[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9226-9240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). 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 further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1.

[[Page 9227]]



                              {time}  1033


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May 
22, 2001, amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 107-69 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 107-69.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 10.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       In section 701 of the bill, in subparagraph (A) of section 
     7203(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 701), strike 
     ``may transfer'' and all that follows through the end of such 
     subparagraph and insert the following:

     may transfer--
       ``(i) not more than 50 percent of the funds allocated to it 
     under each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a 
     fiscal year to 1 or more of its allocations for such fiscal 
     year under any other provision listed in paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) not more than 75 percent of the funds allocated to 
     it under each of the provisions listed in paragraph (2) for a 
     fiscal year to 1 or more of its allocations for such fiscal 
     year under any other provision listed in paragraph (2), if 
     the local educational agency obtains State approval before 
     making such transfer.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and a Member opposed will each control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time otherwise not claimed in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Currently, H.R. 1 gives local school districts a new opportunity to 
use some of their Federal funds in a way that will benefit their 
students. This transferability option will allow school districts to 
transfer up to 50 percent of the money they receive from four Federal 
programs, grant programs. They can move these monies between the 
programs or into Title I.
  This is an important step forward in giving local education 
officials, those who know the names of their students, the ability to 
spend Federal funds the way they believe will improve student 
achievement, not the way a bureaucratic in Washington tells them to.
  Transferability is a positive way to give school districts some 
flexibility in how they spend their money. I believe that we should go 
even further. That is why I have offered this amendment. This amendment 
will allow a school district to go above the current 50 percent gap and 
give them the option to transfer up to 75 percent of their Federal 
formula grant funds between programs if they receive approval from 
their States.
  I hope my colleagues will agree that this is an important step 
forward in flexibility, and I encourage them to support this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This 
legislation and this bipartisan agreement, and it is bipartisan 
reporting from the committee, takes an unprecedented step in expanding 
the transferability at the local level so that local school districts 
can make a determination about the application of those resources.
  But this legislation also understands that these programs are not 
about some Washington bureaucrat. These programs are about the Congress 
of the United States saying these are areas that we believe there 
should be an important commitment of resources: safe and drug-free 
schools, teacher quality improvement, innovative strategies and 
technology.
  These are articulations of the congressional will on a bipartisan 
basis certainly over the last 10 or 15 years that these are either 
emerging areas that need attention and the Federal dollars ought to be 
applied there, because there are areas where there are deficits, but at 
the same time in this legislation we have taken the unprecedented step 
to say that we can have transferability of 50 percent of the money, 
because in some instances it makes sense to allow them to double up the 
resources on a short-term basis to improve the quality of teachers, or 
to purchase technology so they can ramp it up and get it running and 
get on their way.
  But the Hoekstra amendment is simply an amendment that goes too far. 
It is violative of the bipartisan agreement we have. It is violative of 
the vote in the committee reporting this to the floor. It recognizes 
the tension between a full-blown block grant and the notion that we 
ought to have improved flexibility at the local level.
  That is what we decided on doing. That is what we decided on as a 
committee to do, to see whether or not over the next 5 years we could 
see how this transferability takes place.
  We ought to honor that agreement. It is a rational agreement and 
makes sense. It also keeps faith with the congressional priorities that 
this Congress has determined we ought to be using Federal dollars for 
in the poorest schools with the poorest performing children, because, 
after all, that is a program that we have before us today to help make 
up those deficits in teacher qualifications in the poorer schools, in 
lacking technology in the poorer schools.
  I would hope that the Congress and the House would stay with the 
bipartisan agreement that we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Michigan, for offering the amendment. I do understand the concern 
of some on each side of the aisle over giving local districts more 
flexibility, but let us go and look at why we have this in the bill 
today.
  As was pointed out, we make sure that the money gets to the schools 
under the targeting that is already in the bill. Then we make sure that 
under Title I, which is the largest chunk of money, that we could 
transfer money into title 1 but could not transfer any money out of it.
  Secondly, we also wall off, under the current bill, the bilingual 
education money and programs. So we are talking about basically four 
funding streams that we are giving local districts, every local 
district, the opportunity to move at least half of the money in those 
four funding streams between programs or into Title I.
  The amendment before us says, let us allow a local district to 
transfer up to 75 percent of the funds, again, just among those four 
funding streams. Why do we want to give districts this flexibility? 
Because we have teacher and professional development monies, we have 
technology money, we have an innovative grant program, and we have to 
spend the money today in those particular funding streams.
  Under the 50 percent local flexibility, we have some ability to 
transfer, but I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan is a good one. It says we can do 75 percent. Why is this good? 
Because let us say that we want to put computers in every classroom, so 
we can take the technology money and do that, but if we do not have 
teachers who are equipped to teach their students how to use the 
computers, maybe the first step ought

[[Page 9228]]

to be to do the teacher training and the professional development.
  What in fact that would do, we might want to be able to transfer 
money out of technology into the teacher training part to make sure 
that they are trained before we get the equipment. This kind of local 
flexibility we think will produce much better results.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment would cross the line between 
preserving focused educational priorities and eliminating national 
areas of need. I ask Members to oppose it.
  Currently, this bipartisan bill allows school districts to transfer 
up to 50 percent of a program's allocation. This maintains the 
bipartisan priorities identified in the ESEA. By allowing transfers of 
75 percent, the significant focus on the areas of school safety, 
teacher quality, and technology will be diluted.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill's current provisions allowing for a 50 percent 
transfer from a program strikes the right balance between flexibility 
and accountability. I would urge Members to reject this amendment. We 
have worked very, very carefully, and this is a very important part of 
the bipartisan agreement. I would urge Members to recognize that. This 
75 percent amendment really, to my mind, violates the bipartisan effort 
that we have put into this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I appreciate the debate that is taking place on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Of course, this 
amendment really addresses a small part of the bill that provides a 
little bit of flexibility to school districts.
  Now, the President and his plan, Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001, 
proposed something much bigger. He said that what he had suggested was 
that under his program, States and districts would be free from 
categorical program requirements in return for submitting 5-year 
performance agreements.
  This portion of the President's plan, of course, has been left out of 
the bill. But what we have instead is a portion that allows a tiny 
little bit of Federal funds to be transferred between some programs at 
the district level, and in those programs, only 50 percent of the 
dollars that are allocated, just 50 percent.
  This does not include Title I, which is where the real money is in 
Federal funds back to States. So we are really talking here, Mr. 
Chairman, about probably 1 percent or less of the dollars that go to 
local districts, and we are having a debate over whether they should be 
able to shift 50 percent of that tiny percentage, or, as the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has proposed in his amendment, 75 percent.
  This is a debate about minutiae, frankly, but it is a good debate 
because it is a small step in the right direction. But the tenor of the 
debate I think speaks volumes about why so much of the President's bill 
has been left behind here on the floor, because as my colleague, the 
gentleman from California, stated in his arguments against the 
amendment, he said this was a bad amendment because it violates the 
bipartisan agreement that we have here between Republicans and 
Democrats.
  So we define the merits of the legislation based on which group of 
politicians have agreed to the underlying bill that is before us. If 
the amendment violates this agreement among politicians, then it is a 
bad amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment benefits children. At some point during 
today's debate, we ought to think about them. I have to tell the 
Members, my friends back home in Colorado, school board administrators 
and others, they do not care whether there is an agreement between 
politicians, what they want is the flexibility to spend dollars on the 
priorities that help kids. That is what this amendment does, and why I 
ask for its adoption.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant but very strong opposition to this 
amendment. This legislation as it stands right now with the amendments 
in it has as much flexibility as one could possibly handle probably for 
years to come.
  In addition to the education flexibility that we passed last year, we 
have great consolidation of a lot of the programs that exist at the 
Federal level into one block grant-type program.
  We do have the local Straight A's or the local flexibility, if you 
will, which allows each district without permission from anybody to 
transfer up to 50 percent of their funds as long as it is not in title 
I. They can transfer into title I all of the Federal funds; that is 
tremendous flexibility. That is the best we can possibly do with 
respect to that.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and I had an amendment yesterday 
which passed which allows 100 school districts to apply to the 
Secretary to waive statutory requirements and consolidate certain 
program funds at the local level.
  This is unprecedented flexibility. The problem with going from 50 
percent to 75 percent is that this percentage, the original percentage 
reflects our shared desire to ensure that the funds that we have remain 
available to some extent to carry out the program requirements as they 
are not waived by the flexibility program.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just afraid if we go above 50 percent, it is going 
to be impossible to do this. So I believe that with all the flexibility 
that has been entered into this legislation, and it really truly is 
unprecedented, that we have gone far enough.
  I am reluctant to oppose it, because of the distinguished record of 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) sponsoring it, but the 
bottom line is that the flexibility is there, it is what we should do. 
I would encourage all of us to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, for his support of this amendment and his yeoman's 
efforts in this education bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud member of ``Hoekstra's 
heroes,'' a band of my colleagues who over the past several days have 
rallied around the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and his 
heroic effort to preserve the vision of State and local control of 
education in America.
  It is said that without a vision, the people perish. And the vision 
of Washington, D.C., the vision of the founders of this country was a 
vision of limited government that left things like education to those 
who could govern best at the State level.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow local school districts to 
transfer more funds to specific programs and better utilize their 
resources for the benefits of students. Let me repeat that, this 
marginal increase in transferability is for the benefit of students. By 
increasing the transferability cap, this body permits Federal dollars 
to be targeted to the areas that most help students.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of east central Indiana did not send me to 
Washington, D.C. to increase the Federal Government's role over 
education or education resources. They sent me to help students by 
promoting innovation and reform.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help us modestly innovate and 
reform

