[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 125 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8037-H8072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). Pursuant to House Resolution
543 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3248.
{time} 0902
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole
[[Page H8038]]
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3248) to provide Dollars to the Classroom, with Mrs. Emerson in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, it was last evening when I indicated that I would try
to be as kind as I could to the Department of Education and as kind as
I could to the lobbyists for the chief school administrators, but it is
very difficult to be kind with my words when it is very obvious that
they knew exactly what they were doing when they sent erroneous
material to Members of the Congress. They knew very well that what they
were talking about was an appropriation bill. We are not talking about
an appropriation bill today. We, as a matter of fact, are talking about
Dollars to the Classroom.
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if the
appropriators reduce spending in any category, less money will be
available. But this has nothing to do with that. No matter what the
appropriators do, we, with Dollars to the Classroom, will send more
money to the classroom. No matter what, as I said, the appropriators
would do.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has labored long and hard
for 2 years to bring this legislation to us. And I want to point out
before anybody gets up and says our State would lose money, that they
are wrong. Let me pick off some States, and those in the committee will
know which States I am choosing, since they sit to my right, one, two,
three, four, five, six, down the line.
Missouri. Missouri gets $8 million more in Dollars to the Classroom.
California gets $25 million more in Dollars to the Classroom. New
Jersey gets $12 million more. Michigan gets $17 million more. New York,
$13 million more. Indiana, $5.5 million more. Hawaii, about $2 million
more. All those States gain, not lose, with Dollars to the Classroom.
I can understand why the bureaucracy and those who represent
bureaucracies are trying to derail the program. They want to save the
bureaucracies. They apparently do not care whether money gets to
teachers and to children. They apparently are only concerned about
having the bureaucracy in Washington and having the bureaucracy back in
the States. Well, that does not help improve education in the United
States. And that additional money to each of those States that I
mentioned, and all other States, means that every school will get
$9,300 more and every classroom will get $425 more. And that is from
the Congressional Research Service, not from me.
We have 760 programs across 40 bureaucracies at the present time. Do
my colleagues realize it takes teachers and administrators 48 million
hours a year to complete the paperwork required by the Federal
Government, or the equivalent of 25,000 teachers working 40 hours per
week for a full year just to cut through the red tape? Not one penny to
a child. What a tragedy.
Well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and our committee
have before us today an opportunity to get the money down to the
children, 95 percent down into the classroom where the teacher and the
children and the administrators and the parents can make a true effort
to bring about the necessary reform in order to make sure that all
receive a quality education in the United States.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to yield
time?
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I do not want to end up finding that we
have yielded all the time and then have no time to refute all the
misstatements that may be made later on. And I am sure they will be
made.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
and for bringing this reform to the floor.
Before I go into the specifics of this bill, let me just cover some
charts here. This is a $2.74 billion bill that directs money to the
classrooms, to the parents, the teachers, and the children of this
Nation. And what I am looking forward to is delivering this check.
Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to go to their
districts and give a check to their children, to their teachers, to
their parents, similar to this for the 16th Congressional District.
This money can be used the way they want to spend it, and this is
additional money under the existing appropriations level. This is the
kind of money that is being freed up due to elimination of the
administrative requirements that are presently required that eat up
about 35 percent of Federal education tax dollars.
Let me just briefly describe the bill. What the bill does is
consolidate 31 Federal programs and, instead of those Federal programs,
as this chart shows, being siphoned off at every level, the Federal
level, the State level, instead of money being used for agencies and
assistance centers and private organizations, administrative cost,
paperwork, the money will be a single stream from the U.S. Federal
Department of Education down to the local school districts. This means
a tremendous savings, with more flexibility, more money, and more local
control.
Every State is held harmless 100 percent. There is an inflationary
provision in the bill. And the result is the children of this Nation
are going to win. Whatever the local teachers and parents decide is
their need in spending education tax dollars, they can spend that
money. And it might be spending money to make smaller class sizes, it
might be for computers hooking up to the internet, microscopes, maps,
globes, teachers' salaries, aids, equipment, books, supplies, whatever
their priorities are is what they can use the money for.
And so, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased that organizations like the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce are saying this is going to be a key vote in
how they rate Members.
I think it really comes down to this: Who do we trust with our tax
dollars? Our local teachers, our local educators, our local parents, or
the bureaucracy, the Federal bureaucracy? I cast my vote for our
children, our teachers, our parents on the local level.
Support the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3248, the Dollars
to the Classroom Act. This legislation converts 31 targeted popular,
effective elementary and secondary education programs into a block
grant to the States. The replaced programs include Eisenhower
Professional Development, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Goals
2000, School to Work, Comprehensive School Reform, and even Close-Up.
This is the only attempt by the majority to address education reform
during the 105th Congress, and it relies on a measure that removes
accountability, eliminates targeting to the neediest children, and
promotes reduction in education spending.
H.R. 3248 abandons the Federal commitment to target education dollars
to the neediest children in America. Currently, the Federal Government
targets education funds to impoverished areas at seven times the rate
of State and local efforts. H.R. 3248 repeals this targeting and allows
Governors and States to divert limited resources away from needy
schools and students.
H.R. 3248 also replaces existing programs that have strong
accountability with a blank check to the States, and does not provide
the oversight necessary to ensure quality programs. In addition, H.R.
3248 will cause a loss in education funding generally. In 1981, more
than 40 education programs were merged into a block grant. Since then,
funding for this education block grant has decreased by more than half.
We should be enhancing our investment in education not gradually
dismantling the Department of Education through budget cuts and block
grants.
Finally, H.R. 3248 does nothing to address real education priorities,
such as modernizing our public schools, reducing class size, improving
reading and reforming our most troubled schools.
[[Page H8039]]
Our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, will offer an
amendment that represents a key ingredient in education reform. This
amendment will substitute the bill with a class size reduction
initiative. Support for class size reduction cuts across party lines.
In the State of California, the class size initiative was put in place
by Governor Wilson. Other State and local officials, including a
Republican gubernatorial candidate in the State of Maryland, are
looking to class size reduction initiatives to spur education reform.
{time} 0915
My colleagues should consider H.R. 3248 for what it is, just one more
attempt to do away with the Federal role in education. We should
support nonpartisan efforts to improve the quality of instruction for
children across the Nation. We should help local schools address
education reform at its most basic level, the size of the class and the
quality of the instruction.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting legislation that
dismantles viable, important education programs and support class size
reduction substitute of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like
to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that as a matter of fact
Illinois will receive an additional $15,960,940. That is Illinois that
will receive that additional $16 million. I would also remind the
speaker that we do not abandon a commitment to children. We abandon the
commitment to bureaucrats. We are intending to make very, very sure
that it is children we focus on. I also would remind him that it does
not call for a loss in funding. That loss comes if the appropriators
appropriate according to the way they said they are. They will not.
He also indicated that maybe there was a loss in Chapter 2 money.
There was--under a Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives.
I would remind all of them that there is an increase to Illinois of
$15,960,000 that goes right down to the classroom to help children.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I love it when our chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect,
gets angry about these things and tries to emphasize how we are going
to being better off in actuality, and he really believes that. But we
on the other side happen to believe differently.
In the first place, this is not really about dollars to the
classroom. How do you get more dollars to the classroom when you cut
the appropriation by 16 percent? As far as 95 percent to the classroom,
the reality is that all these Federal programs, the administrative cap
on them does not exceed 5 percent, anyway.
So what is it really all about? I will tell you. It is really all
about block-granting. The block grant concept is the idea of giving
flexibility to local jurisdictions. That is fine, too. Except that
these programs, in all these 31 programs we are targeting special
populations, because locals either for one reason or another, because
of budget constraints or because of just no concern for the problem,
were neglecting these populations, these special populations. These are
national priorities, not local priorities. As a result, we are going to
block-grant and give the locals the discretion of how to use the money.
Well, that is fine, too, and I could go along with that in certain
programs, but in these certain programs where there are special
population needs, the problem is that if the local decides that that is
not the problem and it is not sufficient and they do not want to
address the problem and serve that special population, they are not
going to do it.
By the admission of the chairman the other day himself when the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) was complaining about that special
population program for native Hawaiians, he said, ``Hey, look, in this
system that we are setting in place, she could have all the money for
that program. She could convince her locals that that is the greatest
need and they could get all the money.'' Therein lies the problem. I do
not think that the chairman realizes that that very thing might happen
and that special populations where we determine their greatest need are
not going to get served.
This bill is a shameful attempt to sabotage the Federal support for
education. The bill would destroy a number of popular and effective
elementary and secondary programs such as the Eisenhower professional
development, Goals 2000, school-to-work, comprehensive school program
and technology for education by creating this block grant. Repealing
these programs effectively eliminates critical programs designed to
enhance professional development for teachers, to develop challenging
State standards, to expand employment opportunities and to create
innovative educational instruction methods.
H.R. 3248 abandons the Federal commitment to target funds to the
neediest of children. The Federal Government targets education funds to
poor areas at seven times the rate of State or local efforts. H.R. 3248
repeals targeting and allows governors and States to divert limited
resources away from needy schools and students.
H.R. 3248 also eliminates accountability for Federal dollars. While
existing programs have strong accountability provisions, this block
grant gives the States a blank check and fails to provide oversight
necessary to ensure quality programs.
Most importantly, H.R. 3248 will cause a loss in educational funding
generally. In every case where there has been a block grant, programs
put together in a block grant, subsequent appropriators have
appropriated less money for that and the programs get less money to
deal with the very vast problems that they have. Past efforts to block-
grant programs have led to substantially decreased funding levels in
education. We should be enhancing our investment in education, not
dismantling the Department of Education through budget cuts and block
grants.
Finally, H.R. 3248 does nothing to address the real educational
priorities such as modernizing our public schools, reducing class size,
improving reading and reforming our most troubled schools.
Madam Chairman, later we will offer a substitute amendment to insert
the Democratic plan to reduce class sizes. This initiative would enable
school districts across the country to hire 100,000 new teachers and
ensure that existing teachers have access to the latest and most
successful instructional techniques. The goal of the plan is to reduce
the class size in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18.
We all know that small class size means more individual attention to
the students. High quality teachers and smaller classes are the key to
enhancing student achievement. Rather than adopting phony education
reform through block grants, we should move swiftly to hire new
teachers to reduce class sizes so that every child in America has a
fair shot of succeeding.
Madam Chairman, in the State of California, Governor Wilson, a
Republican governor, put forth a program of reducing class sizes and it
has been implemented in California. They have found that in
implementing that program that there is a tremendous need, new need for
a great number of more teachers. In fact, there was a shortage of
teachers before. They are having a difficult time reaching that. Then
they find out that aside from needing more teachers, they are going to
need more classrooms, they are going to need more equipment, they are
going to need better trained teachers in the new technologies and all
of this. This program does nothing to enhance any of that and still
leaves those States like California who had the initiative to reduce
class size in the beginning without the wherewithal to be able to
provide for those students.
Madam Chairman, our students have the greatest need. I do not think
we ought to be politicizing this thing and getting into theories about
what might work, but we ought to be working solidly to provide the
needs for these students. If we get up and we mean what we say in our
speeches that our children are our future, that our children are the
most important thing in our lives, then we ought to be working to help
them, not hurt them.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8040]]
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Michigan, I say, aha, we just heard one more time, ``You can't trust
those local people. You can't trust the State.''
We are going to give Pete Wilson $24,928,828 more to reduce his class
size and to prepare his teachers to teach in those classrooms.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton), an important member of the committee who will receive in his
State an additional $16,756,290.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, the last time I looked, our school boards
were local, they are not Federal. As I look at the decisions that they
make, whether it be in curriculum or different programs for the
students that they serve in every community, they have a very tough
job. They do it very well.
As I look at a number of the programs that have been consolidated,
some 31 programs to the tune of a little bit more than $2.5 billion,
this bill that we are taking up today allows them the flexibility to
use the dollars as they decide. I visited just about every school
district in my district over the last year and visit a school virtually
every week. I have seen programs work and I have seen programs that
have not worked. One of the programs that works I think terrifically is
the math and science program that we have across our district. That
program is well under way in many areas across the country. Now that it
is under way, in the future, if this bill passes, they can use funds
that are already in place for something else.
The gentleman before me spoke about reducing the classroom ratio.
They can do that under this bill. That is a very admirable goal. My
brother is a public school teacher. As a parent, I know the importance
of having a small teacher-student ratio. If that is a priority as it
should be under this bill, they can do exactly that.
We do not need a Democratic substitute to this bill that solely does
that because it is redundant. It is already included in the bill. This
bill allows the flexibility for school boards and staff across the
country to make sure that the dollars that they are receiving go to the
areas that they want to be a priority. They can mix and match. They can
take those funds. They are not cut. The reason why virtually every
State is going to receive more money is because this bill allows for
that.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, 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. Madam Chairman, I am amazed that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle support the Dollars to the Classroom Act. And I
am amazed that we hear that the majority of districts will receive more
money when the Congressional Research Service has estimated that 27 out
of the 50 States will receive less money in fiscal year 1999 under this
legislation than they would have under the existing 31 programs that
were funded in fiscal year 1998. In fact, some States will lose as much
as 68 percent of their fiscal year 1998 funding.
