John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern from the gentleman from Wisconsin over the issue of IDEA funding. I think most of our colleagues understand that the Individuals With Disabilities Act in education is not part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fact, this Congress over the last 5 years has increased funding for IDEA some 50 percent over the last 5 years. I have no doubt there will be another increase again this year. But that program is up for reauthorization next year. I would ask my colleagues to allow us to go through the reauthorization process on IDEA next year and debate any additional resources that might be devoted to that in the context of the reauthorization of that bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who chairs the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for him to control under this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been involved in education policy since 1965. Thirty-six years later we are finally getting serious about demanding results for our Nation's children. As the Chicago Tribune noted recently, ``Congress has spent the last four decades appropriating massive amounts of money to try to even out the educational experiences that disadvantaged children receive compared to their more fortunate peers. And in return for that long- term multi-billion dollar investment, we have gotten more disappointment. Most states show continuing gaps in achievement between poor and middle-class kids, and between white and minority students. Meanwhile, our students have fallen behind those of other countries.'' Washington finally seems ready to put an end to this era of lost opportunity, thanks to President Bush and reform-minded legislators on both sides of the political aisle. The No Child Left Behind Act, H.R. 1, passed this House on May 23 by a vote of 384 to 45, and reflects each of the four pillars of President Bush's education reform plan: accountability and testing, flexibility and local control, funding for what works, and expanded parental options. H.R. 1 embodies President Bush's vision for education in America. That vision says a number of important things. It says that when States use Federal education dollars, they should be accountable for getting results. It says that parents should be empowered with data about the schools their children are attending, the qualifications of the teachers teaching their children, and their children's academic progress. It says Federal education resources should be focused on helping students who are in the most need of help. We should increase for what works and ensure Federal education dollars are targeted to where they will make the biggest impact for our neediest children. It says that to meet the tough new accountability standards, teachers and local school officials should have greater flexibility to decide how to address their students' unique needs. And it says the parents want to choose the best education possible for their children, regardless of income level and/or their ethnic background. The bills passed by the House and Senate have much in common, but there are some important differences that must be resolved. We differ from our colleagues in the Senate on the issue of targeting resources to our most disadvantaged students, a goal that I think the House version embraces. We do believe that Federal education resources should be targeted to helping the most disadvantaged of our students and helping them to learn to read, to learn English, and to learn math skills. Accordingly, we passed a bill that focuses funds toward our poorest students, streamlines bureaucracy and refocuses Federal education dollars towards students who need help the most. The Senate bill, by contrast, actually expands the overall number of programs significantly. It creates many more new programs than does the House bill, and the overall number of programs is significantly higher. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are 55 currently funded elementary and secondary education programs, and the Senate bill would increase that number to 89. Many new programs added by the Senate may have merit. But the more programs we create, the harder it becomes to target Federal resources to the very students that we are trying to help. The more programs we add, the more we force disadvantaged students to compete for available funds. The fact of the matter is that these students already have enough to compete against. Life's circumstances are competition enough for most of them. They should not have to compete for the opportunity to learn to read, to learn English, or to learn to add and subtract and multiply. There are other areas where we are going to need to address issues as well: We must assist on real accountability. Parents should be empowered with data, and States should be required to demonstrate that they are using Federal resources to close the achievement gaps that exist between disadvantaged students and their peers. We must give States and local school districts the flexibility they need to address their students' unique needs and meet the higher expectations that we are placing on them. And we must ensure that there is an escape route for students trapped in dangerous, failing schools that just do not change. The House bill provides for immediate public and charter school choice to parents with children in failing public schools. We hope our Senate colleagues will join us in embracing this new option for parents. We look forward to taking the final step in what has been a very long process this year. We are looking forward to sending to the President an education bill that reflects his principles and begins making an immediate impact for students in schools all across America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and while a new Member of Congress, the gentleman spent a career in the field of education.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me rise, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and tell him that I could not agree with him more. As we go to conference with the Senate on this bill, our eyes need to be focused on the major goals. And one of the major goals that I think many of us share is to make sure that the resources that are going to be dedicated to this bill, whatever that amount may be, go to the most needy students in our society. On the House bill we reduced the number of programs that we were going to fund under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in order to try to better target these resources to those children, especially minority children in inner city schools and in rural areas who are underserved and need our help. But if we look at the Senate bill, where they expanded the number of programs, a lot of well-intentioned, well- meaning programs, good ideas; but what it does is it tends then to take our eyes off of getting the resources where they, in fact, are most needed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for bringing this bill to the floor today, and I do think that it is certainly fitting. I also want to thank my colleagues from the Georgia delegation for their hard work. Our committee shared some of this jurisdiction early on, and in an effort to move this bill today, I yielded to the gentleman from Illinois to bring this bill up. Why? Because Paul Coverdell was our friend. Not only was he a director of the Peace Corps under President George Bush's reign in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was a