[[Page 9229]]

by raising the transferability cap; and I urge my colleagues, all of my 
fellow Hoekstra heroes, and all Hoekstra hero ``wannabes'' on both 
sides of the aisle to support this fine amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), my friend, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The amendment makes a modest 
quantitative change but a significant and negative qualitative change.
  First of all, we ought to remind ourselves that States and localities 
can do whatever they see fit with 100 percent of their State and local 
money, 100 percent. This is about the very small amount of money that 
comes to local school districts from the Federal budget.
  We are in the process of collectively making a judgment about some 
spending priorities that help children. We believe it helps children to 
encourage school districts to spend money on the latest technology so 
there are computers in classrooms.
  We believe it helps children to bring police officers and teachers 
together to teach children the evils and dangers of drugs and alcohol 
under the safe and drug free schools section.
  We believe it helps children to afford teachers the opportunity to 
retool and relearn their craft on a regular basis, and we believe it 
helps children to find some extra money for the unusual and innovative 
ideas that usually do not find its way into the regular school budget.
  We believe that each one of those things ought to be done with at 
least 50 percent, at least 50 percent of the very modest amount of 
Federal money that is being sent to local school districts. If you 
reduce that 50 percent to 25 percent, I believe you reduce these 
priorities to the point of dilution. You reduce them to the point where 
nothing really gets done in these four important areas at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully embrace and support the right of local school 
districts to spend their own money, raised through their own taxing 
authorities completely as they see fit, subject to the laws and 
constitutional provisions that they must live under, but I think that 
when we make a national judgment about the importance of technology, of 
teacher training, of safe and drug free schools and of innovative 
strategies, we ought to stick to it.
  This amendment does not do that. It should be defeated.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, when the President came to Washington, he 
announced a bold plan, a bold plan to reform education, by giving more 
flexibility to the States, by holding the schools accountable for 
results and by empowering parents.
  Over the last 3 months, that plan has slowly been whittled away. Much 
of the flexibility that the President had envisioned for States to 
target their spending towards the needs of their kids is gone.
  This amendment is an attempt to give the States and local school 
districts just a little bit more flexibility for that 1 percent of 
their money that comes to their local school districts.
  Parental empowerment is basically gone.
  Accountability, it is interesting the President's plan said we are 
going to get rid of process accountability. We are going to move away 
from these categorical programs that tell school districts exactly what 
to do with every Federal dollar and then audits them to make sure that 
the dollars are spent for each of these programs creating a huge 
bureaucratic and programmatic nightmare.
  He said we are going to come back and we are going to focus not on 
process accountability, but we are going to focus on results 
accountability; move away from process accountability, go to results 
accountability. Let us test whether our kids are actually going to be 
able to read and to do math. The process accountability has stayed 
alive. The bureaucracy has won on all of those counts. School districts 
will be given money. They will be told how to spend it, and now they 
will also have the results accountability.
  We will now be telling school districts what to do and exactly what 
results they will be expected to achieve, and if they do not achieve 
those results, here is what will happen.
  It is all laid out in the bill. It is all very clear. This ends up 
being the most significant takeover of our local schools since the 
creation of the Department of Education.
  It is disappointing that we do not trust the individuals who know the 
names of our kids to do what is best for our children. Go to your local 
school districts. I spent a tremendous amount of time in school 
districts in my hometown, my district and around the country, and if 
there is one impassioned plea that you consistently hear, it is free us 
from the bureaucracy, free us from the paperwork, free us from the 
mandates so that instead of focusing on Washington and what you are 
telling us to do, we can focus on the needs of our kids.
  This amendment is just one small step in trying to bring some more 
freedom to the folks who know our kids' needs, but, more importantly, 
they know our kids' names and they can bring those things together.
  There is such a tremendous diversity in the needs of our children and 
the needs of our school districts that we ought to trust our local 
school officials to do the right things, to trust our State officials. 
They do not need another Federal mandate.
  As a matter of fact, they have a Federal mandate that comes into 
effect in 2001 on testing. We are throwing that out, putting a massive 
new mandate in place. Let us trust the folks back home to do the right 
thing with a small portion of this money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I was proud to stand with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) to oppose additional Federal mandates 
yesterday, and it is a value that we share.
  This debate that we are having today, I agree with the gentleman and 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) that this should not be 
about agreements between politicians. It should be about learning. This 
debate should be about priorities.
  This debate should be about responsibility. We have a responsibility 
to bring the best learning we can to our school children, and we have a 
responsibility to spend tax dollars wisely. We have a responsibility to 
bring focus priorities to these programs that we are talking about: 
school safety, teacher quality and class size reduction, school 
technology.
  These are important priorities that we have set at a national level, 
and we have agreed to reduce bureaucracy and to increase 
transferability to the 50 percent mark. But why not raise it to 75 
percent? Why not raise it to 100 percent?
  I believe the answer is we should not raise it to 100 percent; and it 
is, I admit, a difficult matter to set where the line should be, but as 
we negotiate these lines and move them toward the 100 percent, I 
believe that we abdicate responsibility. Our responsibility is to spend 
tax dollars wisely and to focus on efforts that help our school 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that we need to give local 
flexibility; and we have set the right amount in this bill. I oppose 
the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 9230]]


  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House 
Report 107-69.


            Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
       In section 501 of the bill, in section 5501(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult''.
       In section 501 of the bill, in section 5502(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult'' and 
     insert ``individual''.
       In section 501 of the bill, in section 5503(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501), after ``responsible 
     adults'' insert ``or students in secondary school''.
       In section 501 of the bill, in section 5503(c)(1)(C) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 501), strike ``adult''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
not otherwise taken in opposition to this.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to make a small, modest change to 
the Osborne Mentoring Program so that both adults and qualified, 
trained and motivated high school students can become mentors.
  During the Committee on Education and the Workforce's consideration 
of H.R. 1, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) offered a 
noncontroversial amendment which the committee adopted by voice vote 
that established a mentoring program.
  I commend the initiative of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Osborne). His program is well-intended and also well designed. 
Presently this bill only allows adults to be mentors.
  My amendment seeks to make a modest change so that qualified, trained 
and motivated high school students can also become mentors.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that neither the Osborne 
Mentoring Program or my amendment would require that local educational 
agencies offer mentoring programs.

                              {time}  1100

  This is strictly an option that the school district can or cannot 
take. Like the bill, my amendment would preserve local option. Local 
school districts would have the choice whether or not to start a 
mentoring program.
  When the mentor is an older student, not too far in age from the 
mentee, it appears that this transforming relationship affects both 
young people. For example, a study recently conducted by Pediatrics 
Magazine pointed out that the benefits of peer monitoring are very, 
very good. The researchers compared children who were involved in an 
inner-city mentoring program with demographically matched children who 
were not. Mentors were age 14 to 21, while mentees were children 7 to 
13.
  Both mentees and mentors involved in a community-based peer mentoring 
program were found to benefit from such interactions by acting with 
greater maturity and more responsibility in their daily lives.
  In my years as a college instructor, I often witnessed the 
transforming power of peer relationships. Younger students sometimes 
perceive adults as authority figures who are out of touch or all too 
ready to preach; whereas, a child may come to confide in his or her 
slightly-older peer because they perceive their peer to have a greater 
capacity to understand and identify with what they are going through.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her 
amendment to a program that was put in the bill in committee by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), as we all know, had a very 
successful career in winning three national championships during his 
years as coach of Nebraska. During his years, though, in Nebraska, he 
was very involved in mentoring programs of many sorts and brought an 
amendment to the committee and added to this bill a mentoring program 
that I think will be very helpful to all of the disparate and 
independent mentoring programs that are going on around the country.
  I think the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek) is very well done because in many high schools around the country 
today we have mentoring programs where older young adults in schools 
are working with their peers. I know in my own local high school at 
home, they have a peer-counseling program, peer-mentoring program that 
I think has been very successful. So I would encourage my colleagues to 
support the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the Meek 
amendment, the mentoring success component of H.R. 1. Traditionally, 
many mentoring programs involve adults, but there are a great many 
around the country, as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) 
mentioned, that do use secondary school students to work with younger 
children.
  So as the initial introducer of the mentoring component, I certainly 
support the gentlewoman's amendment, and we hope very much that our 
colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. We think it has great 
merit. We look forward to working with the conference committee to 
possibly also include younger college-age students in mentoring 
endeavors.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek) for her willingness to yield to me, and I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). First, I would like to thank 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), as I said, for being willing 
to yield me time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Boehner) for his outstanding leadership on the committee, 
along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has 
worked so hard to bring a good bill to the floor.
  The education of our children should be our top priority, which is 
why we are especially pleased that this bill is truly the result of a 
bipartisan effort. During the debate, we have discussed at great length 
the need for standards and improved achievement. However, many of our 
schools do not have access to research-based reading programs developed 
by NICHD. This bill includes report language that discusses research-
based reading programs. But I do not feel we are doing enough to

