Court Opinion

ID: 9631921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:55:40.294739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:02.424662
License: Public Domain

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Imagine the following: there is a service with which State and local governments have historically provided its citizens. The governments finance the service through taxes. Local provision, local financing, local control. But now, imagine that the federal government comes along and offers a deal associated with that service. The deal comes with both a carrot (more money) and a stick (more duties). A reading of the offer sheet confirms what could be expected: the duties are mandatory if they choose to participate, but the money, well, like all money from the federal government, is subject to change from year-to-year. But, the reading also confirms that the offer can be accepted in one period and dropped the next, so the risks are not open-ended. The State and local officials are thus faced with a choice: accept the money and assume the duties, or forgo both and go it alone with less money but fewer duties.
There is, of course, really no need to imagine such a world — what I have described is not the Emerald City in the Land of Oz but rather this country’s primary and secondary education system. But rather than wearing green-tinted glasses, I submit that the inhabitants of this system — State and local school officials — had a crystal clear vision of what Congress was offering them by way of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (the “NCLB”). Many of them could not bring themselves to pass up the federal funds, but simply hoped that someone or something would save them at the end of the road. Today the majority does exactly that.
While the federal government historically has always contributed a relatively small amount to the total funding of local education, increasingly it has become concerned about the decline in the quality of children’s education, particularly with respect to the nation’s most at-risk children. In an attempt to achieve more accountability in local education, Congress passed the NCLB, which revised the earlier Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (“ESEA”), Pub.L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-7941). Although participation in the NCLB is voluntary, Congress imposed significant educational reforms for those states that elect to participate and receive federal funds. Today the majority holds, in an opinion contrary to the way our nation’s education has been operated and funded for centuries, that Congress could have intended that the federal government now fund the entire cost of various educational reforms for our nation’s children. Because there is no support in the text or context of the NCLB for the proposition that Congress intended such a monumental and unprecedented change in our nation’s education funding, I respectfully dissent.
I
Regardless of whether federal funds defray the entire cost of compliance, participating States and school districts must comply with the NCLB’s educational re*274quirements. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, § 7907(a) does not render the NCLB ambiguous; thus, Congress did not exceed its authority under the Spending Clause. By creating ambiguity where none exists, the majority largely avoids Plaintiffs’ principal argument on appeal, although it does allude in passing to its inherent weakness. See Maj. op. at 264 (“Indeed, perhaps the Secretary’s view of the text [of § 7907(a) ] is ultimately correct.”). As I find no ambiguity, I must first address Plaintiffs’ principal argument.
Plaintiffs contend that a plain reading of 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a) leads to the conclusion that notwithstanding States’ acceptance of federal funds intended to defray a portion of the cost of local education, States and local school districts need not comply with the educational requirements set forth in the NCLB if they deem federal funding to be insufficient to cover the entire cost of compliance. Section 7907(a) states in relevant part: “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to ... mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Chapter.” Plaintiffs argue that § 7907(a) means that the “NCLB cannot be implemented in a manner that requires states and school districts ‘to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under th[e NCLB].’ ” Appellants’ Br. at 28-29 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a)) (alteration in original). As explained below, the text, operation, and structure of the NCLB undermine Plaintiffs’ reading. Bennett v. Ky. Dep’t of Educ., 470 U.S. 656, 666-67, 105 S.Ct. 1544, 84 L.Ed.2d 590 (1985) (“[T]he background of the actual operation of Title I” informs a proper understanding of “the fundamental nature of the obligations assumed under Title L”). Instead, § 7907(a) is properly read to mean that federal officers who are charged with implementing and administering the NCLB cannot transform the statutory scheme from a voluntary program to a mandatory one. Plaintiffs’ interpretation has the absurd effect of eviscerating with a single provision the entire comprehensive scheme of accountability requirements and financial disbursements set forth in hundreds of pages of statutory text. Without a stronger showing that Congress actually intended that result, I decline to adopt such an untenable interpretation.
