H.R. 1, “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND”:

MEMBER HEARING DAY 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 28, 2001 

Serial No. 107-9 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE............................................................................................. 2

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM, 5TH DISTRICT OF IOWA, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................. 3

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, 30TH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.................................................................................................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JAMES LANGEVIN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

RHODE ISLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. . 6

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MIKE PENCE, 2ND DISTRICT OF INDIANA, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................. 7

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB CLEMENT, 5TH DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........ 9

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CHAKA FATTAH, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

....................................................................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TED STRICKLAND, 6TH DISTRICT OF 

OHIO, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.................... 12

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT UNDERWOOD, GUAM 

DELEGATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C......... 14

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RICK LARSEN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

WASHINGTON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C... 16

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MIKE HONDA, 15TH DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. .... 17

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JACK KINGSTON, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C............ 19

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS, 7TH DISTRICT OF 

MARYLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C....... 20

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN LARSON, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 22
iv

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ANNE NORTHUP, 3RD DISTRICT OF 

KENTUCKY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C........ 23

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN BALDACCI, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C................. 25

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ROSA DeLAURO, 3RD DISTRICT OF 

CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 27

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DAVID PRICE, 4TH DISTRICT OF NORTH 

CAROLINA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C......... 29

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN DARLENE HOOLEY, 5TH DISTRICT OF 

OREGON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C............. 31

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JIM MATHESON, 2ND DISTRICT OF UTAH, 

U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C................................. 32

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TODD AKIN, 2ND DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C................................ 34

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN THUNE, SOUTH DAKOTA- AT 

LARGE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. .............. 35

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, 27TH DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. .... 37

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM ALLEN, 1ST DISTRICT OF MAINE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C................................ 38

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL 

CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE................................................................... 41

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT, RANKING MEMBER DALE KILDEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE........................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM, 5TH

DISTRICT OF IOWA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................ 51

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN EDDIE BERNICE 

JOHNSON, 30TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN, 2ND

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 63
v

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN MIKE PENCE, 2ND

DISTRICT OF INDIANA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................ 71

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN BOB CLEMENT, 5TH

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN CHAKAH FATTAH, 

2ND DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 85

APPENDIX I - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TED STRICKLAND, 

6TH DISTRICT OF OHIO, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................ 93

APPENDIX J - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ROBERT 

UNDERWOOD, GUAM DELEGATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 97

APPENDIX K - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN RICK LARSEN, 2ND

DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 103

APPENDIX L - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN MIKE HONDA, 15TH

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 107

APPENDIX M - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JACK KINGSTON, 

1ST DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 115 

APPENDIX N - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH 

CUMMINGS, 7TH DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 119

APPENDIX O - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN LARSON, 1ST

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 125

APPENDIX P - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN ANNE 

NORTHUP, 3RD DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 135

APPENDIX Q - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN BALDACCI, 

2ND DISTRICT OF MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 143
vi

APPENDIX R - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN ROSA 

DeLAURO, 3RD DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 149 

APPENDIX S - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN DAVID PRICE, 4TH 

DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 155

APPENDIX T - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN DARLENE 

HOOLEY, 5TH DISTRICT OF OREGON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 159

APPENDIX U - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JIM MATHESON, 

2ND DISTRICT OF UTAH, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 165

APPENDIX V - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TODD AKIN, 2ND

DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 171

APPENDIX W - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN THUNE, 

SOUTH DAKOTA-AT LARGE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 177

APPENDIX X - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, 27TH

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................. 181

APPENDIX Y - WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TOM ALLEN, 1ST

DISTRICT OF MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.............................................................................................................................. 185

APPENDIX Z – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, PUERTO RICO-AT LARGE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 191

APPENDIX AA – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN SAXBY CHAMBLISS, 8TH DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 197

APPENDIX BB- STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, 21ST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 201

APPENDIX CC – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN VAN HILLEARY, 4TH DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 207
vii

APPENDIX DD – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN TOM LANTOS, 12TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 213

APPENDIX EE – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, 14TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 221 

APPENDIX FF – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN MIKE ROGERS, 8TH DISRICT OF MICHIGAN, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 225

APPENDIX GG – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN MARK GREEN, 8TH DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, U.S. HOUSE 

OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................................................... 231

APPENDIX HH – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN RONNIE SHOWS, 4TH DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................... 237

APPENDIX II – STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, 

CONGRESSMAN LAMAR SMITH, 21ST DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 245

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................... 252
viii
1

HEARING ON H.R. 1 

 “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” 

MEMBER HEARING DAY

____________________

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Hon. John A Boehner, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Boehner, Ballenger, McKeon, Castle, Hilleary, Ehlers, 

Fletcher, Isakson, Osborne, Miller, Kildee, Andrews, Roemer, Woolsey, Rivers, Tierney, 

Kind, Ford, Holt, Davis, and McCollum. 

 Staff present: Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

Kent Talbert, Professional Staff Member; Blake Hegeman, Legislative Assistant; JoMarie St. Martin, General Counsel; Becky Campoverde, Deputy Staff Director; Cindy 

Herrle, Senior Budget Analyst; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Maria Miller, 

Communications Coordinator; Deborah Samantar, Committee Clerk; John Lawrence, 

Minority Staff Director; Charles Barone, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Maggie 

McDow, Minority Legislative Associate; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate; 

Brendan O'Neil, Minority Legislative Associate; Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant; 

and Ann Owens, Minority Clerk. 

Mr. Castle. A quorum being present, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

will come to order. 

 Under Committee rule 12-B, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have 
2

statements, they will be included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous 

consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow Member statements and 

other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official 

hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. I will read my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 Let me extend a warm welcome to all of you and to all my colleagues as well as 

to all of our guests. The focus of this Full Committee hearing is to give Members of 

Congress an opportunity to testify on President Bush's “No Child Left Behind”

education proposal. 

 As you may know, H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, was 

introduced just last week. H.R. 1 is comprehensive legislation reauthorizing the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as ESEA, encompassing the 

President's plan. 

 Despite nearly a decade of uninterrupted economic growth in the 1990s, the 

achievement gap in our country between disadvantaged students and their peers remains 

wide. All of us can agree, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent, that this is a 

problem that requires our attention. 

 While our hearing is focused on the President's education proposal, the 

Committee recognizes there are many issues pertaining to education that are important to 

Members. This hearing was designed to ensure that all Members are afforded an 

opportunity to share their views and concerns with the Committee. 

 Although not all Members are available to testify in person, some have chosen to 

submit testimony for the record. I would like to thank all Members who have taken an 

active interest in this opportunity and for their efforts to ensure that every American child 

has the chance to learn. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

Mr. Kildee. At this time, I'd just like to thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity 

to hear from our colleagues on this very important issue. And I will yield back 

temporarily, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Kildee. It is a pleasure, by the way, to be 

working with you again after a little bit of a rest. 
3

Mr. Kildee. Mike and I have done some good work together. 

Mr. Castle. As you may know, we scheduled this hearing today in order to listen to our 

colleagues regarding their concerns, interests, and priorities for the direction of our 

nation's educational policy. A couple of them are before us, who do not serve on this 

Committee. 

 Our hearing has generated a great deal of Member interest, and we want to hear 

from our colleagues. Given the great response to our invitation today, we have a large 

number of Members who will be testifying. 

 However, in order to provide enough time for testimony, it will prevent 

Committee Members from asking questions. Hence, Mr. Kildee and Mr. Miller and I 

would ask that you understand these limitations and allow this time to be spent listening 

to our colleagues. Of course, if there is a question that must be asked, I am sure we can 

accommodate you. And I now recognize Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly understand the time constraints 

and agree with you regarding limitation of our questions. I appreciate the opportunity to 

listen and learn from our colleagues. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, RANKING MEMBER DALE KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX B 

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much. I would ask the staff also to remind other colleagues 

who come in late of the limitations we are trying to impose. And again, before the 

testimony begins, I would like to remind the Members who will be testifying, we will be 

limiting oral testimony to three minutes. The hearing record will remain open for 14 days 

so that you may submit a longer written statement if you desire, but please try to stay 

within the time limit. I am sure that the Members testifying after you will be 

appreciative.

 And I think there is not a Member here that does not understand the light system, 

so I will not bother explaining that to you. And with that, I think we are ready to 

proceed.

Mr. Latham, you seem to be the number one batter here. 

Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM, 5TH DISTRICT 

OF IOWA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

 This is a critical issue for all of us who want to see this country grow and prosper, 

and the idea of no child left behind is extremely important to everyone. I will be 
4

submitting written testimony, but I just wanted to make a couple of comments here today. 

 Iowa is known nationally for its educational excellence. The basis of that 

excellence is local control, parental involvement, working with teachers, working with 

local administrators, and trying to do the best job for the children who are in the system. 

 For the Federal Government to claim any kind of responsibility for the quality of 

education in Iowa would be like me trying to claim credit for Iowa having deep, black, 

fertile soil. There is no correlation. 

 What we have to have is a flexible situation from the Federal Government to 

empower the local school districts, the parents, and the teachers, to do the best job. We 

have a lot of different situations in my district. In northwest Iowa it is very rural. We 

have small school districts. We have larger ones. The lack of funding for IDEA has a 

big impact on many of my school districts, and I am very pleased that the budget that we 

are considering today takes that into consideration. 

 We also have school districts that have changing concerns. One school district 

has 40 percent non-English speaking students in my district. That district has tried to 

bring children, three or four years old, into classes to have them learn English so that they 

will be successful. But under the current guidelines, there is no assistance for them, and 

what we need to do is have flexibility for that local school district to be successful. 

 Another case is that many of my school districts are very, very small. In my own 

hometown, we have K through 12, and about 340 students in that district. They cannot 

qualify for many of the federal programs, which are currently on the books. And again, 

there is the need for flexibility, allowing those school districts to use the resources. 

 There is a huge commitment at the local level for education. As an example, my 

home school district has a fundraising drive to build infrastructure on the school building 

itself. It is the first time in the State of Iowa this has happened. We have people 

contributing about $600,000 out of their own pocket. My wife and I are committed to 

$5,000 for this project. This is what local control and local involvement is all about. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you are on the right track. I hope that we can proceed to 

make sure that our young people have the education that they need. I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM, 5TH DISTRICT OF 

IOWA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX C 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Latham. We really appreciate your being here as well. We 

know your schedules are difficult. By the way, as the Members testify, they are welcome 

to leave if their schedule demands that, or stay as you please. 