Now, of course I am delighted that California will receive more in
this round of appropriations if this is passed. But we cannot count,
with the priorities of this Congress on block granting, supporting
increased funding when appropriations is cutting education by 20
percent in this year alone.
It truly appears to me that the majority party, not the minority
party--the Republicans, not the Democrats--would tell communities how
they should spend their education dollars. Education in America has
always been a local issue. We know that. I for one think that is the
way it should be. But in the communities that I represent, Marin and
Sonoma counties, the two counties just north of San Francisco across
the Golden Gate Bridge, it is the parents, the educators and the
students who join together with local elected school boards to decide
how to spend their education dollars. They do not need Washington,
D.C., and they do not need Sacramento to tell them what they need.
In my district, the majority of educators and the majority of
education funding is spent in the classroom. But sometimes a community
needs to spend funds in other ways, such as teacher training
activities, educational technology, coordinated services. It will not
matter how much money we spend in the classroom, Madam Chairman, unless
we have world class teachers and our children come to school ready to
learn. We have always relied on parents, educators, and the local
community leaders to make local education decisions.
I urge my colleagues to show their trust in the folks back home by
voting against the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Montana, I would point out once again, California will get an
additional $24,928,828, right to the classroom.
{time} 0930
I just heard the gentlewoman say what the Congressional Research
Office said. That is totally opposite what the Congressional Research
said. Those are manipulated figures from the department that deal with
a budget with an appropriation bill. It has nothing to do with the
legislation before us. So let us not mix apples and oranges.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
Hill), who will receive an additional $1,868,822 under Dollars to the
Classroom to help children.
Mr. HILL. Madam Chairman, if we listen to the debate on the left, we
would think that only bureaucrats in Washington care about the kids,
but I can tell my colleagues that there are teachers and parents and
school administrators in Montana that care more about the kids in
Montana than anyone here in Washington.
The debate here today, Dollars to the Classroom, is a simple debate.
It is not a new idea, Madam Chairman; it is about taking dollars from
the bureaucracy and giving it to our schools. Cutting the overhead is
what we call it in business.
But those who are defending the status quo, the establishment, say
that we cannot reform education. They say that we should measure
success by how many people we put to work in Washington. They say we
should measure success by how many forms we require people to fill out
or how many filing cabinets we put them in.
The establishment says that we will measure our success by how much
activity we generate. Reformers say, no, that we can measure our
success by how well our kids are doing. Our kids can do better and need
to do better, and we can do that by trusting local teachers, local
school boards and holding schools accountable to their parents.
Sending more dollars to the classroom will begin the process of
shifting the emphasis away from Washington to our home towns, to our
local schools, and to our kids. I urge my colleagues to support Dollars
to the Classroom.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman realizes that
under this block grant program, his State would lose 12 percent.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time I
have remaining be controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton)
for a few minutes in my absence.
The CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Dollars to the Classroom, which leaves schools with no guarantee
that they would actually get any additional dollars.
This bill would distribute education grants based solely on student
population, not based on poverty rates, or having a good idea for
making a school work, demonstrating success and improving student
achievement, or any other criteria. And once the money goes out, we
have no way to hold the States accountable for how they spend taxpayer
dollars. In fact, there is no accountability that is built into this
program.
We need to make sure that all of our American children who attend
public schools learn to the high standards, that they have qualified
teachers in classrooms who are equipped with up-
[[Page H8041]]
to-date materials, and our kids are able to attend school in a safe
environment.
This bill would accomplish none of those goals. It would repeal 31 of
the most effective education programs on the books. Among the
casualties, Eisenhower Professional Development Program. This supports
teacher training in math and science. School To Work, which helps young
people realize their aspirations and to develop career goals. Safe and
Drug Free Schools, which gives parents security in knowing that their
child is safe when they are in school. All of that would be gone.
If we are truly serious about improving public education, and we must
be serious about improving public education, then we would be talking
here today about reducing class size, about putting 100,000 new
teachers in grades 1 through 3, not just because of numbers, but
because of smaller class size. What it does is it allows for individual
attention, it allows for more discipline. It creates better standards.
What we would be doing here today is to say, let us modernize our
schools. Let us provide local government with a tax credit that allows
them to build schools and new classrooms and to be able to wire their
schools up to the Internet to get the new technology that our
youngsters need in order that they may succeed for their future. That
is what we would be discussing here today, if our goal is to improve
our schools and make sure our children learn. This Dollars to the
Classroom is spurious, it does not work, it will not work.
Let me just say one more thing. My colleague from Pennsylvania who
was in the chair before, and I do not know if this will resume, will
talk about those States that are increasing their dollars. Well, my
State of Connecticut will lose money, 8.5 percent of dollars, $2.5
million. In addition to which, what is not being discussed here is that
in the overall appropriation bill that the committee just passed, all
of these programs are cut back by 20 percent, so that this notion that
there are additional dollars going to the classroom is really a false
promise.
What we need to do today is to vote ``no'' on this bill and vote for
a Democratic substitute that in fact says, let us improve public
schools in this country. Let us give all of our kids the break that
they need and the opportunity that they need to succeed for the future.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I would just note for the previous speaker who is opposing the bill
that the CRS, Congressional Research estimates will mean at least $1.9
million more than under the current law for all school districts in
Connecticut, averaging about $9,300 per school.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson), whose school districts in this State would receive at
least $2.3 million more under the Dollars to the Classroom act,
averaging again $9,300 more per school and $425 per classroom.
Mrs. WILSON. Madam Chairman, I am amazed, amazed at my opponents on
the other side of the aisle. The question in this debate and about this
bill is who do we trust? Of course the Department of Education in
Washington opposes this bill and wants accountability with its reams
and reams of paperwork.
I will tell my colleagues who I trust. I trust the teachers and the
principals and the school administrators in my hometown to come up with
an integrated plan of how we are going to educate our kids. We do not
need stovepipes from Washington telling us how to spend those dollars
and requiring us to hire administrators to fill out paperwork, to tell
bureaucrats in Washington how they spent them. That is wrong.
We can educate our children at the local level, increasing funds to
the classroom, and we have seen it work in State government. Get rid of
the bureaucrats, and hire the teachers. That is what this bill does,
and that is why I am supporting it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I hope the gentlewoman understands that her State, New Mexico, loses
20 percent under this bill.
They all talk about us on this side wanting to micromanage and tell
the locals what to do. Well, on those particular means of those special
populations, we are telling them what to do because they were not doing
it. But if we want to talk about micromanaging, look at the bill, read
the bill. The bill has so many instances where they tell exactly the
school districts what to do, that they know best in this bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
This is not about Dollars to the Classroom, this is about eliminating
programs that have been created by previous Congresses that target
funding to the local communities, local educational systems to the
States for specific purposes. Make no mistake about that. It is the
elimination of these important programs.
Just take a look at the list that is prepared for us in the committee
report. Title I, school-wide programs. Goals 2000. We know that the
majority does not like Goals 2000. Why do they not just come forward
with a straightforward bill to eliminate it. Instead they talk about
Dollars to the Classroom and in the bill is the elimination of Goals
2000. School To Work is also on the list. Eisenhower Professional
Development. Every one of the majority members of our committee talks
about the importance of teacher training, and they are eliminating
Eisenhower Professional Development. STAR schools, magnet schools,
gifted and talented, arts and education, civic education, and all of
these very, very important things. They have taken the funding, lumped
it all together in a $2 billion program and given it to the States.
There is no assurance that the States or the governors or anybody
that will be handling the distribution of this money will send these
Dollars to the Classroom. There is nothing in the bill that requires
the State agencies or the State government or whoever is going to
distribute the money to put this money into the classrooms. So it is a
fraud. It is a basic effort to try to eliminate these important
programs.
The bill will change the whole nature of education funding where we
have built into it accountability. As the previous speakers on this
side have pointed out, accountability is very important. The
distinguished chairman of our committee gave a passionate speech on the
floor earlier this week about the need for quality and accountability
in Head Start, and yet here today we are debating a bill that virtually
eliminates all accountability in the 31 education programs that are
included in this block grant.
The programs that are listed are basically geared to disadvantaged
children. We have no assurance that the disadvantaged in our
communities are going to be better served.
The idea that this bill is eliminating Federal bureaucracy, and that
is why we have to block grant it to the States, is a complete fraud.
Every person that has testified from the Federal Government about the
amount of administrative monies that are going into the management of
these programs will tell us that the U.S. Department of Education
spends no more than 2 percent of the Federal budget for administrative
purposes. So 98 percent of the funding is going to the States for the
purposes that are outlined in these 31 eliminated programs.
Look at the programs and we will see that some of it is not classroom
designated, but that is not the fault of the Federal Government. It is
for teacher training, counseling and all of these other things. So that
is an absolute misstatement.
The second thing I have heard over and over is that there are 760
education programs, and the Federal Government therefore has this huge,
mountainous bureaucracy. Let me correct the facts. The U.S. Department
of Education has only 183 programs out of which only 102 are in the
elementary secondary level. So we are talking about 760 programs that
are in the NIH, in Commerce, in Agriculture, in Interior, in all the
other areas of government, but not the U.S. Department of Education.
So we are mixing all sorts of rationale for this very, very devious
effort to try to eliminate the whole concept of Federal aid to
education, and I urge this House to defeat this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
[[Page H8042]]
I would just note to the previous speaker that these programs are not
eliminated. They continue. They will continue in Hawaii, they will
continue in Michigan, they will continue in Ohio. We just changed from
Father Knows Best in terms of the Federal Government to the local
schools are going to decide what is best for those students, and that
is where those dollars are going to be utilized.
I would note to the gentlewoman from Hawaii that under this bill, the
authorization bill that Hawaii is going to get $1.8 million more under
this program which accounts for about $9,300 per school and $425 per
classroom.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), whose district will benefit from this program.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time, and I congratulate the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the committee for bringing this bill
forward.
This is common sense reform, taking 31 programs of the Department of
Education, consolidating them and block granting the money back to the
States. They have made sure that we have held States harmless from
losing funds, so every school in America will benefit as a result of
this.
But as I have listened to this debate this morning, it conjures up
memories. Memories of the debate that we had over welfare reform in
this House for years. The debate was never over money; the debate was
always over who was going to reform welfare. Were we going to continue
the Washington Knows Best mentality and try to reform it from
Washington, or were we going to send these programs back to the 50
States, the 50 laboratories of democracy, and allow them to reform
welfare, to meet the needs of the people in their States.
{time} 0945
We did it. The President signed the bill on the third try.
What has happened? We have had a 50 percent, almost 50 percent
reduction in case loads in welfare all around the country. We have got
another opportunity here today to move power and influence away from
Washington back home to States, local communities, and, in this case,
most importantly, to parents of children who attend school.
The question over how we are going to reform education and how we are
going to ensure that our children get a better education is the essence
of this bill. We have got one side of the aisle that wants Washington
to continue to mandate on the States, mandate on local schools what
should happen, make those decisions here.
We on the Republican side say no. Let us trust parents. Let us trust
the teachers and our local communities to make those decisions about
our children's future at home where those decisions belong.
This is a great piece of legislation. Let us support it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 9
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 13
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I would prefer if the other side went
so we can even out the time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Michigan (Mr. Smith) whose district will benefit from
this.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Chairman, as I have been down here since
1993, I see one danger, and that is many people in Washington tend to
become elitists. They study a problem. They think they can solve that
problem better than anybody else in the world even if it is a local
problem.
In this case, we have come up with many decisions on how the
Washington money has to be spent as we send it back to local schools
and to the States. So we say, look, here is some money to build a roof,
but you can only use it for roof building. Here is money for the
Internet and wiring for the Internet, but that is all you can spend it
for. If you have already put in that kind of technology, tough luck.
This bill moves that decision making from Washington back to
teachers, back to parents, back to that local school board. Anybody
that believes that those solutions that are closest to the problem have
the best chance in success of solving that problem are going to support
this kind of legislation that gets 95 percent of the money out of
Washington, gives it back to the classrooms where we can use it to
teach students to the best of the ability of those parents.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) whose district will receive $31.5 million more under
this program.
Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the money. I am rising in
support of this common sense legislation and urge my colleagues to vote
for it.
Today we have a simple choice. We can give more money to teachers and
classrooms to help students learn, or we can give more money to the
Washington bureaucracy.
So if my colleagues are in favor of improving education in this
Nation, they will vote for this piece of legislation. If my colleagues
are in favor of expanding the Washington bureaucracy, they will vote
against this legislation.
