[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5363-H5370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION CAUCUS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, tonight I 
rise to talk about an issue that every person in America, every person 
in this Congress, has a great interest in, and that is the issue of 
education.
  We often talk about the need to provide a college education to our 
children across this country, and Members of this Congress, about 72 in 
number, decided to come together to form something called an Education 
Caucus. Members of the House, as well as Members of the Senate, decided 
that for the first time in this Congress, we needed to concentrate our 
efforts on a group of people who believe that we should push education 
forward in this country, should meet as a caucus, and organize as a 
caucus, and push legislation and appropriations as relates to education 
in both the House and the Senate.
  I am very pleased that so many Members of this Congress have decided 
to participate in this caucus and to move it forward, and tonight, I am 
just making a simple plea to all Members of the Congress on both sides 
of the aisle to take an interest and to join a caucus that we consider 
to be one of the caucuses of the future of this Congress, a caucus that 
believes in bipartisanship because education is an issue that both 
Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
  I would like to mention that Senator Wellstone will be chairing the 
caucus, co-chairing the caucus with myself. Senator Wellstone has been 
working very diligently in the caucus on the Senate side, and we have 
now organized such that we have even a whip operation in the caucus, 
and tonight I want to talk about some of those national organizations 
who are concerned about

[[Page H5364]]

education, who met at our very first meeting, and who talked about the 
concerns of education in this country.
  We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, that on the 
16th of May several education groups embarked upon this Capitol to talk 
about the children and to talk about how we prepare for their future 
and to talk about how we, as Members of Congress, could make an impact 
on their future by improving the quality of education in this country, 
elementary on up to higher education.
  We have caucuses in this Congress for almost everything. We have a 
Sun Belt Caucus, we have a caucus for peanuts, a caucus for cotton, a 
caucus for almost every issue that you can imagine. But I thought it 
was somewhat strange that we did not have a caucus for education, and 
these individuals for the first time in years had the opportunity to 
sit and express their concerns before a group of people, lawmakers, 
about how they felt about education.
  One individual, Mr. Speaker, was Ms. Scarlet Kelly who was the 
executive director of the National Community Education Association. She 
was able to come to that meeting and give us some insight in terms of 
what we should be doing as lawmakers to improve the quality of 
education, because all too often one of the things we fail to do is to 
get the input from teachers and from parents and from students 
themselves as relates to education. We often walk into the Halls of 
Congress and the halls of State legislatures, quite frankly, speaking 
across this country, and make very, very crucial decisions that affect 
education, and many times we fail to consult enough educators and 
enough parents and enough students and fail to involve them, in a real 
sense, in the process, and many times those decisions are not the best 
decisions because of lack of information.

  Ms. Kelly was able to bring to the table some community aspect of 
education and how we can improve education by networking with the 
community. I am going to enter her testimony into the Record because I 
do think that people should know some of the things that we can do to 
improve education, and it should not always come from politicians and 
from lawmakers. It should come many times from people who do it on a 
day-to-day basis.
  We also heard testimony from Mr. Joel Packard who has the senior 
professional association and governmental relations division for the 
National Education Association, the NEA. The NEA, as most of you know, 
has been very, very strong advocates of education in this country. They 
were pleased at the fact that Members on both sides of the aisle, both 
Democrats and Republicans, were coming together to talk about 
education, and he shared some very good information to each of us.
  One of the things he wanted to make emphatically clear is that in 
order for this caucus to be effective, we had to pull from both sides 
of the aisle, and he talked about how people should be able to rally 
around the issue of education.
  I do not think there is a Member of this Congress who does not 
believe in education. I do not think there is a Member who is elected 
to public life, to be quite honest with you, who does not advocate a 
strong educational system and building educational systems, be it in a 
State through a State legislature or through a board of education, a 
State board of education, or be it in the U.S. Congress.
  But we do differ, quite frankly, speaking in terms of how we meet 
that goal. We all have the same motive. We all, every Member of this 
Congress, I do not care if you are a Democrat, I do not care if you are 
a Republican, I do not care if you are from California or from New 
York; every Member of this institution believes that we need to provide 
kids with a quality education.

                              {time}  2030

  We all have the same motive. But many times we have different 
methods. I think one of the reasons why our methods are somewhat 
different is, and many times we find ourselves fighting on the floor of 
the House, is because we do not network enough. This caucus will 
provide an avenue for us to network and talk about some of our 
differences in terms of how we move education forward.
  Joel Packer said it best. In order for us to get education moving, we 
cannot do it by bickering on the floor of the House. We have to do it 
by showing real leadership, because the individuals who are looking to 
us for leadership are the born and the yet-unborn who are in public 
schools and in private schools, and those who plan to attend colleges 
and universities across this country and who are dependent on many of 
our decisions in terms of how they finance their education, for 
example.
  There are many students who want to go to college who do not have the 
money, and who do not necessarily want a grant. Some students have no 
problem with taking out a student loan, but those student loans ought 
to be available to those individuals who wish to seek a higher 
education. His testimony, Mr. Speaker, will be entered into the Record 
tonight as well.
  We also heard from Ricki Rafel, who was a board member from the 
National Parent and Teachers Association. One of the great things about 
this caucus is we are going to include many groups from the outside. At 
the next caucus meeting we are going to talk to business people, 
because we know that business and education work hand in hand. No 
longer can businesses in this country not get involved in education, 
because it affects their business. There are too many businesses in 
this country who have to train workers, even after they finish college, 
in order to prepare them to do a day's work. So business realizes that 
there is a necessity to have a strong and quality educational system in 
each State and across this country.
  Ms. Rafel talked about parental involvement. I am cognizant of the 
fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is not government's responsibility to raise 
children. It is the parents' responsibility to raise children. We 
should, in order to make education work, we should have a relationship 
between parents and teachers.
  When I was growing up, my teacher knew my mother and my mother knew 
my teacher, and I as a student knew that the two knew each other. There 
is something different that takes place in the classrooms when parents 
and teachers know each other, and the student is cognizant of that 
fact. We need to bring about better parent and teacher relationships. 
We cannot do that through legislation. We cannot pass legislation and 
mandate that parents and teachers sign a covenant, but we can do it by 
including parents in the decisionmaking process, to make them a part of 
the process.
  In this caucus meeting we had an opportunity to hear the parental 
side in terms of what parents think, what is going through the parents' 
minds, how can we improve the quality of education in this country, how 
can we make our schools safer, how can we give parents some sense of 
ease when they walk into their job and they have their loved one, their 
little child, their little 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-old in a school, how can 
we give them some comfort, to know that that child is not sitting next 
to a person who may have a gun?
  So the parental aspect is so important. She had the opportunity to 
talk about how teachers and parents need to create a better marriage, 
because when we have a marriage between the two, then we can really get 
student involvement. We felt that her testimony was quite informative, 
and we certainly want to thank them for all the work that they are 
doing across the country.