 Yes, Mr. Kildee? 
5

Mr. Kildee I think you made a very good point. Very often our immigration policies in 

this country do create a need for bilingual education and, therefore, the Federal 

Government should look at its responsibility there. I think you raised a very good point, 

and I appreciate it. 

Mr. Latham. Thank you. 

Mr. Castle. Our next witness will be the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, the gentlelady from Texas. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN EDDIE BERNICE 

JOHNSON, 30TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

I am here to express the sentiments of the Congressional Black Caucus, and it is 

regarding President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” educational proposal. 

 Since the inception of the Congressional Black Caucus, it has championed 

inequality, and now the country enjoys its longest economic expansion in American 

history, and it is the Congressional Black Caucus' opportunity to fight to ensure that all 

Americans share in this prosperity. 

 It is the belief of the Caucus that if we are to truly realize a dream of an allinclusive America, we must begin this session, the 107th Congress, securing our 

children's future, meaning not to let anyone be left behind. I can't see where the President 

has looked out for many of the key initiatives as stated in his educational proposal. 

 President Bush's proposal promises to invest in public schools to make sure that 

no child in America is ever left behind, hold public schools accountable for their 

performance, improve teacher quality, an early emphasis on reading, but this budget 

states otherwise. 

 President Bush provides only a $2.4 billion dollar increase in education, but 

proposes to spend nearly $2 billion of that on reading and Pell grants. This leaves only 

$400 million for all of the other educational programs, including all of the elementary, 

secondary, and higher education programs, special education and vocational education. 

 So instead of ensuring our youth a brighter future, this seems to me a decision to 

choose to freeze funding for after school and safety programs by combining and freezing 

funding for the safe and drug-free schools program and the 21st Century community 

learning centers after school. Instead of modernizing our schools, the President has 

chosen to eliminate the school renovation program for fiscal year 2000 and retroactively 

redirect $1.2 billion already appropriated for this year to technology and special 

education.

 Instead of training and paying teachers and reducing class sizes, the President has 

chosen to eliminate the class size reduction initiative by consolidating class size in the 

Eisenhower Professional Development Program, thus, failing to provide enough funding 
6

to reduce class size and expand professional development and training with our teachers. 

 I will submit, Mr. Chairman, the rest of my testimony for the record. I see the 

light has come on, and I thank you very much for the time. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, 30TH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX D 

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Johnson. Your points are well 

taken. We are concerned about all the points that you make, and hopefully together we 

can address some of these things and get everybody aboard. That's the idea of this 

particular legislation. We appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Castle. I'm going to go next to the Honorable James Langevin, because he was 

actually scheduled to be earlier. We started a little bit late, so we will go to him next. 

The limit, for those of you who have just walked in, is three minutes on the clock, and we 

are trying to dispense with questions by Members so we can give you all an opportunity 

to testify. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JAMES LANGEVIN, 2ND

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here to testify on this important piece of legislation. 

 Ladies and gentlemen, we have a truly significant opportunity now to reauthorize 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act at a time when the majority of the country 

sees education as the most important issue facing our nation. We must seize this moment 

to produce a common sense, bipartisan approach to strengthening our nation's educational 

system. 

 As I stated in my written testimony, I am deeply concerned about two issues in 

this bill. The first is President Bush's voucher proposal, and the second is the lack of 

provisions for the mental health of our school children. Because time is so limited, I will 

focus my remarks on the latter issue but ask that you consider my full testimony as it was 

submitted into the record. 

 President Bush's proposal, “No Child Left Behind,” does just that, however, by 

proposing to eliminate the elementary school counseling demonstration program. This 

program provides essential support for the development and expansion of counseling 

activities that identify children in need and prevent them from taking out their 

aggressions with violence. 
7

 As a victim of an accidental shooting at the age of 16, I understand all too well the 

life-altering consequences of placing a gun in unsteady or careless hands. No place is 

immune from accidental or intentional violence or from other harmful effects of 

emotional instability. 

 School shootings have occurred in rural Alaska, suburban Colorado and inner city 

Atlanta. More than 30 of my colleagues represent districts where fatal school or 

workplace shootings have occurred in the past three years alone. 

 The elementary school counseling demonstration program provides the only 

funding for the expressed purpose of improving mental health of our students. Now is 

not the time to end this critical program but rather to expand it. 

 Currently, the average student-to-counselor ration is more than twice the 

recommended ration of 250 to 1. In rural and urban districts, the ration is often much 

worse. Large caseloads effectively prohibit counselors from providing the emotional 

stability and guidance that our students need, and vast geographic distances between 

schools make timely crisis intervention difficult if not impossible. 

 To truly meet the mental health needs of our students, we must strengthen 

counseling initiatives in our schools. I urge you to increase funding for the elementary 

school counseling program from $30 million to $100 million in fiscal year 2002 in order 

to keep pace with the expanding elementary school population. 

 This increase would enable schools to keep the current student-to-counselor ratio 

of 560 to 1, which is still twice the recommended ration. And, furthermore, I ask that 

you allow high schools to obtain these funds to address mental health needs of teenagers 

among whom we have witnessed so much violence in recent years, including my own 

district in Rhode Island. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Committee enact revolutionary 

reform of our schools that truly meet the needs of our students both inside and outside the 

classroom. It is well past time for reform that starts by making professional mental health 

services available to all our students and ensure that truly no child is left behind. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JIM LANGEVIN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

RHODE ISLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX E 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Langevin, for your thoughtful testimony. We appreciate it. 

And now we shall go to my left and go to the Honorable Mike Pence. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MIKE PENCE, 2ND DISTRICT 

OF INDIANA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
8

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And to the Members of the Committee, I am extremely 

grateful for the opportunity to contribute to your thinking on this bill that is one of the top 

priorities of this Congress and is certainly the top priority of President George W. Bush. 

 I am specifically here today, Mr. Chairman, to speak on behalf of state and local 

control of our schools. I come from a heartland district in East Central Indiana, and 

everywhere I go, whenever I say that the last thing we need is for the Federal 

Government to become more involved in our public schools, I am interrupted with 

applause.

 Hoosiers, like most Americans, believe that government that governs least 

particularly when it comes to education is government that governs best. Therefore, Mr. 

Chairman, the portion of H.R. 1 that most concerns me is the requirement of a national 

test. According to many experts, the national assessment of educational progress is 

considered an obscure test that relatively few of the nation's children have ever taken. 

This test has seldom been given annually and sometimes takes up to 18 months to grade, 

and its results are reported in a manner that only trained researchers can benefit from. 

 In addition, according to many, the NAEP can only judge the reading proficiency 

of a state and then compare it to other states. It does not show whether a particular 

student is reading proficiently or how his or her school compares with other schools in 

the area. Measurable results that are useful for parents should be the cornerstone of our 

legislation and about any testing that we do. 

 Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I am endorsing a measure being offered by our 

friend and colleague, Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri. The Accountability and 

Testing Act of 2001 would limit the use of federal funds appropriated for conducting 

testing in elementary and secondary schools to testing that meets certain needs. 

 Under Mr. Akin's bill, unlike the NAEP, testing would be designed by a state 

educational agency. Unlike the NAEP, under Mr. Akin's bill, objective knowledge would 

be tested based on widely agreed upon measurable standards. And most importantly, a 

federal official would not have the authority to verify a test under H.R. 1163. 

 In addition, in the balance of my testimony that I would like to enter into the 

record in the interest the time I encourage the Committee to address that which our 

President eloquently calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. What city better fits that 

description than Congress' own front yard here in Washington, D.C? 

 Currently, 72 percent of the 10-year-olds in the District of Columbia cannot read 

with understanding. It is a school district that oftentimes cannot get rid of poor teachers, 

and consistently starves its few good schools of resources to prevent them from draining 

talent from the rest. 

 Because, Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia is a creature of the Congress, 

we have a special responsibility and opportunity to reform its schools and make them a 

model for America. By implementing an experimental parental choice program, Mr. 

Chairman, we could allow parents here in Washington to help us answer an important 
9

question. Does allowing the parents of poor children the same opportunities as those who 

live in suburbs yield similar results? 

 In other words, if what we want is successful public schools, why not create a 

powerful constituency for them. In short, if parents in the District of Columbia want to 

send their children to good schools, they should get to do so whether public, private or 

otherwise. Therefore, I strongly support the District Choice Initiative, like the one 

endorsed by Senator Joseph Lieberman and Majority Leader Dick Armey during the 

105th Congress. 

 Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy of listening to this small-town 

boy as you help formulate this important legislation. It is my sincerest hope that as you 

do so we will continue to orient ourselves to that basic principle that education ought to, 

by definition, remain a state and local function. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN MIKE PENCE, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

INDIANA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX F

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Pence, for your excellent testimony. We will 

move along rapidly to the Honorable Bob Clement. 

Mr. Clement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, and Members of the Committee. 

 I hate to see our good friend and colleague, Mr. Roemer, leave Congress but, as 

you all know, every Congress he has a child and he cannot afford to stay in Congress any 

longer.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB CLEMENT, 5TH DISTRICT 

OF TENNESSEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 As we move through the reauthorization process of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, I hope that our end result will be improving our public schools. A lot of 

you know I am a former college president. I am Co-chair of the House Education 

Caucus, and I am a strong believer in our public school system. 

 I think all of us know that our schools are outdated, ill equipped and falling apart. 

I visited numerous schools in my district and have seen for myself the poor conditions 

our teachers and students are forced to suffer through; no air conditioning, asbestos, 

closets converted to classrooms, outdated technology and shared facilities and resources.

We must do better. 

 Being from Nashville, Tennessee, I am a strong supporter of music and art in 

public education. I started my kids out in music at five years of age, and I know that it 

changes people's lives. Research has shown that involvement in music programs 
10

improves a child's early cognitive development, basic math and reading ability, selfesteem, SAT scores, self-discipline, and ability to work in teams, special reasoning skills 

and school attendance. And let us not forget the importance and significance of music 

and art in public education and character education. 

 Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas and myself have introduced H.R. 613, the 

Character Learning and Student Success Act of 2001 (CLASS Act of 2001). Character 

education has become a national priority in the education reform debate. I believe that 

the CLASS Act will begin national attention to the importance and effectiveness of 

character education and will help schools create positive learning environments. And I 

hope this Committee will take a close look at this legislation and include it in ESEA 

reauthorization.

