[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26358-26366]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2660, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2004

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.

[[Page 26359]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on the 
     highest funding levels possible for programs authorized by 
     the No Child Left Behind Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I thank him for presenting this motion to instruct, and I thank 
him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of America's children. 
His lifelong service in the Congress and commitment to America's 
children is an example to all of us. He knows the education issue 
chapter and verse, and he gives us a very important motion to vote on 
this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, agreeing to the highest level in a conference, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to instruct calls for, is 
the very least that we can do for the children of America. As my 
colleagues know, earlier, not in this Congress but a Congress before, 
we authorized the No Child Left Behind legislation. It was 
groundbreaking. It called for standards in the schools, and it was 
controversial. It received bipartisan support. It was the President's 
initiative, and it received bipartisan support in the House, in the 
Congress.
  It was never imagined, I do not think, that when we would go forward 
with these mandates on public schools in our country that we would give 
them the mandates and withhold the money. That this bill falls $8 
billion short on funding for Leave No Child Behind is appalling, and it 
is impossible for the schools to meet the mandate.
  President Bush and the Republicans have made a great show in 
supporting education, and they have promised with great fanfare Leave 
No Child Behind, but when they cut billions of dollars from the bill, 
they are leaving millions of children behind. When it comes time to 
keep the promises, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress take 
a recess from responsibility and again leave millions of children 
behind.
  No matter what else students have learned in school this year, 
students and their parents across the country have learned a valuable 
lesson about the Republicans. They do not keep their promises on 
education. The appropriation bill the Republicans passed this summer 
falls a staggering $8 billion below the funding level promised in the 
Leave No Child Behind bill. It only funds a small portion of what was 
promised for Title I, the program that helps at-risk students master 
the basics.
  It falls more than $1 billion short of the special education funding 
promised in the recently passed Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act reauthorization bill, a 55 percent gap between what the Republicans 
promised and what they delivered.
  The vote on this appropriations bill clearly defined the differences 
between the parties. Not one single Democrat voted to support this 
affront to America's education needs and with good reason. I will just 
take my own State of California for example. It underfunds our needs in 
California by $1.3 billion for our children. In Georgia, it underfunds 
by $280 million. When my Republican colleagues voted for this bill, if 
they were from Georgia, they voted to shortchange the children of 
Georgia by $280 million; in Arizona, $168 million. The list goes on and 
on.
  By voting for this bill, Republicans showed that all of their 
rhetoric supporting education is just that, empty rhetoric. It is yet 
another example of the credibility gap between the rhetoric around here 
and the harsh realities of the budget priorities the Republicans have. 
It is more important for them to give tax breaks to corporations, 
moving manufacturing jobs offshore. It is more important for them to 
give tax breaks that are even described by the CATO Institute in a 
negative way to the energy sector.

                              {time}  1800

  Everything seems to be more important to the Republicans than the 
education of America's children.
  Today, Members have the opportunity, thanks to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to close the gap between the rhetoric of that 
education and funding for education. His motion calls for keeping our 
promises. This is not to restore the full funding. We do not have that 
opportunity. Republicans will not give us that chance. But at least it 
tells us to go to the highest funding between the two Houses. As I 
said, it is the least we can do for America's children.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I once again commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for his great leadership on behalf of educating America's 
children.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I find it fascinating, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle today seek to instruct conferees to adopt certain 
higher funding levels for education when less than 3 months ago they 
stood on this very floor and voted against providing the funding for 
many of these same programs.
  The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill 
that this body approved in July was a fair and balanced bill. In the 
area of Federal education spending, we provided increases in education 
totaling $2.2 billion, or 4.5 percent. Further, within these increases 
are the highest levels of spending for both title I programs and 
special education, IDEA programs, today. Finally, let me remind my 
colleagues that not only did the bill include increases in both those 
highly visible education programs, but it also included increases in 
other numerous important education programs as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to run through the list of education 
programs that were increased in funding in this bill over last year: 
title I grants to school districts, Even Start, Reading First, Early 
Reading First, literacy through school libraries, migrant education 
programs, programs for neglected and delinquent youth, comprehensive 
school reform, Impact Aid payments for children of military families, 
mathematics and science partnerships, after-school centers, State 
assessments, education for homeless children, education programs for 
rural school districts, teacher enhancement programs, charter school 
grants, credit enhancement for charter schools, mentoring programs, 
physical education programs, special education programs, preschool 
programs for disabled children, grants for special needs infants and 
their families, vocational rehabilitation grants for adults with 
disabilities, independent-living grants for adults with disabilities, 
services for older blind individuals, National Institute on Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research, American Printing House for the Blind, 
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Gallaudet University for the 
Deaf, vocational education State grants, adult education State grants, 
smaller high schools, Pell grants, Hispanic Serving Institutions, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, TRIO programs for first-
generation college students, GEAR UP programs to encourage minority 
students to attend college, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, Howard 
University, education research, education statistics, national 
assessment of educational progress, and national assessment governing 
board.
  Every one of those education programs had an increase in our bill 
over last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this body passed a responsible Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education appropriation bill in July. The bill was within 
the subcommittee's allocation and the budget resolution. Let us work to 
finish our conference with the other body so that we can complete the 
people's work for the year and fund these important programs that give 
hope to the children of the families of our Nation.
  I would like to point out that a previous speaker mentioned the fact 
that

