George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my motion. I do so to once again outline the accomplishments of this legislation, and to buy a bit of time for some of our Members who are currently in a meeting. Mr. Chairman, we are bringing to a close here the debate on H.R. 1. I want to begin by thanking certainly all of the Members that have participated in that debate on this floor, on both sides of the aisle. It has been a spirited debate from time to time, but that is because we have very strongly-held views in this House about education, and we have different views about how that education should be carried out, and the Federal role and involvement in education in this country. It is honorable and it is important that this House allow that kind of debate, and I appreciate the fact that the Committee on Rules did in fact make in order the amendments that they did. I wish they would have made in order more of the amendments from this side of the aisle so we could have debated school construction and class size reduction, but we were not able to do that. However, I think, as Members can see from the debate over the last 2 days, it is very clear that this subject matter captures the interest and the imagination of the Members of Congress. They all have very strong feelings on it. All of us have spent a great deal of time when we were back in our districts visiting schools, talking to schoolteachers, talking to parents, talking to children, going through the process over and over again at all different levels. It is clear that this is the foundation of our society. This legislation is tough. This legislation is comprehensive. This legislation is controversial. However, I think in fact that the work product that we have put together here is one that we can all be proud of, and I think as we bring about this first reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of this millenium, that we truly are setting out on a different course. We are setting out on a different course because the President wants to change the direction, and because Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis want to change the direction of the use of Federal dollars and the purposes for which they are used. This legislation has called together a coalition, again from both sides of the aisle, but even within our own caucus. Some of the suggestions made here, and some of, in fact, the key suggestions, were brought to us in our caucus by the New Democrats, who helped us reach agreement with the Republicans on flexibility, something we have talked about for many years. It has been very controversial, there has been great resistance to it, but in this legislation in fact we have worked it out. I want to thank those Members for that. I also want to make clear that I do not want to overlook, as we get to the end, the work that has been done by the staff. The members of the working group spent a lot of time talking about this legislation, but our staff spent much, much more time, as did the staff of all of the Members of the Committee, in bringing about this agreement. We worked on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays on this legislation, and the staff worked Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays on this legislation, and very often late at night. I think the work product reflects that. This committee is very fortunate to have people with a great deal of institutional memory and with a great deal of skills and talent and knowledge about this subject matter. We have warred over some of these topics and we have agreed on some of these topics, but I think that is why in fact we again were able to produce this work product in this Congress this rapidly, and with this level of agreement. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking everybody in the House for their patience as we deliberated this bill. I also want to begin by thanking staffs on both sides of the aisle for all of their very difficult and hard work. We have spent 2 days deliberating this bill on the floor. The staff of this committee has spent 4 months, along with members of the working group on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank the Members of the working group on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for all of their help on this and on the other side, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for all of their effort to bring the Members together to talk about whether or not there was a possibility of getting the legislation that, in fact, would reflect what many Members in this House have said they wanted for our education system, for the Federal participation in our education system, for many years, but we have not achieved. Some 35 years ago, we set out to see whether or not the Federal Government could help the poorer children in this Nation residing in the poorer school districts in this Nation. We have spent $120 billion, and in many instances we have changed the lives of those children and their education, but we have not achieved all that we have wanted to achieve. We have made a difference in many ways, but we have also had our disappointments. This effort and this legislation is an effort to do it in a different fashion, to hold schools more accountable; and I do not mean accountable just in the sense of testing or just in the sense of money, but accountable for results. We are no longer going to ask schools how is the average child doing in their district. In this legislation, we are going to ask how each and every child in that district is doing, how is each Hispanic child, every African American child, every rich child, poor child, limited English-proficient child, how are they doing. We are also going to ask them whether or not the gap is being closed that exists today in education between the majority and minority in America. That question has not been asked. We have put out the money there to get the results, but we never asked them whether or not it was taking place; and in fact, the gap to some extent has widened. We also said we are going to hold them accountable because we are going to ask for annual testing and annual assessment, a diagnostic effort so if a child is falling behind in second or third grade in reading we know the resources that we can attach that that child needs. Do they need a Saturday school? Do they need after-school? Do they need a mentor? Do they need a tutor? So that, in fact, children do not fall behind. Many on my side of the aisle said that is all well and good and we have always been for that; but if we do not have the resources, we cannot obtain it. So we also made a commitment in this legislation, through a very lot of hard and very difficult negotiations, that, in fact, the resources would be there; that the resources would be there to fix the failing schools and not abandon them; the resources would be there to help align the test to the curriculum and improve many of the tests in States today that are not acceptable to challenge our children; to improve the curriculum. Those are the efforts we would make, and we just reconfirmed those figures on this floor on a huge bipartisan vote of 324 in support of those resources being there. That is a commitment to this legislation. We are not going to try to reform this system on the cheap. Some on this side of the aisle said we have to have more flexibility, we have to have Straight A's down to the States. We thought, why would we give money to the States? Why can it not go locally? I could not work it out, probably because I am very much against that kind of effort. But the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and others got together and the staffs got together; and they hammered out something that I think is superior. We said, fine, we will give local districts flexibility, and we have increased the flexibility ten times what it is in current law so that they can set some priorities about whether they want to train the teachers first to become proficient in computers and then buy the computers, or whether they want to buy the computers and then train the teachers. That is their decision. They can combine these monies based upon their local needs and priorities. Ten times the flexibility that