable for improving children's 
education while offering a substantial increase in Federal funds to 
help them accomplish that goal.
  It reflected a significant agreement between Democrats and 
Republicans to improve education for all children in our country 
regardless of their economic, social, or racial background; in other 
words, leaving no child behind. It provided substantial new resources, 
$4 billion more for elementary and secondary education for next year, 
compared to what the Federal Government is spending this year, in 
exchange for higher standards and tough accountability rules.
  But then the process began to break down. Last week Congress failed 
to include in the budget conference the new funds for education that 
were called for in today's underlying bill. The disparity between 
education funding in the budget and education funding in this reform 
bill raises real questions about whether Congress is serious about 
improving schools.
  Furthermore, this week we have come to learn that the bipartisan bill 
has been hijacked by extreme elements of the majority's party, elements 
intent on undermining the bipartisan agreement reached by the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. These elements are intent on 
reinserting vouchers into the underlying bill, a move that would 
undermine public education. Moreover, efforts to block-grant Federal 
money, a proposal referred to as Straight A's, are underway and would 
also undermine the specific targeting of poor school districts that 
exists in Federal law.
  I am at a loss to explain to my colleagues how so carefully crafted a 
bill has come under attack. The underlying bill was one this body could 
have been proud of, but its success is now in jeopardy. We must not let 
that happen. I urge the defeat of this rule to take care of these 
deficiencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me this time. And I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) who worked so hard on this. It was a pleasure working 
with him. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). I also thank the Members on 
the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), whose interest in education is great, as well as gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), 
and many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill. I believe that President 
Bush deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his emphasis in terms 
of what he is doing in education. I will be the first to say if any one 
of us out of 435 had prepared this particular rule, we would have 
prepared it differently. This rule is a compromise rule, taking 135 
amendments or so and trying to determine how we could best represent 
the interest of various Republican and Democrat parties in terms of 
bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I personally oppose a number of things in the rule. I 
would have liked to have seen them out of the rule. I think there are 
people who would have liked to see things in the rule that are not in 
the rule. I understand some of the opposition to it and I will oppose, 
as vehemently as any Member, certain aspects of this particular rule.
  Mr. Speaker, just to cite one, the amendment by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) dealing with assessments absolutely guts the basic bill, and it 
is one that I would have a great deal of trouble with.
  But this is a rule. It is something that we have to move forward 
with. It is my determination that we should pass the rule, go on to the 
debate on the various amendments, and let them fall where they may.
  Mr. Speaker, why is this a good bill? It is a good bill because it is 
the first major piece of legislation in decades in this country, 
perhaps since the creation of the Department of Education, which 
essentially reevaluates the role of the Federal Government and makes a 
determination that we have to start at a very young age, particularly 
with kids in lower-income circumstances, and teach them how to read by 
the end of second grade. And in grades 3 through 8, we have to pay 
attention to how kids are doing. That is what the testing is all about, 
in order to give them the opportunity to determine if they are not 
doing as well as they should, and then providing for that opportunity.
  We do have some consolidation into block grants to give flexibility. 
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) was very helpful in creating 
local flexibility so that various people who are running the local 
districts could make decisions in terms of how to expend money at the 
local level. This gives the greatest flexibility of any legislation 
ever coming out of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, essentially what the President and others have done, and 
this is a very bipartisan bill, is that they have sat down and made the 
decision that the ultimate goal here is to help kids with their 
education and where they are going. So even if you do not agree with 
everything that is allowed for in the rule, as I do not, I would still 
urge people to support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today reflects the culmination of a 
lot of work and effort by all of the members of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. I particularly want to thank the members 
of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who 
are part of the working group. But I want to extend that thanks to 
every member of the committee, all of whom had to stretch to try to 
bring this legislation together to try to create sound educational 
reform and improvement along the lines that so many Members of Congress 
have spoken about in our various debates, in our campaigns, talking to 
children and

[[Page 8298]]

parents to try to make the American education system a better place for 
all of our students so they can acquire the skills necessary to 
participate to the fullest extent in American society.
  I believe that this legislation does that. It does that because of 
the kind of cooperation that we received. However, I must say that I am 
very disappointed in the rule because I am very concerned that very 
crucial items for debate within the discussion of the American 
education system, those amendments were not allowed in order: 
Amendments offered by Members on this side of the aisle to deal with 
the issues of smaller class size, to make sure that in fact we have an 
environment in which teachers can teach and children can learn; to have 
modern and safe schools; to renovate the unsafe schools and improve 
schools through school construction grants; to make sure that we have 
adequate counselors in schools so if we see violence break out in some 
of our campuses, even to the extent of killings through gun violence 
and other forms of violence, that we have people in place who can deal 
with these student populations, in many cases in very difficult 
situations; and clearly the need for full funding for IDEA.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important to all of us on both sides of the 
aisle to make sure that funding is there. For that reason, I would ask 
Members to vote against this rule so that perhaps those amendments 
could be made in order.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my distinguished friend and 
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, whose hard 
work, along with his ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), has led us to this historic day.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), and members of the 
Committee on Rules, for their long hours last night in putting this 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for the portrait that was unveiled 
yesterday, and congratulations to him and hopefully his health 
continues to improve.
  Let me, like my colleagues before me, thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), my partner in this process, along with 
those members of the working group, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer); 
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who have spent months looking 
across the table at each other, trying to develop a bipartisan bill 
that follows the path that the President outlined.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) pointed out, we 
really owe a debt of gratitude to all members of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce on both sides of the aisle who had their 
moments of disappointment, their moments of happiness, but a 
willingness all of the way through the process to see us produce a 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I can say that in the 10 years that I have been here in 
Congress, the method in which we moved the bill through the committee 
and the cooperation of all of the Members was absolutely stunning. We 
had not one ill word said in the committee. We worked together, even 
when we were disagreeing, to try to produce a bill that will help 
children in America. I want to thank my colleagues.
  As the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) pointed out, this is an 
historic opportunity. President Bush has made education reform his top 
priority, and now the House has the opportunity to deliver on the 
President's promise. There are four main components of this bill. Four 
key principles that the President outlined during the campaign and has 
talked about all year: holding schools accountable to American parents; 
providing State and local school districts with unprecedented new 
flexibility; giving new choices to parents and students who are trapped 
in failing schools; and ensuring that student instruction is based on 
sound, scientific research.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 that we have coming before us embodies each of 
those principles and closely tracks with the President's education 
reform plan. We are on the threshold of the first serious overhaul of 
Federal education policy since it was created in 1965. There is a lot 
of discussion that we will have about this bill when we get to it. 
First, however, we have to pass the rule that is before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there is some disappointment, disappointment on 
the Democratic side of the aisle and disappointment on the Republican 
side of the aisle on some amendments that were not made in order. 
However, we have produced a rule that is fair: fair for the Members, 
fair for the country, and fair for this bill. All of us know we have a 
very delicately balanced bill. The only way we are going to produce a 
solid, bipartisan bill is to keep a delicately balanced bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are amendments that Members would like to offer, 
but I think that we have a fair representation embodied in this rule, 
and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is a good bipartisan bill; but I 
oppose this rule for several reasons, one of which is the denial of any 
Democratic amendment on school construction.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has spent millions and millions 
of dollars on State and local prisons during my time here in Congress, 
and virtually nothing on public school renovation and construction. 
About 15 years ago, a Federal judge in Flint, Michigan, my hometown, 
ordered the closing of our county jail, built in 1930, stating that it 
was unfit for human habitation. A few years later, we blew that jail up 
in compliance with that court order.