[[Page 26360]]

the President has not supported the programs in the No Child Left 
Behind bill. Since No Child Left Behind was signed into law, Federal 
spending for major elementary and secondary education, including 
funding for children with disabilities, has increased by approximately 
34 percent, from $24.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $32.8 billion in 
fiscal year 2003. So I think that this clearly says that the President 
and the majority party have supported responsible increases to fund the 
No Child Left Behind programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to instruct because we 
want to provide the most money possible for education, too. And I agree 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we should do as much as 
possible, and the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader; but 
we have to live within the budget constraints. We do not do the budget 
in our committee; we live with the money that has been provided by the 
Committee on the Budget. And I think we did a very responsible job 
given the constraints of the amount that was budgeted for Labor, HHS 
and Education by a vote of this House when they approved the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula), has talked about all of the vaunted increases in the 
Labor, HHS appropriation bill. But the fact is that if we take into 
account inflation, and if we take into account increases in student 
population, what we are talking about for most programs in real terms 
is a freeze, and in per capita student terms what we are talking about 
in many of these programs is, in fact, a per-child cut. And that comes 
at the same time that States are experiencing excruciating budget 
problems, which ought to require the Federal Government to provide more 
help, not less, and yet that is not what we are getting.
  Now, the gentleman can talk all he wants about the increases we have 
had over the past few years in education funding. The fact is that over 
the last 9 years, $20 billion in additional funding was put into 
education above and beyond the amount that would have been provided by 
Republican bills in this House because of the negotiating insistence of 
Members on this side of the aisle, and in some of those years the 
Clinton administration.
  Now we have a different picture. This fall, some 22,000 students in 
44 States and the District of Columbia have been notified that they 
failed to meet their academic targets set by States under the No Child 
Left Behind Act, that is, they have failed to make adequate yearly 
progress under the terms of that act. That is nearly one in four public 
schools across the country that will need additional teachers, tutors, 
books and curricula, and up-to-date technology to improve their 
academic performance and to meet the No Child Left Behind mandates. 
They include 576 schools in Illinois, 1,000 in Texas, 1,033 in 
Missouri, 2,770 schools in Florida, and 829 schools in Ohio, according 
to their State education departments. And some of these States are in 
the midst of a huge financial crisis.
  This motion to instruct is, at best, a modest effort to prevent some 
of these 22,000 schools from being left behind. It is a modest 
instruction because the procedural constraints facing us limit us in 
what we can ask. We instruct the House conferees to go to the highest 
possible funding levels for No Child Left Behind programs that would 
roughly double the modest increase in the House bill if each program 
were funded at the higher of the House or Senate level. We should be 
doing much more.
  Mr. Speaker, when the President came to office, he said that 
education would be a top priority, but that there would be no new money 
until we reformed the programs. So we took a flyer. We took the 
President at his word. We gave him the benefit of the doubt, and a lot 
of us voted for No Child Left Behind. That act imposed all kinds of 
accountability measures and mandates. Now, 2 years after the enactment 
of that legislation, we have the smallest new Federal investment in 
education in almost a decade under both the House and the Senate bills. 
The Labor, HHS bill adopted by the majority barely provides an 
inflation increase for No Child Left Behind, a freeze in real terms. It 
falls a whopping $8 billion short of the funding schedule that was 
promised in No Child Left Behind.
  Because the majority has chosen to put so much of its money in super-
sized tax cuts, there is very little money left to fulfill the 
majority's own promises made in their own budget resolution. Let us 
inventory those promises:
  It was the Republican budget resolution that promised to provide $3 
billion more for education compared to last year; yet the Republican 
Labor, HHS bill falls $700 million short of their own promise. It was 
the Republican budget resolution that promised to provide a $1 billion 
increase for title I grants to low-income schools; yet the Republican 
bill falls $334 million short of their own promises. And it is the 
majority Labor, HHS bill that falls short in other areas as well.
  The No Child Left Behind Act mandates that every school in America 
have a highly qualified teacher in the subjects of english, reading, 
math, science, foreign language, civics, government, economics, art, 
history, and geography. Yet the Republican Labor, HHS freezes funding 
for teacher training at $2.9 billion, $244 million short of the $3.2 
billion promised 2 years ago. There is no more money for teacher 
quality at a time when the Department of Education says that 46 percent 
of the Nation's secondary schoolteachers do not meet the No Child Left 
Behind highly qualified criteria.
  More than one million disadvantaged children could be helped if the 
after-school program was fully funded at the No Child Left Behind level 
of $1.75 billion; yet the Republican Labor, HHS bill freezes funding 
for after-school centers when communities across the country are 
struggling to provide safe places where kids can learn and play between 
the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. One million at-risk children will be left 
behind.
  Recently, I received a letter from a dedicated school principal at 
the Colwyn Elementary School in Pennsylvania who wrote this: ``I am 
left wondering how is it that schools can be labeled as failures when 
so many of our children enter schools already left behind. And if 
schools are to fix all the societal ills that haunt our students, why 
is the funding not there for our schools, especially the urban schools, 
where our most needy students are?''
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are at a place where we will not be 
able to answer that dedicated school principal's call for more funding 
because of the policies of the majority party. These policies say that 
we can afford super-sized tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but 
cannot afford $3 billion more to educate America's children. Faced with 
the choice between tax breaks for millionaires and making sure that all 
children have an opportunity for a quality education, the majority has 
made it clear where it stands. As a result, millions of children will 
be left behind.
  Now, I know the gentleman from Ohio does not like the fact that we do 
not buy into his bill. We have never criticized the gentleman or the 
committee for the priority choices they have made. What we have said is 
that the limitations imposed on the gentleman are unacceptable to us, 
and we have a right, and indeed an obligation, to follow our 
consciences to try to get more money in this bill, just as we did every 
year for the last 9 years.
  If we had rolled over the last 9 years to the argument that, oh, this 
is all the budget allocation will allow us, we would not have that $19 
billion that the gentleman so anxiously voted for after we leveraged it 
into the bills over the objection of the gentleman's own party 
leadership in this House.
  So I think the gentleman needs to recognize that, and the House needs 
not only to pass this motion, which does not begin to cover the need; 
the House needs to provide substantially more resources for this bill 
if we are to meet the needs and to meet the promise that so many of us 
signed on to