A. NCLB Educational Requirements
The NCLB expressly outlines participating States’ and school districts’ obligations to meet various educational requirements. If a State accepts money under a particular part of the NCLB, it must comply with that part’s requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 6311(a)(1); see also id. §§ 6363(a)(1), 6396(a)(1), 6842(a)(1). Conversely, if a State does not seek any funding under the NCLB, it need not comply with any of the NCLB’s requirements.
School districts within a participating State face a more complicated set of obligations. Most of the NCLB’s funds are allocated to school districts based on the number of qualifying students in the school (e.g., low-income students, migrant students, etc.). School districts without at-risk students will not receive any funding under particular parts of the NCLB and therefore will not be required to comply with some of the NCLB’s requirements.
Yet, districts without at-risk students are not completely off the regulatory hook. Some requirements under Title I, Part A apply across an entire participating State, rather than just to those “local educational agencies]” (i.e., school districts) that receive federal funds. For example, a participating State must create statewide academic standards and all school districts in the state must test their public-school students under those standards. Id. *275§ 6311(b)(1)(B), (3)(A). The broad reach of § 6311 is made clear by the limited exception for school districts that do not receive federal funds: they need not publish the results of student testing or take certain steps if a school fails to make AYP. Id. §§ 6311 (b)(2)(A)(ii), 6316. Pointedly, Congress did not tell non-funded school districts that they need not perform any testing in the first instance.
This example highlights the central defect in Plaintiffs’ argument. Congress intended, as expressed in the text of the NCLB, that a participating State raise standards of student education across the entire state, regardless of whether one well-off pocket of the state does not receive any federal funds. In those districts that do receive federal funds, Congress simply requires even more. When Congress expressly applies certain requirements to all school districts irrespective of funding, that is a clear indication that it did not intend to tie the cost of complying with the NCLB’s requirements to the amount of federal funding, which is inherently subject to change based on the spending priorities of each particular Congress and its competing demands for increasingly scarce federal dollars.
B. NCLB Funding Scheme
Plaintiffs argue that the NCLB’s educational requirements are enforceable only when the federal government defrays the entire cost of compliance. The funding structure of the NCLB dictates otherwise. Most telling is that there is no mention of the cost of compliance anywhere in the text of the NCLB, let alone any promise of relief if federal funding is insufficient to defray the entire cost of compliance. The NCLB’s silence as to the cost of compliance or to any explicit relief therefrom if federal dollars fall short is particularly conspicuous here insofar as Congress, in structuring the NCLB, was well aware that our nation’s education system is historically funded largely by State, not federal dollars. Cf. Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U.S. 632, 635, 105 S.Ct. 1555, 84 L.Ed.2d 572 (1985) (explaining that Title I was enacted by Congress with “[r]e-spect[ ][for] the deeply rooted tradition of state and local control over education”).
The NCLB’s funds are distributed to schools and school districts based on the types of students in those schools and districts, not on costs. Under Title I, Part A, for each student from a low-income family or in institutional care, a school district is “eligible to receive ... 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in the State.” 20 U.S.C. § 6333(a)(1)(B). Schools with more low-income students will receive more Title I, Part A funding than schools with fewer low-income students, and schools with no low-income students will receive no funds under the main grant in Title I, Part A. See id. § 6333(c)(2).
In most cases, schools that receive federal funding must spend the funds only on the specific students who count toward the amount of funding the school receives (low-income, migrant, etc.), not the entire student-body in general. For example, only where at least 40% of a school’s students are low-income can the school use federal funds “to upgrade the entire educational program of a school.” Id. § 6314(a)(1). For schools with less than 40% low-income students, the federal funds must be spent only on those low-income students. See id. Nevertheless, the latter schools must still meet all of the NCLB’s requirements, regardless of federal spending on each particular student.
