[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
IN EXPLANATION OF OPPOSITION TO H.R. 6, IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT 
                                OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr Weldon] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in being one of only 24 
classroom teachers in the institution of the House of Representatives, 
and take great pride in working for those issues that are important to 
the well-being of our children.
  What bothers me is the fact that when the H.R. 6 came up for 
consideration, the education reauthorization bill, that I had to cast 
my vote in opposition to this legislation. As someone who spent 7 years 
in the public schools of Pennsylvania, both as a classroom teacher, as 
a head teacher, and then as an administrator of a Chapter 1 program for 
3 years, working with children with special problems, it really bothers 
me that I had to vote ``no'' on this piece of what I think could be 
very important legislation.
  I want to explain today why I vote ``no'' and some of the problems 
that I eventually found out with the bill. When the bill worked its way 
through the House committees and up to the House floor, we debated the 
bill under an open rule and allowed full amendments by Members of both 
parties. I supported the bill in that process when it passed out of the 
House.

  However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it then goes to a conference, a 
closed conference controlled by the majority party. When the bill came 
out of the conference to come back to the House floor, it was totally 
and completely changed.
  My point is, what is the use of having an open rule if you are going 
to eventually craft the final legislation behind closed doors and make 
it totally different from what it was when it left the House 
originally?
  As one who spent his career in education, I find it particularly 
offensive. The bill that came out of the conference authorized 20 new 
programs for a total of 60, many of which had not been in the House 
bill. In fact, the conferees added almost $1 billion of additional 
spending of taxpayers' money.
  The intent of the legislation was to streamline the funding process, 
consolidate the programs, and cut Federal strings that currently 
mandate how schools use their funds. Instead, the conferees produced a 
bill with more programs, more strings, and more Washington dictates in 
terms of how our local schools should set their priorities.
  In fact, there were special interest programs also out in the bill to 
benefit certain States or certain geographical entities. Then on top of 
that there was a provision to have what has been known as school 
finance equalization to begin to shift funding.
  Here we are increasing the taxes of the American people, many of them 
my constituents in suburban Philadelphia, PA. Then I had a chance to 
analyze on the day of the vote, actually about 10 minutes before the 
vote was actually taken, because the figures were not provided to us in 
advance of that, a district-by-district summary of the anticipated 
chapter 1 funds that would be coming into my school districts.
  Mr. Speaker, in every school district that I represent, from the 
poorer communities along the waterfront of Delaware county, districts 
like Chester Upland and William Penn and Penn Delco school districts to 
the more affluent districts along the Main Line, every one of my school 
districts loses money under this education bill, in some cases a very 
significant amount of money.
  The point is that these same taxpayers are having their taxes 
increased, and yet the amount of funding coming back for Chapter 1 
Programs is being decreased.

                              {time}  1050

  In fact, as I have now found out, the bulk of the money is shifted to 
our inner city areas. I am not one who wants to turn our back on the 
inner cities. I will help them, as I am doing as cochairman of the 
empowerment caucus, try to find ways to turn around their inner city 
neighborhoods. But we should not be doing that at the expense of 
programs that work very successfully in our suburban schools.
  The 3 years that I spent working with a Chapter 1 Program in Delaware 
County were very rewarding because the purpose of the program was to 
help those children who have special problems with reading and math, 
who may have problems at home that transcend into the school classroom, 
and that extra counseling that we provided to them during the summer 
and on Saturdays was a very important part of their success during the 
school year.
  But there is no justification that I can see for taking money from 
districts like the kind that I represent and saying, ``You have to do 
without. Even though you're paying more taxes, we're going to shift 
this money into other areas.'' Really most outrageously, ``We're going 
to shift it into special interest programs that only benefit certain 
States or certain geographical entities.''
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 6. I am 
upset that I had to do that, but I had no choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert at this point in the Record a complete listing 
of each of the school districts that I represent, the amount of funding 
they get now for Chapter 1, and the amount of funding they will get 
under the new H.R. 6 legislation, as follows:

   SEVENTH DISTRICT (PA) ESTIMATED TITLE I GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999  
            [Prepared by the Congressional Research Service]            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Current law   Conference
                                                               version  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Upland................................   $4,185,400   $4,163,800
Chichester....................................      484,400      448,000
Conestoga.....................................      630,400      583,000
Downingtown\1\................................            0            0
Gamet Valley..................................       75,200       60,400
Great Valley..................................      254,400      235,300
Haverford.....................................      204,600      164,400
Interboro.....................................      327,400      302,800
Kennett Consolidated..........................      246,600      228,100
Lower Merion..................................      250,000      200,900
Marple Newtown................................      299,700      277,200
Penncrest.....................................    1,050,200      971,500
Penn-Delco\1\.................................            0            0
Phoenixville..................................      161,500      129,800
Ridley........................................      483,300     $447,000
Rose Tree.....................................      256,600      206,200
Springford....................................      129,400      104,000
Springfield...................................      150,400      120,900
Tredyffrin Eastown\1\.........................            0            0
Unionville-Chadds Ford\1\.....................            0            0
Upper Darby...................................    1,489,800    1,429,500
Upper Merion..................................      229,000      211,700
Wallingford Swarthmore........................      113,900       91,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Denotes schools which receive Chapter I funds but estimates were not 
  available at this time.                                               

  

                          ____________________