[[Page 26361]]

when we voted for No Child Left Behind just a few months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the gentleman's party had control 
of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate in fiscal years 1994 and 
1995. During this time, Congressional Democrats voted to cut the 
Department of Education by over $3 billion below levels recommended by 
their President, President Clinton. The final 1994 increase was only 
3.6 percent; the final increase in 1995 was only 2.4 percent. And 
remember, they controlled everything; and we propose in this bill to 
increase it by 4.5 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Before we vote on this rather meaningless motion which I will 
probably support, I think it is important that we try to frame it in a 
proper context. I think what we have tonight is a vote that is 
politics, pure and simple. Virtually every Member supports providing 
the highest possible funding for the key programs in No Child Left 
Behind, and I fully expect whatever agreement we are able to reach with 
our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol will meet this goal. We 
will, once again, provide another major increase in funding for Federal 
education programs, the third major increase since No Child Left Behind 
was enacted into law.
  We have heard all year about this so-called under funding of 
education programs. I would point out that we have a dual process in 
this Chamber of authorizing and appropriating. The authorized level is 
the cap, the maximum amount that can be spent. At no time during my 
experience, the 13 years that I have been here, have we ever fully 
funded, as Members would describe it, these education programs.
  As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1995, the last year that 
Democrats ran the Congress and had the White House, the authorization 
for title I was $13 billion, and yet the actual funding for that 
program came in at $10.3 billion. I do not recall any Member of the 
House, Republican or Democrat, or the Senate, claiming we were 
underfunding our education commitment.
  Now, when it comes to the issue of whether we have kept our promise 
under No Child Left Behind, let us recall what the promise was. The 
promise was to have a significant increase in spending to help support 
the goals of No Child Left Behind. So what did we do? Fiscal year 2001, 
$24.5 billion. What happened when we passed No Child Left Behind, an 
increase of $5.4 billion to $29.9 billion. That is a real increase.
  Then we went to $32.8 billion, and this year we are at $34.6 billion. 
Now, these are the numbers. They are real. No one can say we have not 
kept our promise because we have had a significant increase in Federal 
education spending.
  Let us look at the largest of these programs where a lot of the money 
is, and that would be in title I, the money that goes to poor students 
and poor schools across the country. These bars here in yellow are the 
years when the Clinton administration was in office, and the red years 
are the Bush years. What do we see, significant increases since No 
Child Left Behind was put in place.
  As a matter of fact, to put it in even better perspective, during the 
8 years that President Clinton was President, half of the time 
Democrats controlled one or both Chambers, the increase during those 8 
years under President Clinton, $2.4 billion in title I funding over 8 
years. That was the increase. What has been the increase over the first 
3 years of the Bush administration, $2.9 billion.
  Now, to say we have not dramatically increased our commitment to 
education is just not true. But as I said before, all of us in this 
Chamber support trying to fund these programs at the maximum allowable 
level to get as much money as we can out there to help poor children 
have a chance at a good education.
  But as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and others 
sitting here would attest to, if money were to have solved all of the 
problems in K-12 education, we would have solved them long ago. Some of 
the biggest spending levels in our country are in urban centers which 
happen to have the worst schools.
  One only needs to look in Washington, D.C., the third highest level 
of spending in any urban district in America, and without a doubt, the 
worst schools in America. Money will not solve the education woes in 
our country. It is attitudes. It is attitudes and a commitment and a 
discussion about whether we, as a Nation, are willing to educate all of 
our children.
  We have had this discussion for a long time, and we all talk about 
public education and how important it is, but our Nation has never 
attempted to educate all of our people. We have never had a real 
commitment to educate all of our children. We have embarked on an 
effort to try to get to that goal. It is not going to be easy, and I am 
not sure we even know what the answers are in terms of how we educate 
all of our children. But I think we are going to learn those answers.
  Again, I am not sure that money is going to solve those problems. We 
need to have real changes of attitudes in our schools, in our 
communities, about really helping poor children have the same chance in 
life that all of us have had. They deserve that chance, just like our 
children deserve that chance, to get a good education. It is not 
happening today. I do think with the passage of No Child Left Behind, 
one of the most bipartisan bills of this session of Congress, we can 
begin to move toward that goal. We are meeting our commitment on the 
Federal end, and I know the States are having problems meeting their 
commitments to their local schools. We wish they would do more; but 
please, do not come here and say we are not meeting our commitment to 
helping every child get a chance at a good education.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we are on the cusp of implementing a bill 
that will fall at least $8 billion below the levels authorized in the 
No Child Left Behind Act. Our failure to uphold the promises made just 
2 years ago will be felt in classrooms throughout America by every 
school-aged kid. I agree that we have to deal with attitudes. There are 
a lot of problems, and all of the problems of a community converge on 
our school systems.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I visit our schools which have to face the mandates 
included in No Child Left Behind. They are facing massive teacher 
shortages, and that has to be resolved by money and training. We have 
to ensure that every teacher of an academic subject be highly-qualified 
by 2006 and administering annual assessments in reading and math by 
2006. America's schools should not have to choose between the need to 
recruit and train new teachers, implement antidrug programs, and pay 
for urgent school renovations. I would like my colleagues to visit some 
of these schools that are trying to educate these kids without enough 
books, without enough dollars, without enough teachers with adequate 
training.
  If we do not retool our efforts during the Labor-HHS conference, we 
will impose a great burden on our school administrators, board members 
and parents. For example, the NCLB Act promised to provide school 
districts with 40 percent of the Nation's average per pupil expenditure 
for each low-income student. The title I program already does not meet 
the overwhelming needs across the country, but NCLB was a step in the 
right direction. Many of us voted for it. There was broad bipartisan 
support.
  However, in this Labor-HHS bill it is $6 billion below the authorized 
amount. What does that mean for needy children? In New York State 
alone, almost