The American people believe that education is best handled at the
local level, not in Washington. This legislation gives our teachers and
school boards help without giving them unfunded mandates.
Make no mistake about it. This legislation is a winner for our
Nation's schools. Under this bill, no school districts would lose
money. This bill signals and shows how Federal education dollars can be
delivered to our Nation's schools. It will send more dollars directly
to the classroom while giving States and local educators more funding
options.
School districts could choose to put greater amounts of Federal money
into priorities such as school technology, teacher improvement, and
school reform.
Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and
vote to really improve education in this country.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I am sorry, but I disagree with the previous speaker.
The fact is that States will lose money on the reduction of the
appropriation bill. Hawaii will lose $77 million. As a matter of fact,
they realize it because they put it in the bill; that ``if the amount
allocated to a State to carry out this title for any fiscal year is
insufficient to pay the full amounts that all local education agencies
in such State are eligible to receive under paragraph (2) for such
year, the State shall ratably reduce such amounts for such year.'' They
knew that the money was going to be reduced.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Madam Chairman, I will try and talk as fast as I can in 2
minutes on what I have heard just since I have been here on the floor.
My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), he and I share
Harris County. I know if he gets $31 million, I know where he is taking
it out of. He is taking it out of inner city schools like I represent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) represents a very suburban
district. If that is the intent of this bill, and that may very well be
happening, then that is a great reason to oppose it.
Let me talk a little bit about the title of the this bill, the truth
in taxation is truth in Dollars to the Classroom. The truth in the
labeling in this bill is something we should have, because if it
actually sends dollars to the classroom, how come the report I see from
my folks in Texas show that we are going to lose $17 million, 9.3
percent of the programs that are allocated under this to the Dollars in
the Classroom? So I think maybe the numbers are incorrect.
This is just a continuation, Madam Chairman, of what I have seen in
the last 4 years. In 1995, we saw an effort to eliminate the Department
of Education, attack on school lunches, the effort just last week to
have Federal Government tell local States what to do with bilingual
education even with
[[Page H8043]]
State money and eliminate safe and drug-free schools.
So what we are seeing now is under a false labeling, Dollars to the
Classroom. We are seeing an effort to block grant a great many Federal
funds. Eighty-five percent of the Federal funding for education goes to
12 key programs, Title I, Pell Grants, IDE, Individuals with
Disabilities. That is where most of the money is at. That is in these
programs, not in the programs they are talking about, although these
are impacted by this.
So, again, the block granting to States would probably benefit
districts like my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I
represent a very inner city district; 60 percent minority population.
Most of the students are minority. They are either poor or they have
language needs that need to be addressed.
What we are seeing in this bill is the taking away of the urban needs
where this targeted money goes to and sending it to the suburbs. That
should be a State decision, but let us not give them Federal money to
make that State decision.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Madam Chairman, I would note again there is no elimination of
programs in this bill and that the State of Texas under this bill would
get $31.5 million more.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Jones) whose district in his State will receive more than
$4 million.
Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, Dollars to the Classroom will free up $2.7
billion of the taxpayers' money so that dollars can go directly to the
schools. If we truly want to make a difference in education of our
Nation's children, the Dollars to the Classroom Act is an important
step forward.
Under this bill, education decisions will be made by the parents, the
teachers, communities who best know our children and who together hold
the key to strengthening our schools.
My State of North Carolina will receive additional dollars. I can
assure my colleagues that those dollars will be better spent by the
people of North Carolina than the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Madam
Chairman, if we want to truly educate our children, we need to return
our tax dollars to the classrooms where it can truly make a difference.
Madam Chairman, in closing, if we want to help our children, we need
to vote for Dollars to the Classroom, give it back to the parents, give
it back to the communities, and help education in America.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, everybody loses in this bill. This is not
a bill to invest in American education, the kind of new investment we
need. This is a bill to move money around. This is a Houdini bill. This
is a swindle. This is a con game brought to us by the people who wanted
to abolish the Department of Education in 1994. They wanted to reduce
education funding by $4 billion in 1995.
This is another way to do the same thing that the voters have already
rejected. This is an abolishment of Federal authority in the area of
education. Already the States have most of the authority. We only have
7 percent of Federal expenditures, therefore, Federal's influence and
control can be no more than 7 percent.
The other 93 percent of the authority to make decisions, the
authority to have our education system is in the hands of the States
already. If education is in a bad state, it is because the States have
made it so. Giving them more money from the Federal Government will not
help the matter.
When World War II started, we were unprepared to fight a war. The
draftees were in bad health from across the country from various States
because the States had neglected them. Their health was poor. We had to
have Federal intervention to deal with that.
We were approaching the 21st Century, and we are not going to be
prepared for global leadership because we are not allowing the Federal
Government to exercise the minimal influence that it has been
exercising to try to improve education in the States.
This is a con game. These are Houdini experts. The public I think is
smart enough to understand. There is no new money here. The people who
wanted to abolish the Department of Education and the Federal authority
of education have taken a different route.
We need a major investment in education for school construction. We
need a major investment for technology. We need a major investment to
reduce class sizes by having more teachers. We need to do those things
and do them right away in order for us to keep pace with the kind of
leadership role that we have in the world at this point.
We are at a pivotal point in our history. Yet, we are trivializing
and almost making a joke of the whole responsibility that we have. My
colleagues are playing around with something that is very vital to the
national security. This is a swindle.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Madam Chairman, I would note again that reducing class size is an
eligible activity under this program, and the State of New York, under
this bill, would get $13 million more than current law.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee whose State
would receive $16.8 million more.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for bringing this issue forward.
This is not a swindle. The Federal Government provides 7 percent, I
have been told this many times, 7 percent of the money and 70 to 80
percent of the paperwork. They are the bureaucracy that stifles our
system.
This is about more teachers, less bureaucracies. This does move money
around from the bureaucracy to the classroom. How do we do it? How do
we put $800 million in the classroom and $9,300 per school to $425 per
classroom with no school getting less? Because there are 31 Federal
programs who have 31 managers here in Washington and their staffs. That
is 50 States. That makes 1,550 program managers, because every State
has to have one, and all of their staffs.
All the thousands of grant riders that have to go through all the
Federal paperwork to get this money for our schools. That is where the
money comes from. There is not one grant rider, there is not one
bureaucrat that enters the classroom. Urban, rural, and poor districts
often do not even apply.
Seven percent of our money comes from Washington in education. Many
of my districts get zero to 2 percent. The Federal grant process is
difficult. Dollars to the Classroom makes good sense. A Federal program
manager, State program managers, grant riders, they do nothing to raise
the quality of education in this country. But dollars in the classroom
will make a difference without raising taxes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 8 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), a member of the powerful Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3248,
Dollars to the Classroom Act, and a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, I am proud to say I have already been able
to vote in favor of this essential legislation that improves the
quality education our children receive. It will be the States, not the
Federal Government, that will direct these funds to the classroom.
As a Tennesseean, I trust my State's ability and the people there to
help our children much more than a bureaucrat in Washington who has
never even set foot on Tennessee soil. In addition, the States must
ensure quality by directing 95 percent of these funds to the classroom.
They can not and will not be able to divert funds to other areas and
State projects. This translates into more supplies, more computers,
more teachers, and higher teacher salaries.
{time} 1000
I want to stress also that all the additional money will not have the
[[Page H8044]]
strings that are attached to Federal education dollars at the present
time. Right now, if Washington says to spend the money on cafeteria
silverware, a school system must spend it on new silverware, even if
there is plenty of silverware at that location. Thus, even if that
school desperately needs more teachers, more computers, or more
textbooks, they would have to waste these Federal dollars on more
knives, more spoons, and more forks.
Dollars to the Classroom allows local and State educators to put the
money where it belongs. Let us do what is right by our children. I urge
my colleagues to support the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), whose school district in his State will
receive at least $8.3 million more under the act.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for bringing this
bill to the floor. I think the fundamental point here is that no school
district has to lose money or will lose money under this bill. This is
not about school districts losing money. This is about bureaucrats in
Washington losing money. This is about bureaucrats at the State level
losing money. This is not about school districts losing money.
Those people who say this money is going to go from one school
district to another are not reading the bill the way the bill has to be
read. This is the difference in whether 95 cents out of every education
dollar gets to the classroom, or 65 cents out of every education dollar
gets to the classroom.
This is clearly not something that people who are in favor of the
bureaucracy growing would want to be for. It is clearly something that
people who are for money being spent in classrooms, on teachers, on
education should be for. This is about a teacher who knows every
student's name having more to say about how the money is spent. This is
about districts that now may not qualify for all 31 of these different
grant programs, but is a district that gets to qualify for money, they
get to use the money in the way that they understand is best for their
district.
Even the opponents of this bill concede that the Federal impact they
say is minimal. Well, the minimal impact is not what does the job. What
does the job is making education work. It is involving families more in
the process. It is involving teachers more in the process. It is
involving the local building administrator in the process. It is
figuring out what can be done for those kids at that school on that day
with 95 percent of this money.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, may I just inquire how much time we have
remaining on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 5 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who serves on the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities, whose State would get $31.5 million more.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, whether we are talking
about education savings accounts, opportunity scholarships, or block
grants, what this is all about is who should benefit more, bureaucrats
or children. Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer to see a
bureaucrat get a paycheck rather than see a child get an education.
This act provides more money and greater flexibility to the States so
that local officials can decide how to spend these funds on their
schoolchildren. Opponents say States cannot be trusted with such a
responsibility. Apparently they have forgotten that the Founders of
this Nation placed the responsibility of education with the States, not
the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers trusted their States, and
I trust the Founding Fathers.
Opponents also say this bill cuts the amount of money that will go to
public schools. That is simply untrue. Millions of dollars extra,
additional dollars, go to public school classrooms. The reality is that
this bill reduces bureaucratic meddling, increases flexibility,
increases funding, and ensures that more resources are spent on our
children.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, the last two speakers spoke about money going to
bureaucrats. The money we are talking about does not go to pay
bureaucrats' salaries, it goes to help needy children. What we are
talking about here is not money for bureaucrats, but money that is
going to be denied children for special programs.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I have heard more rhetoric going around
here in the last hour or so than I think is warranted by this
particular subject. If we were serious about improving educational
opportunities, this particular subject matter would have come up during
the course of regular deliberations over the Secondary and Elementary
School Act reauthorization, which is going to be next year.
The fact of the matter is every time our colleagues on the other side
stand up and tell us how much money is here for every State, what they
are really telling us is they are authorizing a certain amount of
money. But the fact of the matter is they are not appropriating that
amount of money.
What does history show us when things get block granted? Its shows us
this is all about the ``Contract on America'' theory that if they block
grant things, they can eventually defund them. No matter how much is
authorized to be appropriated, in the end, when it comes to be
appropriated, it has been reduced.
That is what happened under Title 6. Programs were put in a block
grant and they were defunded over time. It is what happened in other
areas of community service block grants in different communities, and
it happens over and over again. It is part of the theory of putting
them in a block grant, defunding them, and moving the money to some
other priority.
Madam Chairman, our priority on this side of the aisle is education.
We do not need to be throwing programs like technology training,
programs to combat illiteracy, programs for gifted and talented
children, education reform projects into a block grant so that we can
lose accountability on them and fail to track whether or not the money
is actually being spent in that regard and doing a good job, and then
eventually having the focus shifted so they get defunded.
We need to make sure that we do what the Federal Government has
always done, provide the resources that are requested by local and
State governments. It is the job of local and State governments to do
the general, operational task of education. That is why they have 94
percent of the responsibility and they take it that way. The 6 or 7
percent of monies that are spent from the Federal resources on
elementary and secondary education are targeted to programs where a
request has been made that money comes down from the Federal Government
for assistance. That money is for reform projects, it is for illiteracy
projects, it is for technology and for teachers.
If we want to move forward, we will remodel our classrooms and make
sure that we have more teachers in the classroom, and we will not set
up a structure to defund education.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) who is on the Speaker's Task Force on
Education Reform, and whose State of Florida receives $3 million more
under this legislation.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Chairman, despite all the heated rhetoric
today, there are some stubborn facts that cannot be denied. First of
all, Dollars to the Classroom requires that 95 percent of the funds go
into the classrooms where my two boys attend public school in Florida.
Passage of this bill will mean an additional $800 million to local
schools, $9,300 per school for my two boys and $425 per classroom for
my two boys in public schools.
This class warfare argument that we are hearing today really hides a
simple elementary fact and that is that the
[[Page H8045]]
state of modern American liberalism in 1998 believes that local
communities, that parents, that my boys' teachers, that my boys'
principals, are too stupid or corrupt to educate my children. That is
an offensive fact, and yet that is a fact that has lain at the heart of
liberals' arguments in this country for the past 60 years.
It is time we get past this and ask a simple question, and that is:
How do we get the most money to teachers? How do we get the most money
to local school boards? How do we get the best education to not only my
boys, but to those people that come from inner cities?