                              {time}  1300

  That jail was newer and in better condition than many schools in my 
congressional district, including Homedale Elementary School in my own 
neighborhood which is in deplorable condition. We should really be 
ashamed when we spend money on prisons and find some reason not to 
spend money on school construction and renovation. Let us at least have 
the opportunity to vote on school construction. It is a very 
nonintrusive way to help our schools, school construction and 
renovation. What are we really afraid of?
  We have crafted a reasonable bipartisan education bill. Let us have a 
reasonable rule for floor action.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce would engage with me in a colloquy.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to.
  Mrs. WILSON. As the gentleman from Ohio knows, I had filed an 
amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), 
on public school choice. That amendment would have provided parents and 
children a better education through the public schools by eliminating 
barriers to full choice within public school systems. My amendment 
would have provided transportation expenses in public schools and 
creative funding mechanisms for charter school facilities, whether 
those facilities are leased or purchased.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio and I worked together yesterday 
on a version of this amendment that would be in order and that the 
committee could accept. That amendment would have authorized $400 
million in Federal matching funds for States to

[[Page 8299]]

level the playing field in the area of facilities funding for charter 
schools and traditional public schools. Charter schools often have to 
choose between paying their rent and paying their teachers.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Yes, I am very familiar with the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. I understand the gentleman supported making this 
amendment in order and that it was inadvertently left out of the 
amendments that we will consider on this bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. The gentlewoman is correct. I strongly support public 
school choice and eliminating the barriers for charter schools to 
educate children. The lack of funding for space is one of the biggest 
hurdles they face. We need to create incentives for States to provide 
funding mechanisms for charter schools without taking funds away from 
public schools. The gentlewoman has been a leader in these efforts to 
improve public education, and particularly crafting innovative 
financing mechanisms for schools. I was looking forward to working with 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from Indiana to 
debate that issue on the floor. Unfortunately, the amendment was not 
made in order.
  Mrs. WILSON. Would the gentleman agree to seek to include the per-
pupil facilities aid program amendment in the conference committee on 
H.R. 1?
  Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentlewoman is aware and the gentleman from 
Indiana is aware, similar language is in the Senate version of this 
bill. I will pledge to work with the gentlewoman from New Mexico and 
the gentleman from Indiana when we get to conference on trying to 
secure this language in the final version of the bill.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I thank him for his 
leadership. I look forward to continuing our work together.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico, 
someone whom I have enjoyed working with on public school choice. I 
just want to say that as we debate this bipartisan bill over the next 
several days, we are going to be dealing with issues of reform and 
accountability and testing. And we are going to be dealing with issues 
of when children do not do very well, that they have more options to 
get into new schools and out of failing schools. Certainly this 
amendment that the gentlewoman and I have worked on expands public 
school choice, expands options for parents to get into charter schools 
and magnet schools, and does it earlier than waiting 3 or 4 years for a 
school to fail. We have put this amendment together. It is a bipartisan 
amendment on the Senate side with Senator Gregg and Senator Carper. We 
hope that this would be accepted in conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy as I mentioned to the gentlewoman, if 
she will yield further, that we will work together in conference to try 
to secure this language. I share their commitment to increased public 
school choice and to the growing movement of charter schools that are 
providing help for children in very needy communities.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank my colleague from Indiana for his strong work on 
this and we will continue to work together. I thank the chairman for 
his leadership as well. I looked forward to working with him.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to serve on the working group 
representing the minority was a tremendous experience. I must say that 
going into this, I did not expect to be able to reconcile all the 
various differences that we held on the majority and the minority side. 
It took an amazing amount of work on the part of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) to put this together. In the process of reconciling many of our 
differences, one of the salient points that made it possible in my 
opinion for us to come forward with this bipartisan bill was the 
assurance that many of the amendments that the Democrats wanted to 
offer to be included in the major legislation would be given an 
opportunity to be debated on the floor. With that assurance, we gave up 
the opportunity for major debate on these items in the committee as we 
deliberated on the consensus bill. So I cannot begin to describe my 
huge disappointment that the Committee on Rules did not permit two of 
the most important Democratic amendments that we have been talking 
about for years.
  Now, this is the world-renowned legislative body that everybody looks 
to in terms of being able to come to grips with the major issues of our 
times and to debate them on both sides of the aisle. We are being 
deprived of that opportunity by this rule which prevents the minority 
from presenting these two amendments having to do with school 
construction and class size, the two most important issues that affect 
almost all of our school districts.
  So it is with great disappointment that I come to the floor today, in 
spite of all the efforts that we made in our committee, to ask the 
Members of this body to vote down this rule so that we may have the 
opportunity to offer these two important amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express disappointment that the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 1 does not permit me to offer an amendment to 
hire 100,000 additional counselors in our schools.
  The amendment would have provided 100,000 resource-based staff for 
our public schools to help students cope with the stress and anxieties 
of adolescence. The amendment is similar to H.R. 466, which I 
introduced on February 6, 2001.
  None of us will forget the roster of incidents of school violence. 
Only yesterday a 14 year old was convicted of second degree murder for 
killing a middle school teacher. What could make a seemingly typical 
child turn so violent?
  Substantive preventative measures have their place. Security guards, 
metal detectors, and expelling violent students all have their place in 
addressing this problem. But they do nothing to address the child's 
anger, rage and frustration that leads him or her to commit a violent 
act.
  My amendment would enable schools to work with children to ensure 
they can handle their anger and emotions without resorting to violence. 
Many of our children enter school with emotional, physical, and 
interpersonal barriers to learning. We need more school counselors in 
our schools, not only to help identify these troubled youths, but to 
work on developmental skill building. Children do not check their 
personal and home problems at the schoolhouse door; the problems come 
in with them.
  Suregeon General Dr. David Satcher has said that appropriate 
interventions made during or prior to adolescence can direct young 
people away from violence toward healthy and constructive lives. The 
window of opportunity for effective interventions opens early and 
rarely, if ever, closes. Thus, prevention is the best guard against 
youth violence.
  We have no real infrastructure of support our kids when it comes to 
mental health services in our schools. The most recent statistics 
indicate that there are 90,000 guidance counselors for approximately 
41.4 million students in our public schools. That translates to 1 
counselor for every 513 students. In Hawaii, we have only 1 counselor 
for every 525 students. In California, there is only 1 counselor for 
more than 1,000 students.
  That is simply not enough. The Institute of Medicine of the National 
Academy of Sciences recommends that there be at least one counselor per 
250 students, especially beginning in middle school.
  With current counselors responsible for such large numbers of 
students, they are unable to address the students' personal needs. 
Instead, their role is more often administrative, scheduling, and job 
and college counseling. The child is forfeited for different goals.
  My amendments would put 100,000 new resource staff in our schools to 
focus on the mental health needs of students. It authorizes $2.8 
billion for fiscal year 2002. While that may seen a large sum, it is 
only $28,000 per counselor.
  This resource staff will be hired to address the personal, family, 
peer level, emotional, and developmental needs of students, enabling 
them to detect early warning signs of troubled youth. They will improve 
student interaction and school safety. In a nutshell, they can help 
save children's lives.

