[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9834-9835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. WALTER B. JONES

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 23, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) to close 
     the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and 
     choice, so that no child is left behind:

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization. 
I supported the vast majority of President Bush's original plan to 
`Leave no child behind' because it demanded accountability for results 
combined with greater freedom from Washington-knows-best regulations. 
However, the original bipartisan program of local control was gutted in 
committee and the resulting bill unwisely expands the size and scope of 
the federal role in education.
  The President's proposal to free states and school districts from 
thousands of burdensome federal regulations in exchange for a 
commitment for increased performance (also known as Straight A's), 
along with the proposal to allow low-income children attending failing 
schools to attend a private school were removed from the bill. The 
President's proposal to consolidate nearly 60 separate elementary and 
secondary education programs into flexible funding programs that states 
and local schools could use to meet their most pressing needs was also 
rejected. When they removed the pilot program for school choice, I 
realized that this bill would offer few new options for better 
scholastic opportunities for poor, inner city and rural children. If we 
can't offer the hope of a brighter future to the children who need it 
the most, then what have we accomplished?
  While I support flexibility in federal funds to local school 
districts and school choice to allow our children to escape failing 
schools, I could not endorse increased federal testing requirements. In 
1994, Congress passed the Improving America's Schools Act that mandated 
states to annually test students in reading and math in at least one 
grade in each of three grade ranges (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). 
Implementation of these tests was to begin in the 2000-2001 school 
year, with a possible one-year waiver. As of January 19, 2001, only 11 
states have complied with this testing requirement, 14 have largely 
complied and applied for a one-year waiver, and 6, including North 
Carolina must make changes to come into compliance with this law. The 
remaining states are still not in compliance with this law. I could not 
in good conscience vote to add another layer of testing requirements 
onto states that have not been able to implement the first federal 
testing mandate enacted in 1994.
  It was a sad day for me to oppose a bill that originally showed such 
promise and innovation for the teaching and achievement of our nation's 
children. H.R. 1, the bill that emerged from committee increased the 
budget of the Department of Education, an agency that has already 
demonstrated its inability to account for the use of its funds. 
Additionally, it stripped even more local control and flexibility over 
the use of federal money. I cannot vote for a bill that continues the 
status quo by expanding the role of the federal government in local 
education and throws even more taxpayer money to an inefficient 
bureaucracy like the Department of Education. I believe that parents 
and local education officials including principals and teachers--not 
bureaucrats in

[[Page 9835]]

Washington--know what is best for our children.
  If the original elements of choice, flexibility, and consolidation 
had remained in the bill, I could have and would have voted for it. But 
in its final form, the bill is nothing more than a burdensome, 
bureaucratic, big-government shell of its former self. I will continue 
to work for restoration of President Bush's balanced proposals, as this 
bill moves to negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions. 
Until that time, I feel that I have no choice but to do what is in the 
best interest of my district and the people of North Carolina by voting 
``no'' on final passage of this particular education bill.

                          ____________________