If these liberals were so interested in helping students in inner
cities, then why would they continue to fight choice when the majority
of people in inner cities want to be able to choose what schools their
children go to?
Madam Chairman, with the passage of this bill, we ensure that States
and local communities can look at each school's problems and assess
them on an individual basis and make sure that every child in America
has the opportunity to grow up in a country where they have a chance to
pursue the American dream with an American education.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) be allowed to control the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I do not know why we have to get into this name calling about this is
a ``liberal idea.'' This is not a liberal idea. This is about kids and
their education.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, this bill before us, this
so-called Dollars to the Classroom bill, really sends the wrong message
about our responsibilities to improve public schools and would weaken
our national commitment to education.
It would eliminate 31 elementary and secondary education initiatives
and then block grant these programs for the Governor of each State to
decide how the money is spent. Among the programs eliminated: After-
school programs that give kids alternatives to crime and violence;
technology grants to help prepare the schools for the 21st century;
drug and violence prevention initiatives that are crucial and needed
right now.
The proponents of this bill cannot guarantee that a single dollar
would be spent by any State on investing in these programs or
technology.
We need to reject this smoke and mirrors of the funding in this bill.
Just because the authors of this legislation would authorize a higher
level of funding and throw around the increased figures does not mean
this Congress will appropriate at that level.
Madam Chairman, we need to scrap the rhetoric. Look at the 1994
independent General Accounting Office study. It says of all Federal
funds allocated through State education agencies, 98 percent reach the
local level. We want local school districts, local communities to make
decisions. This month alone, 10 school districts in my district in
Northern Wisconsin, little towns, Niagara, Rhinelander, got an $800,000
technology grant to enhance distance learning. The idea for this
project was entirely locally driven. It will be carried out locally,
yet it can only happen with a strong national commitment to education.
That is the local innovation and it is a national commitment we are
looking for. This bill takes us in the wrong direction.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I wanted to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) that as a matter of fact, the only time any block grant
money was cut, it was cut by the Democrats, Chapter 2, not by any
Republicans.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. Linda Smith), who will receive an additional $1,229,000 for her
local classrooms.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I think we are
standing here today debating a philosophy of who we think knows best
for our children. For me, is it bureaucrats 2,500 miles away from the
classroom or is it the teacher, the parent, the superintendent, and the
community? I am going to bet that the people in my State believe it is
their families that know best, and I believe that this measure moves us
closer to that.
Now, it is not hard to know what my people want, because for 2 years
I had a task force of public schoolteachers and the bottom line was
this:
They said, do not give us any more regulation. Get rid of the Federal
programs. Get rid of the paperwork. The Federal Government is making us
spend all of our money on administering Federal programs and Federal
paperwork. Just give us back the money.
Well, I trust the teachers in my district, in my State, more than I
do the bureaucrats, too. This just simply says instead of us
administering, managing, mandating education from here in Washington,
D.C., we are going to give 95 percent of that back to the classroom.
I will tell my colleagues that my grandson's teacher can use that
$400 a lot more than a bureaucrat can here in Washington, D.C. This is
a great bill and I commend it to the body.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, I do not think that the gentlewoman's grandson's
teacher will get that money, because her State loses 16.5 percent.
In closing, I want to say that I know there are compassionate,
reasonable people on that side of the aisle that have great sympathy
for some of these 31 programs that are being cut. I want them to
understand that in the bill, under section 107, every one of those 31
programs are repealed. That is what the section says: These programs
are repealed. Which means that under a block grant, they may or may not
provide that.
The other side talks about wanting to tell the locals that we know
best. In the other section it does not say ``may'' in the use of those
funds, it said ``shall.'' ``They shall,'' for these 27 ideas, use the
money for these ideas. And they run the gamut of anything we can think
of, including some things that can be interpreted to be using money
that really does not go to the educational need, especially of those
special populations.
Madam Chairman, I wonder who is telling the locals what to do? Who is
micromanaging? Who is being a liberal, us or them?
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) who worked so hard for 2 years to try to save
children rather than bureaucrats.
{time} 1015
Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, the liberal Democratic philosophy seems to
be based on the Federal Government knows best. We believe that the
States, the local teachers, not the Federal Government, should be
making the decisions.
This bill does not hurt poor kids. None of the programs for poor kids
go away. It only goes away for bureaucrats. Perhaps the gentleman
believes that having bureaucracy eat up 35 percent of our Federal funds
is effective. I do not.
We can use these funds for all the programs listed, and we make them
much more effective by requiring 9 percent to get to the classroom.
I want to read just a portion of a letter from the Missouri State
Teachers Association that represents 41,000 members. They have always
made local control a major tenet.
They say, the history of Federal programs has been one of bureaucracy
and red tape. The application of the common sense approach to assist
the needs of the local community's public schools has been handcuffed
by Federal Rules, regulations and excessive administrative overhead.
Freedom of choice is what we support.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to close by making sure, again, that everybody understands we
are not talking about what the committee may have done in relationship
to appropriations. That has nothing to
[[Page H8046]]
do with this legislation. Those are the figures that are being
presented by those lobbyists downtown both in the department and those
lobbyists who want to protect their downtown bureaucracy and those who
want to protect the bureaucracy back in the State. We are not talking
about those figures.
By the time my senior Senator is finished and they are finished with
conference, the amount of money for education will be up, not down. No
matter what the appropriators do, there will be more money to your
individual classroom through this legislation, no matter how much they
may cut. It is important to remember that.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Dollars to Classroom Act. Each one of the members of this chamber has
visited numerous schools located in their Congressional District. On
each of those visits, principals, teachers, parents, and students, each
have approached us saying if we just had a little more funding we could
do so much more. Today the House of Representatives is going to do
more.
Today we start sending dollars directly to the classroom; what a
novel concept! For the first time in 30 years, we are beginning to take
meaningful steps in improving our educational system.
The Dollars to Classroom Act will eliminate block grants. Which in
turn will improve the current education system by eliminating federal
bureaucracy and by redirecting federal education dollars to our
nation's schools.
This legislation will allow states and local educators to gain more
funding options and a wide array of flexibility in receiving federal
funding. The schools in each and every Congressional District will
reach your classrooms faster and will be used more effectively.
When I travel throughout the Seventh Congressional District of
Georgia, I meet parents and teachers and I know these individuals
realize what steps need to be taken in educating their child. Our
schools need new construction, and our children need new computers. The
list of needs is great and the resources are scarce.
What better way to give to America's future than sending 95% federal
funding directly to the classroom. The additional funding will provide
a better education for children who some day in the not to distance
future will be the leaders of this nation.
Ninety-five percent of all the dollars a school district receives
will be spent on children in the classroom. This bill is a definite
turning point for education. H.R. 3248 takes a scissor to the
bureaucratic red tape.
The Dollars to Classroom Act puts children first by sending education
dollars directly to the classroom. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues
to support this important piece of legislation for the sake of our
children and for the sake of education across this country.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, Dollars From the Classroom is a more
appropriate term for this bill. There is no doubt that we want to
ensure all of our children access to quality education. But block
granting these 31 proposed programs will do nothing to enhance the
quality of education--only harm it.
A recent GAO study of Federal and State education financing patterns
found that States overwhelmingly are less likely to focus state
directed education funding on low-income students than are programs
with funding that is federally directed.
What this bill does for schools that have low-income children is put
them at a disadvantage. For example, one of the provisions in H.R. 3248
eliminates the existing requirement that 50% of a school's enrolled
children be from low-income families in order to conduct a schoolwide
program under Title I. School districts like mine need this 50%
threshold in order to ensure that schools that have significant levels
of poverty are able to conduct total school reform. We have these
requirements because poor school districts have traditionally been
underserved and the children often undereducated.
Reforming a program like Title I without even having committee
hearings is completely irresponsible. If we really want to expand the
Title I program, let's wait until the reauthorization of ESEA, when a
greater number of individuals can have the opportunity to give this
full consideration. This has been the problem with many of our
education bills that have come to the floor this session--attempts to
rework ESEA at an inappropriate time.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of fairness and vote against
H.R. 3248.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.R. 3248. It is a flawed approach to education funding,
and it will take money from students who should be the focus of any
education legislation. Coupled with the crippling funding cuts to
education currently included in the Labor, HHS, Education
appropriations bill, H.R. 3248 will achieve a loss in ``dollars to the
classroom'' in every state in the U.S.
The bill completely eliminates states' accountability for the
spending of education dollars. If adopted, this bill would give
hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the state education
departments with no way to account for which dollars are actually spent
in the classrooms. In fact, federal programs currently provide a much
larger percentage of their funding to classroom activities than state
and local education programs.
Many have argued that this bill would cut down on the bureaucracy
involved in allocating federal educational funds, but we will instead
be creating or enlarging 50 state bureaucracies.
Federal educational funding represents less than 10% of most states'
educational funding, and it has traditionally been targeted at poor or
otherwise disadvantaged students. We have long shied away from giving
general federal aid to schools and instead tried to make federal
educational funding have a real impact.
In the last few years, we have already increased the flexibility of
federal educational funding by combining similar programs and allowing
statewide waivers to federal requirements on a trial basis in the Goals
2000 act. We should continue our successful efforts at making federal
educational funding more flexible for the states, but we should not
embrace a wholesale dilution of federal educational priorities.
Education professionals across the board--teachers, principals, and
administrators--oppose this bill. These individuals who have devoted
their lives to helping children know that this bill would actually harm
many children throughout the United States. Education professionals
agree that the most important education issues we should focus on are
those that actually benefit the students--well-qualified teachers,
small class sizes and school modernization. This bill actually cancels
a number of teacher training initiatives, initiatives that will almost
certainly not be replicated at the state level.
National educational standards go hand in hand with teacher training
in helping students achieve excellence and the ability to compete
successfully with students from all over the country. Since its
inception--originally proposed by President Bush--Goals 2000 has helped
local school districts set priorities to allow their students and
teachers to achieve excellence. This bill would cancel the Goals 2000
program.
I urge my colleagues to keep the best interests of the children of
our nation in mind and oppose this ill-conceived measure.
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, today the House is voting on H.R. 3248,
the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I will support this legislation
today, but I believe that the legislation must be improved in a number
of key areas before it can become law. I would like to take this
opportunity to explain the reservations I have regarding the bill in
its current form. If these issues are not addressed, I will not support
the bill if it is returned by the Senate for a final vote this year.
First, let me say that I support the goal of this legislation. We
must work to ensure that all federal education assistance directly
benefits our children. These funds should not be wasted on unnecessary
bureaucracy. However, achieving this goal is not simple. I am very
interested in finding ways to streamline federal programs and bring
more efficiency to the Federal Government's role in education. I do not
support the status quo and I do not believe that what we have now is
working. The concept of Dollars to the Classroom gives us a new option
for making changes that may benefit students in the country.
I have struggled for some time in trying to determine if this
legislation will achieve its intended goals. I have supported moving
the bill through the legislative process while working with Committee
staff and other Members to resolve my initial concerns. After a lot of
careful thought, and after reviewing analysis from many different
sources, I think the fundamental concept of Dollars to the Classroom is
worth advancing while we work to answer key questions before it can
become law. This may not occur this year and probably should not. There
is not much time left in this session for the Senate to pass the bill
and to work out all remaining issues. This bill establishes the
principle that more federal dollars must directly benefit our children.
We should now work to ensure the legislation achieves this principle.
It may be best to address these issues comprehensively next year when
Congress must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
[[Page H8047]]
As I noted, there are several unanswered questions raised by the
legislation. One that must be answered is exactly how much money is
going to go to the states and local districts. We have a number of
estimates, but we don't have hard numbers. My view is that additional
work must be done to understand how current levels of funding will be
changed by the Dollars to the Classroom Act. To help you understand my
concern, I have attached two charts, both prepared by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS). The first chart raises some questions. It takes
the Fiscal Year 1998 funding level and compares it to the amounts a
state would receive if the money was put into this block grant. You'll
notice there are differences in how much money each state gets. I was
elected to represent the people of Delaware, and when I see a chart
from CRS, the nonpartisan research agency for the Congress, saying that
the State of Delaware could lose 13.2% of its education funding, it
concerns me greatly. Now, I am not going to argue that these numbers
are perfect, they are estimates. However, they raise the legitimate
question that some states may receive less funding in total under this
legislation. The second chart that I have attached, is a comparison of
how much the Local Education Agencies would get, using Fiscal Year 1998
numbers, before and after the block grant. This chart is more
encouraging. Delaware wins by a slight percentage and most districts do
not lose, but again there is variation in these numbers. I have been
assured by the Chairman that he will work with me to ensure that
Delaware is treated fairly in this legislation.
We need to sit down and look at this data and understand how funds
are going to flow so that we can't be absolutely sure that any change
in funds is truly for the benefit of our children. I want more dollars
in the classroom, but I will not support final passage of this
legislation unless I am convinced that it will benefit the children and
schools in Delaware.