  The other organization we heard from, Mr. Speaker, was the National 
Head Start Association. Ms. Angelica Santacruz, who is the associate 
director of governmental affairs, she talked about the need for Head 
Start. I know Members of this Congress may have different opinions 
about the Head Start program, but this caucus will provide an 
opportunity for us to talk about it before we walk on the floor and 
vigorously oppose each other, be it appropriations or just be it 
philosophical, for philosophical reasons. I personally feel that Head 
Start is a very good thing. But we want more Members of this Congress 
to join the caucus so we can talk about it.
  If there are real problems with full funding of Head Start, let us 
talk about them, because each of us are committed to improving 
education in this country, and in order to do that we ought to have 
dialogue. That dialogue should not begin and end only on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. It ought to be that we ought to take the 
time to talk about it in other places, as well.

[[Page H5365]]

  We also heard from Mr. Jerry Lewis, the director of TRIO. He also 
works at the University of Maryland with the National Council on 
Educational Opportunity Association. The TRIO program is a very 
worthwhile program, and we had the opportunity to hear success stories 
from this gentleman, because often we walk to the floor and we talk 
about TRIO funding, needing funding and not needing funding, but it 
gives you a different perspective when you actually have the 
opportunity to witness a person who teaches in a TRIO program, who 
teaches students in a TRIO program, and who has vast experiences and 
success stories.
  I take a moment of personal privilege when we talk about TRIO, 
because I am a product of the TRIO program. I know what the TRIO 
program did for me. I know what it is doing for students all across 
this country and will do for students who have yet to enter the 
program. I personally feel it is a program that is much needed.
  Oftentimes young people who are in high school look at college as a 
fear. There is a big fear factor in the minds of many young people. 
Before they take that step and enter a college campus, they need 
sometimes a little push. Many people are the first to graduate or to go 
to college. Many households, many kids come from large households and 
they may be the first person to enter college. The TRIO program takes 
away that fear, to a large degree.
  I take myself as an example. I was afraid of college. I made very 
good grades when I was in high school, but I did not have a lot of 
people who lived next door to me who graduated from college, quite 
frankly speaking, so I did not know if college was the right thing or 
the wrong thing. I did not know if I could make it without a college 
education or not. I wanted to be a lawyer, but I did not have a lot of 
people who I could talk to about college.
  I was afraid of college. To walk on a college campus with 10,000 
people, leaving a high school with 600 was a big shift for me. But TRIO 
took me out of the high school on the weekends and put me in a college 
setting. I had an opportunity to be a college student as a high school 
student, so I was not fearful of college. I had an opportunity to learn 
about college while I was in high school, so I could not wait to 
graduate from high school so that I could enter college. It was no 
longer a fear factor for me.

  Those real stories, those stories are not told on the floor of the 
House of Representatives, many times because we are under time 
restraints. For example, most of us, when we speak on major 
legislation, we have 1 minute, 30 seconds, 2 minutes. You cannot bring 
out those kinds of success stories, but we can do it in a caucus, and 
we can do it when Republicans and Democrats sit around a table and talk 
about programs, and not just look at it in terms of the bottom line in 
terms of numbers, but the bottom lines in terms of success: what impact 
these programs are having.
  We also heard testimony from Edward Kealy, who is a director of the 
Committee for Educational Funding. He also spoke of the need for the 
caucus to be bipartisan, how we need to bring Members from both sides 
of the aisle together to talk about education, because if there is one 
issue that we all agree on in terms of whether or not we should have a 
good system, it is education. I am happy that we have a number of 
Republicans and Democrats who have joined the caucus and encouraged 
them to continue to participate.
  Mr. John Forkenbrock, who is the executive director of the National 
Association of Federally-Impacted Schools, shared a lot of economic 
information, talked about how Federal funds are needed for many of the 
schools. Many times we look at it from a bottom line perspective in 
terms of dollars, and in terms of how we balance budgets and how we can 
make everything add up, but he actually gave some real meaning to the 
need for the Federal Government to be involved in the education of his 
children.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we heard from Marilyn Aklin, executive director 
of the National Coalition of Title I--Chapter 1 Parents, a program that 
many of us have debated quite profusely on the floor of this Congress. 
She was able to talk about the needs for the program and how we can in 
fact improve the program.
  Members would be amazed at many of these individuals who came before 
the caucus on Thursday of last week, and how they were not individuals 
who walked into the caucus begging for more Federal funds, but in fact 
they were folk who wanted to really improve the quality of education 
for our children. That was very refreshing.
  When we deliberate appropriations, this caucus may not have the kind 
of impact it should have on the 1997 budget appropriations for 
education, but budget is not the only thing. I do think there are many 
other things we can do to improve education other than money: teacher-
parent relationships. That is a very good start.
  To many of the members of the caucus, one of the things we will do is 
attend schools within our respective districts and try to do it on a 
weekly basis, or at least on a monthly basis, where we can walk into 
classrooms and actually talk to kids and talk to them about how we feel 
about education, and also talk about how individuals can in fact 
improve their own lives through education.
  Mr. Speaker, we have established this caucus. I urge Members of this 
Congress to join the caucus. If there are Members who wish to be a 
member, wish to talk to our office a little bit more about the caucus, 
we will be happy to do that, and we certainly feel it is a worthwhile 
cause.
  I see that I have been joined by two members of the caucus, the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Texas is my neighbor State, 
and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to 
thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. I want to emphasize 
his continued leadership on this question of education, and am 
gratified at the formation of the Education Caucus and delighted to 
join him in its membership, in being a member of that caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a very interesting point as I joined 
him. I could not help but here the very focused words that he offered 
about the priorities that this country has. He offered, first of all, 
to say that we recognize that money is not the answer always to 
education; that it includes a community partnership, not only with 
those that have children in the school system, particularly the public 
school system, but the broader community, the business community. It 
certainly involves the parents and a system that supports them in their 
efforts to support their children. There is something special about a 
parent asking a child about their homework. The child may think it is 
not very special, but it is important for that involvement to occur.
  As I was listening to the gentleman further, he mentioned the 
responsibility, but also the importance of teachers and the recognition 
of their value by increased compensation, so that our young people who 
are in college can readily choose education as a career, a lifestyle, 
because in fact they, too, would be able in the long run to support 
their families.
  I am disturbed, however, that education has not received the 
bipartisan attention that it deserves. We are finding out that even in 
the proposed 1997 budget, we have a cut by our Republican Congress of 
some 25 percent for education and training programs. Just this past 
week, I joined my school superintendent from one of the school 
districts that I represent, the Houston Independent School District, 
just this past Monday at a school in our district. We were there to 
speak about the need for school lunches and school breakfasts.
  It was interesting to talk to second- and third-graders who were 
eating heartily. I asked the question as to whether or not a good meal 
helps them learn, and the broad smile and the brightness of their eyes 
indicated such; that with these supplemental lunch and breakfast 
programs, for which many children that is the only meal they get, it 
provided for a better opportunity and atmosphere for them to learn.