Other features of the NCLB’s scheme undercut Plaintiffs’ position. Congress capped the aggregate funds authorized under the NCLB without any provision for *276the actual costs of compliance. Id. § 6302(a). The NCLB also expressly provides for the possibility that funds available in a given year might be insufficient to pay all school districts the amounts they are eligible to receive: “If the sums available ... are insufficient to pay the full amounts that all [school districts] are eligible to receive ..., the Secretary shall rat-ably reduce” each school district’s funding. Id. § 6332(b)(1). At no time have the amounts school districts are eligible to receive come even close to equaling the cost of compliance. Similar provisions appear in the programs for high-quality teachers and migrant children. See, e.g., id. § 6393(c)(1)(A). Yet, there is no provision that excuses a school district’s compliance with the NCLB’s requirements in the face of a shortfall in the amounts school districts are eligible to receive, let alone the total cost of compliance.
This overview of the NCLB’s funding structure highlights another important point. It simply defies commonsense to suggest that Congress intended to relieve States and school districts from compliance with the NCLB’s requirements when the cost of compliance — which Congress does not control — exceeds appropriations, but not when the amounts appropriated — over which Congress has total control — fall below the amounts school districts are eligible to receive.
Plaintiffs argue that the fact that Congress has elected not to appropriate all the funding it is authorized to appropriate under Title I, Part A supports their position that the NCLB is underfunded. This actually shows just the opposite. Neither Title I, Part A nor any other part of the NCLB authorizes any appropriations beyond 2006-2007. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. §§ 6302(a), 6553, 6603(a), 6663, 6801(a), 7103. Continued NCLB funding will require reauthori-zation of appropriations by Congress each year after 2006-2007. Yet, at the same time that it authorized funds only through 2006-2007, Congress applied the NCLB’s educational requirements through 2013-2014. See id. § 6311(b)(2)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 200.15. Again, this demonstrates a fundamental and important disconnect between appropriations and requirements.
More importantly, Plaintiffs ignore the undisputable fact that even if Congress had “fully funded” the NCLB each year (i.e., annually appropriated the entire amount authorized), the funds would still have fallen far short of the total purported costs of compliance. This can be seen by comparing the disparity between actual appropriations and purported compliance costs versus the disparity between authorizations and actual appropriations. According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, federal funding in Ohio covers less than 16% of costs for test development and administration. In Illinois, federal funding under Title I, Part A covers less than 33% of costs to achieve current AYP rates. In Vermont, Title I, Part A funding covers only 19% of current costs to achieve AYP. In the Jordan, Utah and Reading, Pennsylvania school districts, respectively, federal funding covers only 27% and 31% of the cost of AYP attainment. By contrast, actual appropriations have been somewhat greater than 66% of the authorized amount for the periods 2001-2002 through 2004-2005; for 2005-2006, slightly less.1 Thus, even though Congress has routinely appropriated more than half the amounts authorized each *277year, the funds have, according to Plaintiffs, only covered about a third of the costs of compliance. In other words, the maximum amount of money from Congress would still have left the districts short. Congress’s annual decisions not to appropriate up to the level authorized just confirms that it never intended to cover the entire costs of compliance in the first place.
Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the NCLB not only disregards its overall statutory scheme, but it also defies reason and history. The overwhelming burden of funding education in this country is and always has been borne by State and local governments. Even with the NCLB, the federal government provides only 7% of the total funding for local education. 147 Cong. Rec. S13365, 13373 (2001) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). The notion that Congress intended to pay in full for a testing and reporting regime of indeterminate cost, designed and implemented by States and school districts, not federal agencies, is not only nonsensical and fiscally irresponsible, but also contravenes the traditional recognition of State and local governments’ primary responsibility for public education. In short, there is nothing in the NCLB that suggests Congress intended to federalize some or all of State and local education.