In addition to the funding process, we should review the 31 programs
included in the block grant to be sent to school districts to ensure
that no important aspect of the specific programs will be lost. Let me
give you an example. The Comprehensive School Reform program involves a
very important--in fact crucial--research component. States and locals
do not have the capacity to do research and disseminate research like
we do at the national level. They simply don't have the capacity. Does
this mean that we want to sacrifice the research being done in this
program? I think we need to consider that as part of the process of
evaluating this proposal and we have not done that. The same principle
applies for the Eisenhower Professional Development program and
possibly other programs included in this block grant. The fact that
some of these programs contain research and national components
indicates that we must review them more closely to ensure we retain
aspects that help improve education for our children.
The final area that I want to address is the accountability measures
included in this proposal. They have been improved, but need to be
further strengthened. We need to ensure that the accountability
measures are very strong. Let me give you an example. Yesterday,
Congressman Roemer and I introduced a bill to expand the Ed-Flex
demonstration projects to all 50 states. This makes sense to me. Our
bill is based on a strong program currently available to only 12
states. Ed-Flex allows states to waive burdensome regulations that
interfere with the schools' main purpose--to improve academic
achievement. This is flexibility, but it is flexibility with
accountability. In order to be eligible a state has to have approved
content standards, performance measures and assessments. In addition,
to be eligible for an extension of a waiver, schools have to establish
procedures for increasing the percentage of teachers in the state who
have demonstrated subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skill
necessary to provide effective instruction in content areas, while
decreasing the percentage of teachers without such knowledge in high
poverty schools. This is accountability in combination with
flexibility. I encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Roemer and I in
encouraging responsible flexibility.
I strongly support the goal of making every federal education program
more effective. Every dollar we spend should benefit our schoolchildren
as directly as possible. The Dollars to the Classroom bill is a
reasonable start. It is not perfect and this legislation must be
further refined to ensure that it meets its intended goal. I will work
to improve the bill if it receives further consideration this year, but
I believe the best strategy would be to address all federal K-12
programs in the context of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 1999. I look forward to actively participating in that
effort.
TABLE 11C.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS UNDER H.R. 3248, AS ORDERED TO BE REPORTED, COMPARED TO ESTIMATES
PREPARED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) OF FY 1998 GRANTS UNDER ALL PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO BE
CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248
[H.R. 3248 Estimates: An Amount Equal To FY 1998 Allocations Under Formula Grant Programs To Be Consolidated is
First Allocated To Each State. Next, Remaining Block Grant Appropriations (Assumed To Be Equal To $2.74 Billion
Minus the Formula Grant Portion) Are Allocated With 50% in Proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A Grants And 50% In
Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Grants Are Estimated At The Maximum Authorized Level For FY 1999.]
[ED Estimates of FY 1998 Grants: Include Actual Or Projected Grants Under All Programs Proposed To Be
Consolidated. For Grants to Entities That Provide Services Nationwide, Funds Are Spread Among All States, in
Proportion To Population Aged 5-17, Data Were Received From ED On Sept. 15, 1998.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated
grant under ED estimates of
State H.R. 3248 at FY total FY 1998 Percentage
1999 authorized grants difference
level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................... $43,427,000 $37,847,464 14.7
Alaska........................................................... 10,396,000 21,791,724 -52.3
Arizona.......................................................... 42,557,000 39,586,425 7.5
Arkansas......................................................... 26,450,000 21,687,428 22.0
California....................................................... 315,580,000 298,178,752 5.8
Colorado......................................................... 31,706,000 31,361,652 1.1
Connecticut...................................................... 27,552,000 30,118,669 -8.5
Delaware......................................................... 10,134,000 11,672,901 -13.2
District of Columbia............................................. 10,009,000 29,603,406 -66.2
Florida.......................................................... 126,307,000 120,603,903 4.7
Georgia.......................................................... 72,595,000 62,047,160 17.0
Hawaii........................................................... 11,295,000 34,723,242 -67.5
Idaho............................................................ 12,016,000 13,038,722 -7.8
Illinois......................................................... 118,597,000 106,357,682 11.5
Indiana.......................................................... 48,734,000 47,454,205 2.7
Iowa............................................................. 23,036,000 38,284,832 -39.8
Kansas........................................................... 23,464,000 23,615,556 -0.6
Kentucky......................................................... 42,372,000 37,141,163 14.1
Louisiana........................................................ 59,024,000 62,317,031 -5.3
Maine............................................................ 12,505,000 12,142,653 3.0
Maryland......................................................... 42,122,000 43,739,157 -3.7
Massachusetts.................................................... 53,801,000 59,841,778 -10.1
Michigan......................................................... 109,986,000 90,721,762 21.2
Minnesota........................................................ 40,119,000 36,383,455 10.3
Mississippi...................................................... 37,531,000 32,293,424 16.2
Missouri......................................................... 49,873,000 49,857,568 0.0
Montana.......................................................... 11,462,000 13,052,614 -12.2
Nebraska......................................................... 14,727,000 21,557,260 -31.7
Nevada........................................................... 12,648,000 12,905,969 -2.0
New Hampshire.................................................... 10,987,000 13,283,611 -17.3
New Jersey....................................................... 66,235,000 54,511,691 21.5
New Mexico....................................................... 21,328,000 26,175,853 -18.5
New York......................................................... 211,655,000 185,851,927 13.9
North Carolina................................................... 59,565,000 59,271,274 0.5
North Dakota..................................................... 10,131,000 12,982,323 -22.0
Ohio............................................................. 110,142,000 96,755,688 13.8
Oklahoma......................................................... 32,982,000 34,898,615 -5.5
Oregon........................................................... 28,316,000 28,584,893 -0.9
Pennsylvania..................................................... 116,992,000, 106,949,829 9.4
Rhode Island..................................................... 11,349,000 16,087,033 -29.5
South Carolina................................................... 34,950,000 35,192,514 -0.7
South Dakota..................................................... 10,562,000 14,255,337 -25.9
Tennessee........................................................ 48,747,000 48,234,290 1.1
Texas............................................................ 220,192,000 188,545,340 16.8
Utah............................................................. 18,817,000 21,657,436 -13.1
Vermont.......................................................... 9,830,000 11,905,763 -17.4
Virginia......................................................... 50,445,000 52,686,574 -4.3
Washington....................................................... 47,584,000 56,993,741 -16.5
West Virginia.................................................... 21,863,000 24,498,214 -10.8
Wisconsin........................................................ 49,155,000 43,326,942 13.5
Wyoming.......................................................... 9,650,000 11,682,323 -17.4
Puerto Rico...................................................... 71,099,000 51,413,604 38.3
Outlying Areas................................................... 13,700,000 12,140,665 12.8
BIA.............................................................. 13,700,000 9,749,076 40.5
Other............................................................ ............... 28,726,870 na
----------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 2,740,000,000 2,686,289,000 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table prepared by CRS on Sept. 16, 1998.
TABLE 15.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS SPECIFICALLY TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEA'S) UNDER H.R. 3248
COMPARED TO ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LEA'S UNDER CURRENT PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
estimated estimated
State grants to LEAs grants to LEAs Percentage
under H.R. under current change
3248 (at 96%) programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................ $32,480,640 $28,726,364 13.1
Alaska............................................................. 8,574,720 9,973,738 -14.0
Arizona............................................................ 31,996,800 27,196,850 17.6
Arkansas........................................................... 19,791,360 14,926,966 32.6
California......................................................... 237,103,690 212,174,852 11.7
Colorado........................................................... 23,896,580 18,948,065 25.1
Connecticut........................................................ 20,659,200 18,744,802 10.2
Delaware........................................................... 8,339,520 7,893,343 5.7
District of Columbia............................................... 6,355,840 7,431,557 12.4
Florida............................................................ 94,823,040 91,729,340 3.4
Georgia............................................................ 54,471,360 42,934,372 26.9
Hawaii............................................................. 8,868,480 8,995,313 26.8
Idaho.............................................................. 9,253,440 8,516.800 8.7
Illinois........................................................... 88,915,360 72,854,420 21.9
Indiana............................................................ 36,408,080 30,973,512 17.5
Iowa............................................................... 17,131,200 12,779,617 34.1
Kansas............................................................. 17,618,880 15,544,068 13.3
Kentucky........................................................... 44,801,920 24,600,251 29.3
Louisiana.......................................................... 44,208,960 34,665,652 27.5
Maine.............................................................. 9,648,000 8,159,272 18.2
Maryland........................................................... 31,515,840 25,493,567 23.5
Massachusetts...................................................... 40,377,600 38,492,132 4.9
Michigan........................................................... 82,742,400 65,986,110 25.4
Minnesota.......................................................... 30,007,680 23,832,451 25.9
Mississippi........................................................ 28,125,120 21,427,695 31.3
Missouri........................................................... 37,344,980 29,020,065 28.7
Montana............................................................ 9,038,400 7,169,578 26.1
Nebraska........................................................... 11,083,200 11,733,360 -5.5
Nevada............................................................. 9,567,200 8,894,458 6.7
New Hampshire...................................................... 8,675,520 7,389,104 17.4
New Jersey......................................................... 49,601,280 37,348,162 32.8
New Mexico......................................................... 16,026,240 13,700,687 17.0
New York........................................................... 159,475,200 148,444,545 8.9
North Carolina..................................................... 44,536,320 40,495,357 10.0
North Dakota....................................................... 8,333,760 7,915,179 5.3
Ohio............................................................... 62,574,400 85,323,229 26.4
Oklahoma........................................................... 24,687,360 20,223,570 22.1
Oregon............................................................. 21,254,400 17,502,102 21.4
Pennsylvania....................................................... 87,825,440 71,081,085 23.7
Rhode Island....................................................... 9,001,920 7,181,698 25.3
South Carolina..................................................... 26,136,000 23,189,775 12.7
South Dakota....................................................... 8,543,040 7,702,811 10.9
Tennessee.......................................................... 38,509,760 29,345,405 24.4
Texas.............................................................. 155,546,240 134,012,463 23.5
Utah............................................................... 14,062,080 11,304,868 24.4
Vermont............................................................ 8,166,880 7,350,078 11.4
[[Page H8048]]
Virginia........................................................... 37,887,680 30,384,366 24.0
Washington......................................................... 35,669,760 34,440,440 3.6
West Virginia...................................................... 16,408,320 13,455,322 21.9
Wisconsin.......................................................... 36,780,480 27,895,883 32.9
Wyoming............................................................ 8,081,280 6,853,872 17.9
Puerto Rico........................................................ 63,332,800 40,548,467 31.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-
called ``Dollars to the Classroom'' Act. This sham bill is a public
relations ploy for election year votes and a policy nightmare for our
children.
This bill sounds like a good idea--who could resist sending dollars
to our schools? But calling the bill one thing does not make it so. We
might as well have the Budweiser frogs pitching this bill because you
would have to be a sucker for marketing to believe this bill will do
anything to put more dollars into the classroom.
H.R. 3248 attempts to redistribute federal education dollars. It
claims to be an increase, but in reality would provide less funds to
the classroom. In addition, it assumes a funding level that is not
included in the House Appropriations Committee reported Labor-HHS-
Education bill. So, even if H.R. 3248 becomes law, the funds won't be
available to finance it.
Let's review the Republican education agenda for a moment. We've
debated a bill to allow prayer in schools--a right that is already
protected by current law--we've discussed taking public education
dollars and putting them into private voucher accounts for private
schools, and my Republican colleagues have introduced legislation to
eliminate the Department of Education. We have also defeated attempts
to eliminate bilingual education, and defeated a bill to eliminate
affirmative action programs in place at colleges and universities.
As if that weren't enough, the Majority has refused to include any of
the President's education proposals in the FY '99 Labor, HHS and
Education Appropriations bill. Rather than putting dollars into
education, the Majority's plan would cut Head Start by 50%, prevent
much needed dollars to update and modernize school facilities and
eliminate funding for GOALS 2000.
The Department of Education shows that this bill, if enacted, would
have a devastating impact on funds available for classrooms. In some
states, the reduction of funds will exceed 60% of current funding
levels. All states will lose dollars to the classroom. I am submitting
for the record an analysis by the U.S. Department of Education which
shows the impact on education funding if this bill were to become law.
Who opposes this legislation? The organizations and schools on the
front lines of teaching. The very classroom workers this bill claims to
be helping. The National Parent Teacher Association, the American
Federation of Teachers, the American Association of School
Administrators, the American Association of University Women, the
Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, the National Association of State Boards of
Education, and the National Education Association all oppose this
legislation.
It is clear where the Republicans stand on education. I urge my
colleagues to take a real stand for our children and make a real
commitment to our schools. Vote against H.R. 3248 and support effort to
put real dollars into real classrooms.