[[Page 9231]]

make sure that our teachers have access to this innovative research.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to have a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), my colleague on 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of 
the Committee on Appropriations, who shares my concern and interest in 
this area.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank my colleagues 
who have spent many hours listening to NIH testimony and getting quite 
an appreciation for the research they have done on reading, and to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who is my cochair in the Reading 
Caucus that seeks to bring focus on what reading programs work.
  Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education of the Committee on Appropriations on which both the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I sit has had a number of 
discussions about the recommendations of the National Reading Panel, a 
report compiled by the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development and the Department of Education.
  The National Reading Panel was charged with conducting a 
comprehensive review of the evidence-based research on reading and 
assessing the effectiveness of different approaches. As my colleagues 
know, NICHD has conducted scientific research and identified the steps 
required for all children to become effective readers. Armed with that 
research and knowledge, we now need to take the next step, putting 
research into practice.
  We are pleased that the President's Reading First Initiative has been 
shaped by the findings of the National Reading Panel. Reading is a 
fundamental building block of education. That is why it is crucial that 
our students receive the best reading instruction.
  Mr. Chairman, the dismal statistics of illiteracy simply do not have 
to exist. We are optimistic that with the National Reading Panel's 
findings as our guide, we can achieve much better results.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), I think 
that this particular program of instituting mentoring into the lives of 
the children is absolutely essential. The fact that reading has been 
shown as an extreme good component of this entire spectrum, I welcome 
the fact that we now see the importance of reading. It also further 
strengthens the fact that having mentors working with the mentee will 
be most efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to discuss this important issue with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
(Mrs. Northup), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  In April, I visited a demonstration project at Independence 
Elementary School in Liberty Township, Ohio, which is in my district. 
Independence Elementary is successfully utilizing the host reading 
program that promotes the practices recommended by the National Reading 
Panel and the National Research Council. The HOST model utilizes about 
60 mentors, age 16 to 84, to tutor approximately 50 first-through-third 
graders at the school in one-on-one sessions.
  The Ohio Reads program, which is supported by Governor Taft, funds 
the HOST programs in Ohio. In fact, the Governor and Mrs. Taft both are 
volunteers for this program, and I think it is a very worthy endeavor. 
I think that the efforts by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) are certainly in order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are at least five 
schools with HOST programs in my district as well, all of which are 
demonstrating improved results.
  We look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner) and the President on implementing the recommendations of the 
National Reading Panel and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) as well.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we 
obviously strongly support the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek). On behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and myself, we 
all support the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I hope people can follow how this happened.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in House Report 107-69.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted as part E of title 
     VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by 
     section 801 of the bill, insert after section 8520 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 8521. ENCOURAGE EDUCATION SAVINGS.

       ``To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall promote 
     education savings accounts in States that have qualified 
     State tuition programs (as defined in section 529 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, late last year, I was getting ready to address a very 
dignified group of community leaders. As I was preparing my remarks, I 
asked my first-grade daughter what she thought I ought to tell these 
fairly important people. She thought about it for a minute. She looked 
up. She said, ``Dad, you can tell them that I got the best lower case 
A's in the entire first-grade class.'' I thought about that a minute, 
and I tell my colleagues what, Mr. Chairman, I told my very 
distinguished group that my daughter had the best lower case A's in the 
entire first-grade class.
  I want every daughter in America and every son in America in the 
first grade to be worried about those lower case A's. I want every 
parent to have to understand and have the ability to understand that, 
not only do we have to worry about their lower case A's, but we have 
got to worry about their future and what happens. In just a few short 
years, they will be ready to go to college or technical training 
school.
  What this amendment does is embrace the 50 States who have 529 
prepaid tuition or college savings plans for parents. Costs are going 
up, and we are not a Nation that saves. We have about a 1 percent 
savings rate in America.
  There are five Federal programs to help people offset the costs of 
getting college education, of technical training that will cover not as 
many as it will

[[Page 9232]]

not cover. There will be more families out there struggling to borrow 
money to get their kids to go to school than there will be receiving a 
grant or a scholarship or tuition from another source.
  What we are trying to do here, Mr. Chairman, is allow parents to get 
connected and understand the value of time and compounding with these 
State savings plans.
  In Michigan, I offered a bill last year that would allow State tax-
free money in and tax-free money out to defray the costs of getting an 
education. The time and compounding value of that is immense. We need 
to get parents connected as soon as we can and take the middle class 
from the borrowing class to the saving class.
  This is an important element in offsetting those increasing costs, 
Mr. Chairman. I urge this body's support so that parents can go back to 
saving a little money and worrying about those lower case A's.
  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, we have no opposition to this amendment. We support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) is a very good amendment. The 
gentleman from Michigan, during his years in the State senate, authored 
the college tuition savings program in Michigan. I think his ongoing 
efforts here as a new Member of this body to encourage the Secretary, 
to the extent practicable, to promote these programs is of great 
benefit for the American people.
  We all know that the cost of going to college continues to rise; and 
we believe by the end of this year, some 48 States will have such 
programs. We want to make sure that they are working well and provide 
the avenue by which many more of our middle- and lower-income students 
will be able to attend an ongoing college, university or some type of 
training program once they graduate from high school.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. The gentleman should be 
congratulated.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of an 
amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Education to work with 
state administrators to promote and advocate the use and establishment 
of state-sponsored college savings plans during a student's elementary 
years.
  In recent years, most states have created either a prepaid tuition or 
college savings plan to help parents save for ever-increasing post-
secondary education costs. The 1980s saw the first developments in 
state-created tuition plans as states attempted to meet the growing 
concerns about the affordability of college. In 1986, Michigan was the 
first state to establish a prepaid college tuition plan, and last year 
our state added a savings plan. Currently, all 50 states offer some 
form of Qualified State Tuition Programs within Section 529 of the tax 
code as Georgia and South Dakota became the last two states to 
establish plans earlier this year.
  As the author of Michigan's post-secondary education savings account 
plan while a member of the Michigan State Senate, I believe that 
education is central to our prosperity as a nation. However, too often 
the educational opportunities for our students and families are limited 
by tuition costs or the prospect of a crushing debt-load. The best 
answer to this dilemma is to encourage advance family savings--starting 
to save during a student's elementary years.
  Please allow me to briefly describe the benefits of saving under 
Michigan's recently-enacted Michigan Education Savings Program. Under 
this program, which was launched in November, 2000, any individual 
interested in investing for a college or a vocational education can 
open an account and contribute on behalf of any beneficiary for as 
little as $25 up-front. Furthermore, individuals can also contribute as 
little as $15 per savings account per pay period by using payroll 
deduction through participating employers.
  Michigan's program has been a great success in its first six months, 
as more than 16,000 accounts have been opened with over $34 million in 
investments. In fact, Money magazine recently named the Michigan 
Education Savings Program one of the best state-operated college 
savings programs in the country.
  The power of compounding makes these plans especially appealing to 
families who can save only in smaller increments. For example, families 
can put away as little as $10 a week over the first 18 years of child's 
life and, based at a conservative earnings rate of 8 percent, have 
about $20,000 by the time he or she is ready for college or technical 
school. Over a period of time, families can save enough to provide the 
kind of future we all want for our children without having to run up a 
huge debt to get an education.
  An example of the need to create a saving class was highlighted in a 
recent Washington Post column titled: ``Colleges Where the Middle Class 
Need Not Apply.'' The lead paragraph touched upon the fact ``. . . the 
poor and middle class at least try college for a year, although for 
many of them, even the modest cost of state schools quickly becomes 
burdensome.''
  When it comes to saving for college and vocational training we need 
to help our families turn from a borrowing class into a saving class. 
To encourage such saving, all 50 states have established prepaid 
tuition or college savings plans and this amendment empowers the 
Secretary of Education to work with those states to advocate the 
benefits of these plans to elementary school parents and the importance 
of establishing an account as soon as possible.
  I believe we all can agree that the federal government should foster 
policies encouraging families to save for educational expenses instead 
of relying on debt or government aid programs. My amendment to H.R. 1 
would authorize the Secretary of Education to work together with the 50 
states that have Section 529 savings programs to advocate and promote 
the use of these valuable educational tools to encourage parents to 
enroll in their state's plan during their children's elementary years.
  Promoting the use of savings at the elementary level will allow the 
dynamic of time and interest produce significant savings that will help 
the families of today's kindergartners shoulder the financial burden of 
tomorrow's education costs. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment promoting the use of these valuable tools during the 
elementary years.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague and friend Mike Rogers from the State 
of Michigan. As we debate this historic education reform legislation, 
H.R. 1, one aspect that should not be overlooked is that too often the 
educational opportunities of our students and families are limited by 
tuition costs and overwhelming debts.
  We need to encourage low- and middle-class families to turn from 
borrowing to a saving. The best time to encourage parents to start 
saving for tuition costs is when their children are in elementary 
school. Today, all 50 States, including my home State of Michigan, have 
established prepaid tuition or college savings plans under section 529 
of the Federal Tax Code.
  This amendment will empower the Secretary of Education to work with 
the States to advocate the benefits of these plans to elementary school 
parents and stress the importance of establishing an account as soon as 
possible. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for his 
leadership in the State of Michigan on this important issue.
  I encourage my House colleagues to leave no child behind and support 
this amendment to encourage families to save early for their children's 
educational expenses.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1115