[[Page 8300]]

  The resource staff can also consult with teachers and parents about 
student learning, behavior, and emotional problems. they can develop 
and implement prevention programs and deal with substance abuse. They 
can set up peer mediation, and they can enhance problem solving in 
schools. Resource staff will provide important support services to 
students, and to parents and teachers on behalf of the students.
  In addition, my amendment makes counselors eligible for professional 
development training.
  If we really are serious about addressing school violence, we must 
address prevention and that means having the available personnel to 
address the mental, emotional and developmental needs of the children.
  I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit me to offer this 
very important amendment.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), also a 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, I rise in 
strong support of the rule. Actually I thought we were going to 
continue that spirit of bipartisanship that we had on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). But 
unfortunately that seems to be dissipated here. I am very unhappy about 
it and I do not understand it at all, because in my assessment of the 
rule, it seems as though we have continued that bipartisanship and we 
have really focused on the issues of genuine concern to all that 
divided us. I am deeply disappointed to hear that the partisanship that 
we put aside in the committee deliberations is unfairly raising its 
head on this rule debate. I believe that we have considered all of the 
issues that genuinely were the core of the education program and that, 
in the tradition of our fine democracy, they are included in this rule.
  For example, I was one who was against vouchers as part of this bill. 
I was one in the committee that led the fight against vouchers in this 
bill. But appropriately, since it is an issue of great interest to a 
core group of people on both sides of the aisle, it is in the rule and 
there will be a full and open debate. That is the way this democracy 
should be working in this House.
  Now, there are other issues in the bill, of course; the flexibility 
in local control. Another point I should make that both in the bill and 
in the rule, we do put the focus on State and local control, as it 
should be. We are not going to let the Department of Education as 
bureaucrats run these schools for our children. But let me also point 
out, because it is very important to many Members on both sides and it 
seems to me that it is being misunderstood, and, that is, the question 
of accountability and results, and that is the accountability. This 
does not dictate national tests. I know that there are many that are 
using that against the rule and against the bill. I want to repeat, it 
does not dictate national tests. The funding is awarded to the States 
and to the schools, the local schools, for the testing as well as the 
corrective action.
  Then I might finally just allude to my amendment on the mental health 
counseling which was very well included in the bill. But I guess in 
conclusion I have to say I am confident that the controversial measures 
that under this rule and these amendments that will be brought up will 
be defeated and that we will be consistent with reaching out on a 
bipartisan basis and supporting the President's vision for education 
reform, leaving no child behind.
  As a member of the Committee I rise in support of the Rule. This is a 
fair Rule and this has been a fair process. This Rule continues the 
spirit of bipartisanship we had in the Education Committee. It allows 
an open debate on the important issues on which we genuinely disagree.
  I commend the Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner and 
Ranking Member George Miller for their leadership, hard work, and 
diligence. Also, I thank Congressmen Castle, McKeon, and Isakson for 
their work with key Democrats to form this compromise.
  This Rule and this bill are truly examples of bipartisanship. Make no 
mistake--this was not an easy process. There were many hurdles along 
the way--and many times we all thought an impasse had been reached. But 
each time, the sides returned to the negotiating table and found a way 
to achieve a compromise. No one on either side ever lost sight of the 
goal--to ensure that every child, regardless of situation, in every 
public school in America receive a quality education.
  This is the way the process is proposed to work--partisan politics 
have been set aside to make way for a meaningful debate on the issues 
that matter to America and our children. This process has not been 
about politics--this process has been about the education of our 
children. I am deeply disappointed to hear that partisanship is 
unfairly raising its head on The Rule debate. This Rule deserves to be 
adopted because if is fair and right for this debate. In the Committee 
we debated many of these issues. This Rule allows the whole House to 
genuinely debate the issues in education that in the tradition of our 
democracy.
  For instance, in the Committee we decided against allowing vouchers 
to be part of this bill. Although I oppose vouchers, I agree with my 
colleagues that this issue deserves a genuine and legitimate debate by 
the whole House. This Rule allows the House to work its will. It is not 
just vouchers. Other issues that divide us, such as testing and 
accountability, will receive a fair and honest hearing through this 
Rule. These subjects will be fairly debated under this Rule. All 
Members, because of this Rule, will have the opportunity to make their 
case for or against these important issues. In addition to this Rule 
allowing us to debate the issues, it allows Members from across both 
sides of the aisle to have their amendments heard. The Rule strikes the 
appropriate balance by allowing a number of bipartisan amendments.
  This Rule focuses debate on the most important and contentious issues 
of education reform. It is fair, it allows genuine debate, and at the 
end of the day the will of the House will be heard.
  I am pleased that the bill before us today is bipartisan and is 
reflective of President Bush's vision for education reform.
  Specifically: H.R. 1 provides unprecedented flexibility and local 
control.
  It is vitally important to cut federal education regulations and 
provide more flexibility to states and local school districts. We 
should give our educators the flexibility to shape federal education 
programs in ways that work best for our teachers and our children not 
for bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education. Children should be 
put ahead of federal regulations. Washington does not know best and 
Congress should not serve as a national school board. While there 
indeed is a role for the federal government in education, we must be 
cautious of the Department of Education becoming a dynasty. I believe 
that by reversing this trend we will be well on the way to creating the 
best education system for our children.
  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 school districts 
in two ways: (1) through allowing school districts to transfer a 
portion of their funds among an assortment of ESEA programs as long as 
they demonstrate results (2) and through the consolidation of 
overlapping federal programs.
  Very important to many of our members and this President, H.R. 1 
enhances accountability and demands results.
  As we deregulate federal education programs and 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 Congress 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. States will be required to test students in grades 3-
8. It is important to emphasize that the states will develop their own 
standards and assessments. This bill does not dictate a national test. 
What the bill does is say that if you are going to accept federal 
education funding, then you are going to be held accountable for 
results. We reward states and schools that improve. Those that do not 
improve will undergo corrective actions.
  H.R. 1 ensures that our schools are safe. An important element 
included here is ensuring that mental health screening and services are 
made available to young people. In addressing school safety, we must 
ensure that children with mental health needs are identified early and 
provided with the services they so desperately need. Many youth who may 
be headed toward school violence or other tragedies can be helped if we 
identify their early symptoms. The nation is facing a public crisis