[[Page 26362]]

460,000 eligible children would not be fully served by the program. 
This morning, the Afterschool Alliance released a poll demonstrating 
the public's broad, unwavering support for after-school programs. And, 
quite frankly, the numbers leapt off the page. They made clear that 
Americans, not just parents of school-age children, but all Americans, 
across the board, believe that after-school programs are a sound 
investment. Eighty percent said after-school is nothing short of an 
absolute necessity. That is not just support, that is extraordinary 
support.
  After-school programs keep kids safe, help them learn, help working 
families. No Child Left Behind set out a prudent road map for growing 
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Initiative, but since the 
moment the law was enacted, we have gotten off course. Not only did the 
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget propose a cut of $400 million, 
or 40 percent to the 21st Century After-School Program, but both the 
House and the Senate Labor-HHS bills fall 40 percent short on funding 
for the 21st Century Initiative, providing just $1 billion of the 
authorized $1.75 billion for the current fiscal year. That funding gap 
translates into more than 1 million children being left behind after 
school.
  I want to say in closing, sometimes we look at these numbers, it 
sounds great, a billion here, a billion there, but when we are cutting 
a million dollars or a billion dollars from a key program such as that, 
that is reflected in real children and real lives. I urge Members to 
try and get these dollars up so we can be educating all of our 
children. These programs are critical. I thank the chairman for all of 
the good work he has done, and I hope we can work together to truly get 
these numbers up so we can satisfy the tremendous needs out there.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The chairman of the full authorizing committee just made a statement 
that I think is very instructive. He called this motion rather 
meaningless. If our colleagues do not know by now, they should 
certainly be apprised that all of these motions to instruct that are 
being brought during the waning days of this session of Congress are 
nonbinding. They offer us an opportunity to have an hour of debate on a 
particular issue, and that is instructive; but even if this motion were 
completely binding, I do not know how we could enforce it, because it 
simply says that the conferees be instructed to insist on the highest 
funding levels possible for programs authorized by No Child Left 
Behind.
  Now, if that means the sky is the limit, then I might have to 
disagree with my chairman and the chairman of the authorizing 
committee. We may not want to do that because I do think we should 
exercise some discretion in the amount of funding. But if it means we 
are going to do the very best we can, within the confines of the budget 
resolution, as our chairman has done, then I do support that concept. 
So I am a little torn, Mr. Speaker. On principle, should I just vote no 
because it is a meaningless exercise, or should I go along with my 
chairman and the chairman of the authorizing committee?
  This, I think, is an opportunity for my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to try to point out to anyone who is watching that they would 
spend more money on education if they were in charge and that they 
would spend a lot more money if they possibly could. They will make 
that case, but I am not so sure about that contention.
  The fact of the matter is when the Democrats had control of the 
Presidency, the House and the Senate, fiscal years 1994 and 1995, they 
did not fully fund their education bill. As a matter of fact, President 
Clinton proposed a figure for the Department of Education, and the 
Democrats and the Congress cut that figure by some $3 billion below the 
level recommended by their own President, failing to ``fully fund'' the 
request of their President.