respected member of the Georgia legislature. Paul was an insurance agency owner. He understood the private sector. I know Paul because he and I worked closely during my years in the Republican leadership here in the House, with Paul representing the Republican leadership in the Senate. We worked closely in a meeting that occurred every single week for about 4 years. I can tell my colleagues that Paul Coverdell was a man of great integrity, someone who worked very hard on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of his Members of the Senate. Not only did he work with his Republican Members but with his Democrat Members as well. And when I look back through the 10 years I spent in this Congress, I can tell my colleagues that there are but few people who rise to the stature of former Senator Paul Coverdell. Why? Not just because he worked there, not just because he worked with all his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but because Paul Coverdell was a man of great integrity who believed strongly in the words of freedom. He understood the private sector, understood the need to allow the genius of the private sector and individuals to be all that they can be and stood up proudly for that each and every day. We miss Paul Coverdell here in the halls of Congress. I rise today to support this resolution to honor him as a man that we all can look up to, not only today but for generations to come.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for continuing to move this process along. We all know that we have great difficulty in ag country. We have low commodity prices, we have higher fuel costs, and the pressure is on farmers across the country and has been. Until we open more markets for our farmers, this pressure will continue to be there because our farmers continue to out-produce their competitors around the world. There has been a lot said here about the size of this package. As the author of the amendment, along with my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I believe that the $5.5 billion, as allocated by the budget, is a sufficient amount of money for aid now. Would I like to do more? Of course, I would like to do more. But the fact is we just went through a budget process and allocated $5.5 billion for this year's emergency assistance to farmers. To go back on that now opens the door to the other body to raise the number even higher. I think what we have done here is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Secondly, we are about to go through the new farm bill. We are going to have a major debate about how to reallocate those resources dedicated in the budget to the new farm bill. Let us not stick our fingers into the pie and take some of next year's money for this year's problems.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Chair to recognize myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to address the House each for 5 minutes.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their patience as we have gone through what really has been, I think, an extraordinary process. It all started last December when our new President-elect invited a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members to Austin, Texas to talk about his desire for dealing with the issue of education in an honorable, up-front and positive way. It was a step that many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle were somewhat uncomfortable with, a step that many of my colleagues on the other side were uncomfortable with as well. But the President laid out his agenda in great detail, and the Members of the House and the Senate that were there all had their opportunity to put their fingerprints on how this path was going to be started, and they did it in Austin, Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was not on the list to be invited, but he ended up on the list at my insistence, because if the President was serious about having a new tone in Washington and if the President was serious about working together in a bipartisan way, it was right for the President to invite the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to Austin, Texas, and he did. And after the President spoke, all of the Members spoke, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was the last person to speak. The gentleman stood up and said, Mr. President, I think you are serious about helping underprivileged children in America. And if you are serious about helping underprivileged children in America, and you are willing to stand up and fight for accountability, I am going to be standing right there with you, and he has, each and every step along the way, and I want to say to the gentleman from California, ``thank you.'' Now, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) pointed out, there were people who helped, there were a lot of people who helped. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson); and even the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), my good friend, who is hiding way in the back, were Members on our side who sat in rooms for months, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and all of our staffs who have done a very good job. I really do want to thank them for all of what they have done. Mr. Speaker, we stand here at this moment on the threshold of the most significant change in Federal education policy in 35 years. We all know the money that we have spent, we all know the results that we have gotten, but we have a problem in America, and every one of us knows it; every one of us. We have an achievement gap that exists between Anglo students and their minority peers that has widened over the last 10 years, while we have had the best economy in the history of our country. We have a growing achievement gap that exists between middle income and upper income schools than our minority and lower income schools. Good schools have gotten better over the last 10 years. Middle income schools have gotten better over the last 10 years. Our worst schools, unfortunately, have gotten worse. We as a society cannot turn a blind eye to this problem. The President has made it perfectly clear over the last 4 months that we have to act. So, we have acted, and we have done it in a way that we can work together on both sides of the aisle to address all of the Members' concerns. This truly is a bipartisan bill. There are issues that my Democrat colleagues do not like in this bill, I know that, and I can tell my colleagues that there are problems with my guys on this side of the aisle, and I can show my colleagues the wounds of my back to prove it. But bipartisanship means working together for the benefit of the whole, and I can tell my colleagues that the bill that we have before us today is a solid achievement for this House. It is a solid achievement that will improve the lives of the neediest children in our country. Those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder who today are not getting a good education in our society will suffer if we do not step up and have the courage, the courage to take this step, and that is really what this bill today is all about. Do we have the courage as conservative Republicans to stand up and take a step in the direction that some of us are a bit uncomfortable with? And, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they have the courage to stand up today and to take a step toward bipartisanship, toward an effort that truly will help the neediest students in our country. I have talked to virtually all of my colleagues over the last several months about this bill. Everyone has had their opportunity for input. Yes, some are disappointed. But I think each and every one of my colleagues know that unless we exhibit courage today, that this will not happen. We need it to happen. We need to exhibit the courage and show the American people that we can work together to solve the problems that we have in this country. Remember, when we vote today, this is not about the House, and it is not about this bill, it is about the neediest children in America who are counting on us today.