II
A. Text and Context of § 7907(a)
Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that, even if § 7907(a) does not have the meaning they suggest, it creates an ambiguous condition on the receipt of federal funds, in violation of the so-called clear-statement rule.2 Under that rule, “if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). The majority agrees, concluding that “a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept NCLB funds and the obligations that go with those funds” would not understand that if the State “chooses to participate, [it] will have to pay for whatever additional costs of implementing the Act are not covered by the federal funding provided under the Act.” Maj. op. at 264. To the contrary— any reasonable State official, reading the NCLB with a clear eye, would understand that there was no guarantee that federal funds would match all of the costs controlled and incurred by States and local school districts. See Bennett, 470 U.S. at 666, 105 S.Ct. 1544 (“The requisite clarity in this case is provided by Title I; States that chose to participate in the program agreed to abide by the requirements of Title I as a condition for receiving funds.”).
My statutory analysis consists of two elements: text and context. Beginning with the text of § 7907(a), I, like the majority, focus on the term “mandate,” but, unlike the majority, I find that its meaning is unambiguous. As the Supreme Court has explained, “where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-*278known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 583, 98 S.Ct. 866, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978) (quoting Standard Oil v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59, 31 S.Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911)) (alteration in original) (internal quotations omitted).
In 1995, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMA”), which provides the following definition:
(5) Federal intergovernmental mandate. The term “Federal intergovernmental mandate” means' — ■
(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that—
(I) would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, except—
(I) a condition of Federal assistance; or
(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program. ...
2 U.S.C. § 658(5)(A) (emphasis added). Applying the UMA definition of mandate from § 658(5)(A), the § 7907(a) provision at issue means that a State is free to decide whether or not to participate in the NCLB, with its funding as well as its educational requirements; and, a State can forgo participation in the NCLB if it decides that such participation is not beneficial to its educational system. However, if a State chooses to participate, it must take all of the “bad” — the federal requirements — with the “good” — the federal money. This interpretation is consistent with the NCLB’s educational requirements, funding provisions, and overall statutory scheme and avoids sweeping aside the main provisions of the scheme.
The majority points out that the UMA also provides a second definition of mandate, according to which “the term ‘Federal mandate’ means any provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments including a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” 2 U.S.C. § 1555; Maj. op. at 268-69. However, this broader definition of mandate applies only to the collection of information, and not to the measures actually designed to limit mandates by Congress and federal agencies. Specifically, § 1555 applies only to provisions of the UMA which require that “the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ... shall complete a study to examine the measurement and definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of compliance with Federal law.” 2 U.S.C. § 1551(a). The primary definition found at § 658(5)(A) applies instead to all provisions designed “to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities.” Id. § 1501(2). The text of § 7907(a), and Plaintiffs’ arguments based on § 7907(a), are consistent with the purpose to which the definition in § 658(5)(A) applies: namely, to prevent Congress from compelling the expenditure of State funds. Both in § 658(5)(A) of the UMA, and in § 7907(a) of the NCLB, as I believe it properly understood, Congress indicated that it was not concerned with preventing the expenditure of State funds when States are able to avoid the expenditure by ceasing their “participation in a voluntary Federal program.” 2 U.S.C. § 658(5)(A)(i)(II).
*279The majority also relies on a provision of the Perkins Vocational Education Act (“Perkins Act”) to argue that § 7907(a) promises that States can receive funding under the NCLB but can also refuse to comply with its requirements to the extent that the cost of compliance exceeds the amount of federal funds. Maj. op. at 267-68. As the majority notes, the relevant provision of the Perkins Act reads, as does § 7907(a), that “[n]othing in this Chapter shall be construed to ... mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Chapter,” but the Perkins Act also adds, “except as required under [20 U.S.C. §§ 2322(b), 2391(b), and 2413].” 20 U.S.C. § 2306a(a). In light of the different statutory schemes, however, this distinction makes sense.