 And the last issue I want to mention is H.R. 345; the Three R’s legislation 

introduced by my colleagues Tim Roemer, Adam Smith, and Cal Dooley. I believe that 

this legislation accomplishes many goals. I hope the Committee carefully considers this 

proposal.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to highlight some of 

our priorities in education funding this year. I think we can all agree that education is of 

the utmost importance not only to the Committee and this Congress but also to the 

American people. 

 I look forward to working with you to support educational policies and programs 

that benefit all of our students. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN BOB CLEMENT, 5TH DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX G 

Mr. Castle. Bob, thank you. We appreciate your taking the time to come over and talk to 

the Members of the Committee and we take your suggestions under advisement. 

 With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, 

who I am sure, will talk to us about education equity funding of schools. Mr. Fattah is a 

relentless advocate on behalf of this. 

Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And to you and my other friends on 

this Committee and to the Ranking Member, George Miller, it is a pleasure for me to 

have an opportunity to appear once again before the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, a Committee I served on for three terms. The Chairman has a crystal ball that 

is flawless about the subject matter that I would like to take a few minutes to discuss. 

Mr. Castle. I wish my crystal ball were flawless. It is just that Mr. Fattah has made a 

point of drilling this message into my head over the last several months, and I appreciate 

his thoroughness. 
11

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CHAKA FATTAH, 2ND

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reality is that right now in our country there are, 

in various stages, in our states about 70 different litigations going on over the issue of 

how poor children in rural and urban areas in particular are treated by state financing 

formulas in which they are always on the short end of the per people expenditure, and a 

number of our state Supreme Courts have ruled on this matter. 

 From Kentucky, Montana, Vermont, to New Hampshire we can go through the 

long list including the Chairman's own state, Ohio, where the Supreme Court there has 

ruled that it is unconstitutional to continue to have a system of public education funding 

in which on some first graders the state is spending twice as much as on other first grade 

students. And that disparity continues for each year, every year, until they graduate from 

public school. 

 I think that what I would say to this Committee is that 35 years ago the Congress 

passed the Title I bill, and I have a copy of the debate here, in which the effort of the 

United States Congress was to aid states in responding to the needs of the most 

disadvantaged students. Now we are involved in the reauthorization of that Act for this 

term and for the next five years. And we are going to spend billions of dollars on the 

question of how we can best aid these students from impoverished areas. 

 The reality is that the best thing that we could do is to encourage or, in the 

language of my legislation, H.R. 1234, to require states to fairly fund their public schools 

and not to have a system in which some children in their state, who happen to be poor, 

are on the bottom end of the per people expenditures. 

 The New York Times reports that in Vermont, where the Supreme Court ruled a 

few years ago and where the state is now equalizing, that in the rural school districts you 

are starting to see real improvement. You are starting to see computers in classrooms, 

test scores going up, even a nurse available to students in a school. 

 And so I think that we have a real responsibility as a Congress not to overlook the 

fact, as many of my Republican colleagues have pointed out relentlessly, Mr. Chairman, 

that the majority of the funds that are spent on public education are spent at the state 

level. And if we allow an unequal disparity in those funds, like in my home state where 

the disparity can be close to a couple of hundred thousand differential in one classroom 

from our wealthiest district to our poorest district, and we allow that disparity to continue, 

it is very difficult for us to argue that we are providing an equal educational opportunity 

to young people. 

 And so I think that state governments, if they want to be in partnership with the 

Federal Government, we need to insist that they do their part, and that they fairly 

distribute their local funds in ways in which no children are left behind, in the words of 

our President. Those who start out behind are then compounded in that deficit position by 

funding formulas that across the country some 31 different state Supreme Courts have 

found to be unconstitutional and unequal in their application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 
12

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN CHAKAH FATTAH, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Fattah, we appreciate your testimony and your suggestions. 

Mr. Fattah. My suggestion, as you know, is relentless, but I hope you will consider my 

legislation as an amendment to H.R. 1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. I'd like to welcome to the Committee today, my colleague and 

neighbor from the great state of Ohio, Ted Strickland. Ted, welcome. 

Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to say that I have not yet 

met our new colleague personally, but I know that Representative Allsburn has a Ph.D. in 

educational psychology, and I am sure that as a result he will contribute greatly to what 

happens here in the Congress. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TED STRICKLAND, 6TH

DISTRICT OF OHIO, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for inviting us to give testimony on this bill. I 

understand that one of the cornerstones of this proposal is the annual testing for students 

in grades three through eight. 

 I would like to use my time to share with you some of things that I have learned 

both as a psychologist and as a Representative of a region with a severely under funded 

educational system. 

 In my judgment, educational testing should be used diagnostically to determine 

what learning impediments might exist and prescriptively to determine what methods 

might be best to help a particular student learn better. 

 Educational testing is not intended to be a measure of accountability or a factor in 

decisions about how much money a school district wins as a bonus or loses as a sanction.

The use of statewide tests to make high-stakes decisions about individual students, 

teachers or schools is in my judgment a misuse of standardized testing and has had a 

predictably negative result in my state of Ohio. 

 In preparation for the Ohio test, teachers and students spend weeks prior 

cramming in test-taking strategies in specific subject matter they believe are most likely 

to be covered on the test. Pressure to perform on the test has been so great on students 

and teachers that there have been scattered reports in Ohio of organized cheating and test 

tampering. In several Ohio school districts, breakfast is served to every student during 

the week of the test and only during the week of the test. 
13

 I think that tells us something important. We already know what works in schools, 

yet, we aren't willing to fund it. We know that school breakfast helps kids be more 

attentive or else we wouldn't provide them with breakfast during test week. Yet, we don't 

want to fund that program year-round. What does that say about the priority that we 

place on learning during the rest of the school year versus the week of the test? 

 We also know that smaller class sizes and individual attention helps students 

achieve, otherwise we wouldn't tout that quality as one of the things that makes private 

schools appealing. Yet, we aren't willing to fund initiatives to reduce class size. 

 Statewide proficiency tests tell us one more thing we already know, that kids in 

schools with plenty of resources score better than students in schools with inadequate 

resources. Yet, rather than target abundant resources to low-performing schools, this 

legislation has the capacity or the likelihood, I think, of punishing schools with monetary 

sanctions and vouchers. 

 Test scores reflect more than the quality of education being provided by the 

school and the teacher. Test scores reflect a whole host of factors including 

socioeconomic status, parental involvement, the educational background of the parents, 

and the level of economic investment in the student. Yet, this bill assumes that test 

scores are always valid and reliable indicators of educational quality. 

 I say this, and I don't say it facetiously, but I would hope that every legislator that 

would be willing to pass a bill that would impose life-altering decisions on a child as a 

result of a test would be willing to submit themselves to those tests and to have their 

scores published in the local newspaper. 

 In summary, I strongly support accountability, but I oppose using a test 

instrument that may or may not be valid or reliable enough for use in making an 

important life decision about a child, a teacher or a school. 

 Mr. Chairman, those of us in Ohio are proud of your position on this Committee, 

and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TED STRICKLAND, 6TH DISTRICT OF 

OHIO, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX I 

Chairman Boehner. Ted, thank you. We appreciate your testimony. 

 The Chair is happy to recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood. 

Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Miller and other members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on President Bush's 

proposal to improve education in our country. And I want to commend the Committee's 

commitment to taking on education reform and the reauthorization of ESEA. 
14

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT UNDERWOOD, 

GUAM DELEGATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 The introduction of H.R. 1, which is largely patterned after the President's 

proposal, is a broad-reaching initiative to revamp the public school system in our country. 

However, I would like to raise my concern that there should be attention in the legislation 

regarding the treatment of schools in the U.S. territories. If the goal indeed is to leave no 

child behind in education, then Congress must work to ensure that no child in America 

should be left behind whether they reside in the states or in the territories. 

 As Guam's delegate, and a lifelong educator who has taught and served in the 

administration of public high schools and later served as Academic Vice-president of 

University of Guam, I have always advocated improvement in the manner in which 

federal policy is developed by the Federal Government and its treatment of the territories. 

 I would like to emphasize the special needs of U.S. public schools in the 

territories, which apart from their remoteness from the U.S. mainland, share in the same 

struggle to meet the basic needs of operating a public school system. But due to 

geography and complex historical factors, the territories face unique challenges in the 

cost of maintenance and financing school construction projects, acquisition of school 

supplies and equipment and the recruiting and teaching and training of teaching 

professionals. We also face the added burden of dealing with typhoons and a very 

unforgiving tropical environment, which accelerates the deterioration of our school 

facilities. 

 The Guam Department of Education has crafted a reasonable 10-year plan to 

address the school system's infrastructure. In Guam, six new schools are needed today to 

address the overcrowding and building deterioration problems. We look to federal 

programs and hopefully unique bonding initiates to jump-start Guam's effort to bring 

schools into the 21 Century. 

 The territories are generally included in most national education programs but 

mostly as afterthoughts. As a result, educators in the territories must often follow a 

patchwork system of funding arrangements varying from state shares to special formulas 

for outlying areas in order to obtain needed and fair funding of federal funding program 

resources. The territories also share in the burden of dealing with struggling economies, 

high unemployment rates, diverse indigenous and immigrant cultures and varied Federal 

Government relationships. 

 It is for this reason that territorial schools systems, which all have a unique 

relationship with the Federal Government, deserve special consideration in any 

educational plan which leaves Congress. 

 As a lifelong educator, I must state some of the concerns I have, which I share 

with the previous speaker, Mr. Strickland, about the emerging proposals of accountability 

as stated in this legislation. My concerns about the over-reliance on standardized testing 

as the only measure of educational success may only lead to failure. In a place like 

Guam, standardized testing, as a single measure can be particularly misleading, which is 
15

why additional measures should be employed for accountability. 

 H.R. 1 makes special mention of circumstances to address the needs of migratory 

children, American Indian and Alaska native children, children of military families, 

children with limited English proficiency, and children who live in rural areas. However, 

there is no special section or policy statement that addresses the treatment of school 

children in the territories. Instead, H.R. 1 attempts to address the needs of the smaller 

territories by defining them as “outlying areas.” I don't think too many people would 

enjoy that kind of title. 