                              {time}  1830

  During the time of Democratic control of Congress, Mr. Speaker, they 
funded only 20 percent of the IDEA program for fiscal year 1994.
  By contrast, in the last 8 years of Republican control in the House 
of Representatives, Federal funds for education have more than doubled. 
So I think we can be proud of our record on education, Mr. Speaker, as 
compared to the prior 6 years under Democrat leadership where they 
funded Federal education programs by an increase of only 47 percent. 
Republicans doubled education funding. The Democrats increased funding 
by only 47 percent. So when it comes to numbers, we really do not have 
anything to be ashamed of on this side of the aisle.
  I would point out to my colleagues that during these past years of 
Republican control, this House of Representatives and this Congress has 
increased title I aid to disadvantaged students by 84 percent; 
increased special education grants to States--that IDEA program that I 
mentioned--by some 330 percent for IDEA programs; and tripled funding 
for reading programs during Republican rule, Mr. Speaker. We have 
increased Federal teacher quality funds. We have increased the maximum 
Pell grant by some 64 percent. We have increased Head Start funding by 
91 percent under Republican control. And we have increased Federal aid 
to America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  I am proud of what we have done. Of course, raw numbers are not the 
only answer. The problem with much of American education is the 
accountability and results, and that is what we think No Child Left 
Behind is changing. I want to commend Chairman Regula for working 
across the aisle for a balanced bill that funds many competing 
programs. He has produced a good result. I believe the conference will 
do so, too. I just want to congratulate my chairman for funding 
education as best as we possibly can.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his long 
leadership on the issue of education and his offering his motion to us 
today on the floor.
  In response to my colleague from Mississippi who said all we need to 
do is look at the numbers, I think that would be interesting. I think 
if this Republican administration ran on us just looking at the 
numbers, they would be thrown out of office quicker than we can look at 
the door. We have gone from nearly a $5 trillion surplus to a $5 
trillion deficit. The very children they claim to support are children 
that are going to be saddled with nearly a $600 billion deficit, 
deficit, this year because this President has chosen to cut the taxes 
of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population.
  Two-thirds of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest 1 percent in the 
form of capital gains dividends and estate taxes. Who is going to pay 
for these taxes? It is going to be the children of today's generation 
and our children's children that are going to be saddled with this 
debt. So I do not want to hear from Members of the other side of the 
aisle about how Democrats underfunded education. At least we left the 
children of this country a $5 trillion surplus on which to build a 
future.
  When it comes to Leave No Child Behind, the fact is the numbers do 
tell the truth. The numbers tell us that when it comes to the 
President's commitment to making sure we leave no child behind, the 
commitment is nothing but words. Mr. President, we want action, not 
rhetoric. We want you to put your money where your mouth is. You have 
not done it. By refusing to provide the promised funding, the Leave No 
Child Behind Act has become an albatross around the necks of school 
committees around our country. The people who are watching this who can 
listen to the gentleman from Mississippi say that all of this is 
worthless debate, I will just tell you this. Go talk to your local 
school committee. Go talk to your local city council person

[[Page 26363]]

and have them tell you how much property taxes are going up in order to 
make up the difference in the requirements that the Leave No Child 
Behind Act have put forward. Requirements for new systems of assessment 
for children, not funded in the bill. Requirements for new enrollment 
status and graduation records so that we can track these students and 
thereby be able to measure their progress, no funding under the bill. 
Funding for massive databases and new standards, inadequate funding 
under the bill.
  The fact is if you look at the bill itself and you look at what this 
Congress is doing, it is sending the bill for this Leave No Child 
Behind Act to our property taxes. Make no mistake about it, it is 
cutting Bill Gates's taxes, but it is sending the taxes back to our 
local property taxes in order to fund the deficit in this Leave No 
Child Behind Act.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke said that 
they left this House with $5 trillion. Well, in 1993 the rhetoric that 
they said, let us give tax breaks to the middle class, they raised the 
tax on the middle class. You increased the Social Security tax. You cut 
veterans COLAs. You cut military COLAs. You spent every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund. And where you promised tax relief for the 
middle class, you increased it. And guess what? Republicans took the 
majority. And we reduced Social Security increases. We gave money back 
to the middle class so that they would have money to spend on their 
education systems. Not a single Democrat budget or economic policy has 
passed since. Not one. Not even the Blue Dogs. And so for you to take 
credit for the surplus is ridiculous.
  Unfortunately, it is an election year. I am going to vote for this 
motion. But what it is, as you can see from my colleagues on the other 
side, it is election year partisanship Republican bashing. That is all 
it is. They know that this is meaningless. But all they want to do is 
sit up here and bash Republicans.
  I am going to give you a couple of issues. You know that when we talk 
about how we finance education, my friends on the other side, anything 
to do with unions, they will not cut. Davis-Bacon for school 
construction, the right-to-work States save up to 30 percent on school 
construction, but do you think my colleagues on the other side would 
support a reduction in Davis-Bacon just for building schools? 
Absolutely not. That is where they get their campaign dollars. When you 
start caring about education more than you do the unions, come talk to 
me.
  Alan Bersin, Democrat under Bill Clinton, is the superintendent of 
San Diego city schools. His number one problem in the State of 
California, it was Gray Davis, it is not now, his number one problem is 
trial lawyers who are ripping off the schools for special education. In 
the D.C. bill at least we capped trial lawyers' fees. In 1 year we are 
giving $12 million for special education students, for special 
education programs, for special education activities, not to the trial 
lawyers. But do you think my friends on the other side would do that? 
No way. If you want to increase money, take a look at your own 
rhetoric.
  I am going to vote for this motion, but I want to tell the gentleman, 
when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said that he drug 
Republicans for educational spending, the only thing the Democrats are 
doing right now is dragging their anchor. They are going to vote 
against the bill, and they do not want people to know that they are 
going to vote against education; and that is exactly what they are 
doing. This is another reason for them saying, all the mean 
Republicans. If you vote against this bill, you are voting to cut 
education, the very thing that you are bashing Republicans for. I 
resent the implication. You know how hard most of us work, on both 
sides of the aisle. My wife was chief of staff for the assistant 
Secretary of Education. I was a teacher and a coach in high school and 
college and dean of a college. My sister-in-law is in charge of special 
education in San Diego city schools. I stayed on the D.C. committee to 
improve education. And for your leadership to sit up here and say 
Republicans do not care about education, I resent it. I wish I could 
say more, but my words would be taken down.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Republicans on the 
other side of the aisle keep saying it is not about the numbers, and 
then they want to argue the numbers. Let me agree with them: this is 
not about the numbers. This is simply a question of values and ethics. 
This is whether or not this President and this Republican Party that 
controls the Congress of the United States will keep their word to 
America's children and to their parents and to the school districts and 
the teachers across this Nation.
  It is all interesting what you want to talk about before No Child 
Left Behind passed. But No Child Left Behind is the most significant 
reforms we have made to American education in 35 years. And we did it 
with full knowledge of how much money we were spending, and we did it 
with full negotiations with this President about the reforms and the 
significance of these reforms; and this President said, if you can get 
these reforms, I will get you the resources. We now find out he just 
simply was not telling the truth. He told the truth for 1 year. He just 
could not tell the truth for both years, because the resources are not 
there. We told schools that this Nation wants you to have 100 percent 
of our children proficient at grade level in 12 years. Schools are 
working hard to do this. And there are mixed results. But they are 
doing it. They are working at it. And now we have identified each and 
every child that is not meeting that standard. Those are called schools 
in need of improvement.
  What do we say in the Federal law for schools in need of improvement? 
We said we will give you additional money in the second and third year 
to turn those schools around, to reconfigure those schools to get 
different results. Those are the exact schools that need the money this 
year, and it is not there because this Congress and this President 
refuse to provide it. So what do those poor children do? They have been 
told that they need improvement. Later there could be sanctions against 
these schools at the State level, and we have pulled back the money 
that they were going to use to improve those schools. The Governors 
have taken the heat for identifying those schools. The school 
superintendents have taken the heat for identifying these schools. 
Parents are upset. But the whole idea was that we would help you turn 
those schools around because it is important to our country, it is 
important to these children, it is important to their families. But on 
the eve of the moment that that is supposed to happen, this President 
reneged on his promise. He got the reforms on a big bipartisan basis, 
and school districts all across the country are trying to make them 
work, and he walks out on them because he did not put the money in his 
budget, and he is encouraging the Congress not to go forward with these 
kinds of increases.
  This motion to instruct is not meaningless. It is important. It is 
about values. It is about truthfulness. It is about the ethics of our 
profession when we promise the American people we will do something and 
then we fail to do it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair will remind Members 
that it is not in order to refer to the President in personal terms. 
Although remarks in debate may include criticism of the President's 
official actions or policies, they may not include criticism on a 
personal level such as accusing him of not telling the truth.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a very productive member of our subcommittee.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to others' about 
the importance of education and making sure that quality education is 
available