The respective funding structures of the Perkins Act and the NCLB suggest that, even if Congress intended to fully fund the Perkins Act, the same cannot be said for the NCLB. The Perkins Act allots funds to States based on the number of residents of the state in particular age groups, with the greatest amount of funding allotted based on the portion of the population between ages fifteen and nineteen, followed respectively by the population between twenty and twenty-four, and between twenty-five and sixty-five. Id. § 2321(a)(2). This reflects the Perkins Act’s purpose which is a general, statewide one: to “develop more fully the academic and career and technical skills of secondary education students and postsecondary education students who elect to enroll in career and technical education programs.” Id. § 2301. Needless to say, all States have significant numbers of residents within these age categories.
By contrast, the purpose of the NCLB is to “meet[] the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children,- migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance.” Id. § 6301(2). It is specifically targeted to reach the poor and disadvantaged, and funding under Title I, Part A is consequently available to States and school districts only if, and insofar as, they have low-income students or students in one of the other mentioned categories. Id. § 6333(c)(2). Nonetheless, the educational requirements of Title I, Part A specifically apply to all participating schools and school districts, not only to those students for whom the school districts will receive federal funding. See id. § 6311(b)(1)(B). ■
Indeed, the NCLB’s funding scheme suggests that there, is no correlation between the amount of federal funds a State or school district will receive and the cost of compliánce with its educational requirements. In light of the different relationship between requirements and funding in the Perkins Act and the NCLB, it is unreasonable for the majority to rely on the Perkins Act to interpret § 7907(a).
In statutory analysis, context also matters. In determining whether the dear-statement rule is satisfied, a court must not let itself focus myopically on one phrase or provision. Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 18, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (cautioning courts against “be[ing] guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence”). Rather, in addition to the “plain language” of the provision, id. at 23, 101 S.Ct. 1531, the court must also consider the general and specific purposes and objectives of the legislation and the policies being pursued, id. at 18, 101 S.Ct. 1531. The court must further “look to the provisions of the whole law.” Id. at 18, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (quoting Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 713, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 44 L.Ed.2d 525 (1975)). Specifically, the court must not divorce one sec*280tion from the remaining provisions in the statute, but rather read the entire statute as a whole:
In determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court should not confíne itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. The meaning — or ambiguity — of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994) (“Ambiguity is a creature not of definitional possibilities but of statutory context”). It is a “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words óf a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). A court must therefore interpret the statute “as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), and “fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole,” FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389, 79 S.Ct. 818, 3 L.Ed.2d 893 (1959).
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132-33, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).
Here, if the language in § 7907(a) that “[n]othing in this Chapter shall be construed to ... mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Chapter” meant what Plaintiffs suggest, § 7907(a) would contradict the NCLB’s other requirements that States and schools districts maintain fiscal efforts to fund schools that receive the NCLB funds as well as those that do not. In particular, the NCLB requires that a school district “may receive funds under [Title I, Part A] only if State- and local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving funds under this part,” 20 U.S.C. § 6321(c)(1)(A); that “either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the agency and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by the agency” must not be “less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures” for the preceding year, id. § 7901(a); and that States and school districts “shall use Federal funds received under [Title I, Part A] only to supplement the funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under [Title I, Part A], and not to supplant such funds,” id. § 6321(b)(1).
Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 7907(a) eviscerates States’ and school districts’ obligations under § 6321(b)(1), § 6321(c)(1)(A), and § 7901(a). Alternatively, if “mandate” is read with the meaning I have suggested above, § 7907(a) does not contradict other provisions of the NCLB, nor does it cause the unreasonable results created by Plaintiffs’ interpretation. See Helvering v. Credit Alliance Corp., 316 U.S. 107, 112, 62 S.Ct. 989, 86 L.Ed. 1307 (1942) (stating “[w]e should, of course, read ... two sections [of a single statute] as consistent rather than conflicting, if that be possible”); see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 173, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (stating a “cardinal principle ... is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute rather than to emasculate an entire section”).