 It also creates a definition for the FAS or freely associated states, which includes 

the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the 

Republic of Palau, which are all former U.S. territories. 

 While I believe this is good policy given the fact that the people who reside in the 

territories are U.S. citizens and nationals and the people who reside in the FAS can freely 

migrate into the U.S., I also support the extension of educational resources to the FAS, 

which continues to maintain a special relationship with the United States. 

 A special category or policy statement would help to bring consistency of the 

treatment of territories throughout H.R. 1. As it stands now, the definition of outlying 

areas is inconsistent in the application of the bill. There should be no reason that a 

definitive national policy for the territories not be included in this plan or any plan that 

leaves Congress. 

 The Federal Government has a special and unique relationship to schools in the 

territories. In some instances, the distinct and unique relationships has led to Guam and 

other territories to be treated unevenly and differently amongst each other under federal 

education programs depending on the statute authorizing such programs. More 

importantly, the Federal Government has recognized that special attention must be given 

to challenging circumstances. 

 In closing, I want to state that I am extremely pleased with the work of the 

Committee and the President in prioritizing the issues that confront our national public 

education system. I hope that we can work towards resolving these longstanding issues 

facing territorial governments. And I must reiterate the need for flexibility and 

consistency in resolving our problems given the distinctly unique circumstances. We 

need to work in concert to level the playing field for all American children in the States 

and the territories. 

 I look forward to working with you to ensure that no American child is left behind 

in our national education problems, no matter where they live. Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ROBERT UNDERWOOD, GUAM 

DELEGATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX J 
16

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Underwood, I appreciate your coming in this morning. And 

with that, I'll introduce one of our new Members, from the State of Washington, Rick 

Larsen.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RICK LARSEN, 2ND DISTRICT 

OF WASHINGTON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Members of the Committee. I want to 

take my few minutes to change the focus a little bit on what it means to leave no child 

behind.

 I was asked to provide a few comments with regard to Job Corps, which is a very 

important program in my district in Washington State, and I just want to provide a few 

comments and some perspective on that. 

 I want to acknowledge Earl Leonard and Kim Shillinger with Job Corps, as well 

as Don Wick, who is Executive Director of the Skagit County Economic Development 

Organization, who are working very hard locally to keep Job Corps a success in SedroWoolley.

 Cascade Job Corps program first opened its doors in Sedro-Woolley, Washington 

in 1982, and since then has contributed over $8.5 million to the local economy. The 

center provides crucial training for students in 11 vocations such as construction trades, 

health occupation and culinary arts. 

 Last year alone, over 400 students benefited from the program. For example, 

graduates like Robert Powers, who is now a cement finisher, and Kevin Huff, a cement 

mason, both make over $15 an hour. These men are just two of the many successes of 

the Cascade Job Corps program. 

 It also has a senior volunteer program to provide seniors with work options. Both 

national and regional companies rely on graduates from the Cascade program to sustain 

economic growth. 

 Additionally, the program is an invaluable source of community service for the 

Sedro-Woolley community. Cascades enrollees have constructed the YMCA camp 

facility, paved and built school district sidewalks with concrete, and planted trees for the 

Skagit Fishery Enhancement Agency. The work provided by Job Corps students for 

these projects alone is valued at close to $30,000. 

 Like many local and county leaders in Skagit County, I strongly support the 

Cascades program as part of the national Job Corps program and am proud to have Job 

Corps in my district. It has taught many students and has generated many success stories 

and strengthened families and businesses within the local economy. 

 Finally, I want to take the opportunity to voice my support again for National Job 

Corps and the Cascades program, and I want to ensure that Cascades Program remains in 

Sedro-Woolley so it can continue to offer my constituents and others in the northwest a 
17

valuable source of hands-on job training. 

 I bring this up today in part because it is a part of the story about leaving no child 

behind. It is a very important part of a district like mine which has seen many job losses 

in the last 20 years due to changes in the logging industry and the timber industry. And 

so as we move forward on education, I hope that we do not forget important programs 

like this as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN RICK LARSEN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

WASHINGTON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX K 

Chairman Boehner. Rick, thank you. I'd like to welcome to the Committee another new 

Member, from the State of California, Mike Honda. 

Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MIKE HONDA, 15TH DISTRICT 

OF CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to present testimony today. As a former high school teacher and principal, I 

agree with President Bush that we must hold our students and teachers to higher national 

standards. However, in order to achieve these high national standards, Mr. Chairman, 

accountability and standards must be a two-way street. 

 In order for schools to perform at a higher level, we need to give them better tools 

to encourage and advance their performance. If we are going to judge teachers and 

students by test scores, then Congress must fund programs that encourage improvement 

and growth within education. 

 Nearly 80 percent of Americans support providing federal funding for school 

repair and modernization. Yet, the President's budget eliminates the $1.2 billion 

Congress approved last year for school renovations and cuts another $433 million in 

unspecified programs. 

 In this country, it would take nearly $112 billion to bring public elementary and 

secondary schools into adequate condition. This funding would help renovate up to 

14,000 needy public schools and serve around 14 million students. 

 If we want students to learn more at a faster rate, then we need to reduce class 

sizes to allow teachers to teach. In order to attract and train teachers for both high-need 

schools and underserved teaching topics, such as math and science, Congress should 

increase compensation for qualified teachers. 
18

 According to the National Center for Education Statistics, elementary and 

secondary school enrollment will grow from 52.2 million students in 1997 to 54.4 million 

in 2006. This would require new schools and more teachers. 

 Research has also shown that students in smaller classes in grades K through three 

learn fundamental skills better, and they continue to perform well even after returning to 

large classes after third grade. If we truly expect the nation's schools to meet the 

challenges of greater accountability and higher achievement, then we need to ensure that 

our school leaders and faculty are the best-trained and highly skilled professional 

educators in the world. 

 Due to the positions long hours and high level of stress, many teachers who are 

qualified to be principals choose not to become principals. Combined with the fact that 

many principals are reaching retirement age, this has resulted in a growing principal 

shortage.

 Approximately 40 percent of our nation's principals are expected to retire within 

five to 10 years. Without significant leadership training, we may be neglecting the most 

critical link to improving schools on a national scale. The bottom line is that successful 

schools have professional, well-trained principals. 

 In order for schools to perform at the 21st Century levels, we must provide the 

21st Century technology. Over two-thirds of economic growth stems from technological 

innovation. Our students must be empowered with high tech skills so they can navigate, 

adapt and succeed in the Internet economy. 

 I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1149, which expands incorporation for 

national service by creating a national education technology corps that works with our 

schoolteachers and administrators to integrate technology into classroom curriculum. We 

need to encourage high-tech businesses to render employees to the net corps program to 

ensure that our schools have the most up-to-date technological skills. 

 We are all deeply troubled by the recent school violence in many cities across the 

country. Effective school counseling programs are vital to violence prevention. The 

Elementary School Counselor Demonstration Act will help our nation move toward a 

goal of reducing student to counselor ratio. And there are many programs that help create 

an environment that reduce violence reactions such as Tribes and Green Circle. 

 Now, more than ever, with the greater stress being placed on accountability, Mr. 

Chair, schools need to encourage self-expression through music, and art classes, as well 

as physical education programs. The Federal Government needs to start funding our 

education priorities at the correct levels in order to give schools an opportunity to 

succeed.

 In the classroom, many of my students exceeded their parents' expectation and 

their own expectations once they learned that they had the confidence and respect of their 

teacher and their peers. If families need school breakfast/lunch assistance, access to basic 

healthcare or school counseling, then schools need to provide such programs and 

services. The classroom should be a place of equity not a matter of one's financial status, 

and students should have the opportunity to live better lives better through education. 
19

The gist of all this is if we are talking about accountability and student 

achievement, then the programs that we have been advocating, like modernization, 

increased funding for new schools, and reduction of class size by increasing number of 

teachers, would help student achievement. 

 We also know that research shows that time on task will increase student 

achievement. The environment and teacher instruction and the programs that we are 

advocating, will assure student achievement and accountability. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN MIKE HONDA, 15TH DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX L 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. I want to welcome the gentleman from Savannah, 

Georgia, Jack Kingston. Jack, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JACK KINGSTON, 1ST

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. It is great to be here. 

 I come to you today as a father of four children, as a son of an educator and a 

brother of two sisters who have been schoolteachers. I guess one thing I've learned 

sitting around the breakfast table with the family is that education should be childcentered and it should be dynamic. We should not be afraid to challenge status quo to see 

if we can get a better product. 

 That's why I am a supporter of the President's “No Child Left Behind” education 

legislation. I appreciate the work of your Committee, because I was a member of the 

state legislature when Governor Joe Frank Harris introduced the Quality Basic Education 

Act, and I know what's happening in your Committee right now. You are being 

bombarded from all types of groups who want to change this thing or change that thing, 

and I know you will sort through things to the best of your ability. I just wish you good 

luck, Mr. Chairman, on all that. 

 The portion I wanted to address is the scholarship program, the school choice 

issue. I represent, as you know, Savannah, Georgia, where Gulfstream Aerospace is 

located. A man named Ted Forceman owned Gulfstream for a period of time. Ted 

Forceman actually used $6 million of his own dollars to set up a school choice 

scholarship program here in Washington, D.C. It was so popular that they actually did 

not have enough slots for the applicants, and Mr. Forceman actually went back to the 

well and increased the amount he had offered for kids. But these are the kids who are 
20

trapped in failing schools and wanted to break themselves loose. 

 I saw that here in Washington, D.C. the scholarship choice idea really worked.

Now in this bill, as you know, if a child is in a failing school system, a school that has 

failed for three years in a row, he would have the choice of going to another school.

Right now there is no choice. He has to continue in that school unless his parents move 

out of town or unless the school turns itself around, but there is no impetus for that to 

happen. So I like this aspect of it. 

 Again, getting back to the whole Kingston family table, the child should be the 

first consideration of education, not the bricks and mortars, not the unions, not the 

administrators but the child, and I like that emphasis on that. 

 The second part of this has to do with the school safety issue. I went to a very 

large public school system, and I guess like any other school it had some good and it had 

some bad. I was a victim of crime in the tenth grade, Mr. Chairman. I was dropped on 

my head. Woke up in the hospital with no idea what happened. 

(Chairman Boehner. Now we know what the problem is.) 