IMPACT OF H.R. 3248 THE ``DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM ACT''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Change from current law
Allocations allocations ----------------------------
under current under H.R. 3248
law FY 1998 \1\ 1999 House Dollars Percent
committee \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ $37,847,464 $33,864,590 -$3,982,874 -10.5
Alaska......................................... 21,791,724 7,861,824 -13,929,000 -63.9
Arizona........................................ 39,586,425 34,648,518 -4,937,906 -12.5
Arkansas....................................... 21,687,428 20,674,162 -1,013,266 -4.7
California..................................... 298,178,752 246,693,707 -51,485,045 -17.3
Colorado....................................... 31,361,652 25,153,676 -6,207,976 -19.8
Connecticut.................................... 30,118,669 21,509,447 -8,609,222 -28.6
Delaware....................................... 11,672,901 7,632,086 -4,040,815 -34.6
District of Columbia........................... 29,603,406 7,771,532 -21,831,873 -73.7
Florida........................................ 120,603,903 99,093,164 -21,510,739 -17.8
Georgia........................................ 62,047,160 56,847,358 -5,199,802 -8.4
Hawaii......................................... 34,723,242 7,719,586 -27,003,656 -77.8
Idaho.......................................... 13,038,722 8,412,811 -4,625,910 -35.5
Illinois....................................... 106,357,682 92,729,841 -13,627,841 -12.8
Indiana........................................ 47,454,205 38,515,955 -8,938,249 -18.8
Iowa........................................... 38,284,832 18,449,587 -19,835,245 -51.8
Kansas......................................... 23,615,556 18,194,580 -5,420,976 -23.0
Kentucky....................................... 37,141,163 32,558,769 -4,582,394 -12.3
Louisiana...................................... 62,317,031 45,191,954 -17,125,077 -27.5
Maine.......................................... 12,142,653 8,770,726 -3,371,928 -27.8
Maryland....................................... 43,739,157 32,923,149 -10,816,008 -24.7
Massachusetts.................................. 59,841,778 42,240,583 -17,601,195 -29.4
Michigan....................................... 90,721,762 84,334,390 -6,387,372 -7.0
Minnesota...................................... 36,383,455 31,413,175 -4,970,280 -13.7
Mississippi.................................... 32,293,424 29,039,690 -3,253,734 -10.1
Missouri....................................... 49,857,568 39,162,392 -10,695,176 -21.5
Montana........................................ 13,052,614 7,923,255 -5,129,359 -39.3
Nebraska....................................... 21,557,260 11,263,406 -10,293,853 -47.8
Nevada......................................... 12,905,989 9,532,789 -3,373,200 -26.1
New Hampshire.................................. 13,283,611 7,591,797 -5,691,814 -42.8
New Jersey..................................... 54,511,691 52,155,401 -2,356,290 -4.3
New Mexico..................................... 26,175,853 16,362,927 -9,812,927 -37.5
New York....................................... 185,851,927 163,029,308 -22,822,619 -12.3
North Carolina................................. 59,271,274 47,488,942 -11,782,332 -19.9
North Dakota................................... 12,982,323 7,623,710 -5,358,613 -41.3
Ohio........................................... 96,755,688 85,343,169 -11,412,519 -11.8
Oklahoma....................................... 34,898,615 25,680,671 -9,217,944 -26.4
Oregon......................................... 28,854,893 21,916,128 -6,668,765 -23.3
Pennsylvania................................... 106,949,829 90,564,769 -16,385,060 -15.3
Puerto Rico.................................... 51,413,604 54,860,183 -3,446,579 -6.7
Rhode Island................................... 16,087,033 7,938,680 -8,148,353 -50.7
South Carolina................................. 35,192,514 27,729,484 -7,463,030 -21.2
South Dakota................................... 14,255,337 7,681,834 -6,573,503 -46.1
Tennessee...................................... 48,234,290 37,941,158 -10,293,132 -21.3
Texas.......................................... 188,545,340 170,952,456 -17,592,884 -9.3
Utah........................................... 21,657,436 14,744,735 -6,912,701 -31.9
Vermont........................................ 11,905,763 7,579,018 -4,326,745 -36.3
Virginia....................................... 52,686,574 40,010,221 -12,676,352 -24.1
Washington..................................... 56,993,741 37,235,777 -19,757,964 -34.7
West Virginia.................................. 24,498,214 16,756,748 -7,741,465 -31.6
Wisconsin...................................... 43,326,942 38,478,067 -4,848,865 -11.2
Wyoming........................................ 11,682,323 7,522,112 -4,160,210 -35.6
Outlying Areas................................. 12,140,665 10,643,000 -1,497,665 -12.3
Bureau of Indian Affairs....................... 9,749,076 10,643,000 -893,924 -9.2
Totals..................................... 2,657,562,130 2,128,600,000 -528,962,130 -19.9
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes each State's total for the 26 programs proposed for consolidation under H.R. 3248 the ``Dollars to
the Classroom Act.'' Excludes funds for administrative expenses (e.g., peer review and national evaluations).
\2\ Estimates are based on the formula H.R. 3248, Section 102, and the FY 1999 House Committee level for each
program consolidated in the bill.
[[Page H8049]]
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3248, the
``Dollars to the Classroom'' legislation. This legislation repeals many
small arts programs that have met with great success, stood the test of
time, and benefited children, young people and adults all across this
country.
Each year, Very Special Arts brings the transforming power of the
arts into the lives of over 3.5 million people. Founded 25 years ago by
Jean Kennedy Smith, Very Special Arts is an international, nonprofit
organization dedicated to providing educational opportunities through
the arts for children and adults with disabilities. Both Very Special
Arts and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts receive
funding each year through the Department of Education's Arts in
Education program. Very Special Arts' federal dollars are matched with
state, local, corporate and foundation support in all 50 states. Each
VSA state affiliate develops programs to match unique community needs
and interests, further strengthening the program by guaranteeing local
involvement. Whether programs take place in classrooms, nursing homes,
day care facilities, fine arts centers, libraries, VA facilities, or
children's hospitals, they are built on the premise that art is a
universal language that strengthens communities and connects us to each
other.
In May of 1999, Los Angeles will be the host city for Art & Soul, an
international celebration of the arts, disability and culture sponsored
by Very Special Arts. Held in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of
Cultural Affairs and the Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau, the
five day festival will take place at the Los Angeles Convention Center,
and will bring together more than 3,000 artists with disabilities from
around the world. The festival will feature performances, exhibits,
workshops, art demonstrations and an educational symposia--all in an
effort to provide an international exchange of information on the arts,
education, disability and technology among educators, artists, parents,
arts organizations, and the general public. The festival will also
offer a learning opportunity for the more than 600,000 Los Angeles
school children. These students, 8,000 of whom have disabilities, will
be invited to participate in all aspects of the festival--broadening
their awareness of the endless possibilities the arts provide in
education, business and technology.
Another highly effective program in my state, the VA/VSA Artist-in-
Residence Program, builds independence and self-confidence in veterans
across the country by using artistic outlets to enhance the
rehabilitation process. The program provides veterans who receive care
at VA medical centers with quality arts experiences through artist-in-
residence programs and community-based activities. VSA California
provides ten-week residency programs at the Palo Alto VA Day Care &
Homeless Center in the Mission district of San Francisco.
Mr. Speaker, the programs I have mentioned today are just two
examples of the wonderful work Very Special Arts accomplishes each year
in California and on behalf of all people with disabilities across our
great nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3248, and
continue to support programs, like Very Special Arts, that provide
important and valuable services for all of our constituents.
Mr. HASTERT. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R.
3284, the Dollars to the Classroom Act, a bill which I am proud to co-
sponsor. I would like to congratulate my colleague Congressman Joe
Pitts for his work in bringing this important legislation forward.
As a former high school teacher, I am concerned about he current
state of our Nation's schools, Clearly the lack of progress in
educational reform at the K-12 level is a serious threat to the health
of the economy and to the future prosperity of American children.
However, in order to place the discussion about what to do about our
failing educational system in context, a brief review of the history of
the economics of federal involvement in education is in order. Thus
far, school reforms have focused only on increasing funding to public
schools. Since 1983, government funding to public K-12 schools has
increased by 44 percent and average per-student spending has increased
by 32 percent. Total spending for public K-12 education now totals
nearly $300 billion per year.
One of the central problems with education funding today is where
this funding goes. For example, the federal government spends
approximately $100 billion a year on more than 760 federal education
programs. However, more than a third of the $15.4 billion spent by the
Department of Education on elementary and secondary education programs
never reaches the all important classroom; instead it is lost in a sea
of bureaucracy.
Madam Chairman, last year, the House took a first step toward
assuring that taxpayer education dollars get where they are supposed to
be going. The House passed, and I supported, the Dollars to Classrooms
Resolution which expressed the sense of the House that the Department
of Education, state education departments, and local education agencies
work together to ensure that not less than 90 percent of all education
funds are spent on children in their classrooms. In other words: let's
get the money to the place it will do some good--the classroom.
House Republicans have had some important successes over the past few
years: we've balanced the federal budget for the first time in a
generation, produced the first tax cut in 16 years, and moved millions
of Americans from welfare to work. Today we are building on these
successes by taking an important step toward bringing the best
education possible within reach of every child in this country.
The Dollars to the Classroom Act represents a major change in the
federal government's approach to education funding. Instead of pouring
money into the Department of Education and hoping some of its trickles
down to our children's classrooms, this legislation will assure that 95
cents out of every federal education dollar goes directly to our kids'
classrooms.
What does this legislation mean for America's families and children?
It means that every classroom in America will receive, on average, an
extra $425 because this Act consolidates many grant programs that never
reach the classroom and lifts restrictions that keep many schools from
even applying for these grants. It means that $800 million additional
education dollars will go to our public schools. It means that my home
state of Illinois will receive $44 million more education dollars--an
increase of more than 40%. In short, Mr. Speaker, the passage of the
Dollars to the Classroom Act means that more education dollars will
reach more kids. I cannot believe that anyone can oppose this.
Madam Chairman, we have to ask ourselves where the solution to the
problems with our education system lie. Some of my colleagues are
convinced that if we could only send more money to the Department of
Education they will be able to fix our schools.
As a teacher, I must disagree. I know that innovation in education--
something we desperately need--will not come from Washington
bureaucrats. In fact, they are at the root of the problem. Innovative
solutions will only come from families, teachers, and local communities
who actually do the job of teaching our kids.
Madam Chairman, I am happy to co-sponsor the Dollars to the Classroom
Act because it will free the hands of local schools to fix the problems
without education system and it provides them the funds they need, no
strings attached, to carry out these reforms. I urge all my colleagues
to stand for our kids and support this important legislation.
Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3248, the
Dollars to the Classroom Act. The title is a misnomer. In fact, this
bill takes dollars out of the classroom. Funds to the State of Texas
would be reduced by $17,592,884! I have listened to this debate and
heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the
states are held harmless. Perhaps they're using new math, but the math
I learned in school tells me that a reduction of more than $17 million
is not being held harmless.
Local control is the key. We must allow our local school districts to
implement programs that are best for their communities. The federal
government is and should be a junior partner in education, providing
the needed tools for those programs. However, this legislation will
block grant our federal education programs. This bill would eliminate
many key federal elementary and secondary education programs by rolling
them into a single education block grant to the states. The Eisenhower
Teacher Training program, the School-to-Work program, and the voluntary
Goals 2000 School Reform program would be eliminated. No federal funds
would be guaranteed for programs to improve the quality of teacher
training in such core subjects as reading and math. No funds would be
guaranteed for programs to improve the transition from school to work.
And no funds would be guaranteed to implement school reform efforts and
raise academic standards.
In this bill, we see a continuation of the assault on our public
schools. It is a continuation of efforts to shift federal aid away from
the public schools. It is a continuation of efforts to undermine the
local control of our local school districts.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that they want to
let the teachers make the decisions. If that is so, why are teachers
and other local school officials opposed to this bill? I have heard
from the Texas Education Agency, Texas State Teachers Association, the
Texas Federation of Teachers, the National PTA, the Council of Chief
State School Officers, the American Association of School
Administrators, the National Association of State Boards of Education,
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National
Association of Secondary School
[[Page H8050]]
Principals, the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, the National Science Teachers Association, the American
Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. The
Republicans claim that they are letting the members of these
organizations make the decisions. If that is true, why are they all
opposed to it?
There is nothing we do as Members of Congress that is more important
than safeguarding the future of our children. We should be working to
improve education, but this bill is not the way to go about it. We
should be helping our local school districts with the modernization or
construction of schools. We should be passing legislation to allow our
local districts to hire more teachers so we can have small classes. We
should be helping our local communities fund after school learning
programs. We should be giving our local schools the ability to ensure
that all students are computer literate and all classrooms are
connected to the Internet by the year 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I challenge this body to consider and pass real
education reform. Vote no on this sham of a reform.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my
reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take
a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education.
Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently
voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In
fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation
of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others
have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power
over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents.
However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal
bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term
effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government's control
over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress
should reject this bill.