[[Page 26364]]

to every child. As the mother of six children, when I have students 
that visit Washington, they often ask me, where did you learn what you 
needed to know to be a Member of Congress? Of course, they expect me to 
talk about my years in the State legislature or what I studied in 
college. But I tell them the answer and I tell them that the truth is I 
learned most of what I needed to know as the mother of these six 
children, all of whom had different talents and different challenges, 
all of whom went through school needing the advice and the special 
programs that would be available to them so that they could succeed.

                              {time}  1845

  That is what is so important for all the children in this country, 
and that is what we are struggling with.
  I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also want 
every child to have an opportunity for a quality education, and they 
have always focused on input, asking for more programs and more 
dollars. In fact, my experience in Washington, compared to my 
experience in the State legislature, has been a take-your-breath-away 
experience over the last 7 years, as every single appropriation meeting 
is about more, more, more; more dollars, more programs. No matter how 
much more is proposed, there are always amendments to spend even more 
than that.
  In every single markup of education bills and other bills, there are 
proposals for $1 billion here and $1 billion there. I will never forget 
sitting in one markup for one education appropriation bill, and there 
was over $10 billion proposed for new spending, something that the 
Democrats voted for almost en masse in that markup of that bill. Every 
program, more money, more money, more money.
  On the other hand, as a mother, what I found is that I needed to be 
able to go to school and talk to my children's teachers and ask, what 
can we do to help this child with their math? What can we do to help 
this child with reading? I needed to know that for the children that 
were disorganized, that the teacher would help me in formulating a 
program to help them become more organized; that for the child that 
struggled in writing, we could address those challenges.
  And what teachers tell me in my district is nothing about more money, 
more money, more money. That is not what parents talk about. They talk 
about red tape; they talk about their hands tied; they talk about 
Federal limitations.
  When No Child Left Behind was passed, overwhelmingly I heard thank 
you for rolling so many of these different programs together, giving 
teachers and schools the ability to address the challenges that were 
unique to their school. Did they need more computers? They could spend 
the dollars there. Did they need more remedial reading programs? They 
could spend the dollars there. Did they need more flexibility, so that 
the challenges of other children could be met? They could do that. 
Instead of having every single dollar sort of outlined for them, they 
could address the unique challenges that their students, in their 
schools, had.
  What our side of the aisle has focused on is not only investing more 
money in education, but in the outcome, how do we make sure that those 
dollars help children achieve at a higher level? And why is that 
important? Because, after all these years of Federal investments, what 
were we looking at when we passed No Child Left Behind? Sixty-eight 
percent of our fourth graders could not read at grade level. We knew 
that minority children and children from disadvantaged families were 
falling behind at even a faster and greater rate than any time in our 
past, so we knew that we had more money, and more programs were not the 
answer.
  Many of the objections that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle refer to are actually talking about programs that have been 
wrapped together so that a school that needs more after-school programs 
can spend the dollars in a way that meets those needs; schools that 
need more tutoring or more intervention for kids that have learning 
disabilities can use the dollars there. What we are talking about is 
not only the investment, but making sure we get the benefits of those 
investments.
  I want to thank our chairman. He has done a wonderful job of making 
sure that with No Child Left Behind, that we invested 18 percent 
additional dollars into our school systems. There are those that think 
that before those dollars are even out the door, that that is not 
enough. They almost imply that that 18 percent is not carried over to 
the next year and the next year. But, of course, we have built on that 
each year since then. I thank the chairman for the balance and the 
investment for our children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Kentucky just said the majority is 
interested in outcomes. Well, let me tell you what the outcome of the 
No Child Left Behind Act has been for thousands of schools across 
America. This law, which has had great potential to create learning 
opportunities for children, is creating great havoc for the schools of 
America.
  Public educators across the country, who were told that they would 
receive more help if they needed it, are receiving lectures from the 
Department of Education about how to run their schools, mandates from 
the United States Congress telling them what they must do in their 
schools, and money that falls $8 billion short of the job that we say 
needs to be done. We said to these public educators, you must test and 
evaluate every child, every year, between the third grade and the 
eighth grade, and you, local taxpayers, should pay for it. That was not 
the commitment of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  They have been told that if your school falls into the category of a 
school that needs improvement, a definition that has been tortured 
beyond recognition by the Department of Education in its interpretation 
of this law, if you fall into such a category, you will get the money 
for the tutoring programs and the after-school programs and the parent 
academies that work to improve learning. But the money is not here, 
because we are $8 billion short.
  Governing is choosing, and I would suggest to the majority, here is 
your choice: You can let the No Child Left Behind Act with all of its 
flaws stay in place and force upon your constituents and mine local tax 
increases; or you can find the funds to meet the promise this Congress 
made to those local school districts and pay for the tests and pay for 
the mandates and pay for the services that are required.
  It is the great dilemma of the majority. The budget resolution it 
passed does not permit them to do so, because this country's 
educational future, as is the case with so many other priorities in 
this country, was squandered on the majority's tax cut so we can have a 
tax cut tilted toward the very wealthy in Washington. We will see 
increases on everyone else across the country to pay for the mandates 
of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The right thing to do is to suspend the mandates of the No Child Left 
Behind Act until the money is there to pay for those mandates. 
Otherwise, when the gentlewoman talks about local flexibility and local 
educators being able to buy computers and do tutoring programs, the 
money they would like to have for those computers and those tutoring 
programs is being spent on the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Support the resolution. Enforce the act properly.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of our subcommittee who works diligently 
on these tough problems.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion. The Obey motion to 
instruct insists on the highest funding