Well, I don't know how badly it changed me permanently, but again in twelfth 

grade I was a victim of a crime. I was jumped on and beat up. In tenth grade Gerald 

Winkfield shot Joe Johnson in the school parking lot five times. I was playing basketball 

once and a kid stole the ball from another one, and the guy pulled a gun on him. So I 

know from personal experience what it is like to be in a school that is not safe. 

 Now, obviously, I survived, and there were a lot of good experiences because of 

that, but that is not a great environment for learning the quadratic formula and learning 

geography and learning French. This bill addresses that, again, focusing on the child. It 

says Little Johnny, you are in an unsafe school and nothing seems to be done about that. 

You will have the option of transferring anywhere. 

Mr. Chairman that is what I like about this bill. It is focused on the needs of that 

student. And having walked in those shoes to some degree, I sympathize with him and 

his parents. I have a written testimony, and I will leave it with you. But again, thanks for 

all your good work and keep it up. If we can help you, let me know. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JACK KINGSTON, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX M 

Chairman Boehner. Jack, thank you. We appreciate your taking the time to come in this 

morning.

 I'd like to welcome Elijah Cummings from the great state of Maryland. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS, 7TH

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
21

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank this Committee for all that 

it has done in the past years to lift our children up. 

 I come to you as someone who spent his first six years in special education, told 

that he would never be able to properly speak or graduate from high school only to 

become a Phi Beta Kappa through public schools. One of my concerns today, Mr. 

Chairman, is with regard to the E-rate. 

 In Baltimore, what I do is I take honorarium funding and direct it to a fund we 

have for purchasing computers for our children. At West Baltimore's middle school, we 

just presented two computers to our children, and those children had 14 computers for 

1300 kids. We added two to that from my speaking engagements, and I can tell you these 

eighth graders cried. They were so happy to be connected to the Internet. The two, those 

were connected to the Internet; the 14 were not. 

 The E-rate, however, has played a very significant role in my district. We say that 

we don't want any child to be left behind. I don't want any child to be left out. Left 

behind. I've got children that are being left out, and the whole access-to-computer issue 

is no longer some luxury, it is a civil right. When I look at all those young people who sit 

behind you all up there, every single one of them have had an opportunity to learn about 

computers, and they know how to operate a computer. We've got twelfth graders that are 

graduating from high school who have never touched a computer, never touched one. 

 So, sadly, there are many Members of Congress and the administration that would 

like to curtail or even end the E-rate program all together. I tell you I am very 

disheartened by that in that they do not recognize how critical this program has become 

to millions of American students who would not otherwise have access to the Internet. In 

fact, the Bush administration is proposing block grants for E-rate and technology 

programs that will slash government programs providing computers and Internet access 

to poor and underserved areas. 

 Basically, the administration's plan of block grant funding will effectively 

eliminate the E-rate and not allow E-rate programs to move through the FCC. 

 Technology, as I said before, is no longer a luxury. E-rate is one of these 

programs that have demonstrated its positive impact on student achievement. The E-rate 

programs are working to bring technology into many schools where children have limited 

access to technology. 

 We must guarantee, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, that a plan is available for every 

child in America to cross the digital divide by ensuring that all children, all children, 

whether they are from rural areas or from the inner city of Baltimore, New York, 

regardless of their race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, have access to a computer and 

technology education. And I thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS, 7TH DISTRICT 

OF MARYLAND, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
22

SEE APPENDIX N 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Cummings, we appreciate your testimony and appreciate the 

passion with which you bring your ideas to this Committee. 

Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Boehner. I'd like to welcome John Larson, a Member from the great state of 

Connecticut. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN LARSON, 1ST DISTRICT 

OF CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come and testify before 

the Committee. As the Chairman of the Digital Divide Caucus I want to personally thank 

you and Ranking Member Miller for the opportunity to come here and echo the 

sentiments and the very eloquent remarks of my colleague Elijah Cummings. 

 Clearly, from our standpoint in the Digital Divide Caucus, the goal of leaving no 

child behind could not be more imminent than the need for us to address some of the 

technological issues and barriers that we face today. 

 I'll revise my extended remarks, Mr. Chairman, and cut right to the chase. The 

Department of Commerce issued a report back in 1999 that basically said that even 

though computer technology and access is expanding at a faster rate than ever, there are 

those that are left behind, and those that are left behind or, as Elijah eloquently said, left 

out, happen to break down along the lines of race, gender, geography and wealth. If you 

are wealthy, you are likely to be connected. If you live in a rural area or an urban area, 

you are less likely to be connected. If you are female, you are less likely to be connected.

And if you are black or Hispanic, you are less likely to be connected to the Internet. 

 The Gardner Report issued recently, which I would like to quote from, says very 

specifically “The Internet and American society defining digital divide indicates there has 

always existed an unfair distribution of access to the tools of social mobility. But for the 

first time in history, a technology exists that to a large extent can level the playing field.”

Leveling the playing field is exactly what Elijah was talking about. The need for the tool 

and us to do that throughout our history has been education, and no Committee 

understands it better than this one here. 

 This unfair access has implications that reach to the very social and economic 

core of our nation. And to date, government's digital divide policy has been tactical 

rather than strategic, focusing on the gap between those with Internet access and those 

without it. 

 Leveling the playing field means, by the introduction of technology for us, the 

ability of teachers, I am a former teacher myself, to individualize instruction, to be more 
23

diagnostic in our approach to teaching and, therefore, more prescriptive in the remedies 

that we provide for our students. 

 It goes to all the accountability and testing issues that this Committee and the 

nation has struggled with and does it in a forthright manner that takes us into the 21st 

Century while leaving no child behind. It allows the brightest and the best, the most 

gifted to go as far and as fast as their minds and imaginations will carry them while being 

able to get after the remedial needs of so many of our children because we now have the 

technology to do it. 

 So we cannot skimp on the resources that we need to provide the teacher training, 

or the infrastructure concerns that some of the other Members have mentioned. Most 

importantly, we don't want to lose our preeminent edge that we currently enjoy in the 

global economy, which we are losing both in the terms of national defense and economic 

vitality. 

 I will close by saying that the defense of this nation is continued economic 

prosperity, and its public education system, and its technological advances are 

inextricably linked and tied to our future. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN LARSON, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX O 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Larson, we appreciate your testimony. And there is no 

question as we go through this bill that the technology issues will be very important. 

Mr. Larson. Our bipartisan Committee looks forward to working with you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. With that, I'd like to welcome Anne Northup, Member from 

Louisville, Kentucky, mother of six. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ANNE NORTHUP, 3RD

DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, we bring our experiences, our personal 

experience to Washington. And as the mother of six children, I obviously spent years 

involved in my children's education. 

 I am specifically here to talk about the President's Reading First initiative, which 

is part of his “Leave No Child Behind.” 

 As the Chairman of the Reading Caucus, you know that part of our mission has 

been to focus on how we ensure that every child learns to read, learns to read early. 
24

 We know that in the most recent NAEP test, 42 percent of all children in fourth 

grade did not even read at basic level. And this becomes enormously important because 

all the science that we look at tells us that if a child is behind in fourth grade, especially 

in reading, it can be the beginning of the end in terms of their education. They are most 

likely to begin defining themselves in ways other than their education. They begin to 

turn off, to act as though it doesn't matter, to separate themselves from a positive 

educational experience. 

 When I was first elected, I came to Washington and heard the National Institutes 

of Health, NICHD Institute, talk about the 20 years of research they had done on how 

children learned to read. They were very explicit not only on how kids learn to read but 

why some kids fail. 

 About two weeks later, the Department of Education came before our 

Subcommittee to talk about all of their early childhood literacy programs, about new 

programs that they were instituting, and not one of those programs, not one, with billions 

of dollars was focused on the scientific insights we had gained after 20 years of research 

on how kids learned to read. 

 So we asked the chairman to put into the budget the Report of the National

Reading Panel. The Report of the National Reading Panel worked for two years to 

review all research on how children learn to read, what the time is to intervene, and how 

to intervene effectively for a child at risk. I hope that Members of the Committee have a 

copy. This was actually released by the scientists last year in April, and they did a 

wonderful job. 

 Basically what they told us is that children go through a specific progression 

learning to read. First of all they learn that words are made up of sounds, that cat has 

several sounds to it. Then they start to learn that several letters make those sounds, that 

“M” generally always has the same sound, that “C” always has the same sound. And if 

they go through that process at very early ages, two, three and four, they begin quite 

naturally to decode by the time they are five years old, and they will probably be 

successful.

 For children that aren't at that point, systemic, explicit, intensive intervention is 

important for five-year-olds so that in that special time before they turn eight, they can 

become good readers also. With that kind of intervention, only about three to four 

percent of children don't turn out to be excellent readers. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we focus on reading first. We know what 

works. We know when to intervene. And it is important that we fund the literacy 

programs that reflect what the research shows us. 

 So I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before your Committee and to 

add my voice to the other voices of why the “Leave No Child Behind” and the particular 

Reading First initiative is so important for our children. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN ANNE NORTHUP, 3RD DISTRICT 

OF KENTUCKY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX P 
25

Chairman Boehner. Anne, thank you for coming. We appreciate it. 

 We are pleased to welcome John Baldacci from northern Maine. There are two 

districts in Maine; one is very small down at the southern end, and then the rest of the 

state. You've got the largest district east of the Mississippi; is that right? 

Mr. Baldacci. Very good, Mr. Chairman, very good. Thank you very much, and thank 

you very much for being here. Ranking Member Kildee and the Committee Members that 

are here, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to give testimony regarding President 

Bush's “No Child Left Behind” education proposal. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN BALDACCI, 2ND

DISTRICT OF MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 The legislation is of tremendous importance to me and to Maine's education 

community. My staff and I have discussed the proposal with Governor King and 

Educational Commissioner Duke Albanese and countless teachers, administrators and 

parents, making sure that we enact the right legislation as a top priority for all of us. 

 Maine is leading the nation in transforming into a standards-based, highly 

accountable learning system. The Maine learning results, our state's carefully developed, 

comprehensive education standards, were adopted by the Maine State Legislature in 

1997.

 Since that time, our schools, teachers, and Department of Education have worked 

tirelessly to implement those standards and devise effective assessment practices to 

ensure that every student is meeting the established goals. 