                              {time}  2045

  They even said, and they joined me in my comments, that we were 
determining that some of the school

[[Page H5366]]

lunches, because of absenteeism, were not utilized, and the youngsters 
said, ``Well, we can give this food to the poor people,'' which this 
school district will now be considering. So we do not waste taxpayers' 
dollars, and we provide opportunities for those foods that are given 
for school lunch that may not be used, as I said, because of 
absenteeism, and they are to be used that day and cannot be held over 
for another day, to work with the private sector to make sure those 
foods get to hungry families.
  So education partnerships can be constructive. But at the same time 
those children were coming up with those very creative ideas, they 
could not tell me how to stop the leaking roofs, the paint that was 
pealing, the lead-based paints, the overcrowding that was occurring. 
They clearly needed the participation not only of the local community--
of which we will have a bond election in our community on May 28, that 
is the local community's participation in Houston--but it is what you 
have said over the years, Congressman Fields, about how we have 
abandoned the physical plants of our schools throughout the Nation.
  We can account for the fact that our children are unable to perform 
because they have a poor physical plant, poor access to recreational 
facilities, small classrooms, unattractive classrooms, as I said, 
faulty equipment. All of this bears upon how we focus on our children.
  We see, as the children grow, that we have determined that over 2.5 
million students in this new budget, 1,000 post-secondary educational 
institutions, will be suffering with the elimination of the Direct 
Student Loan Program.
  Goals 2000, which many gathered together in harmony to support, 
including President Bush, through this new budget Republicans would 
deny 5 million students in 8,500 schools the funding that they 
currently receive to raise their academic achievement. We are 
determined, according to this budget by Republicans, to deny campus-
based low-interest loans to 150,000 post-secondary students.
  We were concerned in our community about the attack on bilingual 
education. I had a youngster come to me and say that even she noted the 
need for improvement in bilingual education, so that we can provide an 
equal playing field for those youngsters and families who have come to 
this Nation to seek a better opportunity.

  Why should we abandon them, throw them to the wolves, if you will, 
for other fears and apprehensions that we may have? Why not at least 
give the children the best education we can give them? The bilingual 
education allows them to be proficient in English and certainly to be 
bilingual, which we have determined is equally important.
  Needless to say, our libraries in our school--I was also in the 
library of the school I attended, and by the way, it was Atherton 
Elementary in the fifth ward, the school that both Congressperson 
Mickey Leland and Congressperson Barbara Jordan attended in Houston. 
Clearly in its instruction it has the potential to raise up great 
leaders of this Nation.
  But if we continue to undermine the educational system with more cuts 
and more cuts and more cuts, and more leaking roofs and smaller 
recreational fields and no funding for athletics, we are going to begin 
to say to those youngsters not ``Yes, I can,'' but ``No, you cannot.'' 
I would simply say that it is high time for us to really put our money 
where our minds say they are, and to ensure that there is an 
opportunity for youngsters to learn.
  I might, if I could, Mr. Fields, ask of you, because I know that you 
have worked not only inside the classroom in terms of your support for 
the tools that are needed to educate our children, but you in fact have 
developed sort of a congressional classroom that has helped to educate 
our children about Government. I imagine that that is a partnership 
that you have endeavored to participate in, and not calling on Federal 
funds, but you have helped to expand the horizons of young children.
  I have in my district over 125,000 households that have incomes of 
less than $25,000. With that in mind, my question to you--because I 
looked at the demographics of my district, and certainly we are very 
gratified to have some 1,608 households making over $150,000. I am 
always encouraged when we can find folk having the ability to improve 
their condition.
  But I have at least 120,000, I said 125,000, let me be more accurate 
and say I have about 121,000 households with families making under 
$25,000. And let me say to you that I have households of families 
making under $5,000, 26,000 households in the 18th District of Texas.

  What I would say to you is with those kinds of numbers, you would 
find it and I would find it extremely difficult for those families to 
participate in the private school system, which is a very good system. 
I am trying to grapple with whether we have had any direction, as you 
can see it, where this Congress clearly goes on record to support the 
public school system with the kind of funding and partnership programs 
that would ensure that those in households like those that I represent 
can continue to be assured that their children will have the best 
education.
  I am not sure in your research whether you have discovered whether we 
are on the right track to protect the least of those who are trying to 
do the best by their children.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I can only say to the gentlewoman that as 
Members of Congress, as you know, we should view education across the 
board, irrespective of what kind of household an individual actually 
comes from, what income level they come from.
  The national security risk that we have in this country is to not 
educate our children. That is the biggest threat that this country is 
faced with, not Russia, but to actually have thousands upon thousands 
of kids who are not literate, that is a national security threat in my 
mind. Because who will take on the jobs of tomorrow if we do not 
educate our children? Who will serve in the military, in fact, if we do 
not educate our children?
  I think this Congress is going to get there. Tonight I am working for 
bipartisanship. I want to pull Members from both sides of the aisle to 
just sit down and talk about education before we walk to the floor of 
the Congress, and work out our differences to the extent that we can, 
because there is not a Member of this Congress who does not believe 
that a child should not get a quality education.
  Now many say, well, education should be a local issue. We should send 
money to locals, and the locals should basically make those decisions 
in terms of how they run their educational systems. I differ with that. 
That is not to say that I am absolutely right.
  I just feel that education should be a partnership. I think it should 
be a partnership between local, State, and Federal Government. I just 
think the three of us ought to have a role in education. If we have a 
role, if the city, if the local, the State, and the Federal Government 
can play a role in putting people in jail and building prisons, then we 
ought to have a role in building schools and educating our children.

  I just feel very strongly about that, and I think there are enough 
Members of this Congress, because when each of us runs for office, let 
us face it, there is not a Member of this House who does not run for 
Congress and use education as an issue, not one. You can poll any 
district in America, and you will find that education is an issue, 
among other issues, but never will people say education is not an 
issue. Every citizen in this country is concerned about education.
  Now, the gentlewoman mentioned the congressional classroom and you 
also mentioned, as I stated earlier, that money is not everything. The 
solution to education is not necessarily money. I do not think this 
caucus, I do not want to scare people away from this caucus, to think 
that this is a caucus only to do budget pushing for education. This is 
a caucus to really improve the quality of education for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for starting the same 
kind of program. We started congressional classroom in Louisiana. I 
noticed at town hall meetings, I saw parents, I did not see kids. Every 
town hall meeting I had when I was first elected to Congress, the 
adults were there. Mom or grandmother, they were there, dad, granddad, 
they were there, but very seldom would you see son or daughter.