[[Page 8301]]

in mental health for children and adolescents. While 1 in 10 children 
and adolescents suffer from mental illness severe enough to cause some 
level of impairment, fewer than 1 in 5 of these children receive needed 
treatment.
  I am pleased that this bill includes school-based mental health 
services language in addressing school safety and substance abuse.
  While I am confident the controversial measures that would erode 
bipartisanship and move us away from the President's vision for 
education reform will be defeated, I am also confident that by the end 
of this process we will have a solid, strong education package that is 
good for our nation's children.
  I believe in this bill. But these issues deserve full debate and this 
Rule grants us that debate. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to vote no on 
this rule and to give every child the first-rate public education that 
he or she deserves. I believe, and I think most Members believe, that 
education is the challenge of our time. And after the early promise of 
a bipartisan accord on education, before getting sidetracked by a 
partisan tax cut bill, we are on the floor with probably the first 
truly bipartisan effort of the Bush administration. I congratulate the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) on bringing this truly bipartisan bill to fruition.
  This, in our view, is real compromise. It is real bipartisan 
legislation. It is the product of two sides coming together for the 
sake of something larger. Democrats did not get everything that we 
wanted. Republicans did not get everything that they wanted. But both 
sides were able to forge agreement on more accountability, better-
trained teachers, high-quality teachers, and after-school programs 
which we know make schools safer.
  That is why Democrats are deeply disappointed with the rule that the 
Republicans have put forward today. This rule prevents us from offering 
amendments that we believe are critical to an excellent public 
education in the Information Age. It squelches debate on the most 
important issue that we know, preventing us from bringing two key 
amendments; to modernize public schools and help get smaller class 
sizes for our children.
  Something clearly happened between the goodwill in committee and 
bringing this bill to the floor. Instead of building on what was an 
honest compromise in the committee, the Republican leadership has 
backed away from the promise of education reform and opening the door 
to reducing resources for after-school and other critical programs. It 
has opened the door to undoing school accountability, an issue where 
the President and all of us on the Democratic side agree. And it is 
revisiting the flawed voucher scheme that will not turn around failing 
schools, will leave children behind, and that Members of both parties 
have rejected.
  Now, we need to improve public education for children by building new 
schools and repairing school buildings, something that both Democrats 
and Republicans have proposed. By ensuring smaller class sizes, by 
hiring new teachers, by providing new resources, not less, we live up 
to the true promise of education reform that truly would leave no child 
behind.
  We believe with all our hearts that bipartisan amendments on building 
new schools, on repairing and refurbishing schools and allowing for 
smaller classroom size would command bipartisan majorities in this 
House today and next week when we take up this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  We ask Members to turn down this rule and give us a rule that will 
yield a real, real bipartisan education bill for the American people.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but strongly oppose 
this bill, reluctantly, after having worked with it for much time and 
even the last couple of years in committee.
  The amendments being offered today are a mixed bag. Some are good and 
could restore this to a Republican Bush bill, but most likely they are 
going to be left behind in the leave-no-Democrat-behind bill and it 
will remain a Kennedy-Miller bill.
  This bill, in my opinion, is worse than current law. Most moral 
concerns that many of us had and worked with were stripped out in 
compromises. I understood the process, but did not expect it to go so 
far.
  I am disappointed that religious denigration discrimination amendment 
is not in the bill. I am disappointed that we could not get charitable 
choice. In fact, that was negotiated out in the Senate and there was no 
point in coming further on the House floor with it. It was taken out of 
our bill, which was in it in the past. Every concern of moral 
Christians that we had in trying to put protections in this bill are 
gone.
  This bill is spending far more money than any conservative can 
possibly live with. The national testing is a standard that we have 
fought. The Republicans fought even President Clinton's State 
standards, yet alone Federal standards.
  This bill is unacceptable to Rush Limbaugh, to Dr. Dobson, to over 50 
conservative groups in this country. It is unacceptable to Bill Bennett 
and Chester Finn, who are original people who are doing this. Every 
major conservative in this country is opposed to it, and some 
conservatives in Washington need to stand up and say we cannot go 
there.
  I very much respect accountability and the principle of 
accountability. I am an MBA as well. I believe you need to have 
measures. I do not believe the problem right now is that there are not 
tests. I fear one national test, and inevitably this test will control 
not only public schools and lead to curriculum controlling, it will 
control home-schoolers and private schools, because once schools become 
punished by not meeting a standard and the parents have no escape, 
there will be a manipulation of that standard.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise deeply disappointed with this rule, 
but strongly supportive of this bipartisan bill.
  There is an old saying about partisanship being left at the water's 
edge with regard to foreign policy. Well, bipartisanship should not be 
left in the Committee on Rules when we have worked so hard for a 
bipartisan bill.
  We have worked going back to December with meetings that many of us 
had, Republicans and Democrats alike, with then President-elect Bush in 
Austin; and we built on that negotiation and that discussion to put a 
bill together in our committee, working with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), and on our side, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), we 
put education reform and children over bickering and politics.
  We have also worked on trying to combine some very important 
elements, the elements of a fair locally devised test with remediation 
and resources to help poor children that are not passing some of those 
tests.
  We are going to have some key votes and some key amendments coming 
up, and I hope that we can keep this bipartisanship together that is so 
fragile and delicate but so important to convincing the American people 
that we can do the people's work with common sense, with civility, and 
good will.
  I have great disappointment in this rule, but urge strong support for 
this bipartisan underlying bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado

[[Page 8302]]