 There is every reason to believe that Maine students are doing just that. Maine 

was rated number one in the nation, the highest performing K through 12 education 

system by the National Education Goals Panel in 1999. Maine is doing this while living 

within its means. The state's per pupil spending is near the national average, while its 

students have the highest composite scores on the National Assessment of Education 

Progress. This points out the success of the state's approach to education. 

 I hope that, and expect, in the final education bill that will be enacted into law this 

year, that Maine's efforts will be respected. One of my greatest concerns about President 

Bush's proposal is the assessment piece. States must retain the flexibility to design 

assessment systems that make sense and that are based on the state's standards. 

 Maine uses a standardized test, the Maine Education Assessment, with every 

student in the fourth, eighth and eleventh grades. The test includes a multiple-choice 

component but also includes open-ended questions. It is an excellent test but one that is 

costly to prepare and score and which takes a significant amount of time to administer. 
26

 Maine recognizes that students demonstrate knowledge and learning in different 

ways. Some do well on pencil and paper tests. Others better show their skills in 

demonstrative ways like going through portfolios or service learning. Maine believes 

that there may be multiple measures locally developed but reviewed to be sure that they 

are reliable and valid. 

 I would agree, and I would object to accountability provisions that fail to give 

states the flexibility to design assessments that meet the needs of the state and its 

students. Simply administering a multiple-choice exam every year will not provide a 

good measure of the progress of individual students or of the school system. 

 I was encouraged by President Bush's comments in Portland, Maine last week 

when he said that ‘the Federal Government should in no way tell the folks in Maine how 

to devise an accountability system, and we don't intend to do so. We trust the local 

people.” I hope this will indeed be reflected in the final legislation that we consider. 

 I also want to share my concerns about the punitive approach taken in that 

proposal where the message is that if you don't do well on these exams, the resources will 

be taken away. In Maine, they are trying to develop an intervention team that can work 

with struggling schools. Experienced educators and administrators will go to under 

performing schools to provide intensive technical assistance and help turn things around. 

 My only other comment, Mr. Chairman, is a concern in regards to block grants 

versus the grant that state projects have already gotten, like Project Mainstay which 

provides English as a second language and bilingual education training opportunities.

These projects are in year two of a five-year program, and the question is how block 

grants would impact on these programs. 

 And I submit the rest of my testimony to be reviewed by your Committee. Thank 

you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN BALDACCI, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX Q 

Chairman Boehner. John, thank you. Don't worry. When it comes to how the states 

handle the testing in grades three through eight in reading and math, it will be their 

decision. In many states such as yours, there isn't a great deal that will have to be done in 

order to meet that goal. 

Mr. Baldacci. I appreciate that. 

Chairman Boehner. So we are not going to have the Federal Government be the 

national school board and create a national test under any circumstances. 

Mr. Baldacci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. With that, thank you. Welcome, Rosa DeLauro from the State of 

Connecticut, one of my classmates in 1990. 
27

Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the Committee. To Ranking Member Kildee and to the other Members who 

are here, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about the President's education proposals. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ROSA DeLAURO, 3RD

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 It really is gratifying that education is now a key part of our national political 

debate. A thoughtful discussion of education reform has always been vital to our future, 

the same as national defense or foreign affairs. And in my view, it is kind of past time 

that education has received as much attention as some of these other areas. 

 I come to you as an original co-sponsor of Mr. Miller and Mr. Kildee's Excellence 

and Accountability in Education Act, a bill I believe is a comprehensive, thoughtful 

approach to education reform, and that I believe can be the centerpiece of a bipartisan 

agreement on education. 

 There is a great deal in common between this proposal and that offered by our 

Republican colleagues. We all want to see greater accountability, higher standards, and 

teacher empowerment, all with the focus of real results in what we are doing. 

 However, while we insist on accountability and results, we must also make a true 

federal investment in education. The President's budget proposal provides a $2.4 billion 

increase for education. He proposes to spend nearly $2 billion of that on reading and Pell 

Grants. Applaudable; I couldn't be happier with that, but this leaves only a $400 million 

increase for all other education programs, elementary, secondary, higher education, 

vocational education, special education. 

 In that area, I might add, we put a mandate on local government with regard to 

special education. And what we don't do is to put our money where our mouth is in terms 

of helping them meet the goals that we have set out for them to embark on. And the $400 

million increase doesn't leave, enough for the initiatives we care about, teacher 

recruitment, training, professional development. 

 We talk about literacy as one of our top priorities, and we cannot forget about 

those individuals who will be teaching our children how to read. My colleague, Ms. 

Northup, and myself have worked together on this reading initiative. I am happy to say 

that through the Labor HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations we've been able to provide 

funding. The State of Connecticut, in collaboration with our cities and towns, is teaching 

teachers how to teach reading, and the results of that have been very, very positive so far. 

While we support literacy, we have to take into consideration laying the foundation for 

learning.

 Last month I introduced the Right Start Act. It is a bill that deals with the concept 

of school readiness. School readiness is a goal that was promulgated in 1990 by then 

President George Bush in collaboration with the head of the National Governors 

Association, William Jefferson Clinton. The goal was that every child should arrive in 
28

school ready to learn by the year 2000. 

 2001, this year, recent accounts of the President's budget suggest a lack of 

commitment, in my view, to school readiness. The failure to invest in the education of 

youngsters was to push children back into the last century rather than moving forward 

into the new one. 

 We are aware that we have studies ad nauseam of when children are learning, 

how they are learning, and those years from zero to three, zero to five, are critical to what 

their future and their future success will be all about. 

 The father of Head Start, Ed Ziegler, who was from Yale University, has written, 

“while literacy is important, so are other skills.” We need to lay a foundation for literacy, 

teaching, for example, the basic concepts of what a rhyme is, and helping kids to increase 

their vocabularies by talking to them, and reading to them. “They can't be taught to read 

before they have basic underlying skills and concepts that children are ready to absorb the 

preschool years.” And that is a quote from Dr. Ziegler. 

 Let me just sum up, and I will submit the rest of my testimony. I'm concerned 

about a recent press account that says that the early budget documents show that the Bush 

proposal plans to eliminate all $20 million that Congress provided for an early learning 

fund to improve the quality of childcare and education for children that are younger than 

five.

 I ask myself, if we put aside all of those studies that we have been reading about 

and understanding how kids learn and how they learn in those years from zero to five, I 

personally view us as criminally liable for not doing right by our youngsters. We can 

work together for meaningful education reform. We can do this on early education. We 

can come to a bipartisan agreement on what needs to get done. Children don't know 

partisanship. They only know the environment they grow up in. And we are here to 

make sure that we provide the best that we can. 

 I look forward to working with the Chairman, with this Committee, on seeing that 

we can do something about our school readiness and early child development. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN ROSA DeLAURO, 3RD DISTRICT 

OF CONNECTICUT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX R 

Chairman Boehner. Rosa, thank you. We appreciate your testimony and would like to 

welcome David Price whose district includes some of the largest universities in the 

country.

David, welcome. 

Mr. Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. And I 

commend you on undertaking these hearings on the President's education initiatives. 
29

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DAVID PRICE, 4TH DISTRICT 

OF NORTH CAROLINA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 I am here today to, I hope, to contribute in a positive way to those efforts by 

focusing on what I consider is perhaps the dominant education issue of the next decade, 

and that is our need for more teachers and for high quality teachers. 

 You know, we have lots of ideas about education reform, but none of them are 

going to be successful without a high quality teaching force, and we know that a million 

of our country's three million teachers are going to retire in the next few years. That 

means my home state of North Carolina has to find 80,000 new teachers in the next 10 

years. We don't know where they are coming from. And nationwide it is 2.2 million 

teachers, and I don't think we know where they are coming from. So we've got to find 

ways to encourage our best and brightest students to become public schoolteachers. And 

in that light, I'd like to bring to the Committee's attention legislation that I have 

introduced to address our nation's critical shortage, the Teaching Fellows Act, H.R. 839. 

Secretary Paige said in testimony before your Committee, and I'm quoting, “We 

need to learn from the states and school districts across the country, and we need to bring 

to the federal education programs many of the strategies that have worked so well at the 

state and local levels.” 

 Well, my bill, The Teaching Fellows Act, is a case in point. It builds on two ideas 

that have been extremely successful in my home state of North Carolina and offers 

support to states that want to create or expand similar programs. I'll leave most of the 

specifics for the record, but let me just say that this legislation is based on state-based 

non-bureaucratic programs. It is open to innovation at the state level. It is the kind of 

approach I believe that Members of both parties can support. 

 I'm glad to see Mr. Kildee here. He and the Subcommittee came down to North 

Carolina. Mr. Castle held hearings and we heard from people who have administered this 

Teaching Fellows Program. That is in the record and I hope will be useful to the 

Committee as you consider how to approach our need for quality teachers. 

 The North Carolina program is called the Teaching Fellows Program. It was 

enacted in 1996. It gives students, who agree to become teachers, four-year scholarships. 

It requires them to participate in extracurricular activities that hone their teaching skills 

and their professional identification. 

 The Teaching Fellows Act, my bill, would provide $200 million to states who set 

up programs of this sort for high school seniors, or they could choose to start it with the 

sophomore year in college. It would provide annual scholarships, would support 

extracurricular enrichment activities, and it would give the states great flexibility in 

designing programs that meet their needs. In return for the investment, the fellows would 

teach in the state for four years at public schools or for three years at low-performing 

schools.

 This has worked well in North Carolina. We have awarded 6,000 scholarships in 

the state to outstanding seniors. A large majority of those recipients have fulfilled their 
30

teaching obligations, and 73 percent of the fellow graduates remain beyond the period of 

obligation. In other words, we are retaining teachers as well as recruiting new teachers. 

 I see my time is running out. There is another facet of this bill that reaches into 

the community college system. Our former colleague, Martin Lancaster, who now heads 

up the North Carolina community college system, has worked with me on this. I am 

persuaded that there are many two-year graduates, people who are training as teaching 

fellows, as daycare workers or whatever with two-year degrees, if we could facilitate the 

transition from community college to four-year programs, I believe many of these people 

would be fine teachers. And that is another source for supplementing our teaching force. 

 We are going to need to look for teachers wherever we can find them. This isn't 

just a quantity issue it is a quality issue. These are programs of proven quality. And we 

are not just throwing money at the problem, but we are giving students the kind of 

atmosphere I think that will not only train them as teachers but also help them succeed in 

their early years of teaching. 