[[Page H5367]]

  So I decided I wanted to get young people involved, and we started a 
congressional classroom. I tell you, since the development of that 
group, it grew from 250 to now over 3,000 kids, and their interest 
level is so high because they feel that somebody really cares about 
education.
  We challenge them. We tell them, ``Listen, you come to class. We have 
classes on weekends. In order to come to class, you have to behave 
yourself. You have to respect people. You have to do well in school.'' 
We take time with them.
  We have had people like Vice President Al Gore to walk into a 
classroom, to their classroom, the Vice President of the United States 
of America, and say ``Listen, you better not do drugs, and you better 
stay in school.'' These kids, I mean chills running down their spine to 
say the Vice President of the United States of America cared enough 
about me to come to this little classroom and say, ``Stay away from 
drugs, and I care about you.''

  Even today, in classroom settings, in classroom meetings, members of 
the classroom: ``How is the Vice President? You tell him I am doing 
well.'' Janet Reno, the Attorney General, met with these kids. 
Tomorrow, General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, flying to Baton Rouge, LA to meet with 3,000 kids and challenge 
them that they can be any and everything that they want to be if they 
believe in themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not government. General Powell is retired. That 
is personal involvement. We were preparing for this program this 
weekend. For 2 months, these kids, they were practicing their speeches, 
they are so excited about meeting General Powell.
  That is going to have an everlasting impact. That is not a piece of 
legislation, but it is going to have an everlasting impact on those 
kids when they hear somebody who they have had an opportunity to see on 
TV, but now in person tell them, ``Listen, education is important. Let 
me tell you my story. I did not become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff by dropping out, by doing drugs, by not working hard.'' It makes 
these kids say, ``Well, golly, I can do that.''
  So everything is not government, and if each Member of this Congress, 
like the gentlewoman starting the same kind of program, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] is starting the same kind of program, the 
gentleman from your State, Mr. Green, is starting this same kind of 
program. People from all over the Congress are starting those kinds of 
programs, and we are committing to spend at least a day a month in a 
classroom in our respective districts.
  We need to bring parents and teachers together. I now have town hall 
meetings with parents and teachers where parents can meet teachers and 
teachers can meet parents, town hall meetings on education.
  When they walk into that room, they do not just talk about, well, we 
need better funding. They talk about how we can improve the quality of 
education. ``How can I get involved, Congressman, as a parent? I want 
to be more involved in the education of my child and the future of my 
child. I want to work with my child's teacher.'' It is amazing things 
that happen in town hall meetings. This caucus will bring those things 
to the forefront.
  So I want to urge Members on both sides of the aisle, let us talk 
about it. We talk about peanuts. We talk about cotton. We caucus for 
gas and oil. We caucus for almost every issue in this country. Let us 
caucus for education.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman has captured, has given me a 
response that hopefully will be heeded to by the bipartisan nature of 
this Congress and certainly for years past. I think it is extremely 
important that we raise education to the level that every child has an 
opportunity to access this door opener, this key to opportunity.
  I applaud the concept of having a caucus that talks about policy 
issues that are not necessarily budget-driven and can, for example, 
emphasize the fact that public schools have a very viable role because 
they educate those children who would least have an opportunity.

                              {time}  2100

  Also I would mention to you that you are right when it comes to 
working on issues that help education. We find many aspects of our 
legislation that are not education-directed having educational impact. 
The telecommunications bill that was passed I am gratified to say to 
you as a member of that conference committee, there was an insistence 
that this new superhighway have direct direction into our schools and 
our libraries. The Education Caucus can certainly be part of directing 
or discussing how best to insure that all of our schools have access to 
the superhighway and all of our libraries and all of our youngsters 
have that kind of access.
  Also questions about how we do public-private partnerships, such as 
the program that you have, where the focus is to tell a child that 
they, too, can succeed and to engage them in the political process, can 
be a byproduct of the education caucus.
  The overall byproduct, in addition to these questions of policy, I 
hope will be even a bipartisan effort as to what a budget really should 
look like, that says that we together believe education is important, 
as you have said, and I certainly have seen, among many of our 
colleagues. It would allow that kind of discussion before the heat of 
the discussion of an appropriations period and authorization period or 
the final act of the budget.
  So I am looking forward to the further progress that will engender 
ideas from Members of Congress, will encourage further debate on how to 
utilize the educational system to help all of our citizens.
  I think job retraining is a part of this whole education question. I 
think the training of those who we are encouraging to go from welfare 
to work is part of this education. Education is, again, the door 
opener, the even playing field.
  If I might throw in an aspect of education, we will need to discuss 
in a bipartisan manner with our colleagues just how we deal with the 
access to institutions of higher learning, where we do not have attacks 
on the opportunities for institutions of higher learning to seek to 
diversify their student body under the guise of an affirmative action 
program that seeks to bring in students from all walks of life, which 
we should applaud, because that is giving or providing education for 
all of our children. Even with that very, if you will, spirited aspect 
of this Congress, this question of affirmative action, even that I 
think can be discussed in a bipartisan manner as relates to education 
and insuring that the doors of opportunity are open to our youngsters 
all over this country.

  So I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana again. I cited statistics 
from my districts. There is no doubt that the 18th Congressional 
District desires to be in the forefront of educational reform, 
educational bipartisanship, with the direction of uplifting our 
children. I would hope as we do that, we would find the appropriate 
funding line that would make sure that we do speak with strength, to 
ensure we are able to provide that opportunity for our children.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Again I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
joining me tonight in this special order. I will simply close by saying 
we have had a lot of finger pointing on issues, issue like education. I 
think it is high time for us to stop pointing fingers and start working 
together to try to bring a solution to a real problem, because there is 
a problem. There is a problem in a country when you find yourself 
spending more money on jails than you do schools. There is a problem 
when you have kids who walk into classrooms and walk down the street or 
drive down the highway and find their schoolhouse is in worse condition 
than the jailhouse. There is a problem when the jail is in better 
condition than the school. There is a problem in the country when the 
air conditioner at the school does not work, but the air conditioner at 
the jail works. There is a problem when the jail ceilings never leak, 
and the school ceiling leaks every time it rains. There is a serious 
problem in America, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and there always be a 
problem, as long as we look at education as only a local issue, and not 
sit around the table and talk about how we can improve it.
  Let me close finally by just giving you some of the benefits of 
education.