(Mr. Schaffer), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule and urge for its 
adoption, because the rule allows for a number of amendments that I 
view to be critical and important.
  Our President proposed in this document his education vision for 
America. He also has proposed in other documents subsequent to his 
Presidency called Leave No Child Behind a bold education plan which 
represented an important balance in education reform. That balance 
included school choice, it included accountability, and it included 
flexibility.
  The school choice provisions of the bill, however, have been ripped 
out of the legislation at the committee level and they remain outside 
of that legislation today. That was a painful defeat for the White 
House and I think for conservatives and for Republicans in general who 
believe that provision of the President's bill is essential and is 
important.
  The committee also stripped out of the legislation the language 
dealing with flexibility known as Straight A's, or, as the President 
called it in his plan, Charter States. This rule allows for the 
opportunity for those two provisions in the President's plan to be 
reconsidered on the floor, and it gives all of us, Mr. Speaker, a 
chance to restore the President's bill to his original vision.
  Absent those two core provisions of the President's plan, there 
really is very little left of what the President initially proposed in 
his plan that helped bring him to the Presidency and his plan that he 
brought to the Congress to leave no child behind.
  This rule is important because it makes those rules in order. We have 
commitments from our own leadership and from our own chairmen with 
respect to the Straight A's provision, that that will be restored here 
on the floor before that bill goes on to the conference committee, and 
those are important elements in restoring the President's vision.
  The rule is necessary, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule. 
The President, on a number of occasions, has made it clear that 
education is supposedly his number one priority, and that is exactly 
how it should be. What deeply troubles me is the heavy-handed way in 
which the majority is preventing the full House from debating some of 
the most crucial elements of this concept.
  While ostensibly one of the more important factors for this bill for 
the President and others is testing, yet this rule allows only one 
amendment, and that would completely strike a proposed new test. No 
other amendment on the validity or concept of testing would be allowed 
if this rule passes, not even one.
  If it passes, there will be no real consideration as to whether we 
provide sufficient resources to schools to administer fairly and 
comprehensively these tests. There will be no real debate about whether 
or not this type of testing is even good for our students or, if it is, 
what is the best way to administer them.
  We are going to hear a lot of reasons why it could not be done, and 
chief amongst them is you allowed us some amendments. Well, 28 out of 
158 is hardly enough. You are going to say there is not enough time to 
do all of this. Well, we are going to be going home in a little while 
and we are not coming back tomorrow, so that does not carry any water. 
The fact of the matter is a good public policy debate is exactly what 
we need, especially on this bill, and we all ought to be here to engage 
in it.
  One amendment that I would propose would address perhaps the biggest 
flaw in this debate. The bill dramatically increases the scope and 
frequency of standardized tests by requiring States to begin testing 
students each year in grades 3 through 8. That is on top of current 
requirements. As a result, children will sit for standardized tests by 
the time they reach the age of 9, and in some fourth grade classrooms 
in fact children still sit three times in a given year.
  What clearly is unfair is the anemic funding that this bill proposes. 
The Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $650 million each 
year for States to design, administer, review and revise the tests 
required by H.R. 1. That is way more than is expressed in this bill, 
and there is no way of telling how the States intend to make up the 
difference, other than by depriving other important educational 
programs.
  For this reason I submitted an amendment that would require annual 
appropriations to reach $600 million before those provisions could go 
into effect. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it seems the majority cannot see the 
millions of students through the trillions in tax cuts.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill says a lot. It could say a lot more. I rise 
today to argue the point that the Members of the Committee on Education 
and Workforce, at least on our side of the aisle, were told to keep 
this bill together, we are working cooperatively. When you get to the 
floor, you are going to have a chance to do what you want to do with 
amendment. You are going to be able to deal with the class size issue, 
you are going to be able to deal with school modernization and school 
construction.
  Well, lo and behold, the rule comes down, and no classroom 
modernization amendment, no class size amendment, are made in order. 
Overcrowded classrooms, the fact that teachers are required to instruct 
so many students that children are not getting the attention they 
deserve, the attention they desperately need, this is a huge issue, a 
huge issue.
  Right now in Michigan, we have some of the most qualified teachers in 
the country. Ninety-nine percent of our teachers in public secondary 
schools hold teaching certificates in their main teaching assignment. 
Forty-eight percent have masters degrees. Yet with all that talent and 
all that skill, all of that is undermined by the fact that, on average, 
they have bigger class sizes, these teachers in my State, bigger class 
sizes than they do in 44 other States.
  Yet under this rule, as I suggested, we are not presented with the 
opportunity to go forward with the 100,000 teacher program, to put more 
teachers in our classrooms, reduce that size, get more discipline, more 
attention to those students.
  A lot of folks these days talk about modern classrooms, about 
connecting the schools with the Internet, and that is critically 
important and we need to do that. But we also cannot forget that there 
are literally thousands of schools in this country that are in 
desperate need of repair; schools with broken plumbing systems, schools 
that were too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter, schools 
where children sit in rundown classrooms with broken windows and 
peeling paint and asbestos hanging from the ceilings. If it is an 
environment that none of us would choose to live in, how can we say it 
is an environment where our children should struggle to learn in?
  Well, today, Michigan, like on the other issue of class size, we have 
a very bad statistic with respect to school modernization. We have the 
sixth highest percentage of school districts in America reporting at 
least one building in inadequate condition.
  So, this rule denies us the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to address 
those issues. They are primary issues, they are important issues, and I 
hope my colleagues as a result of that will vote against this rule, and 
hopefully the committee will go back and make them in order, so at 
least we can have a debate on these issues and move forward on class 
size and school modernization and make sure our kids have the kind of 
place we want them to learn in.

[[Page 8303]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
In negotiations, we were pretty much assured that Democratic amendments 
would be included on the floor. Good Democratic amendments, such as my 
amendment to create safe havens at or near schools, and my amendment to 
bring more females into the high-tech and science workforce, should be 
part of today's debate, and we should be talking about school 
construction.
  But these ideas were, obviously, inadvertently left out. Instead, 
Republican amendments that will destroy our bipartisan effort by taking 
funds from the students and the schools that need them the most are 
being considered.
  This rule definitely fails the fair play test. Let us vote it down. 
Let us give the whole issue back to the House, so that some day soon we 
can pass a real bipartisan bill that will debate all of the issues that 
are important to this House in general on both sides of the aisle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the rule considering the No Child Left 
Behind Act still leaves many children behind. It fails to address 
national concerns, such as the desperate need to repair and modernize 
our schools, to reduce class sizes and to hire counselors so that our 
children learn in the best possible environment.
  It treats limited English proficient children unfairly. With one hand 
the majority tries to court Hispanic voters, but in this bill it places 
new and undue burdens on Hispanic children.
  Democrats have made this bill enormously better, but it is too bad 
that the Republican budget resolution would not fund many of these 
initiatives. The majority showed its priorities last week and decided 
to leave education behind.
  The bill has the wrong answer on mandatory testing. At a time when 
the majority is quick to pass provisions ordering the National Academy 
of Sciences to study ergonomic standards before implementing rules and 
the effects of dredging the Hudson River to remove contaminants, it is 
remarkable that it is going to allow mandatory multiple testing of 
children from the third to eighth grade without allowing the National 
Academy of Sciences to study the proposal.
  The rule we are considering today does not give us the opportunity to 
correct those mistakes and improve the bill. The rule shuts the door on 
initiatives that American people care about, while opening the door to 
proposals the American people have rejected.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, 
and I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Let me just give one example of how the promise to have debate on the 
floor has been broken.

                              {time}  1330

  Science education. Science is not just another subject, it is 
fundamental, like reading and math. For the past year, the National 
Commission on the Teaching of Math and Science, the so-called John 
Glenn Commission, met and made a number of recommendations. Some of 
those recommendations, such as one that would call for a network of 
national academies, training academies for science teachers around the 
country, were included in the report, but were not allowed for debate 
in the committee because, they said, we were told it would be allowed 
on the floor.
  This is critically important. We face a crisis in science and math 
teaching. The title of our report says it well: before it is too late. 
Senator Glenn, the head of Intel, the head of State Farm insurance, a 
number of other leaders in industry, education and business around the 
country say that we need these recommendations. We should at least have 
a debate on them on the floor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I rise today in opposition to this rule for one 
particular reason: there are too many children being left behind. Time 
after time this year I have asked that we finally have a discussion 
about the Federal Government's underfunding of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise to 
children with disabilities, their parents, their teachers and their 
schools, that we would pay 40 percent of the excess cost to local 
school districts to educate children with disabilities. I do not know 
about the rest of my colleagues, but I grew up in a family where when 
one made a promise, one kept that promise. Today seemed like the 
perfect opportunity to have this discussion.
  As I did earlier this year in the Committee on the Budget, I proposed 
an amendment that would have finally made sure the government kept its 
promise. This time, I was joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind), who is on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am sad 
to report that we were denied even the opportunity to bring this 
amendment to the floor.
  Once again, we are sending the message to our students that this 
legislation leaves no child behind, except for those with disabilities. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her extraordinary leadership on this issue.
  I rise today to oppose this rule which eliminated many good 
amendments that should have been at least debated. For example, I 
submitted an amendment that would have established a formula grant 
program to ensure that all States could receive funding to allow them 
to hire additional school counselors, social workers, and 
psychologists. At a time when our children are dealing with suicide, 
substance abuse, school shootings, and other very grown-up problems, 
these mental health personnel are vital to the health and well-being of 
our students. The average student-to-counselor ratio is 1,100 to one in 
my State of California, although the recommended ratio is 250 to 1.
  Now, as a trained clinical social worker, I know firsthand how 
counseling and effective treatment can reduce violent behavior. Early 
detection of troubled youth by mental health counselors prevents school 
violence. We need mental health school counselors in all of our 
schools. We need school construction. We need smaller class sizes. We 
owe this to our children. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, I am a proud supporter of the underlying bill, H.R. 1. I 
am glad to see we finally have legislation that recognizes the number 
one issue, the number one priority of the American people: education 
improvement in this country.
  I am, however, extremely disappointed in the rule. I think it is 
shameful that the only amendment that was offered dealing with special 
education in this country, IDEA, is how we can better punish special 
education students rather than how we can help them.
  A couple of days ago I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules 
with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) that would allow a debate 
as to how we can increase funding on special education costs so the 
Federal Government lives up to our 40 percent cost share. We are only 
at 15 percent today. If there is one issue that is having a devastating 
financial impact on local school districts from district to district 
across the country, it is the inability of the Federal Government to 
live up to our responsibility, our obligation to fund special-education 
expenses. Our amendment would have at