 So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to lay this before you this morning. I'll 

submit my full statement for the record. I look forward to working with Members of both 

parties as we address the coming crisis in the quantity and quality of America's teaching 

force.

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN DAVID PRICE, 4TH DISTRICT OF 

NORTH CAROLINA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX S 

Chairman Boehner. Well, David, thank you for your testimony. You are certainly right. 

We have a crisis in terms of the numbers and the quality of new teachers, and it is 

something that we are going to work closely on as we develop this bill. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

Mr. Price. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. We are pleased to welcome Darlene Hooley to the Committee, a 

Member from the great state of Oregon. 

Darlene, welcome. 

Ms. Hooley. Thank you. I am delighted to be here, Mr. Chairman, and it is nice to testify 

in front of a Committee that I think is doing such important work. I think education is 

one of the most important things we do on the federal level. 
31

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN DARLENE HOOLEY, 5TH

DISTRICT OF OREGON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 I'm going to talk about a single issue. It is near and dear to my heart. I know 

your topic is “Leave No Child Behind.” Well, I think you can't talk about that unless you 

talk about children with disabilities, and I would like to thank the entire Committee for 

showing support for children with disabilities. 

 This Committee has shown their commitment early on by including views and 

estimates on the fiscal year 2002 budget and your recommendation for the full funding of 

the Individuals with Disability Education Act. 

 I visited, like I'm sure all of you have, schools across my district, large and small, 

rural and urban, and despite their geographic and economic differences, every school is 

struggling to provide the necessary services to children with disabilities. 

 As you know, we began this discussion 26 years ago. We said we would pay 40 

percent of the excess cost to educate a child with disabilities. We have not lived up to 

that agreement. We have done, actually, fairly poorly except for the last couple of years 

where we have finally gotten it up to almost 15 percent. 

 What has happened when we don't pay our full share of the cost is that it really 

hurts our local communities, and let me give you an example. In one of my small rural 

schools, they have a child that has autism and other disabilities; it's not just autism. To 

educate that child costs about $100,000 a year. For a small rural school district, that just 

kills them. I mean, that is way more than they can afford. Now, the child absolutely 

deserves the services, but it is really tough, again, on some of our small schools no matter 

whether they have a severe case like this or lesser cases. The fact is if they only have a 

couple of children, they still need a teacher, they still need a bus, whereas although it is 

difficult for the larger schools as well, sometimes they absorb the costs a little better. 

 I think it is time that we take some real action on this. You know, we made a 

commitment, and I know many of you in this room made a commitment to double the 

funding for National Institutes of Health. I think we need to make a commitment to fund 

the IDEA program. And whether we do that over five years, six years or ten years, I 

think we have to constantly be working toward that goal and make a commitment. For 

example, if you do it over five years, it's a $3 billion price tag. If you do it over ten years, 

it's half of that, $1.5 billion a year. But we need to have a concerted effort. It doesn't do 

any good to pass a resolution saying we want to do this, which we did last year. 

 Although I know this Committee isn't appropriations, you certainly have a large 

influence on appropriations, and I would hope that we can finally keep our promises to 

our children and make this happen. And with that, I will submit the rest of this for the 

record.

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSWOMAN DARLENE HOOLEY, 5TH

DISTRICT OF OREGON, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 
32

D.C. – SEE APPENDIX T 

Chairman Boehner. Well, thank you for your testimony, and I point out that in the 

President's proposal and various proposals before our Committee, the deal with Early 

Childhood Reading and Reading First is that we are seeing more and more children in 

IDEA because they have reading problems. And to the extent that we can implement 

these programs this year, we think we will take a major step in reducing the number of 

children who actually end up in these programs, because if we don't do something about 

the over-identification of children in these programs, we'll never ever get the 40 percent. 

Ms. Hooley. Mr. Chair, I understand that. Absolutely reading programs will help. What 

we do in preschool will help. But whatever changes we make, I still think we need to 

work toward the goal of providing our share that we said we would provide. 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you. 

Ms. Hooley. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. We are pleased to welcome Jim Matheson, a new Member from the 

great state of Utah. Welcome. 

Jim has to go to the floor, Todd, so we're going to allow him to go first. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JIM MATHESON, 2ND

DISTRICT OF UTAH, U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the 

Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about President Bush's education 

proposal. Education reform is a high priority for the people of Utah, and today I'd like to 

speak to you as their representative to share with you some of their unique challenges and 

concerns.

 I represent the state with the lowest per pupil expenditure in the nation. This 

year's census data shows that Utah has the highest number of students per teacher in the 

nation. These statistics are the results of tremendous family growth and immigration 

which local schools are struggling to keep up with. 

 The State Office of Education estimates that in the next ten years, Utah will add 

over 100,000 new students. This will require the construction of over 124 new schools, 

which is a 15 percent increase. 

 The number of teachers available to teach students is diminishing because wages 

and working conditions in Utah cannot keep up with those in neighboring states. The 

results are chronically over-crowded classrooms, outdated textbooks and scarce supplies.

Clearly, education is primarily a state and local issue, but because these resources are so 

limited, a state-federal partnership is that much more critical in my state. 
33

 Often, federal dollars are the only source of funding for specific educational 

programs in Utah schools. As I have spoken to Utah educators about the education 

proposals being considered by this Committee, several themes have emerged, and I hope 

my outline of these will aid you in ensuring that education reform will be effective in 

states such as Utah with unique educational challenges. 

 Utah educators are excited about the priority President Bush is placing on 

education. They agree with increased funding, flexibility and accountability. However, 

they have a few concerns about these changes that may affect their schools. 

 First, Utahans worry about unfunded mandates and increased bureaucracy. They 

are concerned about providing additional services with the limited education dollars they 

have and with inadequate federal support. Although it is a short digression from the 

reauthorization being considered here, I must mention how crucial increased IDEA 

funding is to every educator with whom I speak. 

 The cost of educating special needs students is draining resources from all 

students as the Federal Government fails to keep its promise to fund IDEA. School 

districts and local education agencies also require flexibility. Rather than imposing 

another layer of bureaucracy by requiring funds to be passed through the state, money 

should be directed to the most local level possible. 

 Second, Utahans aren't afraid of being held accountable. The state has already 

passed legislation requiring annual testing across all major subject areas. They are also 

going to be publishing school report cards and making them available to parents. Years 

of preparation have gone into aligning curriculum with these tests, but local officials do 

worry about federal mandates requiring that this testing be in place too quickly. They are 

concerned that federal mandates could force them to change the quality test that they 

have already developed. 

 High turnover and influxes of refugee and immigrant students over the course of 

the year creates a problem for the process of tying federal dollars to school outcomes on 

tests. They urge the use of tests to measure student progress over time, examining where 

a student begins a school year and comparing it to when the student is finished at the end 

of the school year. 

 In addition, Utah already allows for public school choice except where 

overcrowding prevents particular schools from accepting additional students. But the 

education community has told me they cannot afford any plan that would take funding, 

especially Title I funding, away from those public schools that need it most. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JIM MATHESON, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

UTAH, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX U 

Chairman Boehner. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. Matheson. Okay, I appreciate that. 
34

Chairman Boehner. We'll gladly take the rest of your statement and put it in the record. 

Mr. Matheson. I would just like to provide that for the record. I certainly appreciate the 

time to talk on this important subject. 

Chairman Boehner. Glad to do it. Thank you. 

Mr. Matheson. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Boehner. With that, let me welcome another one of our freshman Members, 

Todd Akin, from the St. Louis, Missouri suburbs. 

 Todd. 

Mr. Akin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee. 

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the different members of your staff and 

other Members of the Committee that have worked with us over the last number of weeks 

regarding some of our interests and concerns in the area of testing. There is one 

additional item that I would appreciate bringing to the Committee's attention today. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TODD AKIN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

MISSOURI, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

 I believe that the heart of the bill is really, first of all, that we are going to measure 

students, measure schools, and then we are going to be holding them accountable. It 

seems to me that in order for us to do this in a practical way at the federal level that the 

tests that are being used as a tool, and I'm very supportive of those tests, should be chosen 

either locally or at the state level, but still those tests need to be objective in nature and 

not subjective. 

 How can we measure accountability and tie federal dollars to it if a test asks a 

question about how do you feel about this, or did you like this, or what's your favorite 

color or something along those lines. I would argue that subjective questions might have 

some place in a test somewhere, but in terms of us trying to measure and hold 

accountable and tie dollars to it, that the testing should be objective in its nature. 

 Now, perhaps I am reflecting a little bit of the nature of an engineer here in my 

understanding that we construct logic from, first of all, known things that we all agree to 

and we reason from that. But I think that if we move into the area of allowing subjective 

testing, we have no real basis, particularly on a state-by-state way to say how we are 

going to tie dollars to what your favorite color is. It is just not going to work. 

 So if a particular school or state wants to test on some of these attitudinal 

questions or their political correctness or whatever, I have no problem with states doing 

that, but I just don't think it fits for us to tie federal dollars to it. We have introduced 

H. R. 1163, where we take a good stab at defining what is objective as opposed to 

subjective. I'll make that available. 
35

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TODD AKIN, 2ND DISTRICT OF 

MISSOURI, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX V 

Chairman Boehner. Todd, thank you. We appreciate your testimony, and we appreciate 

the ideas that you brought to us. We'll look forward to continuing to work with you as we 

develop this bill. 

Mr. Akin. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. I'm pleased to introduce my colleague from the great state of South 

Dakota who has the whole state of South Dakota, John Thune.

 John, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN THUNE, SOUTH 

DAKOTA- AT LARGE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today, too, on behalf of President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” 

education proposal. I am here today representing the Members of the Congressional 

Rural Caucus. As you know, the Rural Caucus is a bipartisan coalition of 138 Members 

who are committed to helping build brighter futures for the millions of Americans living 

in rural communities. 

 Whenever major legislation is debated, the Rural Caucus provides input to other 

Members on the unique consequences these initiatives may have on rural areas. Certainly, 

few other proposals affect rural areas quite as profoundly as education reform. 

 Federal education reform is desperately needed across this country. Too many 

students and teachers from my state of South Dakota have felt the direct impact of the 

waste, fraud and abuse of the Washington education bureaucracy. 