[[Page 26365]]

levels possible for implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The 
motion to instruct says that unlimited funding is the answer. But 
higher funding is not an end in itself. In fact, it often represents a 
failure of government.
  What kind of responsibility, what kind of governance, is provided by 
simply spending more money? None. Instead, we have a system already in 
place to determine educational spending that provides accountability 
and results. It consists of local school boards and parents. It 
consists of State initiatives, like charter schools and vouchers, to 
enhance academic choice and school accountability.
  The President's No Child Left Behind initiative attempts to build 
accountability and results into what States are doing. When we have no 
other alternative but to increase funding levels, we say increased 
funding is all we can do and the system is broken.
  If higher funding levels were the answer, the District of Columbia 
would have some of the highest academic scores in the Nation. But, 
unfortunately, the opposite is true. Higher funding does not guarantee 
results. The District of Columbia's school system spends more per 
student than Fairfax County, just across the river. The academic 
performance could not be more different.
  The answer, I believe, is local control and decision making. In 
Brevard County, Florida, where I live, a local sales tax initiative is 
being considered by local officials to support increased educational 
funding. The same thing is going on in Fairfax County as well. This is 
what should be done; local control, the decisions of local voters.
  I believe the Federal Government needs to get out of the way of local 
action. We are not local school boards, and we should not pretend to be 
them either. Let us allow greater discretion at the local school board 
level and local government level, and let us let them set the majority 
of the policies. Oppose the Obey motion.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this motion because we share 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the desire to have the 
highest funding levels possible for programs on No Child Left Behind. 
We did that in the bill. Obviously, there is never enough, but we did 
as much as we could under the constraints of the budget.
  I would point out again and reiterate that we increased the funding 
for 43 programs in education, including title I, including IDEA and a 
whole host of others. Of course, the motion is simply saying do the 
best possible job we can.
  I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I both share 
the desire to do as much as we can for education, but we are 
constrained by the amount of money that is available to us under the 
budget resolution. Within that, and in the priorities within our bill, 
we have done every bit possible. Hopefully, in conference, we can reach 
an agreement with the other body that will even increase some by taking 
it from other areas. I support the resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include at the end of my remarks two 
chronologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has just said that we did the 
best job that we could in funding these education programs within the 
context of the budget resolution. I do not deny that. The important 
part of that sentence, however, is ``within the confines of the budget 
resolution.''
  Our target has never been this bill; our target has been the 
constraints on our committee imposed by the budget that mean that we 
will be providing an ever-smaller increase in funding for education at 
a time when we need to be providing more.
  I must say, I am a little bit confused by some of the rhetoric I have 
heard today. We heard three Republican speakers in a row try to suggest 
that it was the Republican Party that in fact had done a better job 
than Democrats in terms of funding education. Then we heard the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky get up and take the opposite end of the same 
argument and bemoan and decry the fact that we had the temerity on one 
occasion to ask for a $10 billion increase in investments in our 
children.
  That is absolutely right. We did, and I make no apology for it. I 
think we should have done more.
  The gentlewoman from Kentucky mentioned people's concern about red 
tape. The mother-of-all-red-tape programs in the education area is No 
Child Left Behind.
  We gave the President the benefit of the doubt, because he said he 
wanted the programs reformed before we put more money in. They have 
been reformed. Now the question is, where is the money?
  The fact is that what is happening is that, whether it is denied or 
not, this Congress, under the policies dictated by the Republican 
budget resolution, this Congress is walking away from the policies of 
No Child Left Behind.
  For 1 year after that program passed, this Congress had a bipartisan 
position in support of meeting the goals of that act. But now we see 
that it was evidently a 1-year promise. We are $8 billion short of 
where we promised the country we would be if we passed those reforms. 
In education, we are $3 billion short of where the budget resolution, 
the Republican budget resolution, promised we would be.