[[Page 8304]]

least allowed a discussion of that in the context of the elementary- 
and secondary-education bill. Because it was not made in order, I would 
encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and give us a chance to 
discuss this important issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their work on this very important issue, the issue 
of education. I am disappointed that like the collapse of a real energy 
policy for the American people, we are about to verge on a collapse of 
this legislation.
  I offered two amendments that I thought would be very important to 
deal with the high degree of suicide and the difficulty that our young 
people are having today; to provide grants to ensure that we would have 
local funding and assistance for drug and violence prevention, and also 
to reduce the risk of children; to identify health risks for our 
children that play on playgrounds where there is an exposure to tin, 
zinc, mercury and lead, that would have helped enhance the educational 
facilities that we have.
  Finally, I think it is very important that we have additional 
resources for mental health services where there are those kinds of 
resources in the schools so that there is no stigma, and we can refer 
the children and their families to therapy and counseling and 
psychiatric health care.
  As well, on this whole issue of testing, can one imagine testing a 
little 8-year-old all the time, focusing the teacher's resources on 
testing? We need to reconsider that, and we need more school 
construction. We could have done a better job on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in the support of 
education for all of our nation's children. I would like to thank and 
commend the work of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 
in their effort to present a bipartisan bill for our consideration.
  I am disappointed that the Rule for this bill does not take into 
consideration several points that I feel should be part of this effort 
to not leave any child behind. These are real problems with America's 
schools, but the fault is not isolated to one source, but are multiple 
in nature. We know that children are acting out a level of rage that 
challenges our ability to educate our children in a safe and nurturing 
environment.
  The children of our nation are our country's greatest asset and 
should be the top priority of the Congress and the Administration. The 
lack of will to make critical and sometimes difficult decisions on 
children and education issues has damaged the ability of the United 
States to guarantee that the next generation will achieve a higher 
standard of living than their parents.
  We must make sure that this bill to reform our nation's education 
system truly does not leave any child behind. This bill reauthorizes 
federal elementary and secondary education programs (including the 
Title I compensatory education, teacher training and bilingual 
education programs) for five years (through FY 2006) and includes 
changes to current laws intended to improve the effectiveness of public 
schools and hold schools accountable.
  The measure reported by the Education and the Workforce Committee has 
provisions intended to hold public schools accountable for improving 
the academic achievement of their students. It requires annual testing, 
flexibility in spending at the local school district level, as well as 
a new system that would require poorly performing public schools to 
improve or face consequences, which could include the removal of staff 
or the transfer of some of their students to other public schools.
  As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
have a strong interest in the well being of our nation's children and 
would like to offer the following amendments for the committee's 
consideration as it prepares the rule for consideration of this 
historic legislation.
  The Houston Independent School District (HISD) is the largest public 
school system in Texas and the seventh largest in the United States. 
Our schools are dedicated to giving every student the best possible 
education through an intensive core curriculum and specialized, 
challenging instructional and career programs. HISD is working hard to 
become Houstonian's K-12 school system of choice, constantly improving 
and refining instruction and management to make them as effective, 
productive, and economical as possible.
  HISD has become a leader in restructuring public education, most 
recently by establishing unprecedented new standards that every student 
must meet to earn promotion from one grade to the next. HISD's balanced 
approach to the teaching of reading has garnered national attention, 
and Project CLEAR, a comprehensive initiative to align curriculum with 
fundamental knowledge and skills expected of all students, is 
contributing to a steady rise in scholastic performance. HISD is 
bringing its school buildings up to high standards and building 10 new 
schools through Rebuild 2002, a $678-million capital improvement 
program. In addition, HISD opened two new state-of-the art high schools 
that were built thanks to the creation of tax increment zones that 
allow HISD to derive revenue from increases in property value through 
redevelopment. HISD is demonstrating the utmost managerial 
accountability through contractual arrangements with specialists in 
budgeting, purchasing, payroll, personnel management, food services, 
and maintenance that enable the school district to devote more 
resources directly to the classroom.
  The 18th Congressional District of Houston serves a very diverse 
group of young people, 52 percent are Hispanic, 34 percent are African 
American, 10 percent are white, nearly 3 percent are Asian/Pacific 
Islander, and just under one percent are Native American. The district 
managers 295 campuses and educational programs: twenty-nine are high 
schools, 34 are middle schools, 186 are elementary schools, 19 are 
charter schools, 9 are community-based alternative programs and 18 are 
combined-level or other programs.
  The heart of HISD are its teachers, principals and administrators, 
librarians, nurses and psychologist, support staff, parents, and board 
members. I can assure you that the City of Houston is extremely 
grateful. They have performed outstandingly and deserve special 
recognition; unfortunately our society does not offer the greatest 
financial rewards to our most valued citizens--teachers. However, the 
President's Award for Excellence in Elementary Mathematics and Science 
Teaching has become an excellent symbol of professional accomplishment 
as an educator.
  In order that we do indeed not leave any child behind, we must first 
consider that not all children are the same. Their differences should 
not however, limit their opportunity for a good education in our 
nation's public schools.
  As long as there exist a disparity in funding among school districts 
within states, and a disparity of education funding K-12 among the 
states there will continue to be disparities in the education of 
disadvantaged youth especially taking into consideration the 
socioeconomic limitations of these communities to augment the 
educational experience of their children. This must and should be 
acknowledged by the education reform legislation that we pass and send 
to the President's desk. We know the realities of education in the 
United States are that many children are left behind, not at the 
discretion of the teacher, school district, parent or child, but under 
the pressures presented by a lack of adequate funding.
  We must fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act when it 
comes up for reauthorization next year, but in the mean time there are 
thousands of children who are denied access to assistance because of 
the difficult decisions school districts are forced to make in the 
absence of adequate funding.
  Speech and language difficulties affect children of all races in our 
nation. When a child cannot be understood then their opportunity for a 
good basic education is greatly diminished.
  Because of the lack of funding going into IDEA, children like 
Jonathan Adam Roumo, who is three year's old Houstonian with a speech 
delay problem. School districts across our nation struggle with the few 
dollars provided by the federal government to provide services with 
children with disabilities.
  Jonathan unfortunately is being left behind by the current state of 
affairs in our nation's education funding. Jonathan is a bright, 
intelligent little boy who is inquisitive and a challenge to his mother 
and father because of his interest in everything about his world.
  Unfortunately, Jonathan also has difficulty being understood because 
the muscles along his tongue are too weak and affect how he says words. 
The tongue is an important organ of speech in human beings and as such 
is critical to being understood.
  The muscles along Jonathan's tongue are at a stage in development 
that would equate with that of a much younger child, which means that 
although he has the innate intelligence and stimulation in his 
environment to speak, his physical ability to be understood is greatly 
hindered.

