Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8013-H8017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3248, DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 543 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H8014]]

H. Res. 543

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3248) to provide dollars to the classroom. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. Points of order against the committee in
the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause
7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 543 is a structured rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. The rule
provides for the traditional 1 hour of general debate, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
It makes in order the Committee on Education and the Workforce
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered
as read. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI prohibiting nongermane
amendments against the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
In addition, the rule makes in order only the amendments printed in
the report on the rule, to be offered only in the order printed, by the
Member specified, and debatable for the time specified in the report,
with the time equally divided between a proponent and an opponent.
The amendments are considered as read and are not subject to
amendment. Also, all points of order are waived against the amendments.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the
first of a series of votes.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3248, the underlying legislation, the Dollars to
the Classroom Act, is the legislation that implements the sense of the
House expressed in House Resolution 139, the Dollars to the Classroom
resolution, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 310 to 99
last session. When the vast majority of our colleagues voted for House
Resolution 139, this House stated very clearly and unequivocally that
we believed that the Federal education dollars that are sent to the
States should be sent as much as possible directly to our local
schools.
The goal we are seeking with the implementing legislation, with this
underlying legislation, what we are seeking to accomplish is to make
certain that no less than 95 percent of the Department of Education's
elementary and secondary education program funds are spent at the local
level, where they should be spent. With this bill, more money will go
straight to the classroom where it will have, obviously, the best
possible impact.
Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) are to be commended for bringing this
important piece of legislation forward. I believe the Committee on
Education and the Workforce did a very good job in marking up this
bill.
Given that only 5 amendments were offered in the committee of
jurisdiction and that the Committee on Rules gave the entire membership
of the House 6 days to file amendments on this bill and yet we, in the
Committee on Rules, received only 2 amendments, I believe that this
structured rule is the correct approach for this bill's consideration.
The rule makes in order all of the amendments that were filed with
the Committee on Rules, even though only 2 Members took the time to do
so. Anyone interested in amending this bill has had 6 days, Mr.
Speaker, to make their amendment plans known. Also, given that we are
moving close to the end of the 105th Congress and we have obviously
many important issues to resolve in the appropriations process, time is
certainly in short supply.
Mr. Speaker, we can do nothing more important than to protect and to
strengthen the future of this great Nation, and our children represent
the future of this great Nation. We are losing jobs because of some of
the evident failures of our educational system, especially in the
advanced math and engineering fields.
Seriously addressing the educational needs of our children has become
one of the true challenges for the United States of America. We have an
obligation to assure that students of all ages receive the best
possible education and that the funds entrusted to us by the taxpayers
are spent wisely. In the effort by the House of Representatives to send
a message of its commitment toward Federal funding for education, I
supported the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, urging the Federal
bureaucracy to send at least 90 percent of Federal education dollars
directly to the classroom. It is important that we put some teeth into
that sense of the House Resolution and that we implement what we
overwhelmingly agreed was a worthwhile goal.
House Resolution 3248 consolidates and streamlines 31 Federal
education programs, giving State and local decision makers increased
authority and flexibility in the use of Federal education dollars, and
this legislation will send more of the money to the classroom where it
will be used to help our students.
No one knows the educational needs of our children better than their
teachers.

{time} 2030

There is no better way to support education, genuinely, than by
sending Federal dollars directly to the schools where it is most
needed.
Mr. Speaker, this is very good legislation. I am proud to be
supporting it. I believe that House Resolution 543 is also an
appropriately structured rule to bring this legislation to the floor,
and I urge its adoption. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying
bill because the bill makes unprecedented changes in many Federal
educational initiatives. Despite that fact, the Committee on Rules
chose to block any amendment that might otherwise be offered during
floor debate, except two

[[Page H8015]]