 Last year nearly $2 million of impact aid money, money that was promised to 

rural school districts, seems to have magically disappeared from the coffers of the federal 

Department of Education. It appears it was a case of malfeasance on the part of a few 

federal bureaucrats. 

 Now, $2 million may not mean a lot in Washington, but when these schools do 

not receive their federal education dollars, there are very real consequences. They can't 

expand their kindergarten programs; they can't add chemistry and sociology classes in the 

high school; and they can't hire new teachers. 
36

 It is clear that an unresponsive and inflexible and overly bureaucratic federal 

education system handicaps our students. Rural schools have limited choices. They can 

decide to pull teachers out of classrooms and instead hire employees to fill out federal 

paperwork, or they can give up the volumes of paperwork and sacrifice the federal grant 

dollars that could be put to use in the classroom. Clearly, that's not much of a choice. 

 Time and again, Members of the Rural Caucus hear from their school 

administrators and school board members that schools need flexibility in accessing 

federal education programs. I am pleased that H.R. 1, the “No Child Left Behind” 

proposal, has specific provisions for flexibility for rural schools. Rural school districts 

have little opportunity to compete for discretionary federal funding. For those that 

successfully receive discretionary funds, the allocation can be so small that it has 

relatively little value to them. 

 H.R. 1 works to correct this problem by providing the funding needed to make 

these competitive programs worthwhile for rural schools to apply. The idea is to give 

rural school districts the flexibility and funding to make these programs workable. It 

allows rural school districts to bypass the state bureaucracy and apply directly to the 

Federal Government for these special funds, something that school districts in rural areas 

really want. 

 Rural school districts would finally have useful amounts of funding to improve 

their academic achievement and, after all, academic achievement is what we are all 

aiming for here. 

 While specific rural education provisions will benefit thousands of students across 

the country, some of the broader flexibility proposals will help every school district, 

whether that district is rural, urban or somewhere in between. 

 H.R. 1 gives states and local school districts additional flexibility to improve 

student performance by cutting red tape and consolidating a host of programs to ensure 

that state and local officials can meet the unique needs of students. 

 Now, that sounds like a lot of tired rhetoric, but the advantages of flexible 

programming are very real. Now, I'll give you an example. My hometown of Myrtle, 

South Dakota has about 700 people. This year's kindergarten class has four students in it. 

I don't think that Myrtle needs any classroom reduction money. Instead of funding a 

separate program that can only be used by school districts with class size reduction, H.R. 

1 allows schools to address classroom quality differently. Rather than passing up these 

valuable federal dollars, Myrtle can use the money for teacher recruitment, professional 

development or technical training. 

 So I commend the Committee on the work that they are doing with the President's 

education proposals. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and look forward, on 

behalf of the Rural Caucus, to working with this Committee, the President and his 

administration on improving education for our nation's children. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN THUNE, SOUTH DAKOTAAT LARGE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
37

SEE APPENDIX W 

Chairman Boehner. John, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. And we're 

pleased to welcome Adam Schiff, one of our freshman Members of Congress, from the 

greater Los Angeles area; is that correct? 

Mr. Schiff. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Welcome. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, 27TH DISTRICT 

OF CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

before you today on the President's “No Child Left Behind” education proposal. 

 Education is clearly one of the key issues we face as a nation, and our policy must 

be a comprehensive one that addresses all elements of a child's educational development 

from the earliest stages through K-12 and into the college years. 

 We often wonder why our children in the third, fourth or fifth grade still haven't 

learned to read. As a proud parent of a two-year-old, I see the progress that she makes 

every day. Children her age are like sponges. They are so willing and eager to learn, we 

should not deny any child's thirst for knowledge, especially at the earliest possible stages. 

 Last week, I was proud to join with my colleague and a Member of this 

Committee, Representative Todd Platts, in introducing a bipartisan bill to ensure that 

every child has the tools necessary to succeed in school and in life. 

 Our bill, H.R. 1201, The Reading Readiness Act, requires that the Department of 

Health and Human Services conduct a study of best practices with regard to reading 

readiness and provide an incentive to have every Head Start program to adopt these 

practices. The study will include recommendations of ways to improve on reading 

readiness and incentives for existing programs to adopt these best practices. 

 The bill requires every Head Start program to have a strong focus on reading 

readiness at age-appropriate levels. Most Head Start programs already have a strong 

reading component. The Head Start programs in my district, for example, are set up like 

regular classrooms, and those children are learning letters and sounds and numbers and 

much more. 

 The bill also addresses increasing enrollment and eligibility and full funds the 

program over the next few years. 

 Head Start began in 1965 as a comprehensive program for children offering 

nutrition, parenting skills, healthcare and more in a preschool environment. It has served 

more than 18 million low-income preschool children. Nothing in this bill jeopardizes the 

comprehensive nature of Head Start; rather it will ensure that reading readiness is a 
38

central theme in all Head Start programs while striving for all programs to adopt best 

practices in reading readiness. And of course, a key component of making this happen is 

full funding. 

 Leaving no child behind means eliminating any waiting lists that children are 

currently on. In 1999, only one percent of eligible children under three years old were 

enrolled. Only 33 percent of eligible three-year-olds were enrolled, and only 60 percent 

of four-year-olds were enrolled. And this is not because parents don't want to get their 

children into the program; in fact, there are waiting lists in many parts of the country and 

certainly in areas of Los Angeles County such as where I represent. 

 Funding for Head Start was $6.2 billion in fiscal year 2001. Unfortunately, this is 

less than half of what it is estimated would be necessary to fully fund the program in the 

next several years. 

 The Reading Readiness Act takes two major steps toward full funding by 

authorizing $9.2 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. I am 

pleased to report the bill has the support of both the National Head Start Association and 

the National Education Association. 

 I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, to address 

education at every age level. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, 27TH DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEE APPENDIX X 

Chairman Boehner. Adam, thank you. We appreciate your testimony. And I would 

think that later on this year after we finish the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

we will deal with the issues of Head Start and the President's proposal. Thank you. 

Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Boehner. Before we go vote, we're going to hear from Tom Allen. Tom 

represents the other district in Maine, for those of you that have been here. 

 Your colleague, Mr. Baldacci, was here earlier. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TOM ALLEN, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee and others. I appreciate the chance to 

testify before the Committee about President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” education 

proposal.
39

 I want to speak about the need for high standards and accountability and to urge 

this Committee to ensure that states and local districts retain flexibility in their 

assessment practices. With increased calls for accountability to measure how public 

schools are performing, we must make sure that we assess not just tests, and I want to 

describe what we do in Maine. 

 I agree with the President on many of his goals. Effectiveness, accountability, 

assessment and state and local flexibility are requisites of any education reform plan, but 

I do disagree with some of the details. Requiring yearly tests imposes a new mandate on 

our already fiscally troubled state budgets. The President has said, albeit without much 

detail, that the Federal Government would provide the necessary financial assistance.

But if the Senate's Better Education for Students and Teacher Act were any indication, 

states would only receive funds to cover 50 percent of the costs of implementing the tests. 

This would force yet another unfunded mandate upon the states, the most prominent of 

which is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

 We have not met our commitment to funding 40 percent of the costs of special 

education for the last 26 years, and I see no reason to believe we would meet a new 

commitment. Just last night, the Rules Committee rejected a proposed amendment of 

mine to fully fund special education this year. It meant an additional $11.4 billion in 

return for reducing the size of the tax cut at the upper levels. It seems to me that if we are 

ever going to fully fund special education, we have to do it this year. The opportunity 

will not come again assuming projections hold. 

 Over the last ten years, a total of 48 states have implemented some system of 

accountability. It is ironic that the current administration wants to mandate national 

accountability when local flexibility is its top priority. A federal emphasis on 

standardized testing is problematic. We must not forget Senator Kennedy's remarks that 

tests are not reforms but only measurements of the progress of reforms. 

 The best way to improve our schools is a caring and competent teacher in every 

classroom. A qualified and dedicated teacher, not just having the best standards and 

assessment measures, leads to improved student achievement. Studies indicate that the 

lowest achieving students in both urban and rural areas are in classrooms with the least 

qualified teachers. Often they teach a subject in which they did not major or minor in 

college. I believe the best policy is to hire caring teachers who have a background in the 

subject they teach and to offer them opportunities for continued professional 

development. 

 A word about Maine; as part of Learning Results Program, Maine has a 

partnership with local school districts. Both the state and local schools do assessment. 

More than multiple-choice exams, these comprehensive assessments measure learning 

through a variety of methods. The state component includes the Maine Educational 

Assessment, which is given to students in grades four, eight and eleven. Individual 

student's scores are reported in five content areas. The state also assists educators in 

clarifying standards for local assessment systems, developing and evaluating performance 

tasks and student portfolios, serving as a clearinghouse for exemplary local assessment 

practices, and developing a framework for multiple and diverse assessments to ensure 

that all Maine students reach high standards. And this has been done as a result of a real 

partnership not just between the state and local officials, but also with the business 
40

community. The business community has been very involved in this particular effort. 

 We think that our experience is that sound assessment coupled with good 

professional development has lead to increased achievement in writing. 

 I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify. I urge the Committee to 

reject calls for high-stakes testing and fiscal sanctions and instead support initiatives that 

will place a caring, competent teacher in every classroom. Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT, CONGRESSMAN TOM ALLEN, 1ST DISTRICT OF 

MAINE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX Y 

Chairman Boehner. Tom, we appreciate your testimony. There are several other 

Members that we thought were coming. I suspect that they are on the floor and voting, 

and not coming. We will go ahead and adjourn the meeting. 

 Thank you for coming. 

Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned 
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Boehner, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 

40

Mr. Akin, 34, 35 

Mr. Allen, 38 

Mr. Baldacci, 25, 26 

Mr. Castle, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 

Mr. Clement, 9 

Mr. Cummings, 22 

Mr. Fattah, 10, 12 

Mr. Honda, 17 

Mr. Kildee, 2, 3, 5 

Mr. Kingston, 19 

Mr. Larson, 23 

Mr. Latham, 3, 5 

Mr. Matheson, 33, 34 

Mr. Price, 28, 30 

Mr. Schiff, 37, 38 

Mr. Strickland, 12 

Mr. Underwood, 13 

Ms. DeLauro, 27 

Ms. Hooley, 30, 32 

Ms. Johnson, 6