B. Pennhurst and Arlington
To reach its conclusion that the NCLB did not provide clear notice to the States *281regarding their obligation to incur additional costs to comply with the NCLB’s requirements, the majority also relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Penn-hurst and Arlington. As for the legal holdings of those two decisions, neither supports the majority. This court has interpreted the Pennhurst holding (which Arlington applies) as requiring “[njothing more” than “ ‘clear notice’ to the states that funding is conditioned upon compliance with certain standards.” Cutter, 423 F.3d at 586 (citing Pennhwrst, 451 U.S. at 25, 101 S.Ct. 1531). As explained supra, the NCLB met that standard of notice. As for the factual circumstances in those two cases, neither is particularly helpful here.
In Pennhurst, the plaintiffs claimed that States receiving federal funding under the former version of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act affirmatively were required to provide the rights which the statute’s “Bill of Rights” provision described as “ ‘the rights of persons with developmental disabilities.’ ” Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 13, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (quoting Act of Oct. 4, 1975, § 111, 89 Stat. 486, 502 (1975) (provision repealed 1984)). These included “ ‘a right to appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation for such disabilities ... in the setting that is least restrictive of the person’s personal liberty.’ ” Id. (quoting Act, § 111(1), (2), 89 Stat. at 502).
The Pennhurst Court held that the statute’s Bill of Rights “represents] general statements of federal policy, not newly created legal duties.” Id. at 23, 101 S.Ct. 1531. The Court noted that the act’s Bill of Rights was introduced as a set of congressional “findings respecting the rights of persons with developmental disabilities.” Id. at 13, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (quoting Act, § 111, 89 Stat. at 502). It also pointed out that other portions of the statute, unlike the Bill of Rights provision, contained language that expressly conditioned the receipt of federal funds on compliance. Id. at 23, 101 S.Ct. 1531. By contrast, the Bill of Rights section provides that “[t]he treatment, services, and habilitation for a person with developmental disabilities ... should be provided in the setting that is least restrictive.” Id. at 13, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (quoting Act, § 111(2), 89 Stat. at 502) (emphasis added). The Court also noted that the statute did not empower the Department of Health and Human Services to withhold funds for failure to comply with the Bill of Rights, as it did for failure to ■ comply with other portions of the statute. Id. at 23,101 S.Ct. 1531.
Pennhurst is not controlling because none of the Court’s bases for finding the Bill of Rights provision to be “hortatory, not mandatory” are present here. The requirements of Title I, Part A are set forth in imperative, not hortatory language. Compare 20 U.S.C. § 6316 (“Each local educational agency receiving funds under [Title I, Part A] shall ....”) with 89 Stat. at 502 (“treatment ... should be provided”). The NCLB’s educational requirements are not introduced as mere congressional findings or voluntary goals, as was largely the case prior to the NCLB. Here, the Secretary of Education is statutorily empowered to withhold funding from States that refuse to comply with the NCLB’s educational requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 6311(g)(2) (applying to the requirement to create state standards and testing instruments); id. §§ 1234c, 1221(c)(1) (applying to all of the NCLB).
Moreover, the holding of the Supreme Court in Pennhurst was not that the duties created by the statute were too ambiguous to be preconditions for the receipt of federal funds, but that they were not requirements on the states at all. The Court explained in dicta that its conclusion *282was simply “buttressed by the rule of statutory construction ... that Congress must express clearly its intent to impose conditions on the grant of federal funds.” Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 24, 101 S.Ct. 1531. For all of these reasons, Pennhurst is factually distinguishable from the present case.
In Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, the Supreme Court recently held that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) does not require school districts to pay the expert witness fees incurred by parents who sue the school district to enforce compliance with the statute. 548 U.S. 291,126 S.Ct. 2455, 2458,165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006). The Court reiterated that “ ‘courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there,’ ” and held that the IDEA provision that the court may award prevailing parents “ ‘reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs’ ... does not even hint that acceptance of IDEA funds makes a State responsible for reimbursing prevailing parents for services rendered by experts.” Id. at 2459 (quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)).