[[Page H5368]]

If you really want to do something about welfare in this country and 
getting people off the welfare roll, then we really ought to do a 
better job at educating people. If you want to decrease crime in this 
country, and you really want to decrease crime, then we have got to do 
something about educating people. If you want to get people to work and 
get them off the unemployment rolls, then you have to do something to 
educate people.
  Everybody wins when we educate our kids. We lose when we do not. Over 
80 percent of the people, Mr. Speaker, who are in jail are high school 
dropouts. There is a nexus and relationship between education and 
incarceration. We spend almost $30,000, $25,000 to $30,000, to 
incarcerate a child, and only about $5,000 or $6,000 a year to educate 
them. Welfare rolls, most of the people on welfare are high school 
dropouts. So if we really want to improve the conditions of our 
country, then we must invest in education.

  I want to thank the Speaker for being so patient tonight. I want to 
thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Oregon, Ms. Furse, who has worked so hard on the issue of 
education and who is one of the whips of this caucus. I also want to 
thank the gentlewoman from California Ms. Pelosi, who has been working 
hard on the issue of education. Finally I want to thank the cochair of 
this caucus, Senator Wellstone, who has been a very strong champion of 
education for our children in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials for the Record.

                      Education Caucus Membership

       Rep. Mike Bilirakis, Rep. David Bonior, Sen. John Breaux, 
     Rep. George Brown, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. Robert Cramer, 
     Rep. Peter DeFazio, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Anna Eshoo, 
     Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, Rep. Chaka Fattah,* Rep. Vic Fazio, 
     Rep. Cleo Fields,** Rep. Victor Frazier, Rep. Martin Frost, 
     Rep. Elizabeth Furse, Rep. Sam Gejdenson, Rep. Sam Gibbons, 
     Rep. Gene Green,* Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Sen. Bennett 
     Johnston, Rep. Bernice Johnson, Rep. Tim Johnson, Rep. Joe 
     Kennedy, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Rep. Bill Luther, Rep. Carrie 
     Meek, Sen. Moseley-Braun, Rep. L.F. Payne, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 
     Rep. Lynn Rivers, Rep. Bernard Sanders, Rep. Tom Sawyer,* 
     Rep. Jose Serrano, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. John Spratt, 
     Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Bob Torrecelli, Rep. Edolphus 
     Towns, Rep. Robert Underwood, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, Rep. 
     Maxine Waters, Rep. Curt Weldon, Sen. Paul Wellstone,** and 
     Rep. Albert Wynn.

       * Indicates membership on the Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities Committee.
       **Indicates Co-Chair of Education Caucus.

 Testimony of Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the National 
 Community Education Association Before the Education Caucus, May 16, 
                         1996, Panel Discussion

       Senator Wellstone, Representative Fields and Members of the 
     Education Caucus: Thank you for this opportunity to present 
     testimony regarding the state of education in our country. I 
     am delighted that the caucus was formed and has such a 
     diverse membership.
       I am Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the 
     National Community Education Association. The invitation from 
     Rep. Fields asked that I provide the Caucus with some of my 
     thoughts on the systemic deficiencies contributing to the 
     education crisis in this country. The task we face today is 
     formidable. The world has changed, and children have changed. 
     If you have any doubt of that, walk through most any high 
     school in this country, and you will definitely feel like you 
     have entered another world.
       If we are serious about systemic change in education, then 
     I believe what we follow the old adage. The main thing to 
     remember is to remember the main thing--children--not the 
     teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, the 
     business community, or the politicians, but, the children. We 
     let children know that they are valued. We do not practice a 
     double standard wherein some children get the very best and 
     others are left to make-do with the left-overs.
       Education has always been rooted deeply in the spirit and 
     in the community of this nation. Every morning, 40 million 
     children get out of bed and hurry off to 83,000 schools from 
     Bangor, Maine to Hawaii. An absolutely stunning achievement, 
     according to the Ernest Boyer, which we all too often take 
     for granted. This was not accomplished by a Washington 
     directive, but by local citizens who have committed 
     themselves to the audacious dream of the common school for 
     the common good.
       The truth is, dreams can be fulfilled only when they have 
     been defined, and if during the decade of the 90's quality 
     education would become a mandate of the nation, then I am 
     convinced that all of the other goals of our country would in 
     large measure be fulfilled.
       We start by making sure that our children are fed, healthy, 
     cared-for, guided and loved. We make sure that they do not 
     have to walk through flying bullets, step over dead bodies, 
     broken glass, drug paraphernalia and boarded up and decaying 
     buildings to get to school. We let them know that they do 
     count by putting them in school buildings that are warm and 
     safe, not deteriorating, not rat-infested. We give them books 
     that are current and high-tech equipment that is in good 
     repair.
       We let them know that they are expected to achieve high 
     levels. We do not ``dumb down'' the curriculum. We expect our 
     teachers to be dedicated and supportive of all students. We 
     let the teachers know that their task is one of the most 
     important in this world. We support teachers in their efforts 
     to help every child reach his or her potential. We also 
     expect accountability from all school personnel as well as 
     from parents. We do this at the local level, building by 
     building. We stop experimenting with school reform models 
     that work in one place and not another. We expect each 
     community to design its own reform efforts and to do so with 
     input from families, teachers, students and other community 
     members. We expect entire communities to be responsible 
     for their children. not just the schools. And, we do not 
     ``write-off'' the kids who are in trouble or considered 
     at-risk.
       We start as this committee has started--by sitting down 
     around a table and asking, ``What can we do to help our 
     children?'' We let go of turf issues, our own agendas, and 
     look for a way to bring together all of our resources in 
     order to provide for our children the start in life and 
     education that they and this country so desperately need. 
     Secretary of Education Riley has made the first steps toward 
     this effort with his Family Involvement Initiative. He has 
     convened school, business, religious and community 
     representatives in order to find ways in which we can all 
     work together to support and nurture our children.
       We are inclusive, not exclusive. We view the school as a 
     delivery site for all educational, social, and health 
     services. These services are delivered by the social and 
     health professionals. We do not expect classroom teachers to 
     do those tasks for which they are not trained. We keep the 
     school building open after school for child care so the 30-
     50% of our children who now go home to empty houses do not 
     need to. And we open the school early in the morning for 
     before school child care. We protect our children from 
     neighborhoods that would destroy the scant amount of hope 
     they may have.
       We provide lifelong learning for the families of our 
     children so they are prepared to work in today's working 
     environment and be flexible enough in their training that 
     they can adapt to the changes occurring so rapidly. By 
     guaranteeing the quality of our work force, we also guarantee 
     a level of economic security for our families. I don't 
     believe that as a nation we can afford to do any less. Every 
     institution and community has an ethical and educational 
     obligation to commit itself to create a safety net for 
     children. Schools cannot do the job alone.
       If we expect all children to be well prepared for school, 
     we simply must have families and communities that first give 
     love then support to their children. We must prepare our 
     parents for parenting. We must teach them how to nurture 
     their young and how to raise healthy, contributing members of 
     a community.
       Does this sound impossible? It is not. We have schools and 
     communities such as these all across our 50 states. They are 
     called community schools and they have been functioning for 
     the past 50 years. In New York they are also called Beacon 
     Schools. They are learning communities that spread their 
     influence community-wide. Do they work? Yes. Do they cure all 
     the problems. No. But, through local decision-making and 
     collaboration, they go a long way towards addressing 
     community needs. They make a difference in the quality of 
     life of their local communities and in their schools.
       We can do this if only we remember the main thing--and that 
     is to remember the main thing--Children and their future, for 
     it is really our future as well. I appreciate the opportunity 
     to speak to you today, and would be pleased to respond to any 
     questions the caucus may have.

