Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On Passage of the Education Reform Conference Report
December 18, 2001

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  Earlier this year, I voted in support of S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, with the belief that we were taking the first step toward enacting quality education reform in our nation’s schools.  My support for this legislation was to be contingent upon taking an essential second step –– providing adequate financial resources for carrying out these reforms.  I will repeat now what I said then: unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources necessary for states to carry out the reforms outlined in the bill, we will be doing serious harm to our children.  I am afraid that in passing this bill, we are headed down that very path.

First, I want to express my strong disappointment that an amendment adopted during the Senate’s consideration of this bill, authored by Senator Hatch and myself, was dropped in conference.  This amendment would have re-authorized Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of the 50 states.  In 1997, I was proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation authorizing grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation.  Our bipartisan amendment to this education bill would have authorized $60 million in Department of Justice grants for each of the next five years, enabling the establishment of 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation.  These new grants would have brought the total number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000, serving 6,000,000 young people by January 1, 2007.

In my home state of Vermont, these federal grants have helped establish six Boys and Girls Clubs –– in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes.  Together, Vermont’s Boys and Girls Clubs have received more than $1 million in Department of Justice grants since 1998.  I know what a great impact these after school opportunities have had in these communities, and it is clear to me that more resources must be invested in order to help our kids lead healthy lives and avoid the temptations of drug use.  I am disappointed that some members of the conference committee did not want to ensure future funding for these successful programs.

Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are the expanded requirements for measuring student performance through annual testing of students in grades three through eight in math and reading.  This conference report requires states to develop and administer this annual testing.  While accompanying appropriations will provide the resources necessary to pay for a portion of the costs of developing and administering the tests, the funds are far less than what will be necessary, leaving Vermont and other states with large financial gaps to fill.  At a time when our economy is slowing and states are facing difficult budget choices, the federal government should not be placing burdensome, unfunded mandates on local and state officials, especially when there are education funding commitments the federal government is still yet to meet.

With this legislation, Congress had before it the opportunity to reverse its decades-long transgression in the area of special education funding.  The conferees rejected a provision adopted during the Senate’s consideration of the education bill that would have ensured that the federal government finally lived up to its commitment to our children with special needs and the communities in which they live.  I am deeply troubled by this. When Congress first passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), the states were required to comply with the special education provisions, and in exchange, the federal government would contribute up to 40 percent of the costs.  Instead, the federal contribution is generally only 12-15 percent -- far from the promised 40 percent.  The provision included in the Senate-passed bill would have required the government to contribute the 40 percent by changing the federal contribution from discretionary spending to mandatory.  In Vermont, countless communities struggle each year to pass their local school budgets, hampered by the high costs of providing special education.  The actions of the conferees fail to provide the relief states are owed, and have instead placed additional mandates that state and local education officials must find a way to address.

In addition to the inadequate resources provided for special education, and for implementation of the assessment provisions, I am concerned about the extensive federal control exerted in this bill over the evaluation of whether a school is failing.  I am particularly concerned about the definition of what constitutes a failing school, especially because this is a determination that could ultimately lead to the elimination of federal funds for that school.  Finally, I find troubling the degree to which this legislation increases federal control over teacher qualification and greatly increases administrative paperwork for the states.

Current statistics leave no doubt that some schools in our country are failing -- education reform is necessary in some parts of our country.  One of the fundamental problems with this legislation, however, is that in recognizing the areas in our education system that are failing and in need of assistance, it fails to recognize the successful things happening in education in some states.  My state of Vermont leads the nation with its innovative and effective policies for assessing student performance and providing necessary technical assistance to struggling schools.  This new federal legislation will require that Vermont abandon its home-grown successful tools and implement -- at a high cost -- new tools selected by federal lawmakers that appear to be aimed at failing schools in our nation’s urban areas.  This legislation will require schools to make major changes in a short period of time without the resources necessary to implement these changes.  With difficult financial times ahead for many states, including Vermont, this federal law will force state legislatures to make very difficult budget choices in order to comply with these new federal mandates.

I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone into crafting this legislation.  I know that my colleagues all want to ensure that our nation’s children have access to the quality education they deserve. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the legislation that has been pieced together does more harm than good for school children in Vermont.  While there are some positive reforms included in the final measure, there is far more that will hurt Vermont’s local educational efforts and cost the state dearly in financial resources. As the former Chairman of the Education Committee for many years, and as a leader in education policy, my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, understands better than most the impact that this bill will have on our home state.  During this debate, Senator Jeffords’ continued perseverance on the issue of increased federal special education funding has been outstanding, and I commend his tireless advocacy on behalf of our nation’s schoolchildren.

I regret I am not able to support this legislation today.  And I regret that we will likely find ourselves on the Senate floor sometime soon, once again discussing education reform efforts.  Next time, though, I believe we will be here to discuss how to fix the harm we have done in passing the legislation before us today.

# # # # #