[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8308-8310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
143 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1.

                              {time}  1416


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1) to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, 
and choice, so that no child is left behind, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 60 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, beginning today, we have an opportunity to make a true 
difference in the lives of our Nation's children, particularly our most 
disadvantaged children in America. This rare opportunity presents 
itself in the form of No Child Left Behind, President Bush's plan to 
improve elementary and secondary education in America.
  This process began last December before President Bush technically 
was even President Bush. It began with a meeting in Austin, Texas when 
the President-elect invited Members of both parties to discuss 
education reform, the item at the top of his agenda.
  None of us knew what to expect from that meeting, but all of us left 
with a sense that something extraordinary was within our grasp. It was 
clear that our new President had a genuine interest in the issue of 
education. He had a powerful desire to bring Members of all parties 
together on this issue here in Washington just like he had done in the 
State of Texas. Now, just under 6 months later, we are here today 
together to consider the most important change in Federal education 
policy in 35 years.
  I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked hard on behalf of American students: The gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
on his tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's students and the job 
that he has done as the subcommittee chairman on the 21st Century 
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) for his leadership and willingness to work in good faith for 
this bipartisan bill.
  The measure before us gives students a chance, parents a choice, and 
schools a challenge to be the best in the world. After 35 years of 
spending without accountability, it challenges States to use Federal 
education dollars to deliver results for our students. Instead of 
relying on money and red tape, it taps into our Nation's most precious 
educational resource, parents.
  In the hands of caring parents, information is a powerful tool for 
reforming our schools. Why ask States to evaluate schools annually? 
Because parents deserve to know how their child's school stacks up 
against the others. Why have a report card for States and school 
districts? Because parents deserve to know whether their children are 
being taught by qualified teachers and whether their child's school is 
failing and falling below expectations.
  The more parents know, the more they are likely to push for 
meaningful change in our schools. Without the ability to measure, there 
is simply no way for parents to know for certain that their children 
are, in fact, truly learning. There is no way to know for certain which 
students are in danger of slipping through the cracks.

[[Page 8309]]