      Remarks of Joel Packer, Senior Lobbyist, National Education 
                       Association, May 16, 1996

       Thank you for the opportunity to address the historic first 
     session of the Congressional Education Caucus, which we hope 
     will help to restore the tradition of bipartisan leadership 
     on Capitol Hill for children and education. Coordination and 
     cooperation across party lines are essential to strengthening 
     public education in America and providing every child with an 
     excellent opportunity to learn. Those goals are central to 
     the mission of the National Education Association, and I know 
     they are shared by everybody in this room. I want to offer a 
     few thoughts on how this caucus can work effectively to 
     strengthen education, and briefly outline NEA's education 
     agenda.
       First, let me tell you about the NEA. We represent over 2.2 
     million educators, including both elementary and secondary 
     public school teachers, higher education faculty, and 
     education support personnel ranging from school bus drivers 
     to cafeteria workers to custodians. In addition, we have both 
     student members and retired members. NEA conducts research on 
     school finance, sponsors the National Foundation for the 
     Improvement of Education, which is dedicated

[[Page H5369]]

     to improving student performance, works to improve teaching 
     and learning through many projects including Learning 
     Laboratories, Mastery in Learning program, Teacher Education 
     Initiative, and Keys to Excellence for Your Schools; 
     maintains a Professional Library for educators, and actively 
     promotes quality public schools at both the Federal and state 
     level through our 13,000 local affiliates.
       It is important to put today's challenges in historical 
     perspective. Over the past few decades, most of the landmark 
     education legislation was passed by strong bipartisan 
     majorities. Many of these bills were championed by Republican 
     leaders in the House and Senate, and many were signed into 
     law by Republican presidents.
       To cite a few examples, over twenty years ago, in the 
     summer of 1975, the Congress passed legislation guaranteeing 
     a free appropriate public education to children with 
     disabilities. The bill passed the Senate 63-10, while the 
     House margin was 375-44. Even this year, in the Senate the 
     IDEA reauthorization is a true bipartisan effort, with 
     legislation sponsored by Sen. Harkin (D-IA) reported 
     unanimously by the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
     Committee.
       The Elementary/Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 
     1987 by a vote of 401-1. This bill included Title I, as well 
     as bilingual education. The Senate vote that year was 97-1. 
     Vocational Education, was reauthorized in 1989, with the 
     House bill passing 402-3, and the Senate acting by a 
     unanimous 96-0. The following year, Head Start was extended 
     by a 404-14 House vote. Higher education programs have also 
     enjoyed this broad bipartisan consensus. The Higher Education 
     Act was reauthorized in 1992, by a 419-7 vote in the House 
     and a 93-1 vote in the Senate.
       And just a few weeks ago, many Republicans joined Democrats 
     in restoring over $3 billion in education funds that had 
     earlier been cut from the FY 1996 appropriations legislation. 
     So there is ample precedent for the bipartisan work of this 
     Caucus.
       As all of the public opinion polls have shown this year, 
     the American people have put education at or near the top of 
     their priority list of issues. Indeed, voters also recognize 
     the importance of the Federal role in education, with upwards 
     of 90% of Americans opposing cutting Federal aid to 
     education. And their focus on education crosses party lines. 
     In a USA Today poll this January, for example, education led 
     voter concerns and vied closely with deficit reduction as a 
     concern among Republican voters. Senator D'Amato was right on 
     target when he recently commented that American voters ``did 
     not vote to cut education.''
       I want to make it clear to this group that NEA's goal for 
     the coming years is to build a bipartisan pro-education 
     majority and to work with leaders from both parties who want 
     to strengthen public education. We are very grateful for the 
     hard work of Democratic leaders on our agenda this year, but 
     we also thank mainstream Republicans who courageously stood 
     up for education and we hope and expect that more will join 
     your ranks in the coming years.
       A bipartisan education caucus could play an important role 
     through a variety of activities ranging from sponsoring 
     briefings for Members and staff, preparing objective reports 
     on education issues, providing analysis of proposed education 
     legislation, and serving to advocate the needs of children 
     and education through testimony, floor speeches, introduction 
     of legislation, and sponsoring of floor amendments.
       Let me briefly outline our legislative agenda for the 
     balance of 1996.
       Ensuring adequate funding for children and education. While 
     the deep cuts advocated by many in the House leadership were 
     largely rejected in the final FY 96 appropriations bill, 
     education programs were still cut by $450 million. This is on 
     top of over $600 million in cuts that passed as part of the 
     FY 95 recession bill. Thus, since the beginning of 1995, over 
     $1 billion has been slashed from education. Both the FY 97 
     House and Senate budget resolutions fail to invest in 
     children and education, since they provide no growth to 
     compensate for inflation, 20% enrollment increases at the K-
     12 level, or rising college costs. Indeed, the House budget 
     would slice over $1 billion from the FY 96 levels, and again 
     attempt to eliminate Goals 2000 education reform, bilingual 
     and immigrant education, Perkins Student Loans, State Student 
     Incentive Grants, and many other important programs. Indeed, 
     even a freeze over six years results in cuts of at least 17% 
     from FY 96 levels.
       Extending and Strengthening the Individuals With 
     Disabilities Education Act. NEA strongly supports 
     reauthorization of IDEA, with provisions to increase local 
     flexibility for schools to properly discipline seriously 
     disruptive students, strengthen professional development, and 
     provide adequate resources to ensure that appropriate 
     services are provided to children with disabilities.
       Opposing back door block grants under the Local Flexibility 
     and Empowerment Act. While NEA supports increased flexibility 
     for local schools to administer Federal education programs, 
     we believe that legislation now pending in Congress (HR 2086/
     S 88) would undermine Federal education programs, allowing 
     for education dollars to be siphoned off for other purposes, 
     and weaken or remove accountability and important 
     standards for program quality and access for disadvantaged 
     children.
       Stopping efforts to punish immigrant children. NEA strongly 
     opposes the so-called Gallegly amendment, which passed the 
     House as a part of the immigration bill (H.R. 2202), that 
     would allow states to deny public education to illegal 
     immigrant children. Not only would this proposal unfairly 
     punish children for actions of their parents, it would create 
     significant paperwork and administrative burdens on both 
     local schools and parents of all children, who would have to 
     document and prove the immigration or citizenship status of 
     their children.
       Preventing expansion of Federal courts control over local 
     schools. Under legislation advocated by the Christian 
     Coalition, known as the Parental Rights and Responsibilities 
     Act (H.R. 1946/S 984) parents would be granted unlimited 
     right to sue schools in federal court over virtually any 
     decision of their local school. Discipline policies, 
     selection of textbooks, curricula content, and other local 
     decisions would all be subject to litigation by parents, with 
     Federal courts deciding local educational policies. Not only 
     would this bill gut the authority of locally elected school 
     boards, it would also lead to teachers' efforts to report 
     possible cases of child abuse and neglect being deemed an 
     interference with parental rights.
       In addition to these issues, NEA is fighting to ensure that 
     secondary and postsecondary students continue to receive 
     needed vocational education services, to oppose the 
     imposition of private school vouchers, to protect the school 
     lunch program from block grants, and to protect needed health 
     care services for children through Medicaid.
       Looking beyond 1996, we are planning to work with the new 
     Congress that takes office in 1997 on new initiatives for 
     education. Like many of our coalition partners, we have 
     several pro-active strategies we are now discussing and 
     developing to address such pressing issues as school 
     infrastructure and technology needs. Our vision for all 
     children is a vision of safe schools, active learning, 
     advanced technology, and modern classrooms. Our vision 
     includes keeping the things that are working well in schools 
     and scrapping those that are not. Our vision includes a 
     public education system where every person in the community 
     has a voice and a role, in ensuring that tomorrow's schools 
     serve tomorrow's students.
       We plan to bring this group into that collaboration. The 
     next four years will bring us to the year 2000--a major 
     benchmark for American education. We look forward to working 
     with you to make this a very productive and forward-looking 
     time for education in the United States Congress.