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in House Report 107-69.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Norwood

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 13.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Norwood:
       At the end of part A of title V of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 501 of 
     the bill, add the following:

[[Page 9233]]



     ``SEC. 5155. DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       ``(a) Authority of School Personnel.--Each State receiving 
     funds under this Act shall require each local educational 
     agency to have in effect a policy under which school 
     personnel of such agency may discipline (including expel or 
     suspend) a child with a disability who--
       ``(1) carries or possesses a weapon to or at a school, on 
     school premises, or to or at a school function, under the 
     jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency;
       ``(2) knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or 
     solicits the sale of a controlled substance at a school, on 
     school premises, or at a school function, under the 
     jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency; or
       ``(3) commits an aggravated assault or battery (as defined 
     under State or local law) at a school, on school premises, or 
     at a school function, under the jurisdiction of a State or 
     local educational agency, in the same manner in which such 
     personnel may discipline a child without a disability. Such 
     personnel may modify the disciplinary action on a case-by-
     case basis.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) 
     shall be construed to prevent a child with a disability who 
     is disciplined pursuant to the authority provided under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) from asserting a 
     defense that the carrying or possession of the weapon, or the 
     possession or use of the illegal drugs (or the sale or 
     solicitation of the controlled substance), as the case may 
     be, was unintentional or innocent.
       ``(c) Free Appropriate Public Education.--
       ``(1) Ceasing to provide education.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of Federal law, a child expelled or suspended 
     under subsection (a) shall not be entitled to continue 
     educational services, including a free appropriate public 
     education, required under Federal law during the term of such 
     expulsion or suspension, if the State in which the local 
     educational agency responsible for providing educational 
     services to such child does not require a child without a 
     disability to receive educational services after being 
     expelled or suspended.
       ``(2) Providing education.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 
     the local educational agency responsible for providing 
     educational services to a child with a disability who is 
     expelled or suspended under paragraph (1) may choose to 
     continue to provide educational services or mental health 
     services to such child. If the local educational agency so 
     chooses to continue to provide the services--
       ``(A) nothing in any other provision of Federal law shall 
     require the local educational agency to provide such child 
     with any particular level of service; and
       ``(B) the location where the local educational agency 
     provides the services shall be left to the discretion of the 
     local educational agency.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Controlled substance.--The term `controlled 
     substance' has the meaning given the term in section 5151.
       ``(2) Illegal drug.--The term `illegal drug' means a 
     controlled substance, but does not include such a substance 
     that is legally possessed or used under the supervision of a 
     licensed health-care professional or that is legally 
     possessed or used under any other authority under the 
     Controlled Substances Act or under any other provision of 
     Federal law.
       ``(3) Weapon.--The term `weapon' has the meaning given the 
     term `dangerous weapon' under subsection (g)(2) of section 
     930 of title 18, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as it stands now, Federal law requires schools to have 
two different discipline policies for those who bring a weapon to 
school or engage in aggravated assault, one policy for special needs 
students and another for nonspecial needs students. A special needs 
student receives preferential treatment when it comes to being punished 
for outrageous behavior.
  For all practical purposes, a special needs student could be 
suspended for no longer than 55 days, for all practical purposes, and 
even then must be provided educational services. Nonspecial needs 
students, on the other hand, can be and often are suspended for longer 
periods of time, and then without educational services.
  My amendment will finally change that. It gives schools the authority 
to have a consistent discipline policy for all students. It allows 
special needs students to be disciplined under the same policy as 
nonspecial needs students in the exact same situation.
  My amendment also contains safeguards. My amendment contains 
safeguards to ensure that no special needs student is unjustly punished 
or singled out. This amendment sends clear messages that weapons and 
violent assaults at school will not be tolerated. My colleagues, let's 
send that message today by passing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, I was one of the original sponsors, coauthors and authors of 
the IDEA Act when I first came to Congress in 1975. I have very strong 
feelings about our obligations to educate students with disabilities. I 
was also the first author of the Act who said that you would expel 
students from schools if they brought guns to schools. I have very 
strong feelings that our schools are a place of learning, they ought to 
be a sanctuary, and the streets ought not to come into our schools. But 
these two values clash.
  My concern is this: The suggestion is somehow that children with 
handicaps are privileged; that children with handicaps have 
preferential treatment. No, what we do under the law is recognize that 
children with handicaps, with disabilities, in many instances, must be 
treated differently because of those disabilities. And what we do in 
this is suggest that we cannot, under the Federal law, deny them 
continued education if they are suspended, because we understand the 
problems of educating some of these children, many of whom have 
multiple handicaps, multiple disabilities; that if we stop the 
educational services, in many instances, it is very difficult to start 
or to have that child catch up.
  There is nothing in the Federal law that says that that child must 
return to school. A decision must be made in 55 days, but there is 
nothing that says the child must return to school. The gentleman from 
Georgia and the committee, when we were deliberating this, handed out 
an article from the Orlando Sentinel and he said that this child should 
not be back in school. But when we read the article, it makes very 
clear that the school authorities are educating the child while he is 
in a juvenile detention center. The school authorities make it very 
clear that this child will never return to his school. This child will 
not go back to school. They do not want to return him home, but they 
are going to continue to educate him because that is what the law 
requires.
  By the same token, the law does not require that that student be 
returned to school. It says we cannot have a secession of the 
educational program. And we should not change that law today. We should 
not change that law today.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for his work on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, creating a safe learning environment must be a top 
priority for our schools. Unfortunately, the discipline provisions in 
IDEA make it impossible for educators to address the needs of all 
students in the classroom. The safety and the learning opportunities of 
all students are jeopardized by the rules that require that a dangerous 
and disruptive student remain in the classroom.
  I believe when it comes to the issue of weapons, illegal drugs and 
assaults, we cannot afford to gamble with the safety of our students, 
with our teachers and staff. Ensuring the safety of all students must 
be our first goal. The Federal bureaucracy cannot second-guess our 
local educators, who must make difficult decisions about the safety in 
their classrooms. Doing such will unnecessarily put the safety of our 
students at risk.
  This amendment will allow schools to discipline all students that 
bring weapons, sell illegal drugs or commit aggravated assault or 
battery at school in the same manner. Schools will not be able to 
discriminate against students with disabilities, but they will