  As Education Secretary Rod Paige has noted, President Bush's 
education plan rests on 4 pillars: accountability, local control, 
research-based reform, and expanded parental options.
  The legislation before us meets all of the President's principles. It 
challenges States to set high standards for public schools, demanding 
accountability for results. It provides unprecedented flexibility to 
local districts, letting them make spending decisions instead of 
letting Washington make decisions for them. It triples Federal support 
for proven reading programs rooted in scientific research. And it 
provides an escape route for students trapped in chronically failing 
schools.
  These reforms would mark the first time in a generation that 
Washington has returned a meaningful degree of authority to parents at 
the expense of the education bureaucracy. It would streamline a 
significant share of the Federal education regime in one swift stroke. 
It would provide new hope that the next generation of disadvantaged 
students can escape the misery of low expectations.
  I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked hard to turn the President's vision for education reform into 
reality. I believe we have produced a plan that is worthy, not just of 
the support of my Republican colleagues and my Democrat colleagues and 
independents, but of teachers, parents, and most of all our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks on this legislation by 
thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of my 
committee, for all of his cooperation and for the honorable manner in 
which he dealt with every member of our committee, especially those 
members on our side. We recognize we are in the minority. It makes it 
very difficult from time to time, but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) was very candid with us, very forthcoming, and I think created 
an atmosphere in which we could arrive at this work product with this 
bipartisan conclusion.
  I would also say that, as I watched him work, as he assumed the 
chairmanship of this committee, and as I watched him work with 
individual members of the committee and to deal with all of the issues 
that were thrown at us during the months of discussion of this 
legislation, and during our markup, I saw a legislator at work, and he 
should be very proud.
  I also want to thank those who worked so very hard, the members of 
our committee as members of the working group: the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  These Members and their staff spent an awful lot of time in sessions 
trying to iron out the differences between us to see whether or not we 
could come to agreement. In some cases, we were able to. In other 
cases, we were not, but we moved on to the other topics and finally 
arrived in the negotiations that led to this legislation.
  I think we feel that, in fact, this legislation truly represents 
both, what both Members on both sides of the aisle have been saying 
they want with respect to the Federal role in education and to what the 
President has said that he wants in this legislation.
  I believe that we have an opportunity with this legislation to pass a 
sound, bipartisan education reform bill that will benefit children. We 
will have an opportunity to pass a bill that achieves a consensus, a 
consensus, as I have said, between the education proposals and reform 
proposals offered by Members of Congress, both parties, and by the 
President.
  Here are the reforms that we want and the overwhelming majority of 
parents and taxpayers tell us that they want and that we are attempting 
to achieve in this bill. We are attempting to achieve real 
accountability for real results; a specific plan to finally, once and 
for all, close the achievement gap between rich and poor and between 
minority and nonminority students.
  It is very important because this is the intent of the Federal role 
in education, to equalize the effort and to close the gap between these 
students with respect to the results and the educational experience.
  To provide for quality teachers through professional development, 
training and resources available to the teachers to do their jobs; 
significant new investments in our public school system; doubling Title 
I funding; increase support, respect and training for teachers; new 
resources to help schools that are failing; better targeting of funds 
to schools with high concentrations of children in poverty and to 
children with limited English proficiency; unprecedented flexibility at 
the local level to tailor education reforms to achieve the ambitious 
goals that we have set out in this legislation.
  Today we have an opportunity to step forward, to make these changes 
on behalf of our Nation's school children.
  This bill is not perfect. There is much more I would like to do to 
improve education in this country. I know there are many of my 
colleagues who would like to do some things in this bill differently, 
but I think this bill in its current form represents a major step 
forward. I think it would be a mistake for us to miss the opportunity 
to do the things we are capable of doing now because we cannot do 
everything right away.
  The fact is that, in far too many communities in this country, 
particularly in our poorest communities, we have what amounts to gross 
educational malpractice, and that cannot stand. For too long, the 
educational system in this country has operated under a policy of 
acceptable losses. Too many children had been written off, and that 
cannot stand.
  Hundreds of thousands of students leave school every year, in many 
cases with a diploma, only to find out that they have not received a 
quality education they need and that they ought to be entitled to. That 
cannot stand.
  We know we can do better. Schools all over this country have 
succeeded in educating students from every background: poor students, 
black students, Hispanic students, students with limited English 
proficiency, students that represent American society in so many 
settings at so many different parts of the country, under so many 
different circumstances. In fact, they have been given an excellent 
education with excellent results. All of America's children deserve 
that.
  In virtually every case, they have achieved these successes by doing 
the very things that we set out to do in this bill, setting high 
standards, establishing clear goals, and targeting the investments in 
better teaching and instructional materials.
  We are saying today, on the anniversary of Brown v. Board of 
Education, that this is what we as a Nation want for every child in 
every school in every State. We want this for the children from 
Pittsburgh, California to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; for children from 
Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon. I hope we can work together to 
fulfill that promise. We have some important work ahead of us.
  The voucher provisions to be offered later in this debate in this 
bill would kill any chance of bipartisanship. In fact, they would 
likely result in bipartisan opposition to this entire bill. I know 
there are differences of opinion, but we believe that vouchers in any 
form fundamentally undermine what we are trying to accomplish to 
achieve real education reform throughout this country for all of our 
students. We will vigorously oppose those amendments.
  The other significant amendments that would draw strong Democratic 
opposition would establish a large block grant with Federal education 
dollars to the States, known as Straight A's. We will talk at great 
length later about what we, and almost every credible group 
representing local educators, students and parents, think is wrong with 
that Straight A's proposal.
  I would assert here, however, that what we have in H.R. 1 is a better 
alternative to Straight A's, the provision

[[Page 8310]]

we call transferability at the local level. In fact, I think the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and I agree. When it comes to 
the Straight A's proposal, we have a better deal in H.R. 1.
  It was not a deal that I came to these negotiations with. It is not a 
deal that the chairman brought to these negotiations. We both had very 
different views about how this could be carried out to provide for the 
flexibility that so many of us have heard in our districts, school 
districts and administrators have asked for as they deal with the 
education of the children that they know best.