amendments prefiled with the Committee on Rules.
What is the majority afraid of? Some might say that in the press of
business at the end of the fiscal year, we cannot afford open debate
and amendment. But this bill was reported from the committee on June
24. Why was that report not filed until September 11, forcing
consideration at this busy time?
Mr. Speaker, I fear the process has been manipulated to shut down
debate on how this bill will affect millions of children across our
Nation. Closed rules are the refuge of those who fear democracy.
Mr. Speaker, our country's public schools are in critical need of our
support, our resources, and our guidance. Supporting public education
needs to be placed at the forefront of the House's agenda. This bill
does just the opposite. Under the guise of reform, H.R. 3248
consolidates many important education programs into a single block
grant, with no accountability and no guarantee that the money will be
spent on the specific needs for which they were originally intended.
The 31 programs eliminated by this misguided legislation were created
for this very reason, to fill existing needs. For example, I remember
quite well back in 1987, when I was first in Congress, and Congress
passed the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program under the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. I remember it quite well
because we wrote it.
Reports issued in the mid-1980s showed that more than 50 percent of
the homeless children and youth were not attending school. Homeless
children suffer disproportionately from health problems, nutritional
deficiencies and developmental disabilities. Uprooted day after day,
more than half of them were school dropouts.
The Congress found it unacceptable for these children to be denied an
education, the major source of stability in their lives, and the only
hope for these children to build a better life for themselves. The
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program was created because
State and local schools were not meeting the responsibility to these
children. The program set standards for the placement of homeless
children in appropriate schools and provided funding to help supply the
tools they would need to be successful in school.
It is hard to do well in school when one does not have the clothes to
wear, the books to read, the basic school supplies, a required place to
do homework, or transportation to school. Through grants to schools,
the program encourages supplemental tutoring and assistance to help
these children make up for school time they may have lost when their
families became homeless.
Despite periodic attacks levied against it, this program has resulted
in documented improvement in school access and enrollment. Thousands of
children have been given a chance to succeed in life that they would
not otherwise have had. Our Nation's future is better because we help
these children to succeed in education and in life, rather than giving
up on them and likely supporting them for much of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that local school districts do not know
what to do for the majority of their students, but like governmental
officials everywhere, they spend their scarce resources on programs
that benefit the majority. They, like all of us, pay attention to their
constituents who contact them, who vote and who organize support
groups. Unfortunately, homeless families, struggling to survive, do not
have the time or the resources to effectively lobby the local school
board. Yet a small investment, and it has been a small investment, by
the Federal Government can help school districts recognize the homeless
children's special needs and meet them, with an enormous return on the
investment to both the children and to the community.
Mr. Speaker, as the author of the major reauthorizations of this
program, I know its successes. And while I am not as familiar with the
other 30 programs that this bill would block grant, I believe it is
likely that they, too, are designed to fill an important need that was
not being addressed by financially pressed local school districts.
Now, some may consider programs such as the Women's Educational
Equity, Gifted and Talented Education, Arts in Education, and the
Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program, frills. But these
small, targeted programs assure that all our children can receive the
education that will allow them to become the best that they can be. If
these programs are abolished, all accountability to ensure that schools
meet the national priorities stated in these programs will also be
eliminated.
In fact, this legislation goes as far as to prohibit accountability
by barring the Secretary of Education from imposing any meaningful
performance or accountability standards regarding the expenditure of
funding under this bill. And who do these programs target? The
legislation includes a distribution formula which lessens the Federal
Government's focus on the children who need our help the most: the
poor.
The Federal Government must continue taking an active role in
addressing the needs of low-income families. A recent GAO study makes
the point that Federal education programs do a better job of targeting
resources to those most in need than State and local efforts do. I find
it utterly shameful that this House would endorse legislation that
shirks our responsibility to the neediest of our children.
Mr. Speaker, this bill overturns decades of Federal education policy.
It ought to receive substantial debate so that Members understand what
it will really do. And if that debate sparks Members to think of ways
to make the bill better, those Members should have the right to offer
germane amendments. This rule provides neither enough time for adequate
consideration nor the right for most Members to offer amendments.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that this abrupt reversal
of Federal education policy can receive the full consideration it
deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to advise my colleagues that we are privileged that the two
Members of this House who are most knowledgeable on this legislation,
that will do so much to get dollars to the classroom and not keep the
dollars with the bureaucracy in Washington, dollars that our kids need
for their public education, those two Members of Congress who most know
what this legislation actually will carry out and accomplish, they are
here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to make sure I choose my words very carefully, because what
the Department of Education has been circulating, what the lobbyists
for the chief State school officers is circulating, and what OMB is
circulating is, let me find a word, ``disingenuous'' at the very best.
Now, I am being very kind when I say that, because if I used the real
language that I should be using it would be much stronger than just
``disingenuous.''
What they are doing is trying to raise a battle about the
appropriation process. So they are trying to mix apples and oranges.
Yes, the Committee on Appropriations has reduced funding in this
particular area. It will not happen by the time it goes through
conference, et cetera; but they have, and so they are trying to use
those numbers.
Well, I understand why they are doing this. They do not really have
an argument against the legislation. They do not have an argument
against the legislation because it sends an additional, at least, $425
down to every classroom.
Now, what their argument is, that they do not want to come out and
say is, we do not want to give up all our bureaucratic jobs. We want to
keep these people on the payroll. And that is what the chief school
administrator representative is saying. And back in the State: We want
to keep them on the State level; spend the money there. Do not worry
about children. We know better in the bureaucracy. So, first of