[[Page 9234]]

have the flexibility under this amendment to make sure that all violent 
students are removed from the classroom.
  Simply put, this amendment will remove the roadblocks that Congress 
has put in the path of good school administrators, parents, teachers, 
and local school boards who merely want to keep their classrooms safe.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  When we reauthorized IDEA in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we took steps 
so that schools could ensure a safe and orderly environment for all 
students. The 1997 amendments specifically allow schools to immediately 
remove IDEA children from the classroom for discipline violations and 
place children in alternative educational settings when they commit 
infractions dealing with guns, drugs, or are likely to injure 
themselves or others.
  What IDEA in 1997 also stated was that troubled, disabled children 
should not be kicked out of school onto the streets without educational 
services, since this will lead only to additional juvenile crime.
  Unfortunately, my concern over this amendment has already become 
reality in the tragic incident of school violence in Springfield, 
Oregon, 2 years ago. Kip Kingle, the shooter in the Springfield 
incident, although not an IDEA student, was suspended when he brought a 
gun to school. He was sent home without counseling or educational 
services and proceeded to shoot and kill his parents and go on a 
shooting rampage at his school. This incident is the perfect example of 
why cutting educational services off for children can lead to 
disastrous circumstances.
  I fully believe, as do all of us here, that our schools should be 
safe for all children. Now, those children who engage in dangerous 
activities should be dealt with through such means as immediate removal 
from the classroom. This is something we can really agree upon: 
Dangerous children must be removed from the classroom, absolutely and 
immediately. However, ceasing educational services for these children, 
or for any child, is not the answer, since it will only lead to more 
juvenile crime and possible situations similar to the horrific incident 
in Springfield.
  I taught school for 10 years, and we had incidents where we had to 
have that child removed, not necessarily an IDEA child, a child in our 
regular programs, but we did provide in Michigan alternative programs 
for that child. I know children who were involved in that fashion and 
did get alternative education who are now working and are productive 
citizens in Flint, Michigan, because we gave them that alternative. I 
think all children should have some possibility of alternative services 
when they commit such incidents as these.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, in my home State, four students were caught 
bringing a gun to a school-sponsored event. They were passing the gun 
among themselves. After a disciplinary hearing, three of the students 
were expelled for possession of a gun, but the child who actually 
brought the gun to the event was given only 45 days in an alternative 
program. Why this unequal result? Because the child who brought the gun 
was classified as learning disabled under IDEA.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, when I travel throughout my district and talk to 
parents and teachers and administrators, they are concerned about this 
dual system of school discipline. They want school discipline returned 
to the schools. A safe productive learning environment is a key element 
to providing all students with a good education.
  There is no hidden agenda here. There is no attempt to deny disabled 
students the ability to be educated. It is simply a matter of safety in 
schools and order in schools and discipline in schools.
  It was the academic community who encouraged me during the last 
Congress to introduce a bill to restore disciplinary decisions to State 
and local administrators. I was pleased when the amendment of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), similar to my bill, was approved 
in the 106th Congress during consideration of the Juvenile Justice Act.
  We cannot tolerate students bringing guns or drugs to school or 
assaulting other students. It does not matter who the student is, the 
danger to the other students remains the same.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, under current law, a child with a disability who is 
expelled from the regular classroom for any reason is still entitled to 
a free and appropriate education. I know of no public policy benefit 
which can be achieved by sending these children to the streets without 
any educational services, even when they are involved with serious 
offenses. In fact, I see no benefit to the public for depriving any 
child of an education, whether they have a disability or not. It is 
difficult for any child who is expelled to catch up and graduate from 
school, and it is especially hard for disabled children.
  We learned, during hearings on youth crime, that there is a strong 
link between dropping out of school and subsequent crime. For children 
with disabilities, these correlations are even stronger. Research shows 
that children with disabilities who are put out of school without 
educational services are less likely than other children to ever catch 
up; they are less likely to graduate from high school or get a GED; 
they are less likely to be employed, and they are substantially more 
likely to be involved in crime.
  Some talk about a deterrent effect. Let me read a letter from the 
National Coalition of Police Chiefs, Prosecutors, and Crime Victims 
from 2 years ago. They said: ``We urge you to oppose any amendment that 
would deny educational services to kids who are expelled or suspended 
from schools. Schools can already immediately expel a student who 
brings weapons to schools. But giving a gun-toting kid an extended 
vacation from school and from all responsibility is soft on offenders 
and dangerous for everyone else.
  Please don't give those kids who most need adult supervision the 
unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs, and get their hands 
on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.''
  Mr. Chairman, during the last Congress we had a bipartisan task force 
on juvenile crime lasting several weeks. We met for several weeks, 
heard from dozens of witnesses, and not one witness had anything good 
to say about kicking kids out of school without continuing services. 
Some said take them out of the regular classroom, but continue their 
education. Not one witness had anything good to say about kicking them 
out without any services.
  The IDEA program is premised on the recognition that children with 
disabilities need more support than other students to enable them to 
obtain a decent education. There is nothing to suggest that less 
support is needed when they have disciplinary problems, even when they 
are serious disciplinary problems.
  School systems should not be allowed to send uneducated children with 
discipline problems onto the streets and endanger the public. For those 
reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the previous opponent of this 
amendment, the learned gentleman from Virginia, has illustrated 
graphically the sorry state in which our schools are finding 
themselves. According to the gentleman from Virginia, we ought to feel 
guilty, schools ought to feel guilty,

[[Page 9235]]

teachers ought to feel guilty, if they try and protect the students in 
their schools.
  The gentleman says schools should not turn these students out because 
they commit acts of violence. After all, then it is the school's fault 
for those kids being on the street. That sort of reverse thinking is 
what this amendment and piece of legislation tries to correct. It tries 
to bring back some rationality to the process of educating and 
protecting our children.
  No longer, if this amendment is adopted and signed into law by the 
President, would our schools be held hostage by claiming that an act of 
intimidation, an act of assault cannot be punished, that students 
cannot be removed from the school, that the taxpayers should not 
continue to support them simply because that act of violence, that act 
of drug dealing, that act of assault might be a manifestation of a 
disability.
  Our teachers and our administrators tasked by the government of this 
country, by our local government and by millions upon millions of 
parents, have an obligation to teach our students. They cannot fulfill 
that obligation if those students under their care are in fear.
  Mr. Chairman, this will remove that fear and provide flexibility to 
our schools to do what we have asked them to do.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I did not say that we wanted to keep 
children in the classroom. If children have committed a serious 
offense, maybe they do need to be taken out of the classroom. What this 
amendment will do, if it passes, it will put those children out on the 
streets without any services; and all of the studies show the crime 
rate will go out.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why not a single witness on our bipartisan task 
force had anything good to say about this amendment. They all said we 
have to continue educational services if we want to protect our 
children.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, the real debate here should be about 
school choice, allowing parents to choose the school that is safe for 
their children. The President proposed school choice in his package No 
Child Left Behind, but that provision was left out of the bill. So it 
is incumbent upon us now to discuss the safety of the children who are 
left in those schools and trapped in government-owned schools 
throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, this dual standard that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) has put his finger on is one that is painfully understood by 
every teacher in America, many parents, but it is also understood by a 
certain number of children.
  Children under the IDEA program are no more likely to be involved in 
discipline problems than anyone else, but the dual standard is one that 
does play a disproportionate role in classrooms because it sends a 
mixed signal in the whole context of classroom discipline.
  Schools should be safe. Teachers deserve to be in classroom settings 
where their safety is secure as well, and where their expertise is 
respected and honored. This amendment that the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) has proposed is a good amendment; it is one that we 
should adopt. It moves us in the proper direction in the context of 
empowering parents and teachers and making our classrooms safer.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, who has worked so hard on this education 
bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) for bringing this amendment to the floor. As many of the 
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce know, there was 
great interest in dealing with this subject in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. At my request, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) saved this amendment for today's debate, and we did not 
engage in this fight in the committee process.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that IDEA was an important step in terms of 
allowing more of our children to receive the same educational 
opportunities as those without disabilities. But we all know and we 
have all heard from every one of our superintendents and school board 
members that there have been significant problems. Many of us believe 
that there is a two-tier policy in many of our schools when it comes to 
the possession of a weapon, the possession of drugs, or the commission 
of an aggravated assault against other students, against teachers, and 
school personnel when it comes to IDEA students.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) brings makes it very clear that the policies that would 
be appropriate in a school for non-DEA students ought to apply to IDEA 
students as well in these three particular areas. Most people around 
America would say this makes common sense and we ought to do it, and we 
ought to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, we all know there are other issues 
having to deal with IDEA, and that bill is up for reauthorization next 
year. It likely will be a rather contentious debate in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and on the floor. By and large, we would 
like to leave most of these issues until next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment, though, is a commonsense 
amendment. We ought to support it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the gentleman from Virginia who 
said that there is no good public policy that can be achieved by this 
amendment; and I would like to say that and tell that to the family of 
Linda Hendrick, 52 years old, who was stabbed repeatedly in 1999 by a 
special ed student that could not be removed from the classroom.
  I think there is very good public policy that can occur here. It has 
been pointed out by the other side that there are some students, I 
think Down's syndrome was mentioned, that this would apply to. But it 
also applies to so many other students who are in special education 
today for various and sundry reasons who actually do know the 
difference, and we need to give people like the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee), who was a teacher for 10 years, the superintendents back 
home, we need to give them some discretion to make some decisions about 
when a student should or should not be in a school.
  Mr. Chairman, they say schools can eliminate a student from special 
education for however long you like. That is simply not true because 
the process is so cumbersome, the process is so expensive it 
effectively does not work.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to take this 
opportunity to give people like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) an opportunity to do this at home.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, opposition to this amendment is not based 
upon an expression of guilt, it is based upon an exercise of common 
sense. I do not think that any violent student should spend one more 
hour in any classroom in this country. Under the existing law and under 
this bill, they need not. This bill says if a student engages in an act 
of violence and present law says if a student engages in an act of 
violence, they can be removed from the classroom.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us says after they are removed 
from the classroom, that is the end of their education. That is it if 
the State so chooses.
  I oppose this amendment because it does not answer this question: 
With respect to this violent student, once they