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would
be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by
this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from
taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government
lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution
between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are
redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no
``block grant exception'' to the principles of federalism embodied in
the United States Constitution.
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies
are spent ``in the classroom,'' (a term not defined in the act) and
report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve
student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management
on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units
of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the
Federal Government for their management of educational programs.
For all its flaws, the original version of H.R. 3248 at least
restored some measure of state control of education because it placed
no restrictions on a state's use of funds. It was, thus, a pure block
grant. However, this bill does not even give states that level of
discretion as H.R. 3248 has been amended to restrict the uses to which
a state can apply its block grants.
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their
block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by
the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example
of ``mandate federalism'' where states are given flexibility to
determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states
the authority to select a particular form of federal management of
education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is
hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!
The federal government's power to treat state governments as their
administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress' taxing-
and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state
and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal
government has illegitimately taken from a state's citizens. Of course,
this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other
states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who
can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal
funding!
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states
and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not
that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the
real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing
federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to
fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even
local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these
mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state
governments into mere agents of the federal government.
Madam Chairman, those who doubt the likelihood of the above scenario
should remember that the Education Committee could not even pass the
initial block grant without ``giving in'' to the temptation to limit
state autonomy in the use of education funds because ``Congress cannot
trust the states to do the right thing!'' Given that this Congress
cannot pass a clean block grant, who can doubt that some future
Congress will decide that the States need federal ``leadership'' to
ensure they use their block grants in the correct manner, or that
states should be forced to use at least a certain percentage of their
block grant funds on a few ``vital'' programs.
I would also ask those of my colleagues who claim that block grant
will lead to future reductions in expenditures how likely is this will
occur when Congress had to increase expenditures in order to originally
implement the block grant programs?
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and
local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over
education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will
be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I
wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education
officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The
officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls
in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers'
dollars to spend as they wish.
It will be claimed that this bill does not increase spending, it
merely funds education spending at the current level by adding an
adjustment to inflation to the monies appropriated for education
programs in Fiscal Year 1999. However, predicting the rate of inflation
is a tricky business. If, as is very likely, inflation is less than the
amount dictated by this bill, the result will be an increase
in education spending in real dollar terms. Still, that is beside the
point, any spending increase, whether real or nominal, ought to be
opposed. CBO reports that H.R. 3248 provides ``additional authorization
of ``9.5B.''
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this
bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact
is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of
this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional
questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of
adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said
to be a return to state's rights since it decentralized the management
of federal program; this is a new 1990's definition of the original
concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original,
constitutional definition of federalism.
Rather than shifting responsibility for the management of federal
funds, Congress should defund all unconstitutional programs and
dramatically cut taxes imposed upon the American people, thus enabling
American families to devote more of their resources to education. I
have introduced a bill, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816) to
provide parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for education
expenses. This bill directly empowers parents, not bureaucrats or state
officials, to control education and is the most important education
reform idea introduced in this Congress.
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some
unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal
government's equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America
people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for
education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be
closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for
future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than
continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism,
Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as
the ``bosses'' of America's education system.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, Plutarch once wrote that
the very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in good education.
The proposed ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' would rent this spring
and root from the fertile soils of our school systems and would leave
only a desolate land of ignorance.
This measure attempts to tear the elementary and secondary education
system apart in an effort to make political gains rather than
substantive policy improvements for children and education.
H.R. 3248 would eliminate 31 existing elementary and secondary
programs--including Eisenhower Professional Development, School-To-
Work, Goals 2000, Comprehensive School Reform, Magnet Schools
Assistance, Technology for Education, 21st Century Community Learning
Centers, and Civic Education programs, among others, with no assurance
that any of the funding for these programs would stay in the education
arena. It seems
[[Page H8051]]
that we should instead name this the ``Dollars FROM the Classroom
Act.''
This legislation would also permit all States to participate in the
current Ed-Flex demonstration program without any emphasis on ensuring
quality academic achievement among students.
H.R. 3248 also would eliminate the requirement that school districts
with significant percentages of children in poverty be permitted to do
schoolwide programs under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
This act also errs by nullifying the accountability for taxpayer
dollars that is so integral to our education system. Accountability for
the Federal education dollar is extremely important in both ensuring
that programs are conducted consistent with the priorities in Federal
law, and that we can ensure that program dollars are being effectively
utilized.
Without provisions ensuring strong accountability, we have no
assurance that our nation's children are being well-served and little
information on the effectiveness of our programs. Fortunately, the
programs affected by this bill have existing accountability measure
that ensure that resources are utilized in a manner consistent with the
goals of each program and the overarching mission to educate our
children.
H.R. 3248 makes only superficial attempts at ensuring accountability
for the funding that would go out under the bill's block grant scheme.
First, the bill requires a generic annual report on how funds have been
used to improve student performance that will tell us little about
effective strategies and uses of funding under the block grant.
Second, States would be required to use any measures of student
academic performance to gauge the effectiveness of funding. These
provisions have no requirement to link outcomes, assessments, or
reporting to challenging, high quality, State academic standards and
will do nothing to ensure effective use of Federal education resources.
Moreover, the Secretary of Education is specifically barred from
imposing any meaningful performance or accountability standards
regarding the expenditure of funding under this bill. We should not
enact legislation that jeopardizes accountability of Federal dollars
and, in turn, jeopardizes the quality of our children's education.
Very simply, this legislation destroys the very nature of the Federal
commitment to education through a complete abandonment of
accountability and a lack of focus on high student achievement, and the
elimination of targeting our limited resources to those children most
in need.
It is important to remember that block grants are not new. While they
appeal to cries for simplification, the result has been largely to
reduce funding. This approach to Federal assistance has been tried
before, especially during the early 1970's and again during the early
1980's.
Specifically, in 1981, more than 40 smaller education programs were
block granted. The total funding at the time was reduced because of the
theory of more flexibility. Funding for the block grant decreased over
time from 1982 to 1992 by roughly 52 percent.
Rather than advancing this destructive agenda, we should be advancing
one which reflects the real needs of America's educational system. We
need real solutions to the demands of our education system, not
divisive measures that will cause disruption.
Yet, instead of responding to the educational needs of our nation,
the majority has sought to divide us along partisan lines. This does
nothing to assist our principals, parents, teachers, and students in
their quest for educational excellence.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to H.R. 3248. As a former educator in the Los Angeles Unified School
District, one of the largest in this country, I cannot support this
bill. It repeals 31 elementary and secondary education programs,
including Goals 2000, School to Work, and Eisenhower Professional
Development State Grants.
I am particularly concerned about elimination of the Eisenhower
Professional Development program because it has been a successful tool
in providing critical teacher training opportunities. The only way for
our students to become the best they can be is for their teachers to be
the best they can be--which requires on-going quality training for
teachers. In this rapidly changing world, it is essential for teachers
to have up-to-date training and the latest information and technology
if they are to teach our children and prepare them for the next
millennium.
This bill eliminates existing mechanisms that assure that federal
funds are used as intended and that children are well served--yet it
fails to provide adequate replacements. This bill completely eliminates
the ability of the federal government to target federal funds on poor
children, and instead leaves the targeting of federal funds to the
political whims of state legislatures. As a former state legislator, I
know the risks of federal funding reaching the intended programs when
these funds are directed to block grants for states. The Government
Accounting Office has found that federal funding is more targeted to
poor students than state funding in 45 of 47 states. This targeted
focus of federal education dollars is intended to address national
problems that are not being adequately addressed at the state and local
levels.
This bill is opposed by respected educators across the country,
including the National Education Association, the National PTA, the
American Association of School Administrators, the National Association
of Elementary School Principals, and the American Association of
University Women.
My constituents in California, including the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, do not want to see this bill passed. Yesterday, a
group of California educators, led by the President of the Los Angeles
County School Board came to my office and urged me to oppose this bill.
They were particularly concerned that this bill would eliminate the
successful Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers. In Los Angeles,
these Centers have provided vital resources to our classrooms and given
teachers more tools to help our children learn to read. One of the
tools in this guide, ``Taking a Reading,'' which aids teachers in
teaching our children to read. If this bill passes, my local teachers
will lose this tool.
Another program that will be eliminated if this bill passes is the
``We The People'' program. Participants of this civic education program
in the 37th District of California have called my office and urged
opposition to this bill. Even though we have a strong and active
program in Southern California, local leaders say the program is
enhanced because of the national network they participate in through
the existing federal funding. I must ask my colleagues, with all we
have witnessed this summer, how can we in good faith, vote to eliminate
funding for civics education for America's children? If anything, we
should be providing more resources for programs that teach our children
about responsible and good citizenship.
This bill also eliminates funding for Women's Educational Equity,
Arts in Education and Magnet Schools, just to name a few. This is not a
good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and support
real efforts to improve education, like improving teacher training,
reducing class size, adding new qualified teachers, and improving the
condition of our school facilities. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong
support of the substitute amendment to this bill. This legislation, of
which I am an original cosponsor, would hire 100,000 new teachers and
reduce class size in my state in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18
students. This amendment puts the focus in our education system back
where it belongs, with our children.
This issue is raised so often by the families in my district, and I
believe that we here in Congress have the responsibility to provide for
our children and help localities provide the kind of education they
expect and our children need to be competitive in the modern world.
Studies have shown that strong reading skills at a young age lead to
greater success later on. This amendment will give our teachers the
ability to dedicate more of their time to working with each individual
child, providing more focus on the development of this important
skills.
This legislation is already funded in the President's budget
proposal. This bill, too, would mean more dollars for my home state.
For Connecticut, this means more than $115 million to help local school
districts hire and train additional teachers. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment, and give our communities the resources they need
to prepare our children for the future.
Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3248, The
Dollars to the Classroom Act in my home state of Utah we have a strong
public education system with many successful programs. The teachers and
administrators at the local level are what has made these programs work
so well. They know our children, they know their names, they know their
needs. They should not be superseded by a federal program handed down
by Washington, D.C. We need to give our nation's teachers the power to
make our children's education successful.
This bill will do that.
H.R. 3248 mandates that 95 percent of the money appropriated under
this grant is to be used as we intend it to be used, in our children's
classrooms. This bill combines 31 separate programs, eliminates the
bureaucracy that administers those programs and makes sure that the
money doesn't go to special interest groups. Our children will instead
get $2.74 billion in additional federal funding. That is $425 per
classroom. What teacher couldn't use an additional $425 to improve the
quality of education in their classrooms?
This is money that our children's teachers and local officials will
be deciding how to
[[Page H8052]]
spend, not some special interest group or bureaucrat sitting not far
from here. The money can be used to purchase supplies, buy computers,
pay for Internet access, hire new teachers and increase teachers'
salaries.
Our nation's teachers are molding the world leaders of tomorrow. They
know our children's strengths and their weaknesses. No one influences
our children like their teachers. Let's give them the power and
resources to do their job right.
Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in opposition to the block
grant, H.R. 3248. As a former educator, I am a strong supporter of
legislation which invests in the education of our children. However,
this legislation, despite its name, does nothing to improve educational
opportunities.
Federal aid was originally adopted because individual states were
either unwilling or unable to meet specific needs in our schools and
often to address and encourage service to special needs. H.R. 3248
fails to guarantee that any federal money would be used to continue
initiatives which provide our children with the best opportunities to
succeed and especially children with disabilities who deserve the
opportunity and assurance with the chance to succeed. Instead, it
dilutes the impact of federal funding, shortchanges high need students,
reduces accountability and undermines national education priorities.
And discards programs and commitments that work.
Supporters of this legislation insist that this block grant provides
the perfect vehicle to get more dollars to disadvantaged children and
their teachers. In fact, the very opposite is true. H.R. 3248 contains
no state to local formula, leaving up to 95% of the funds to be spent
at the sole discretion of the governor who incidentally isn't
responsible for raising such funds. Funds could be spent on equipment,
operating expenses and personnel. Federal dollars could become nothing
more than general aid or tax relief for communities who do not wish to
invest in important programs which address the needs of disabled,
gifted, minority and disadvantaged youth the populist sentiment in the
state would surely erode help for those children and families that have
little political power. This block grant ignores the needs of preschool
children by funding only activities and services for children aged 5
through 17, even if local officials wish to continue preschool
activities.
In addition, this legislation proves for no accountability. The Block
Grant Act requires only that each state submit an annual report that
describes how the funds have been used to improve student performance,
using any measures the state deems appropriate. Block grants are
difficult to evaluate in terms of their impact on teaching and
learning, and this legislation would essentially allow states to create
their own standards. In a worst case scenario, they may even choose not
to include data which measures the performance of students with lower
achievement levels. These children could be completely cast aside,
because states will no longer have to comply with the current
regulations we have in place to protect them.
Block grants for education will likely go into atrophy, as it is far
easier for the National Congress to cut non-specific programs and
shrink the block grant to a shadow of its $125.