[[Page H8016]]

all, they do not have an argument because they know more money gets to
the classroom.
They also do not have an argument because they know that we have a
hold-harmless 100 percent for all formula grant programs, a hold-
harmless program in place for all formula grant programs.
They also do not want to admit that the parents and the local
administrators and the local teachers have a far better idea how to
spend this money than the bureaucrats in Washington.
Now, the interesting thing is that people will get up and say, oh,
they will use this money for playground equipment. They will use this
money to build a swimming pool. Well, guess what? The only place they
use this money is in the very same programs that now exist. The very
same programs.
However, they do not have to fill out 31 applications, page after
page after page. They do not have to have all of the rules and
regulations that come from the Federal level. We have two pages of
accountability in this legislation. Very, very strong accountability
language.
Now, I think it would be important to say what the uses of this
money, for what they can use this money. I am trying to keep the
preposition off the end of the sentence. After all, we are speaking
about education. These are the uses of the money:
Let me start with number nine. Programs for homeless children and
youth. Now, the only way we could argue that this will not happen is
because we do not trust the State; we do not trust the local school
district. But, Mr. Speaker, if that school district has a large number
of homeless children, they can spend all the money for that purpose.
That is the beauty. Each local school can determine that. So if we do
not trust our local school districts or if we do not trust our States,
then I suppose we would have an argument.
The money will be used for professional development for instructional
staff. The money will be used for programs for the acquisition and use
of instructional and educational materials. The money will be used for
programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of disadvantaged
elementary and secondary school students, and to prevent students from
dropping out of school.
The money will be used in efforts to lengthen the school day or the
school year, if that is what the local district believes it should be
used for. It will be used for programs to combat illiteracy in the
student population. It will be used for programs to provide for the
education needs of gifted and talented children.
It will be used for promising education reform projects that are tied
to State student content and performance standards. It will be used to
carry out comprehensive school reform programs that are based on
reliable research.
Do these not all sound very, very familiar? They should, because they
are exactly the programs that are out there now.
All we are doing is saying we ought to get 95 cents of that dollar
down to the local classroom, where it will make the difference with
students, not to the bureaucrats in Washington, not to the bureaucrats
in the State, not to some of the private groups, Washington-based. No,
to the children; to the teachers, so that, as a matter of fact, they
can improve education.
It can be used for programs built upon partnerships between local
educational agencies and institutions of higher education. Sounds very
familiar, does it not?
It can be used for the acquisition of books, materials and equipment.
It can be used for programs to promote academic achievement among women
and girls. Does that not sound familiar?
It can be used for programs to provide for the education needs of
children with limited English proficiency, or who are American Indian,
Alaskan Native, or Hawaiian. It can be used for activities to provide
the academic support, enrichment, and motivation to enable all students
to reach high State standards.
It can be used for efforts to reduce the pupil-to-teacher ratio. It
can be used for projects and programs which assure the participation in
mainstream settings in arts and education programs of individuals with
disabilities.
I am reading, folks, the 26 uses of the money, which are the 26 uses
of the money at the present time.
What do we cut out? We cut out reams and reams and reams of
paperwork. If you are a school district and you cannot afford to hire
people to sit there day after day, hour after hour, trying to fill out
these damnable applications that come from Washington, D.C., you do not
get a grant. You do not have a chance.
So all we are cutting out is the bureaucracy in Washington, the
bureaucracy in the State, giving an opportunity for parents, children
and teachers and administrators on the local level to determine which
of these allowable uses are most important to them.
One district may decide to spend half of that money on one or two of
these. Another district may decide that there are five or six, but
certainly we should not be saying there is a one size fits all. For
what York City may need, York suburban may not need, in my own school
district. So I hope that when we get into this tomorrow that we will
not hear people getting up and misrepresenting what the legislation
does, and I hope none of them get up and use any of the, and again, I
want to be careful, apparently disingenuous information being put out
by the Department of Education and being put out by the lobbyists for
the State school officers.
I think it is very, very important that tomorrow's debate has nothing
to do with the appropriation process. That is another time to debate
that. If the Members want to debate that, debate that when the
appropriation bill comes on the floor but do not take the numbers that
that appropriations committee has now produced, because we know that
those will not be the numbers by the time the conference is over
anyway.
Do not mix apples and oranges. Let us think about children. Let us
think about getting money down to the classroom, where it can be used
effectively and efficiently to do all the things that we in Washington,
D.C. said should be done, but done their way on the local level.
Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes the
ranking member's amendment, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), to
reduce class size in order.
H.R. 3248 continues to be a bad bill. It is not that I do not trust
the schools and the school districts, as my good chairman would make us
think. I do not trust the Congress and our funding priorities. Claiming
that Dollars to the Classroom Act will increase education funding
really means that we need some remedial lessons in math and history
here on this floor.
The only way dollars to the classroom can increase funds for schools
is for Congress to appropriate more money for the block grant. Then
each individual program can get more. We already know that that is not
going to happen. We have seen the fiscal year 1999 Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. We know that the programs being block granted in
the Dollars to the Classroom Act are being cut by 20 percent; 20
percent.
That comes as no surprise to those of us who know our history. We
know that block grants historically lose funds. A 1995 GAO report found
that when Congress created a series of block grants in the early
eighties funding for those programs declined significantly.
Here is what the State Superintendent of Public Education in
California, Delaine Eastin, wrote to me about H.R. 3248. She said, and
I quote, ``H.R. 3248 leaves future education funding extremely
vulnerable at a time when schools are managing record levels of student
enrollment. Growing populations of students with special needs,
increased demand for teachers, staggering school construction needs and
changing educational technologies.''
I urge my colleagues to listen to the lessons of professional
educators in their States and in mine. Mathematically and historically,
block grants mean less dollars, not more, for our schools and for our
students. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am against this rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H8017]]

Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a distinguished Member of this House who has
worked tirelessly on this very important and innovative piece of
legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PITTS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that we
understand that Chapter 2 funding was reduced not because of the then
minority party. Chapter 2 funding was reduced by the then majority
party, a program that all educators loved.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 3248, the
Dollars to the Classroom Act. We have been working almost 2 years on
this legislation and it is exciting to get to this point.
I want to especially commend the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), for his tremendous leadership as he has shepherded this
through committee and now brought this to the floor and fine-tuned the
bill. He has done an outstanding job and all of our thanks go to him.
Before getting to the specifics of the bill, I would like to just
mention that the one thing that I am really looking forward to is going
back to my district, and every Member can do this, and taking a check
like this, because this check to the children of the 16th Congressional
District represents money that is freed up from the bureaucracy that is
consumed now by the Federal bureaucracy in all kinds of wasted tax
dollars, and this money is going to be going directly through the
States to the classrooms to these children in all of our schools around
the Nation. This is a win for school children, for parents, for
teachers, in every one of our districts.
As we probably know, the Dollars to the Classroom Act will
consolidate 31 Federal programs into a single flexible grant to the
States with the requirement that 95 cents of every one of these Federal
dollars gets to the classroom to be used on the priorities of the local
teachers and parents, the local schools. It can be used for any one of
those authorized 31 programs, but it can be used in the classroom for
things such as teachers' salaries, teachers' aides, equipment, books,
computer supplies, whatever their needs are. We know that the needs of
one district are not necessarily the needs of another district, but
they can be used according the local priorities.
If they want to reduce classroom sizes, if they want to spend it on
teaching reading, connecting the classroom to the Internet, whatever
their needs are, they can use it all.
It is estimated today by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and we did not consolidate all programs, we did not touch
Title I, that is a very efficient program. We did not touch special ed,
migrant ed, voc ed, but we took 31 programs, programs like Goals 2000,
School-to-Work, we consolidated them. Those monies that are going to
the local school districts are increased because of the flexibility and
the reduced requirements for no paperwork, without the administrative
requirements that are presently in place.

This could mean an additional approximately $9,300 per school,
approximately $425 per classroom. Every State wins. Every State is held
harmless.
So we are putting our children first, not the bureaucrats first.
Now, look at this chart. Before the Dollars to the Classroom Act,
there are the existing 31 programs with all kinds of funds being
siphoned off at the Federal level, the State educational agencies, and
finally getting down to the schools. After the Dollars to the Classroom
Act, we have got a single grant stream directly through the States to
the classroom.
I would like to also mention that every State is held harmless, and
we have an inflationary grant. This is an authorization bill. This is
not an appropriations bill.
Now, I understand the arguments about changing an appropriations
bill. Whatever the appropriations level, this will get more of that
money into the local classroom.
So it comes down to this argument: Who do you trust with your tax
dollars; your local teachers and parents or bureaucrats?
I think all of us should stand with our local parents, teachers,
principals and children, the real beneficiaries. Those who are in the
place where the real learning takes place, who are going to be the
beneficiaries of this bill, stand with them and not the bureaucrats. So
I urge my colleagues to help send the dollars to the classroom by
supporting the rule.
Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) if he has any more requests
for time?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, not in the chamber at this time.
Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reiterating my support for the
underlying legislation and this very fair rule, I also yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________