Like Pennhurst, Arlington is not controlling here. Title I, Part A does not merely hint that acceptance of the NCLB’s funds makes States and school districts responsible to fulfill the statute’s educational requirements: it says so explicitly. None of the NCLB’s educational requirements suggest, let alone state, that compliance is contingent on full federal funding. Moreover, States and school districts were aware that the NCLB’s educational requirements applied even without federal funding to pay for them, because funds under Title I, Part A are available only in proportion to the number of low-income students in a school. “There was no ambiguity with respect to th[e] condition[s]” upon which States and school districts received federal funds under the NCLB and enforcing the statute’s requirements does not violate the Spending Clause. Bennett, 470 U.S. at 666,105 S.Ct. 1544.
Unlike in Pennhurst and Arlington, we are faced with a sufficiently clear statutory text which sets forth compulsory requirements on participating States and school districts, not merely goals or statements of intent. While the NCLB is long and, at times, complex, such length and complexity does not render it ambiguous as to whether Congress meant to impose a condition on the grant of federal money.
C. Legislative History
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the legislative history of § 7907(a) supports their interpretation of the provision, or at least indicates that the NCLB is ambiguous for Spending-Clause purposes. The majority concludes that the legislative history supports the latter contention, that § 7907(a) renders the NCLB ambiguous. I disagree.
Initially, and most importantly, there is no need to look at the legislative history of the NCLB. Courts may “resort to legislative history only when necessary to interpret ambiguous statutory text.” BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 187 n. 8, 124 S.Ct. 1587, 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004). It is not appropriate to use legislative history to “render[] what is plain ambiguous.” Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 1991, 164 L.Ed.2d 749 (2006) (Scalia, J., concurring). As explained above, no ambiguity exists in § 7907(a), especially when considered as part of the larger statutory scheme of the NCLB.
*283Even if it were appropriate to look to the legislative history, we should be focusing on the specific history of the NCLB. As the majority notes, § 7907(a) was first adopted as a provision of the 1994 reau-thorization of the ESEA, also known as “Goals 2000.” Maj. op. at 270; see Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, § 14512, 108 Stat. 3518, 3906 (originally codified at 20 U.S.C. § 8902). However, Goals 2000 was significantly different from the NCLB. As the Secretary aptly summarizes, “Goals 2000 set national goals for education improvement and provided funds to the States to aid them in developing state standards for improving education,” but “these standards were intended to be voluntary.” Appellee’s Br. at 23-24. Unlike Goals 2000, the NCLB created compulsory educational requirements and serious consequences for failure to comply with its requirements for States that willfully volunteer to participate; in short, it is an entirely different statute. In situations like this, the Supreme Court has often cautioned against relying on the legislative history of one statute in interpreting another. See, e.g., Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 626-27, 124 S.Ct. 1204, 157 L.Ed.2d 1122 (2004) (“Those of us who look to legislative history have been wary about expecting to find reliable interpretive help outside the record of the statute being construed.”); Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 320 n. 29, 103 S.Ct. 634, 74 L.Ed.2d 465 (1983) (“Although the term ‘maritime’ occurs both in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) and in § 2(3) of the Act, these are two different statutes ‘each with different legislative histories and jurisprudential interpretations over the course of decades.’ ”) (quoting Boudreaux v. Am. Workover, Inc., 680 F.2d 1034, 1050 (5th Cir.1982)); N. Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 530 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982) (criticizing the dissent for “us[ing] the legislative history — of a different statute — to rewrite Title IX so as to restrict its reach”).