   Testimony of Angelica Santacruz, National HeadStart Association, 
               Education Caucus, Hearing on May 16, 1996

       Congressman Cleo Fields, and members of the Education 
     Caucus. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to 
     testify today about the Head Start program and the National 
     Head Start's Association's (NHSA) vision for including all 
     eligible children in Head Start.
       I would like to applaud Congressman Fields for forming a 
     bipartisan Congressional Education Caucus to address the 
     issues confronting the current education system. It is time 
     to meet the challenge together and include early childhood 
     programs in the process. In terms of providing children in 
     poverty with a fair chance to start equally in school, Head 
     Start has proven it works over 30 years. However, there are 
     issues that must be addressed: increasing funding to service 
     all eligible children who need Head Start; providing services 
     that meet the needs of today's families; and providing 
     leadership to build a more coordinated and effective system 
     of services for children and families through collaboration 
     and research.


                               head start

       Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive services 
     including health, education, social services and parent 
     involvement to more than 14 million children and their 
     families. Today, Head Start serves over 750,000 children in 
     approximately 1,433 grantees, reaching low-income children in 
     all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the 
     Virgin Islands, and the Pacific territories.
       Head Start serves children ages zero to five, with four-
     year-olds comprising 62 percent of its population. More than 
     13% of Head Start enrollment consists of children with 
     disabilities.
       The basic goal of Head Start is to bring about a greater 
     degree of social competence in children of low income 
     families. The Head Start program is a developmental approach 
     to helping children achieve social competence. To the 
     accomplishment of this goal, Head Start objectives and 
     performance standards provide for: The improvement of the 
     child's health and physical abilities; the encouragement of 
     self-confidence and self-discipline; the enhancement of the 
     child's mental processes and skills with particular attention 
     to conceptual and communication skills; the establishment of 
     patterns and expectations of success for the child; an 
     increase in the ability of the child and family to relate to 
     each other and to others; and the enhancement of the sense of 
     dignity and self-worth within the child and his family.
       Head Start works! Research shows that Head Start has had an 
     important impact on program participants. Positive impacts 
     include: Improving cognitive test scores, including reading; 
     reducing placement in special education; increasing self-
     confidence and improving social behavior; improving health, 
     including better eating habits, decreasing anemia and 
     increasing immunizations received; improving parent 
     awareness;

[[Page H5370]]

     and enhancing parent's employment and educational status.


                                 issues

       Head Start's record of achievements and experience in 
     providing comprehensive services to low-income children and 
     their families, makes it the perfect program to address these 
     new challenges and to help build a competitive and strong 
     country. Head Start has the potential to serve as a model of 
     comprehensive services, to reach large numbers of children 
     and families, to respond to a diversity of needs, and to 
     provide leadership in collaboration and research for 
     the entire early childhood field. Yet today, funding for 
     Head Start falls short and limits the program's ability to 
     meet its full potential.
       Three conditions exist in Head Start that must be 
     addressed. First, to be effective in the future, the program 
     must continue to provide good early childhood services. 
     However, Head Start faces threats to program quality.
       Second, in the upcoming years, Head Start must be expanded 
     to serve all eligible children and must be flexible enough to 
     meet the diverse needs of children and families, particularly 
     demands for full-day centers. Presently, Head Start serves 20 
     percent of zero to five-year-olds. The demand for Head Start 
     is still tremendous.
       Third, as the largest early childhood program, Head Start 
     must provide leadership to the entire early childhood field. 
     It must help develop a coordinated delivery system, ensure 
     adequate community services for low-income families, 
     encourage the continuation of comprehensive services as 
     children move on to the public schools and develop new 
     knowledge to improve practice and policy. There is increasing 
     concern that the progress made by children in the Head Start 
     program may be lost when there is not continuation of 
     comprehensive services in the school. At the federal and 
     local levels, there has been a lack of collaboration between 
     Head Start and federal programs serving low-income families.
       The Administration of Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) 
     has put considerable effort into improving the transition of 
     children as they move to kindergarten through the Transition 
     Project. Although these efforts have been useful to the 
     initial adjustment of children as they enter school, there is 
     a need for schools to become much more involved with 
     families.
       Despite the challenges, Head Start has accomplished major 
     early childhood services. The following are some of Head 
     Start's ultimate highlights: The Child Development Associate 
     (CDA) programs; Home-based services; Bilingual-multicultural 
     approaches; Indian and Migrant Head Start Programs; Resource 
     Access Projects provide training and technical assistance to 
     programs; Early Start provides services to zero-to-three 
     year-olds; Performance Standards; and Quality Improvement.
       Congress and the Clinton Administration must remember that 
     Head Start is an investment. President Clinton has proposed 
     for Head Start for fiscal year 1997 $3.981 billion. The 
     National Head Start Association urges Congress to consider an 
     appropriations bill that moves toward the goals of both the 
     Bush and Clinton Administrations to expand Head Start to 
     guarantee services to all eligible children by the year 2000.