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this sense of Congress to the floor today. Mr. Chairman, as a Member who does not have Impact Aid in my district, when I came to Congress, I was wondering what is this and why do we do it. Over the years, Members who have large military and civilian Federal employee impact in their district, do in fact receive funds because we do not as the Federal Government pay taxes in those communities. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this resolution here. I think in the few months he has been here he has done a great job in making sure I am fully aware of how important Impact Aid is to his district and how important it is to other Members' districts. It is a good resolution. We ought to push the appropriators, including Mr. Chairman, that we should in fact fully be funding Impact Aid.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her contribution to this bill. As we all know, the 21st Century Community Learning Center Program is one that does, in fact, require a local match. For some smaller communities or some faith-based or community- based programs, their ability to come up with the matching funds to do these programs is somewhat limited. I do think that allowing in-kind services as part of the match does provide more flexibility for these programs at the local level. It is a very good amendment, and I am happy to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, since no one is here to take it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and others for supporting this because I do think that character education is a valuable effort that needs to happen in our schools. When we grew up, we had two parents at home by and large teaching us character, teaching us the valuable lessons that we needed to be good citizens, to be good students, and to respect one another. All of those values were reinforced in the schools that we went to. But today, unfortunately, we do not have mom and dad both at home raising their children. We have a different society than we had when many of us grew up. For a lot of children, especially children in poorer school districts, they may never see their parents. The kind of values that we are talking about and the kind of character education that this plan would call for I think has to happen, because if we do not intercept these children in school and help them develop these values, they will never develop those values because they are not being reinforced at home like when we were all growing up. It is a good amendment. We ought to vote for it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for all of her efforts this year as we have gone through the development of the bill that we have before us. I can tell my colleagues as a member of the negotiating team on the other side, she was a fierce advocate for the positions that she has taken for many years. I can tell my colleagues that as someone who has less experience in these areas than the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), her service to our group was invaluable. The amendment that she brings to us today is an important one. Under the current bill that we have before us, H.R. 1, it does require schools that have been designated as low-performing to develop a 2-year plan for how they will turn the school around. The plan must include scientifically based research strategies, high- quality professional development, numerical goals for progress and other matters which improve the academic quality of the school. The amendment would ensure that mentoring is made available for teachers who have been in the teaching profession for 3 years or less. I think this is a valuable addition to the plan that we have before us, and I would ask all of my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition not otherwise taken.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me and for sponsoring this amendment. As part of our broader efforts to make schools safer, H.R. 1 provides limited civil litigation immunity from civil causes of action for teachers, principals, and other school administrators who take reasonable actions to maintain school discipline. This will allow teachers to remove violent and persistently disruptive students from the classroom without fear of legal repercussions. The amendment before us strengthens the bill by providing teachers, administrators, and school board members immunity from State causes of action as well, and if a State does not want the immunity protections to apply, then State legislatures may in fact opt out of these provisions. While it may seem like common sense that teachers should be able to take reasonable efforts to keep their classrooms under control, the idea of disciplining students has come under fire over the years. In light of recent school tragedies, it is even more important than ever to support teachers who take reasonable actions to maintain order and discipline. Nearly 65 percent of public school teachers have suggested that discipline is a serious problem in their schools, and about 88 percent think that student achievement would improve if chronic troublemakers were removed from the class. As I noted earlier, the idea behind this provision is to make schools safer. The President's plan also includes more funding for safety and drug prevention programs, as well as after-school activities. It also requires States to report to parents on whether a school is safe, and the bill nearly triples funding for character education programs that try to instill values like honesty, respect for others, and responsibility into the curriculum. This amendment will save schools from having to waste money on frivolous lawsuits, and ensure that taxpayers' dollars go where they should go, to the classroom, not to a bunch of lawyers. I congratulate my colleague, and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all of that will in fact happen under the bill that we have before us; but I do not think that we have anything to fear with an amendment like this.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is the bill we have before us will improve public schools. And we have got all types of innovations that will help public schools, but we should not fear this.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I have to ask my colleagues: What do we have to fear? This is a program of $50 million of new money, and the money will not come from any public schools, that says let us pick out five cities in America and let us give them a chance to try private school choice. And then let us study the issue. Let us study what happens in those five cities, and let us learn from it. That is all it is. It is very simple. The bill that we have before us aims to improve public education. I think it is a bold plan. I think it will in fact improve public education. What do we have to fear in allowing five cities an opportunity to try private school choice to empower parents?