[[Page 8305]]

  Because his parents were concerned about Jonathan's inability to make 
himself understood, they educated themselves about what was available 
in the public school system to help Jonathan. They learned about a 
speech-testing program in their local school district, and saw that 
Jonathan was tested. Jonathan did well in all areas of the test, which 
established that he did not need occupational therapy or physical 
therapy, but he needed speech therapy.
  He was enrolled into a speech program in August of 2000 and made 
excellent progress. Unfortunately, Jonathan's mother was told that he 
could not go to pre-kindergarten, where he would continue to receive 
help because he did not have other types of disability associated with 
his speech limitations. To compound this situation his parents were 
told that they failed to meet income requirements, which prevent 
Jonathan's parents from getting him the help that he needs through the 
public school system.
  There are thousands of Jonathans in our public schools who have the 
potential to do very well, with only a little support in speech 
development. Under current law Jonathan can receive thirty minutes of 
speech each week, but that is not enough to make sure that this child 
is not left behind.
  Another serious area which must be addressed is mental health 
resources available to children and their parents in public school. I 
have introduced H.R. 73, a bill requiring the Secretary of Education to 
conduct research on children with dyslexia in the public school system 
throughout our nation. Dyslexia is identifiable and treatable in 
children at an early age. For this reason, all children kindergarten 
through third grade must be given tests that measure the following 
knowledge skills: print; book; phonological awareness, phonics, and 
writing. These areas have been identified by child psychologist to be 
key to recognizing learning disabilities in very young children so that 
they may receive the proper help to insure that they are not left 
behind.
  Further, I would offer that we should rethink what language programs 
should be used to accomplish. If a child with a speech impediment such 
as stuttering, lisp, or other delayed speech cannot be understood by a 
teacher or fellow students, then that child's ability to succeed in the 
classroom is limited. Today, we consider that child to be disabled and 
the rules governing the role of schools to provide proper instruction 
are not uniform. I would offer that if a child cannot be understood 
that their language barrier be addressed as early and aggressively as 
possible by removing all economic requirements for that child to get 
help through the public school system at as early an age as possible. 
Violence in public schools have cast a chilling shadow through the 
halls of education in our nation.
  The reality of children's lives today are far removed from the 
experiences of previous generations. They are killing each other and 
killing themselves at alarming rates.
  Currently, there are 13.7 million children in this country with a 
diagnosable mental health disorder, yet less than 20 percent of these 
children received the treatment they need. At least one in five 
children and adolescents has a diagnosable mental, emotional, or 
behavioral problem that can lead to school failure, substance abuse, 
violence or suicide. However, 75 to 80 percent of these children do not 
receive any services in the form of specialty treatment or some form of 
mental health intervention.
  The White House and the U.S. Surgeon General have recognized that 
mental health needs to be a national priority in this nation's debate 
about comprehensive health care.
  Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, 
accounting for more than 1 percent of all deaths.
  The National Mental Health Association reports that most people who 
commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most common is 
depression.
  According to the 1999 Report of the U.S. Surgeon General, for young 
people 15-24 years old, suicide is the third leading cause of death 
behind intentional injury and homicide.
  Persons under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides 
in 1997. Between 1980 and 1997, suicide rates for those 15-19 years old 
increased 11 percent and for those between the ages of 10-14, the 
suicide rates increased 99 percent since 1980.
  More teenagers died from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, 
AIDS, birth defects, strokes, influenza and chronic lung disease 
combined.
  Within every 1 hour and 57 minutes, a person under the age of 25 
completes suicide.
  Black male youth (ages 10-14) have shown the largest increase in 
suicide rates since 1980 compared to other youth groups by sex and 
ethnicity, increasing 276 percent.
  Almost 12 young people between the ages of 15-24 die every day by 
suicide.
  In a study of gay male and lesbian youth suicide, the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services found lesbian and gay youth are two to six 
times more likely to attempt suicide than other youth and account for 
up to 30 percent of all completed teen suicides.
  We must also be prepared and capable of protecting children from 
other sources of harm that are present in their environment, such as 
lead, zinc chloride, tin, and mercury.
  I appreciate the work done by the Committees to bring this measure 
before the House for consideration, but I feel that is lacking in a 
complete and balanced approach to meet the needs of educating all of 
our nation's children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. The bipartisanship on our committee 
on this education bill taught us a lesson on how to get along and work 
in a bipartisan fashion. It is a lesson that the leadership of this 
House has not learned.
  Here is what is wrong with this rule: it is a delicate compromise 
between the Democrats and the Republicans. There are many Republicans 
who believe that block grants called Straight A's should be included, 
and they will have their chance to make that argument on this floor. 
There are many Republicans who believe that private school vouchers 
should be included, and they will have their chance to make their 
argument on this floor. But there are many Democrats who believe that 
an extension of the class size reduction program ought to be included, 
and we will not have our chance to make that argument on this floor. 
There are many of us who believe that a school construction program 
should be added, and we will not have our chance to make that argument 
on this floor.
  The lesson of bipartisanship that was taught by the committee has 
been ignored by the House majority leadership. Their rule should be 
rejected.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed 
rule on H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act. Because education is such an 
important issue, I feel that rules must be introduced on the floor so 
that all people can express their opinions in the general debate. The 
Committee on Rules only allowed one amendment from the Democratic side, 
and that is wrong.
  I went before the Committee on Rules and asked that my amendment, 
which would keep the title I monies at a 50 percent level, be included. 
When title I began, 75 percent of the money was targeted for poor 
children. It was the Federal Government saying, we need to assist these 
schools where there is an imbalance in funding. The imbalance still is 
there; but it was reduced from 75 percent of poverty to 60 percent of 
poverty, to 50 percent of poverty, and now it is 40 percent of poverty. 
On the other hand, some of the people on the other side of the aisle 
say, we have a 25 percent amendment coming up at you next time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to leave every child behind. I ask for the 
rejection of the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), my distinguished 
colleague and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to urge strong support for this rule. It is a fair rule. 
It will allow us to vote on amendments which will restore the 
President's plan.
  The President's reform plan for education was a delicately balanced 
approach, providing more flexibility to the States, a program to 
empower parents by allowing them to make more choices in their 
children's education, and holding schools accountable for the results 
that they would deliver; a delicate balance of saying, we are going to 
give States more process freedom. We are no longer going to hold them 
accountable for the process by which