A review of some of the legislators’ comments about the proposed NCLB (not Goals 2000, not the Perkins Act) confirms that Congress did not intend for § 7907(a) to protect participating States from having to spend their own funds to comply with the NCLB’s educational requirements. Senator Leahy noted that “the funds are far less than what will be necessary, leaving Vermont and other states with large financial gaps to fill.” 147 Cong. Rec. S13365, 13378 (2001). Senator Wellstone asked, “Where are the resources to make sure that all the children in America have the same chance to do well? ... Not in this bill. When you start talking about we have increased funding for title I, no, not in real dollar terms.” Id. at 13368. Senator Feinstein defended the bill, but expressed the same understanding of its funding structure, explaining, “The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total education funding, but the strength of this bill is that it tries to leverage the Federal share to prod States and school districts to make schools responsible for real results.” Id. at 13373.3 The bill’s opponents in the House expressed similar concerns to those voiced in the Senate. See 147 Cong. Rec. H2396, 2403-04 (2001). Significantly, there was no discussion of changing the historic funding scheme of our nation’s educational system, from largely State funds to federal funds. Thus, assuming arguendo that the *284NCLB’s legislative history is even relevant in this case, it lends little or no support to Plaintiffs’ argument.
Ill
In conclusion, let’s consider the road that Plaintiffs want to take us down. A State decides to accept NCLB funding. State and local school officials design and implement the education programs required under the NCLB. They decide how federal dollars are to be allocated between various programs. They also apparently get to determine whether one of their education programs is “fully funded” with federal dollars. So, consistent with Plaintiffs’ reasoning, if they find their students failing in one program, rather than redoubling their efforts, trying something different, or asking the State or local citizenry for more funding, they can simply divert federal funds away from the program, declare the program “under funded,” and wipe their hands (but not pay back the federal dollars). Voila, problem solved, at least for the State and local officials, if not for the struggling students.
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Congress intended to accomplish with the NCLB. 20 U.S.C. § 6301(4) (stating that one purpose of the NCLB is “holding schools, [school districts], and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students”). No green-tinted glasses can alter this fact.
To its credit, the majority does not accept outright Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the NCLB. Yet, in finding § 7907(a) ambiguous, it concludes that Congress might have meant what Plaintiffs’ say it did. I cannot agree.
Contrary to the majority’s opinion, I would hold that the NCLB’s requirements apply to participating States and the schools and school districts within those states, regardless of whether federal funding is sufficient to defray the entire cost of compliance. I would further hold that States’ and school districts’ obligations are consistent with § 7907(a), which simply prevents federal officers from transforming the NCLB from a voluntary program into a mandatory one.
My reading of § 7907(a) is supported by the plain text of the NCLB as well as its overall structure. Under the NCLB, participating States and the school districts within them must comply with extensive educational requirements if the States choose to accept federal funding. The NCLB’s funding amount for a school district is dependent on congressional appropriation decisions and the proportion of at-risk students in the school district, not on the cost of compliance with the NCLB’s educational requirements. My reading also recognizes State and local governments’ long-standing responsibility for largely administrating and funding our children’s education, and it properly charges Congress and State officials with knowledge of that fact. Because the NCLB’s requirements are sufficiently clear, I would hold that requiring compliance with them is an appropriate exercise of congressional authority under the Spending Clause.
For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. Congress's actual appropriations and the appropriations authorized in Title I, Part A are, respectively: $10.35 billion and $13.5 billion for 2001-2002; $11.69 billion and $16 billion for 2002-2003; $12.34 billion and $18.5 billion for 2003-2004; $12.74 billion and $20.5 billion for 2004-2005; and $13.34 billion and $22.75 billion for 2005-2006. 20 U.S.C. § 6302(a); Complaint at 18.

. The clear-statement rule is one of several general restrictions on congressional authority under the Spending Clause. In addition to clearly articulating the condition on federal funds, the congressional action must be in pursuit of the general welfare; the conditions must be related to the federal interest being pursued; the financial incentives must not amount to coercion; and the conditions must comport with other constitutional provisions. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207-08, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 423 F.3d 579, 584-85 (6th Cir.2005). Plaintiffs do not argue that the NCLB fails to satisfy these other restrictions.

. It should be noted that Senator Kennedy stated, "In this legislation we are committing with a trigger that says, if the resources are not there, these provisions do not apply.” 147 Cong. Rec. S13365, 13372 (2001). However, it is not clear, even in the context of his full remarks, to what he was referring.