                              {time}  1900

  We are, for title I, $131 million short of where the Republican 
budget resolution promised we would be. We are $1.2 billion short of 
where the Republican budget resolution promised us we would be for 
special education. Those numbers are undeniable.
  I would like to close by reading a greater portion of the letter that 
I received from a Michelle Cinciripino, a principal in Philadelphia. In 
part, here is what her letter reads: ``On September 2 we opened a new 
school year in a brand-new school building and we were off and running, 
despite the lack of books and other needed supplies. And then Friday 
came. A second grader ran screaming from her classroom and had to be 
restrained until she finally broke down in tears and told us she was 
worried about her mom, a known drug dealer in trouble again with the 
law. I assured her we loved her and that she was safe at school, and 
off she went for the weekend. Monday came and this time she came 
screaming from the building. Several hours and a sound breakfast later, 
we finally got her back to class. Tuesday and Wednesday followed the 
same pattern, until Thursday when she came in having been beaten with a 
belt. I spent Thursday with the police and Child Protective Services. 
She is now safe with her dad. But I am left wondering, how is it that 
schools can be labeled as failures when so many of our children enter 
school already left behind? And if schools are to fix all of the 
societal ills that haunt our students, why is the funding not there for 
our schools, especially our urban schools where our most needy students 
are?''
  Then she goes on to say, ``The second grader I mentioned is but one 
of many hurting, angry children who enter my school on a daily basis. 
They lack what we take for granted: a safe, loving, nurturing home 
where their basic needs are met. For these students, my staff and I 
provide the only consistent safe place these kids know. We want 
desperately to teach them; but before we can do that, we must feed them 
and love them. We must gain their trust and we must teach them the 
social skills that no one has ever shared with them or modeled for 
them. I hope you will share my story with your colleagues who say that 
educators `just don't want to be accountable.' I would be happy to 
share my story with them in person and can be reached at the above 
address and phone number.''
  I think we ought to take the concerns of that principal to heart.
  This motion in and of itself is not the issue. The amount of money 
that we can provide through this motion in added funding for education 
is small indeed.
  The real issue is whether or not the House, having had an opportunity 
to once again hear concerns expressed about the problem, whether the 
House, in fact, will find a way to do more for education than we have 
done in this bill.

[[Page 26366]]

  One of the previous speakers said that he resented it because we said 
that Republicans do not love education. I do not believe that. I think 
Republicans like education. I just do not think, based on their 
records, that they happen to like it as much as they like preserving 
$88,000 tax cuts for millionaires. That is our only objection. And when 
we have a change in those priorities, we will, once again, have a bill 
we can both agree on.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Obey's 
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2660 to increase funding for the 
No Child Left Behind Act to the highest possible amount.
  As we near the end of the second year since No Child Left Behind 
became law, schools all over America are crying out for more funding in 
order to meet the new accountability benchmarks.
  When I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act almost 2 years ago, I 
did so with reservations about the new testing requirements. But, I and 
all of the Members, were assured that while we were going to be asking 
much more of our schools, we would also be giving our schools increased 
support. But that is not what happened.
  H.R. 2660 underfunds the No Child Left behind Act by $8 billion.
  It falls $244 million short of the $3.2 billion that was promised to 
the States to make sure that there would be a highly qualified teacher 
in every classroom.
  It underfunds after school programs by $750 million, serving one 
million children less than was promised in No Child Left Behind.
  It denies eligible children the title I supplemental education 
services that they need to succeed in school.
  States and schools all across America are doing their part to raise 
test scores and improve teacher quality. Congress needs to do its part 
by providing the promised funding. We need to fund programs under the 
No Child Left Behind Act at the very highest level possible.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, we all have heard the impressive statistics 
regarding the education funding increases that this Congress and 
Administration have provided over the past two years. No one can 
legitimately refute the fact that each year we provide historic 
increases that are necessary for states and schools across the country.
  As someone who worked closely with the Administration and the 
Committee when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, I have 
remained committed to following its implementation as well as the 
funding levels. I have always argued that we should make fundamental 
reforms to our federal programs before throwing money at them. No Child 
Left Behind is inciting those reforms and states, school districts, 
teachers, students and parents across the country are answering the 
call.
  I think we all can agree that change is difficult and that No Child 
Left Behind reflects that. It is forcing all of us, as a nation, to 
have an important dialogue about education. A discussion that is being 
followed by action and dedication to success. It is for these reasons 
that I believe we are justified in continuing to push for and 
appropriate increased funding for our education programs. The people on 
the ground deserve it.
  I have always prioritized adequate funding for education programs as 
well as fiscal conservatism. Given other expenses we have across the 
country and the world, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance 
between increased funding for federal education programs and fiscal 
restraint. I support the motion to instruct, however, because all of 
these education programs deserve to have the highest funding levels 
possible. Any additional available funding should go to our students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman has 
expired. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________