[[Page 9236]]

are removed from the classroom, as they should be, what happens next?
  This amendment does not deal with the very real problem of violence 
in our schools. It just moves it from our schools to somewhere else, to 
our streets or to our neighborhoods or to other social institutions.
  I for one minute would not stand for the proposition that we should 
coddle or discriminate in favor of people who commit violent crimes. 
But I know this: That pretending that they are just going to go away 
will not work. Pretending that they will disappear from the rest of the 
community will not work. And understanding if we get people that are 
prone to violence back on a positive track by offering them an 
education, they are a lot less likely to commit another violent 
offense.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very alluring to say we should just pull the plug 
on the education of those that commit violence. It is also completely 
counterproductive. It is a guarantee that many of those same young men 
and women will never get an education, never become contributing 
members of society, and will commit even more heinous and terrible 
crimes. This amendment should be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each side will control 2 additional 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close this up by making an appeal to the good 
folks on the other side. I know that they are big defenders of the 
disability education program, as well they should be. This program was 
passed by Congress to address real and serious problems. Special needs 
students were often not given an opportunity to get an education in 
this country. The Disabilities Education Act fixed that. It does not 
mean that it is perfect, but it takes a step in the right direction. 
But that is yesterday's problem that we did take the right step.
  Mr. Chairman, today's problem with disciplining special needs 
students is just as real. In fact, it is causing a growing backlash 
against IDEA. My teachers and superintendents are pleading for relief 
here. Nonspecial need parents are seriously questioning special and 
unequal treatment of students regarding discipline. There is a backlash 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my colleagues, in their zeal to protect the 
legacy of this program, do not overlook this problem by supporting this 
reasonable change. My colleagues will do much to stop this growing 
backlash against IDEA without hurting education for special needs 
students.
  Let me assure my colleagues, this amendment will not encourage 
schools to engage in mass expulsions of special needs students. This 
amendment has solid safeguards to make sure this does not happen. Let 
me be very clear. If a teacher is trying to unjustly kick a special 
needs student out of their class, this amendment requires parents and 
local officials to have the authority to stop such a thing.
  Mr. Chairman, we can and should pass this amendment. We passed a very 
similar amendment in this Congress last year with 300 votes. This is 
something we as Federal legislators can do, something we actually can 
do that will make life better for our teachers back home.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood). I do not think that there is anybody here in this Chamber 
that disagrees that a student that is causing disruption in a classroom 
should be removed. But let us remember something very clearly. We are 
talking about children with special needs. Right there, special needs.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who disrupts the classroom should be removed, 
but they have to have an alternative place to go. One of the things 
that we are not doing in this Chamber and not providing to children 
with special needs is to give it to them: Alternative schools. We have 
seen children removed and sent to alternative schools, and we have seen 
them do very well in small classrooms with specialized care for them. 
These are children that have special needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress to reduce gun violence in this 
country, and I certainly stand by that. So of course anyone that is 
carrying a gun to a school should be removed. But to put students out 
on the street and have them come back the next day and fire among their 
classmates, that is the wrong way to go, too.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about safety. No one 
supports a policy that allows a violent or dangerous student to stay in 
the classroom. This amendment is about having an alternative program 
for children with special needs. Not having that contained in this 
amendment is wrong.

                              {time}  1145

  What is even more wrong is the fact that this was the only amendment 
made in order dealing with one of the most pressing challenges facing 
schools districts; how to meet the challenge of educating children with 
special education needs.
  The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I offered an amendment 
that talked about getting the Federal Government to live up to its 40 
percent cost share of special education expenses. Unfortunately, that 
amendment was not made in order. We should have that debate on the 
floor as a part of the elementary and secondary education bill because 
every Member can bring anecdotal evidence to this Chamber that shows 
the pressing financial costs that school districts are facing because 
we are only funding our responsibility of special education at slightly 
less than 15 percent when we promised to fund it at 40 percent. We need 
to help school districts stop pitting student against student because 
the limited resources that they have available for one of the fastest 
growing expenses in school budgets, meeting the needs of special 
students in the classroom. That's the debate we should be having today 
instead of an amendment that will make it easier to punish those 
students.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in House 
Report No. 107-69.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       Before part B of title IX of the bill, insert the 
     following:

                Subpart 3--General Education Provisions

     SEC. 916. INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONSENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 445 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as 
     subsections (d) through (f), respectively; and
       (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Access to Information.--No funds shall be made 
     available under any applicable program to any educational 
     agency or institution that has a policy of denying, or that 
     effectively prevents, the parent of an elementary school or 
     secondary school student served by such agency or at such 
     institution, as the case may be--
       ``(1) the right to inspect and review any instructional 
     material used with respect to the educational curriculum of 
     the student. Each

[[Page 9237]]

     educational agency or institution shall establish appropriate 
     procedures for the granting of a request by parents for 
     access to the instructional material. The granting of each 
     such request shall be made in a reasonable period of time, 
     but shall not exceed 45 days, after the date of the request;
       ``(2) the right to inspect and review a survey, analysis, 
     or evaluation that is subject to subsection (c)(7) before the 
     survey, analysis, or evaluation is given to a student.
       ``(b) Restriction on Seeking Information From Minors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal law, no funds shall be made available under any 
     program administered by the Secretary to any educational 
     agency or institution that administers or provides a survey, 
     analysis, or evaluation to a student without the prior, 
     informed, written consent of the parent or guardian of a 
     student concerning--
       ``(A) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or 
     the student's parent;
       ``(B) mental or psychological problems potentially 
     embarrassing to the student or the student's family;
       ``(C) sex behavior or attitudes;
       ``(D) illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior;
       ``(E) appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor 
     has a familial relationship;
       ``(F) relationships that are legally recognized as 
     privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and 
     members of the clergy; and
       ``(G) religious practices affiliations or beliefs.''.
       ``(2) Explanation.--In seeking the consent of the parent an 
     educational agency or institution must provide an accurate 
     explanation, in writing, of the types of items listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (1) that are 
     contained in the survey and the purpose, if known, for 
     including those items.
       ``(c) Restriction on Medical Testing and Treatment of 
     Minors.--
       ``(1) Consent required.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), no funds shall be made available under any applicable 
     program to an educational agency or institution that requires 
     or otherwise causes the student without the prior, written, 
     informed consent of the parent or a guardian of a minor to 
     undergo medical or mental health examination, testing, 
     treatment, or immunization (except in the case of a medical 
     emergency).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to medical 
     or mental health examinations, testing, treatment, or 
     immunizations of students expressly permitted by State law 
     without written parental consent.
       ``(3) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     term `educational agency or institution' means any 
     elementary, middle, or secondary school, any school district 
     or local board of education, and any State educational agency 
     that is the recipient of funds under any program administered 
     by the Secretary, except that it does not apply to 
     postsecondary institutions.
       ``(4) Instructional material.--In this subsection the term 
     `instructional material' means a textbook, audio/visual 
     material, informational material accessible through Internet 
     sites, material in digital or electronic formats, 
     instructional manual, or journal, or any other material 
     supplementary to the education of a student.
       ``(5) Rules of construction.--(A) Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede the Family Educational Rights 
     and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
       ``(B) The term `instructional material' does not include 
     academic tests or assessments.
       ``(6) Application.--
       ``(A) Certain surveys, analysis, and evaluations.--
     Subsection (b) shall not apply to surveys, analysis, or 
     evaluations administered to a student as part of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       ``(B) Parental consent.--Nothing in subsection (c) shall be 
     construed to supersede or otherwise affect the parental 
     consent requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       ``(C) Student rights.--The rights provided parents under 
     this Act transfer to the student once the student turns 18 
     years old or is an emancipated minor at any age.
       ``(7) State law exception.--Educational agencies and 
     institutions residing in a State that has a law that provides 
     parents rights comparable to the rights contained herein may 
     seek exemption from this Act by obtaining a waiver from the 
     office designated by the Secretary to administer this Act. 
     This office may grant a waiver to educational agencies and 
     institutions upon review of State law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of parental rights. Today, we 
will be passing legislation to ensure that no child is left behind in 
our education system. As a Nation and as a government, we have a duty 
to make sure that our public school system is held accountable; but our 
schools should not only be accountable to the government, but parents 
as well. Ultimately, it is the families who should have the most say in 
how their children are educated.
  The Parental Freedom of Information amendment is based on the need to 
provide concerned, active parents with information that is vital for 
them to exercise their right to guide the upbringing of the children.
  Educators have often said that involved parents are the most 
important thing public schools need to help students learn. I believe 
involved parents must be informed parents.
  The current hodgepodge of State and Federal laws simply does not 
provide parents of public school children with the clear-cut right to 
access information regarding their child's education.
  The goal of this amendment is to plainly and unambiguously define the 
rights parents have under the law.
  Specifically, parents will have the right to access the curriculum to 
which their children are exposed. Parents will also have the right to 
give informed written consent prior to any student being required to 
undergo nonemergency medical or mental health examinations, testing or 
treatment, while at school; and finally, they will be afforded the 
right to inspect surveys and questionnaires seeking personal 
information before they are given to students.
  This legislation in no way seeks to influence the content of 
curricula or tests. It simply allows parents to access the basic 
information which involved parents need to guide the education of their 
children.
  There may be some attempt to argue that there is no need for this 
amendment. However, the increasing amount of litigation to determine 
what rights are guaranteed to parents under current Federal law is 
evidence to the contrary. Plain and simple, parents should not have to 
go into a courtroom to find out what is going on in the classroom.
  Parents provide both tax dollars to fund our public education system 
as well as children who participate. Why should we as parents be denied 
the right to see how schools are using our tax dollars to educate our 
children? We need this legislation to clarify that parents have this 
right to be involved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might ask either of the authors a question about 
the amendment because we have no opposition to the amendment. I think 
we fully understand the problems and the concerns that the authors are 
trying to address, but we would like to clarify obviously some concern 
of, very often, school teachers. Under State law, in a number of 
instances, teachers are required to react to their concerns about 
whether or not a child has been abused or not, and they must make some 
inquiries of that child. My understanding is this amendment would not 
impact in any way the ability of those school officials to engage in 
that sometimes, unfortunately, necessary activity.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is correct. We have no 
intent of preventing anyone from trying to stop child abuse. I think 
that is an awful situation that we currently have in America that we 
need to stop, so our efforts would be to do the same as the intent of 
the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We raise this concern, and I thank 
the gentleman for his answer. We raise this concern because obviously, 
again in very tragic and unfortunate situations,