  Testimony of Jerry Lewis, J.D., Before the Congressional Education 
                          Caucus, May 16, 1996

       Senator Wellstone, Congressman Fields, Members of the 
     Education Caucus, I very much appreciate the opportunity to 
     testify before you today. My name is Jerry Lewis and I am the 
     Director of Intensive Educational Development at the 
     University of Maryland-College Park. In that capacity I am 
     responsible for two of the Federal TRIO Programs sponsored by 
     the University. These include the Ronald E. McNair Post-
     baccalaureate Achievement Program and the Student Support 
     Services Program. I am testifying today on behalf of the 
     National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations 
     (NCEOA).
       Before sharing my brief remarks on post-secondary 
     educational opportunity as it relates to low-income students 
     in America, I want to take a moment to applaud your efforts 
     in establishing this Caucus. The federal role in assuring 
     educational opportunity has become increasingly questioned in 
     recent years. Moreover, even those who articulate support for 
     education often do not back their words with dollars. Your 
     active advocacy for education is deeply appreciated.


           Post-secondary Education Opportunity Is Declining

       There is presently extensive evidence on the growing gaps 
     in educational attainment between children from upper-income 
     families and children from low-income families. As reported 
     in Business Week, utilizing Census data, Thomas Mortenson 
     demonstrates that a child from a family in the bottom income 
     quarter (family income below $22,000) has only an 8% chance 
     of graduating from college with a Baccalaureate by the time 
     he is 24. In contrast, a child from a family in the top 
     income quarter (income above $68,000 per year) has a 79% 
     chance of attaining the Baccalaureate at this juncture. Thus 
     individuals from upper-income families are more than ten 
     times as likely to graduate frown college by the time they 
     are 24 than are individuals from low-income families.
       At the same time, the ability of any worker to adequately 
     support his or her family without a college education is 
     declining. Today, median family income in households headed 
     by an individual with a college degree is $73,000 per year, 
     an increase in real dollar terms of 14% since 1973. At the 
     same time, households headed by individuals with only a high 
     school diploma have a median income of $41,000, a decrease of 
     20% in the same time period. Households headed by families 
     without a high school diploma have a median income of only 
     $28,000. Real median income for households headed by the 
     least educated individuals has fallen over 37% since 1973.


                     Addressing this Critical Issue

       The Federal government has historically utilized a multi-
     pronged strategy to support post-secondary educational 
     opportunity. Student financial assistance--grants, loans and 
     work--are made available to low and middle-income students so 
     that lack of financial resources does not prevent them from 
     enrolling and succeeding in college. Unfortunately, as the 
     following chart demonstrates, student aid has not kept pace 
     with inflation. While in the Mid-1970's the principal Federal 
     grant program--Pell--covered nearly 80% of the cost of 
     attending a public, four-year college, today it covers less 
     than 40% of that cost.
       While student financial aid helps students overcome 
     financial barriers to higher education. TRIO programs help 
     students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to 
     college. Over 1,200 colleges, universities and agencies now 
     sponsor TRIO programs which enroll nearly 700,000 low-income 
     students who aspire to attend or are currently enrolled in 
     college.
       As mandated by Congress, two-thirds of the students served 
     in TRIO must come from families with incomes under $24,000, 
     where neither parent graduated from college. Over 1,750 TRIO 
     Programs currently serve nearly 700,000 low-income Americans 
     between the ages of 11 and 27. Many programs serve students 
     in grade six through twelve. Forty-two percent (42%) of 
     TRIO students are White, 35% are African American, 15% are 
     Hispanic, 4% are Native American, and 4% are Asian. 
     Sixteen thousand (16,000) TRIO students are disabled and 
     7,000 are military veterans.
       TRIO is made up of five programs. Three assist young people 
     and adults in learning about and preparing for college: 
     Talent Search, Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers. 
     Congressman Fields is himself a product of one of the 
     programs--Upward Bound at Southern University--and he has 
     often voiced strong support for TRIO.
       In addition to their pre-college efforts, there are two 
     programs--Student Support Services and Ronald E. McNair Post-
     baccalaureate Achievement Program--which serve 
     undergraduates. At the University of Maryland, for example, 
     each year Student Support Services provides counseling, 
     tutoring, and other support to over 350 students. These 
     services are made possible by over $350,000 in institutional 
     funds and $245,000 in TRIO funds. And this investment has 
     made a difference. For example, it has raised the graduation 
     rates of those minority students enrolled in Student Support 
     Services by over 70% over graduation rates of minority 
     students not assisted by Student Support Services.


                        evidence of achievement

       I could speak much more than my allotted time, providing 
     evidence on TRIO's behalf. It is noteworthy, for example, 
     that:
       Students in the Upward Bound program are four times more 
     likely to earn an undergraduate degree than students from 
     similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO.
       Nearly 20% of all Black and Hispanic freshman who entered 
     college in 1981 received assistance through the TRIO Talent 
     Search or EOC programs.
       Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are 
     more than twice as likely to remain in college than those 
     students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in 
     the program.
       TRIO Programs are very effective and many students from 
     low-income families depend on these programs to succeed 
     academically in high school and college. In fact, since 1965 
     an estimated two million students have graduated from college 
     with the special assistance and support of our nation's TRIO 
     Programs.
       I am more comfortable, however, citing individuals than 
     statistics. One has only to look at Congressman Fields--and 
     his three colleagues in the House who were also TRIO 
     participants--to learn of TRIO's merits. (Congressman 
     Bonilla, Congressman Watts, and Congressman Wynn were also 
     TRIO graduates.) One can turn to the nineteen freshmen in 
     Student Support Services' freshman class at the University of 
     Maryland who have grade point averages above 3.0 as a measure 
     of TRIO's achievement. One can look at our recent graduates 
     who came from D.C. Public Schools and single parent homes and 
     are now enrolled in doctoral programs in mathematics and 
     computer science to learn of TRIO's achievement. I am 
     confident each of you has also visited with TRIO students and 
     TRIO graduates and knows of TRIO's accomplishments.
       I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today and 
     would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

                          ____________________