[[Page 8306]]

they spend their money, but we are going to make sure that every child 
goes through and achieves the learning that we want. We are going to 
focus on results accountability.
  This rule allows us to have a vote on restoring State flexibility, 
which was ripped out of the committee mark. It allows us to build on 
the local flexibility and parental empowerment that are so critical to 
the President's plan.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member and the 
chairman for their commendable efforts at crafting a commonsense, 
bipartisan education bill. But I am going to ask my colleagues to vote 
against this rule which brings partisanship and prevents the bringing 
of commonsense amendments which would improve this bill.
  Our efforts at keeping class size reduction as a separate source of 
funding, maintaining our national priority on bringing smaller class 
sizes to schools across this country was not permitted to be brought to 
the floor. Our efforts to bring school construction to the floor in 
order to be fully debated were not permitted to be brought to the 
floor. Class size reduction and school construction are two priority 
issues in American education; and yet we will not have a chance to 
discuss these bipartisan, commonsense issues. I regret that very much, 
and I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and I know he will use it well.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about accountability, 
holding students accountable and teachers and schools. There is one 
entity that is never mentioned, even though States are responsible for 
the certification of teachers, the setting of curriculums, the entire 
determination about how schools are going to be provided resources. 
There is nothing anywhere about trying to get States to be responsible 
once and for all for the education of poor children.
  The Congress, in 1965, 35 years ago, passed the title I law, which we 
are getting ready to reauthorize, and since then, still, States have 
failed poor children.
  I would hope that we would have a rule that would allow us to seek 
more accountability. I think there could be consensus between Democrats 
and Republicans on that point.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), but I must agree with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) that an 
America that builds prisons, but not schools, is headed in the wrong 
direction.
  I am asking the Republican leadership to take a good look at the 
position of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and when we go to 
conference, consider putting some construction money in for schools. 
But I am inclined to support the bill, and I thank the Republican Party 
for giving consideration to the request of the gentleman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this rule.

                              {time}  1345

  This is a rule for education, yet it is not a very smart rule, 
because it does not allow us to have the debate and vote on school 
construction and school modernization.
  Mr. Speaker, all of the science tells us that children do better in 
smaller classes, and indeed, in smaller schools, in some cases. 
Children are smart. We cannot tell them that education is important to 
them, that it is about their self-fulfillment, about their way to earn 
a living and our competitiveness internationally, and yet send them to 
schools that are in disrepair, instead of sending them to smaller 
classes where they will get the attention they need and classrooms 
which are wired for the future.
  Children are smart. They see the contradiction. If education is so 
important, why then is it not important to the Democrats and to the 
Republicans, to the Congress of the United States?
  That is why I cannot understand for the life of me why an education 
bill would come to this floor, after all the science this Congress has 
paid for and told us that children need smaller classes, and this 
Republican Party will not even allow us the opportunity to debate that 
amendment on the floor.
  I urge our colleagues to vote no on this very unsmart rule on the 
education bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule. I am disappointed that the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment 
was not made in order.
  Our amendment would have provided much-needed Federal grants to 
organizations so that they can teach today's youth about the Holocaust.
  Unfortunately, many schools and communities around the country have 
not learned about the Holocaust because their schools do not have the 
funds or tools to each about this tragic event in world history.
  There is no question: teaching children about the horror and tragedy 
of the Holocaust will create a generation of youth in America who are 
less likely to commit hate crimes, and who are more likely to mature 
into adults who will envision and work toward peaceful world relations.
  This is exactly why the Andrews-Saxton-Maloney-Horn amendment is so 
important.
  We need programs in our schools that teach the consequences of 
intolerance and hate.
  In denying the House a vote on our amendment, the majority is denying 
our children a chance to learn about one of the most tragic events in 
history.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who 
has been such an integral of this effort.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes to close.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Rules for a fair rule.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and the members of our 
committee for a fair and open debate and a bipartisan bill.
  However, Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, if we think about our 
red or green vote, I want Members to look at what we are really talking 
about. To my left is a chart which shows that over the history of 
funding for public education in Title I, while the gold bars which 
represent money have gone up astronomically, today, the same as it was 
25 years ago, reading proficiency remains at the bottom. It is time for 
true reform.
  On the issue of building schools, they will not tell us that 
America's unmet need at the local level, and it is their 
responsibility, is $300 billion. They also will not tell us that 
represents 2.5 times more money than has been spent on Title I since it 
began.
  This is not about building buildings, this is about building and 
changing the lives of America's most disadvantaged children. It has 
been said that our children are a message we send to a time we shall 
never see. I am proud we have a committee and I am proud we have a 
President that has laid it on the line.
  When Members get ready to vote red, I want Members to look in the 
eyes of a disadvantaged poor child in Members' rural or urban districts 
and ask what kind of message they want to send to a time they will not 
see.
  As a politician, I want Members to think about how much they would 
respect a President who brings a bill forward with accountability that 
will

[[Page 8307]]

allow us to measure our progress within his term of office.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a promise, it is a hope. It is a hope 
for the future, not of buildings and inanimate objects, but of the 
sacred treasure of the lives of America's youngest and most 
disadvantaged children.
  The Committee on Rules will allow competitive debate over 
controversial issues, and in the end I hope Members' green vote on this 
rule results in a green vote on this bill that leaves no child behind, 
and sends a message to our future that we would love for our future to 
see.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for 
H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization bill. 
This rule prevents Democrats from offering key education priorities as 
amendments to the bill--including School Modernization and Class Size 
Reduction. In addition, I am troubled that an amendment I offered in 
the Rules Committee to establish a program in the Department of 
Education to help school districts produce ``high performance'' school 
buildings was rejected.
  The amendment I offered in the Rules Committee--the ``High 
Performance Schools Program''--takes the concept of ``whole buildings'' 
and puts it into the context of our schools. My amendment would have 
established a program in the Department of Education to help school 
districts produce ``high performance'' school buildings. It would 
provide block grants to state offices of education that would then be 
allocated as grants to school districts for building design and 
technical assistance. These grants would be available to school 
districts that are faced with rising elementary and secondary school 
enrollments, that can't afford to make major investments in 
construction or renovation, and that commit to work with the state 
agencies to produce school facilities that incorporate a ``high 
performance'' building approach.



  We wouldn't dream of putting only manual typewriters in new school 
buildings--we would install today's computer technology. Nor should we 
build yesterday's ``energy inefficient,'' non-sustainable, and less 
effective schools. Our kids are our country's future, and they should 
have the best school facilities, especially if they will cost less and 
benefit us all in other ways.
  As the Congress begins debate on the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the important legislation that 
governs our nation's education priorities, I fear the House Rules 
Committee has missed a golden opportunity. I am especially disappointed 
that today--a day when Congress is focused on energy issues because of 
the release of the administration's energy plan--the Rules Committee 
chose to overlook this opportunity to take care of our children and our 
environment at the same time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 201, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Condit
     Cubin
     Ganske
     Hunter
     Kilpatrick
     Lucas (OK)
     Meeks (NY)
     Moran (VA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Waters

                              {time}  1409

  Mr. BERMAN, Mr. HOEFFEL and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GREENWOOD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 125, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 8308]]



                          ____________________