we have ever experienced in Federal law. I think it is an experiment, and we will see. Other people are very confident about it. Anyway, that is what a compromise is. That is what a compromise is. There are some places we could not go. Clearly, this caucus was not going to go for vouchers and it was not going to go straight As, and we did not go there. But we have tried to provide alternatives and responses to that. We have said that if a school is failing, a parent can, in fact, go out and purchase, purchase those services to tutor a child, to provide the kind of remedial help that may be necessary, and they go out in the community and get those services from private vendors. That is an important change. It is a very important change, especially when we see what technology is bringing to bear for the educational problems of our children, the technology that the private sector is developing. We have to call those resources in and make them available to the parents, and that is what this legislation does. If I just might, Mr. Speaker, if I just might add that I think this is legislation that does very well by America's children. It is not everything I would do, it is not a bill I would write and it is certainly not a bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee would write, but it is a bill that we were capable of writing, trying to keep in mind what all of us have said when we go home to our districts. We are not all going to be happy and we have a long way to go before the end of this road. But I think this is a very good beginning for a House of Representatives as a statement of where we should be on education. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our chairman, who provided exceptional leadership. He acted with honor. His word was his bond and he opened up lines of communication that we have not had available to us before. I want to say how much I appreciate that and I thank him very much for that effort. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) had it exactly wrong. The fact of the matter is that in California, we are using less energy than we did in 1998. In 1998, we paid $7 billion for that energy and today, we are paying 70, 7-0, $70 billion, ten times as much. Why? Because the Bush administration refuses to tell the Federal Energy Commission to enforce the Federal law for just and reasonable wholesale prices. So the people of California who have an energy shortage because of a bad deregulation plan, because we have not built as many generators as we should, and because of a drought in the northwest, are now open to price gouging and profiteering by the energy companies. The Federal Energy Commission has made that finding. It is not my finding, it is their finding, that these prices are not just and reasonable, but they refuse to enforce the law to put caps on at a just and reasonable price so that the energy companies will get their 15 or 20 percent return. They simply will not get to continue to gouge the people of California, the small businesses, the large businesses, people in hospitals who are having the lights go out, their life support systems turned off because of the Bush administration's inaction.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Rivers), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise not claimed in opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This legislation and this bipartisan agreement, and it is bipartisan reporting from the committee, takes an unprecedented step in expanding the transferability at the local level so that local school districts can make a determination about the application of those resources. But this legislation also understands that these programs are not about some Washington bureaucrat. These programs are about the Congress of the United States saying these are areas that we believe there should be an important commitment of resources: safe and drug-free schools, teacher quality improvement, innovative strategies and technology. These are articulations of the congressional will on a bipartisan basis certainly over the last 10 or 15 years that these are either emerging areas that need attention and the Federal dollars ought to be applied there, because there are areas where there are deficits, but at the same time in this legislation we have taken the unprecedented step to say that we can have transferability of 50 percent of the money, because in some instances it makes sense to allow them to double up the resources on a short-term basis to improve the quality of teachers, or to purchase technology so they can ramp it up and get it running and get on their way. But the Hoekstra amendment is simply an amendment that goes too far. It is violative of the bipartisan agreement we have. It is violative of the vote in the committee reporting this to the floor. It recognizes the tension between a full-blown block grant and the notion that we ought to have improved flexibility at the local level. That is what we decided on doing. That is what we decided on as a committee to do, to see whether or not over the next 5 years we could see how this transferability takes place. We ought to honor that agreement. It is a rational agreement and makes sense. It also keeps faith with the congressional priorities that this Congress has determined we ought to be using Federal dollars for in the poorest schools with the poorest performing children, because, after all, that is a program that we have before us today to help make up those deficits in teacher qualifications in the poorer schools, in lacking technology in the poorer schools. I would hope that the Congress and the House would stay with the bipartisan agreement that we have. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we obviously strongly support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). On behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and myself, we all support the amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this amendment. We support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I was one of the original sponsors, coauthors and authors of the IDEA Act when I first came to Congress in 1975. I have very strong feelings about our obligations to educate students with disabilities. I was also the first author of the Act who said that you would expel students from schools if they brought guns to schools. I have very strong feelings that our schools are a place of learning, they ought to be a sanctuary, and the streets ought not to come into our schools. But these two values clash. My concern is this: The suggestion is somehow that children with handicaps are privileged; that children with handicaps have preferential treatment. No, what we do under the law is recognize that children with handicaps, with disabilities, in many instances, must be treated differently because of those disabilities. And what we do in this is suggest that we cannot, under the Federal law, deny them continued education if they are suspended, because we understand the problems of educating some of these children, many of whom have multiple handicaps, multiple disabilities; that if we stop the educational services, in many instances, it is very difficult to start or to have that child catch up. There is nothing in the Federal law that says that that child must return to school. A decision must be made in 55 days, but there is nothing that says the child must return to school. The gentleman from Georgia and the committee, when we were deliberating this, handed out an article from the Orlando Sentinel and he said that this child should not be back in school. But when we read the article, it makes very clear that the school authorities are educating the child while he is in a juvenile detention center. The school authorities make it very clear that this child will never return to his school. This child will not go back to school. They do not want to return him home, but they are going to continue to educate him because that is what the law requires. By the same token, the law does not require that that student be returned to school. It says we cannot have a secession of the educational program. And we should not change that law today. We should not change that law today.