[[Page 9238]]

many times the child abuse is within the home and the parent cannot be 
notified that the teacher wants to ask questions of the child, and we 
just want to make sure that this does not get in the way.
  Some of the groups have raised that concern. I do not think the 
amendment does that, but I would certainly like, if it is possible, 
that we could continue to work on this if that problem somehow 
materializes so that does not happen.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. It is our intent to work with the gentleman to make sure 
there is no confusion about this.
  I would also like to remind the gentleman this does not supersede 
State laws. Those States that have made initiatives in this area to 
stop child abuse, it would not interfere with that process at all.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his 
response.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this 
amendment. It is often said that knowledge is power, and what we are 
trying to do is make sure that informed and caring parents know what is 
going on at school in an appropriate way. What the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) raised, I want to assure him it is not 
my intent, nor the intent of anyone, to supersede State law that 
requires teachers or medical personnel to report suspected child abuse, 
because we do not want to do anything that is going to undermine 
protecting children. I think we have drafted an amendment that will 
accomplish that.
  We are trying to empower parents in three key areas. We want to make 
sure that parents have some knowledge of what is going on in terms of 
the curriculum being taught at the school and that they have some 
information up front, and that they can be informed by the appropriate 
authorities to know what their child is being taught and have some 
input.
  We want to make sure that the parents have access to school material 
that is going to be taught to their child.
  Second, if a child is being surveyed about their personal family 
life, about whether they use drugs, or mental health issues, that we 
want parents to know what is going on and get parental consent there 
when a survey is being done because we believe it is important for 
parents to know what is being asked of their children.
  Third, we want to make sure that in emergency situations, guidance-
counseling situations in its normal fashion, that there is no 
impediment there. But we do believe that when it comes time to perform 
medical exams or part of a treatment regime that a school counseling 
team may come up with, that parents are informed about what is going to 
happen to their child medically and any mental health counseling that 
is a result of the normal counseling process.
  Knowledge is power. We believe this will give parents more knowledge 
about what goes on in their school. It will create a better 
relationship between administrators and parents, and we are going to 
make sure that we do not do anything to impede the right to protect 
children who are being abused at home.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for the purposes of a 
colloquy.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to have this colloquy with the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the other author, but first let me make a point 
clear. I speak on this subject about parental consent with a little bit 
of experience that my husband is a psychiatrist not only in private 
practice but also as a psychiatric consultant to a number of school 
systems over the years on these issues.
  With that as background, I want to say that I agree with the 
gentleman's amendment; but I want to be sure that we are not having 
unintended consequences here. So I want to make clear what the language 
does.
  Specifically with the section on restrictions on medical testing and 
treatment of minors, these initial contacts are vital. As a primary 
proponent of school-based mental health services, as the author of that 
provision that is in the bill, I want to be very sure that we are 
talking about the same things here.
  My understanding here is that under the gentleman's amendment a child 
in trouble would be first referred to a school guidance counselor, as 
is presently the case, under all State law; no signed permission for 
this initial contact is needed. Is that correct?
  Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding, yes.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then the child's case is referred to a child study 
committee, and the social worker that is a member of that child's study 
committee then is required to have parental consent or make the contact 
with the parent before that evaluation. Is that correct?
  Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then, of course, we get to the question of the mental 
health counselors that are provided for in this bill. It is again my 
understanding, and there is no ambiguity about this, that mental health 
counselors would then assess the treatment needs but would again 
require parental consent with specificity?
  Mr. TIAHRT. That is also my understanding.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is also the understanding of the gentleman.
  I want to thank the gentleman because this is a very important 
portion of this bill. I want to make the particular point for all of 
our colleagues that we need this clarification to ensure that the 
children and families are able to receive the best possible treatment 
but not eroding the rights of the parents in these cases.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for his 
amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) for yielding me this time and would urge the adoption of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment because at its core it 
empowers parents, and that really should be what we are all about here 
in Congress, is finding ways to empower parents to the greatest extent 
possible. This empowers them through information and putting parents in 
the driver's seat when it comes to administering various psychological 
and psychiatric examinations, nonemergency medical examinations and 
tests that might be required at school.
  Giving parents the authority to make these decisions is just one 
strategy to do two things: one, to make parents a more integral part of 
the academic and learning experience of their children; but, secondly, 
to allow parents to be in a position where they have a better 
opportunity to protect their children from different examinations, 
procedures, different experiments that take place in America's 
government-owned schools that are somehow different than the academic 
mission that most parents assume these institutions are all about.
  That is, in fact, what these institutions should be about, and that 
should be our goal here in the House, is to focus to the greatest 
extent possible the mission of our public schools on the mission of 
teaching, on education. Pure and simple. It is important to empower 
them through the Tiahrt amendment because the options to empower 
parents further have really not become a part of this bill nor have 
those

[[Page 9239]]

amendments been permitted to even be discussed.
  The President, in his plan to leave no child behind, had suggested 
that parents should have the full authority to move their children out 
of government-owned institutions and into private schools at some point 
if those public schools have failed to deliver an academic product that 
was in the best interest of their children. That core provision of the 
President's bill has been left behind, ironically, and is not part of 
H.R. 1; but this amendment here is critical and I think addresses that 
deficiency in the overall legislation to some degree because it does 
significantly empower parents in a very important area of their child's 
academic experience and makes sure that their focus is on education and 
academics and not on experimentation and psychological testing.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first took up the fight to guarantee parental rights 
when I encountered resistance in trying to obtain information about my 
own children's curriculum. Since then, I have learned that 11-year-olds 
have been given surveys asking about explicit sexual practices. School 
counselors have conducted counseling sessions for treatments that they 
were not qualified to give, and other abuses have been occurring across 
the United States.
  In closing, let me once again state that my intent with this 
amendment is to simply clear up the confusion that already exists in 
Federal law. Any teacher will say parental involvement is imperative to 
the success of a child during their educational career.