                              {time}  1430

  But out of these negotiations, with great help from the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and others, a solution came forward to 
provide that kind of flexibility to the local level of school decision-
making in each and every one of our States.
  We have the opportunity in this legislation, as I have said, to pass 
a sound bipartisan education reform bill that I believe will benefit 
all of the children of this Nation, and I look forward over the next 
few days to work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and Members 
on the other side of the aisle, with the members of our committee, and 
with the Members in the House generally to consider each and every 
amendment, to give it a fair hearing, and to give it our support or our 
opposition based on the merits and the differences that some of us have 
about the direction of the American education system.
  As the chairman said when he started his remarks in this debate, as 
he did when we started our discussions in the committee, this is a 
debate on the merits of the education system in this country and about 
those proposals being put forth to reform that system, to hold that 
system accountable, and to get the results all of us want for all of 
our children. This is not about a personal political debate; this is 
not about attacking the motives or the integrity of any Member of 
Congress. Where we differ, it is on the merits.
  To his credit, he kept the debate on that level in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, and for that reason we had overwhelming 
bipartisan support for this legislation, again, that represents the 
ideas on both sides of the aisle; and I would hope that this is the 
legislation that would emerge after we go through the markup here in 
the Committee of the Whole. I look forward to the continuation of the 
debate next week.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the desperate need to repair America's 
schools is not a new issue for any of us here today. Five years ago, I 
conducted a survey of New York City schools and discovered that one in 
every four schools holds classes in areas such as hallways, gyms, 
bathrooms, and janitors' closets. Two-thirds of these schools had 
substandard critical building features, such as roofs, walls, and 
floors. This is an outrage and a disgrace.
  In response to that shocking study, I worked with the Administration 
to author the very first school modernization bill in 1996.
  Five years later, with school enrollment skyrocketing, the need to 
renovate and repair our schools is even more pressing. Yet this problem 
is simply too big for local and state officials to handle alone. States 
are doing the best they can but they need federal dollars to fill in 
the holes. In fact, the National Education Association estimates that 
the unmet school modernization need in America's schools totals over 
$300 billion--and that's on top of what school districts and states are 
already spending!
  Simply stated, the need for school modernization is a national 
problem that demands a national response. And that's why I am so 
disappointed that the amendment to provide school construction funds 
was not made in order. Frankly, my colleagues, I think this is an issue 
where we will pay now, or pay later. We know that students cannot learn 
when the walls are literally crumbling around them. If we do not 
provide the resources--even this targeted emergency assistance--we will 
continue to undermine our students and teachers as they struggle to 
meet standards and achieve academically.
  We can spend this money now, targeted at the most urgent repairs 
first, providing funding to high-need school districts for critical 
repairs such as sealing leaky roofs and removing asbestos, or we will 
pay later--in lower student achievement, ever-more burdened teachers, 
and potentially even accident or injury in crumbling schoolrooms.
  America's children need us to make the right choice now--to use the 
opportunity we have in this time of unprecedented prosperity to rebuild 
their schools and lift up the quality of their education. And, if we 
fail as a Congress--once again--to take action to meet our school 
modernization needs--we will pay later.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to acknowledge the shameful physical 
condition of our schools and to do something about it. We cannot give 
our students a 21st century education in 19th century schools.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a couple of minutes to 
speak in favor of the provision in H.R. 1 that expands and improves the 
Troops-to-Teachers program. Our military is a great reservoir of 
potential talent, particularly in the area of math and science, and 
this program taps into that talent by encouraging members of our Armed 
Forces to become teachers after they leave the military.
  Many have warned of an approaching teacher shortage in this country. 
According to some estimates, we will have to find somewhere between 1.6 
and 2.6 million new teachers merely to replace teachers scheduled to 
retire. The Troops-to-Teachers program has already been a great help to 
meet this shortfall, and I believe that it can be ever more useful in 
the future.
  Several thousand members of the military retire each year, often at 
ages young enough that they are searching for new careers. We want to 
make it as easy as possible for these men and women to take the 
leadership skills and character that they have gained during their 
military careers and try to instill these traits in our young people.
  In H.R. 1, we have improved the existing Troops to Teachers program 
to authorize stipends for soldiers participating in the program, and 
bonuses for soldiers who agree to teach in a high need school.
  We have also expanded the category of soldiers eligible to 
participate in the program. Under current law, when a soldier completes 
active duty and decides to be a teacher, he or she has to go through a 
teacher training program that can take up to a year and a half. Because 
of this delay, many are discouraged from pursuing a teaching career.
  H.R. 1 eliminates this roadblock by expanding eligibility so that an 
active duty soldier nearing retirement can participate in the program.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a great program that enjoys bipartisan support, 
and it will bring many more qualified, excellent teachers into the 
profession that we so desperately need. I applaud its inclusion in H.R. 
1 and I trust that in improved version of Troops-to-Teachers will be 
enacted this year.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) 
to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and 
choice, so that no child is left behind, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________