                              {time}  1200

  This amendment states unequivocally, parents have the right to be 
involved in a child's education. It is pro-family, it is pro-education, 
and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed 
in House Report 107-69.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Armey:
       In section 104 of the bill, in paragraph (13) of section 
     1112(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (as proposed to be amended by such section 104), strike 
     ``public''.
       In section 106 of the bill, in clause (ii) of section 
     1116(b)(7)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), 
     strike subclause (II) and insert the following:

       ``(II) make funds available--

       ``(aa) to the economically disadvantaged child's parents to 
     place the child in a private school in accordance with 
     subsection (d)(2); or
       ``(bb) make funds available for supplementary educational 
     services, in accordance with subsection (d)(1); and
       In section 106 of the bill, in paragraph (8) of section 
     1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), after 
     ``paragraph (6)(D)(i)'' insert ``, (7)(A)(ii)(II)(aa),''.
       In section 106 of the bill, in subparagraph (A) of section 
     1116(b)(8) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), strike 
     ``public''.
       In section 106 of the bill, in subsection (d) of section 
     1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (as proposed to be amended by such section 106)--
       (1) in paragraph (1) strike ``(1) In'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Supplemental Instructional Services.--''
       ``(A) In
       (2) strike ``this paragraph'' each place it appears and 
     insert ``this subparagraph'';
       (3) in paragraph (2) strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert 
     ``subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert ``subparagraph 
     (B)''; and
       (B) redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses 
     (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and indent accordingly);
       (4) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), strike ``paragraph (6)'' and 
     insert ``subparagraph (F)''; and
       (B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (E) as clauses 
     (i) through (v), respectively, (and indent accordingly);
       (5) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) strike ``paragraph (5)(c)'' insert ``subparagraph 
     (E)(iii)''; and
       (B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (D) as clauses 
     (i) through (iv), respectively (and indent accordingly);
       (6) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), strike ``subparagraph (A)'' and 
     insert ``clause (i)''; and
       (B) redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses 
     (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and indent accordingly);
       (7) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) in subparagraphs (C) and (D), redesignate clauses (i) 
     and (ii) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively (and indent 
     accordingly);
       (B) redesignate subparagraphs (A) through (D) as clauses 
     (i) through (iv), respectively (and indent accordingly);
       (8) redesignate paragraphs (2) through (11) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (K), respectively (and indent 
     accordingly);
       (9) at the end, insert the following:
       ``(2) Parental Choice.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any case described in section 
     1116(b)(7)(A)(ii)(II)(aa) the local educational agency shall 
     permit the parents of each eligible child defined in 
     paragraph (7)(A) to--
       ``(i) receive, from the agency, the child's share of funds 
     allocated to the school under this part, calculated under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, use 
     those funds to pay the costs of attending a private school 
     that agrees to--

       ``(I) assess the student in mathematics and reading and 
     language arts each year during grades 3 through 8 and at 
     least once during grades 10 through 12, using academic 
     assessments that are comparable in what they measure to the 
     academic assessments used by the State; and
       ``(II) provide the results of those assessments to the 
     student's parents.

       ``(B) Per-child amount.--The amount of a school's 
     allocation under this part that it shall make available to 
     the parents of an eligible child under subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     is equal to the amount of the school's allocation under 
     subpart 2 of this part divided by the number of eligible 
     children enrolled in the school.
       ``(C) Limitation.--The amount of funds provided to the 
     parents of a child under this paragraph shall not exceed the 
     actual costs of the parents for sending the child to a 
     private school and providing transportation to such school.
       ``(D) Duration.--The local educational agency shall 
     continue to provide funds to parents of a child attending a 
     private school under this section until the child completes 
     the grade corresponding to the highest grade offered at the 
     public school the child previously attended.
       ``(E) Nondiscrimination.--
       ``(i) In general.--A private school participating in the 
     choice program under this paragraph shall not discriminate on 
     the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in carrying 
     out the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Applicability and construction with respect to 
     discrimination on the basis of sex.--

       ``(I) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, clause (i) shall not apply to a private school 
     that is controlled by a religious organization if the 
     application of clause (i) is inconsistent with the religious 
     tenets of the private school.
       ``(II) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With 
     respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in 
     clause (i) shall be construed to prevent a parent from 
     choosing, or a private school from offering, a single-sex 
     school, class, or activity.
       ``(III) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on 
     the basis of sex, nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to 
     require any person, or public or private entity to provide or 
     pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing 
     or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of 
     facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding 
     sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed 
     on any person or individual because such person or individual 
     is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to 
     a legal abortion.

       ``(iii) Children with disabilities.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter or modify the 
     provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       ``(iv) Rule of Construction.--

       ``(I) In general.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to prevent any private school which is operated by, 
     supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious 
     organization from employing, admitting, or giving preference 
     to, persons of the same religion to the extent determined by 
     such institution to promote the religious purpose for which 
     the private school is established or maintained.
       ``(II) Sectarian purposes.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed to prohibit the use of funds made available 
     under this subsection for sectarian educational purposes, or 
     to require a private school to remove religious art, icons, 
     scripture, or other symbols.

[[Page 9240]]

       ``(F) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `eligible child' means a child from a low-income family, as 
     determined by the local educational agency for purposes of 
     allocating funds to schools under section 1113(c)(1).''.
       In section 401 of the bill, in section 4131(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 401)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (14);
       (2) strike the period at the end of paragraph (15) and 
     insert ``; and''; and
       (3) insert the following:
       ``(16) activities to promote, implement, or expand private 
     school choice for disadvantaged children in failing public 
     schools.
       In section 501 of the bill, in subparagraph (P) of section 
     5115(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 501), after 
     ``including a public charter school,'' insert ``or a private 
     school if no safe public school or public charter school can 
     accommodate the student,''.
       In section 801 of the bill, in section 8507 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed 
     to be amended by such section 801)--
       (1) insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Nothing''; and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       ``(b) Inapplicability.--Subsection (a) shall not be 
     construed to prohibit the use of funds made available to 
     parents of eligible children for sectarian educational 
     purposes under private school choice provisions of this Act, 
     or to require an eligible private institution to remove 
     religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment, which is offered by myself, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay). With the consent of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), I 
will just make a few comments and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents the language that was first 
introduced in the President's bill as he sent it up to the House and 
represents that very important component of his education package and 
education philosophy, which is parental involvement in school choice. 
It is, in my estimation, just the most minimal introduction of the 
right to choose a school on the part of a parent that is concerned 
about the performance of the school relative to the child's life, and 
it is certainly something that this Congress should take under 
consideration and, in my estimation, we should pass without hesitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we have before us 
reinstates the private school choice provisions into the bill, and I 
think will help rescue children who are trapped in chronically failing 
schools. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for sponsoring this amendment with 
me.
  This issue is about fairness. It is about equity. It is about 
providing a safety valve for disadvantaged students.
  Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1, the bill expands choices for parents, but 
we need to expand it even further by giving parents the option of 
private school choice in cases where their children are trapped in 
failing schools. This was part of the President's original plan and, 
while far from the only part, it is a very important part.
  The amendment would restore all the private school choice provisions 
that were struck in the bill in committee, except for the demonstration 
program. Specifically, the amendment would restore private school 
choice as an option for disadvantaged students who have attended 
failing schools for at least 3 years. It would restore private school 
choice as a local use of funds under title IV of the Innovative 
Education Grants for Disadvantaged Students. It restores private school 
choice for students who are stuck in unsafe schools and where there are 
no other public schools to which they could transfer. And, it restores 
private school choice for students who have been victims of crime on 
school premises and where there are no other public schools to which 
they could transfer.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is common knowledge that we already have 
school choice in this country, except for poor children. Suburban 
parents, including many members of this body, are more likely to have 
the financial means to send their children to private schools, but low-
income parents cannot afford this option. While we would continue to 
deny parents with children in failing schools the opportunity that 
Members of Congress enjoy, I just do not know.
  We are told that providing poor children a way out of failing schools 
will siphon away money from the public school system. Quite frankly, I 
do not think this argument holds water.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago, Matthew Miller, writing for the 
Atlantic Monthly, asked Bob Chase, who is the president of the National 
Education Association, if the NEA would support vouchers in exchange 
for tripling per-pupil spending for inner city kids, and guess what? 
Jay said, ``no.''
  This is not about money, even assuming, which we should not, that 
spending more money automatically increases student achievement. This 
is about an education bureaucracy that is resistant to change and mired 
in habit. This about powerful lobbies that refuse to accept any change 
in the status quo.
  Where it has been tried, school choice works. Harvard University's 
Jay Green found that Florida students' test scores have improved across 
the board since the implementation of Florida's A-Plus program, similar 
to the plan that we would see in this amendment. And a September 1999 
report conducted by the Indiana Center for Evaluation found that 
participants in Cleveland's scholarship program scored up to 5 
percentile points higher than their public school counterparts in 
language and science assessments.
  Disadvantaged students have the most to gain from school choice. 
Consider the characteristics from those who benefit from Milwaukee's 
Parental School Choice plan: Fifty-four percent receive Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children money, they come from families with an average 
income of $11,600; 76 percent come from single-parent homes, and more 
than 96 percent are from ethnic minorities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. These are good provisions. 
They will help parents and they will help children stuck in failing 
schools.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schaffer) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________