Rather than continuously undermining public education, Congress needs
to take proactive measures which will bring more resources into our
schools. The Republican majority continues to craft schemes which
siphon money away from important programs. Instead of putting the
education of children with various needs in jeopardy, we should work to
ensure that every child is given the chance to partake in a quality
learning environment which allows them the best opportunity to acquire
skills necessary to be successful in the future. The Block Grant Act
does not promote a reasonable or adequate approach to ensuring that
this occurs. I oppose this legislation, and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Chairman, with the dawn of a new century
imminently upon us, there's a great deal that's going right about
America. Our economy is the envy of the world. Unemployment and
inflation are both down. It is clear that the economic political
message of President Ronald Reagan has been internalized, to a greater
or lesser extent, by everyone in the political system.
Yet amid this economic prosperity, the education and future of our
children is in doubt. As a nation, we have not lived up to our
responsibility of educating our children, and our public school system
is simply not competitive with the OECD nations with which we do battle
in the marketplace.
We desperately need to ensure that our children in school today grow
up to be the best educated young adults in the world. While school
choice and government scholarship programs is the single best way to
achieve this goal, the best interim measure that we can do is to
decentralize our public educational system.
We need to devolve educational resources from the federal to the
state level. We need to give the governors and state legislators the
resources they so desperately need in order to creatively deal with the
educational challenges at the local level in their communities.
The bureaucratic waste in educational programs at the Federal level
is enormous. Currently, there are 788 programs originating in
Washington which are supposedly meant to augment education. These
programs span 39 different federal departments and consumes $100
billion a year. Can you imagine what governors and legislators could do
if $100 billion was block-granted to the states? That's over $2000 per
student annually.
H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classrooms Act, is a modest yet
concrete step towards reaching this necessary and justified goal. It
consolidates 31, or about 4% of the 788 Federal education programs
currently in existence. This will free up about $2.74 billion in
federal tax dollars, which will be transferred and sends the money in a
block to the States. This ``Dollars to the Classroom'' bill is the
first step towards ensuring that a full 95% of our Federal education
dollars bypass the bureaucracy in Washington entirely, and go directly
to the classroom level, where they can help school age children the
best.
In short, I urge you to give our children the resources they need and
lend your support to H.R. 3248.
Mrs. EMERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise today to urge support of H.R.
3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I commend the sponsor, Mr.
Pitts, Chairman Goodling and the Education and the Workforce Committee,
for their continual hard work to ensure that real reform occurs in our
nation's education system.
Madam Chairman, this legislation sends more dollars to the classrooms
while giving local educators more funding options. It is currently
estimated that only 65 percent of all federal funds allocated for
education actually reach our nation's classrooms. This town is
notorious for talking about reforming the education system but this
dismal statistic proves that nothing has been accomplished.
The Dollars to the Classroom Act is a great way to send a message to
the Administration that we in Congress are prepared to invoke real
reform at the Department of Education. Our goal should be an education
system where every child can out-score, out-perform and out-compete the
students of every other nation in the world.
It's time to put our children before bureaucrats. The decision of how
our education money is spent must be made by local teachers,
administrators and parents. Not the federal government. It's time that
we invest more wisely. We must spend our education dollars where they
can achieve the most--right in the classroom.
This legislation would mean that schools in Cape Girardeau, West
Plains, Rolla and every other school in Southern Missouri would receive
$9,300 on average and each classroom would receive $425. At Dexter High
School in my district, where I have taught a few classes, $9,300 is the
difference between having computers and much newer books and other much
needed learning resources. It's finally time for Congress to take a
stand and do what is right for our nation's children. I urge my
colleagues to support Dexter High School and support the Dollars to the
Classroom Act. We must localize education not nationalize it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered as
having been read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 3248
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Dollars to the Classroom
Act''.
TITLE I--IMPROVEMENT OF CLASSROOM SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES
SEC. 101. GRANTS TO STATES.
The Secretary is authorized to award grants in accordance
with this title to States for use by
[[Page H8053]]
States and local educational agencies to improve classroom
services and activities for students.
SEC. 102. GRANT AWARD.
(a) Reservation of Funds.--From the amount appropriated to
carry out this title for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve--
(1) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the outlying areas, to be
distributed among the outlying areas on the basis of their
relative need, as determined by the Secretary in accordance
with the purposes of this section; and
(2) \1/2\ of 1 percent for the Secretary of the Interior
for programs under this title in schools operated or funded
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(b) State Allocations.--Funds appropriated to carry out
this title for any fiscal year, which are not reserved under
subsection (a), shall be allocated among the States as
follows:
(1) Hold harmless.--If the amount of funds appropriated to
carry out this title in any fiscal year equals or exceeds the
aggregate amount all States received in fiscal year 1998
under--
(A) title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20
U.S.C. 5881 et seq.);
(B) section 1002(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(g));
(C) section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492);
(D) part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.);
(E) section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842 et seq.);
(F) title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7311 et seq.); and
(G) part B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.),
as such provisions were in effect on the day preceding the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
allocate to each State the aggregate amount such State
received for fiscal year 1998 under such provisions.
(2) Insufficient funds.--If the amount of appropriations to
carry out this title for any fiscal year is insufficient to
pay the full amounts that all States are eligible to receive
under paragraph (1) for such year, the Secretary shall
ratably reduce such amounts for such year.
(3) Remaining funds.--If funds remain after meeting the
requirements of paragraph (1), such remaining funds shall be
allocated among the States in the following manner:
(A) 50 percent of such remaining funds shall be allocated
to States in proportion to their grants under part A of title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for
the preceding fiscal year; and
(B) 50 percent of such remaining funds shall be allocated
to States in proportion to the number of children ages 5
through 17, inclusive, according to the most recent available
data that are satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Definition of State.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``State'' includes the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(d) Definition of Outlying Area.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``outlying area'' includes American Samoa,
Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(e) Payments.--Funds awarded to a State under this section
shall be paid to the individual or entity in the State that
is responsible for the State administration of Federal
education funds pursuant to State law.
(f) Use of State Awards.--
(1) In general.--From the amount made available to a State
under subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the State--
(A) shall use not more than 5 percent of the total amount
to support programs or activities, for children ages 5
through 17, that the State determines appropriate, of which
the State shall distribute 20 percent of the 5 percent to
local educational agencies in the State to pay the
administrative expenses of the local educational agencies
that are associated with the activities and services assisted
under this section; and
(B) shall distribute, pursuant to section 103(a), not less
than 95 percent of the amount to local educational agencies
in the State for the fiscal year to enable the local
educational agencies to pay the costs of activities or
services provided in the classroom, for children ages 5
through 17, that the local educational agencies determine
appropriate subject to the requirements of section 103(b).
(2) Administrative expenses.--For the purpose of paragraph
(1)(B), the costs of activities and services provided in the
classroom exclude the administrative expenses associated with
the activities and services.
(g) Supplement Not Supplant.--A State or local educational
agency shall use funds received under this title only to
supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal
sources for the education of pupils participating in programs
assisted under this title, and not to supplant such funds.
(h) Annual Reports.--
(1) In general.--Each State receiving assistance under this
part shall issue a report on an annual basis, not later than
April 1 of each year beginning the year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, to the Secretary, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, and
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives that describes how funds under this title
have been used to improve student performance in that State.
(2) Certification.--The report must also include a
certification by the State that 95 percent of funding
provided under this title during the preceding fiscal year
has been expended by local educational agencies within that
State for classroom activities and services pursuant to
subsection (f)(1)(B).
(3) Measures of performance.--In determining student
academic performance within the State, the State shall use
such measures of student academic performance as it deems
appropriate. The State may disaggregate data by poverty,
subject area, race, gender, geographic location, or other
criteria as the State deems appropriate.
(4) Availability of report.--Each State shall make the
report described in this subsection available to parents and
members of the public throughout that State.
SEC. 103. LOCAL AWARDS.
(a) Determination of Amount of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The individual or entity in the State that
is responsible for the State administration of Federal
education funds pursuant to State law of each State receiving
assistance under this title, in consultation with the
Governor of such State, the chief State school officer of
such State, representatives from the State legislature, and
representatives from local educational agencies within such
State, shall develop a formula for the allocation of funds
described in section 102, to local educational agencies,
taking into consideration--
(A) poverty rates within each local educational agency;
(B) children living in sparsely populated areas;
(C) an equitable distribution of funds among urban, rural,
and suburban areas;
(D) children whose education imposes a higher than average
cost per child; and
(E) such other factors as considered appropriate.
(2) Hold harmless.--No local educational agency shall
receive an award under this subsection for any fiscal year in
an amount that is less than the amount the local educational
agency received to carry out programs or activities for
fiscal year 1998 for title III of the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act (20 U.S.C. 5881 et seq.), part B of title II of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6641 et seq.), section 3132 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6842 et seq.), title VI of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7311 et seq.), and part B of title VII of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.) as
in effect on the day preceding the date of the enactment of
this Act plus amounts the local educational agency is
eligible to receive during fiscal years 1999 through 2003
pursuant to all multiyear awards made prior to the date of
enactment of this Act under any program that is repealed by
section 107 that is not listed in this sentence.
(3) Insufficient funds.--If the amount allocated to a State
to carry out this title for any fiscal year is insufficient
to pay the full amounts that all local educational agencies
in such State are eligible to receive under paragraph (2) for
such year, the State shall ratably reduce such amounts for
such year.
(b) Local Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this
section to a local educational agency shall be used for the
following classroom services and activities:
(1) Programs for the acquisition and use of instructional
and educational materials, including library services and
materials (including media materials), assessments, reference
materials, and other curricular materials which are tied to
high academic standards and which will be used to improve
student achievement and which are part of an overall
education reform program.
(2) Professional development for instructional staff.
(3) Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of
disadvantaged elementary and secondary school students and to
prevent students from dropping out of school.
(4) Efforts to lengthen the school day or the school year.
(5) Programs to combat illiteracy in the student
population.
(6) Programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted
and talented children.
(7) Promising education reform projects that are tied to
State student content and performance standards.
(8) Carrying out comprehensive school reform programs that
are based on reliable research.
(9) Programs for homeless children and youth.
(10) Programs that are built upon partnerships between
local educational agencies and institutions of higher
education, educational service agencies, libraries,
businesses, regional educational laboratories, or other
educational entities, for the purpose of providing
educational services consistent with this section.
(11) The acquisition of books, materials and equipment,
payment of compensation of instructional staff, and
instructional activities that are necessary for the conduct
of programs in magnet schools.
(12) Programs to promote academic achievement among women
and girls.
(13) Programs to provide for the educational needs of
children with limited English proficiency or who are American
Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian.
(14) Activities to provide the academic support,
enrichment, and motivation to enable all students to reach
high State standards.
(15) Efforts to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.
(16) Projects and programs which assure the participation
in mainstream settings in arts and education programs of
individuals with disabilities.
(17) Projects and programs to integrate arts education into
the regular elementary and secondary school curriculum.
(18) Programs designed to educate students about the
history and principles of the Constitution of the United
States, including the Bill of
[[Page H8054]]
Rights, and to foster civic competence and responsibility.
(19) Mathematics and science education instructional
materials.
(20) Programs designed to improve the quality of student
writing and learning and the teaching of writing as a
learning process.
(21) Technology related to the implementation of school-
based reform programs, including professional development to
assist teachers and other school officials regarding how to
effectively use such equipment and software.
(22) Computer software and hardware for instructional use.
(23) Developing, adapting, or expanding existing and new
applications of technology.
(24) Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and
services, including the acquisition of hardware and software,
for use by teachers, students, and school library media
personnel in the classroom or in school library media
centers, in order to improve student learning.
(25) After-school programs designed to engage children in a
constructive manner and to promote their academic,
developmental, and personal growth;
(26) Developing, constructing, acquiring, maintaining,
operating, and obtaining technical assistance in the use of
telecommunications audio and visual facilities and equipment
for use in the classroom.
(27) Developing, acquiring, and obtaining technical
assistance in the use of educational and instructional video
programming for use in the classroom.
(c) Parent Involvement.--Each local educational agency
receiving assistance under this section shall involve parents
and members of the public in planning for the use of funds
provided under this section.
SEC. 104. PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PRIVATE
SCHOOLS.
Each local educational agency that receives funds under
this title shall provide for the participation of children
enrolled in private schools, and their teachers or other
educational personnel, in the activities and services
assisted under such section in the same manner as private
school children, and their teachers or other educational
personnel, participate in activities and services under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.) pursuant to sections 14503, 14504, 14505, and
14506 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 8893, 8894, 8895, and 8896).
SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.
In this title--
(1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
(2) the term ``educational service agency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801);
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education; and
(4) except as otherwise provided, the term ``State'' means
each of the several States of the United States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the United States Virgin Islands.
SEC. 106. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal
Government to require, direct, or control a State, local
educational agency or school's specific instructional content
of pupil performance standards and assessments, curriculum,
or program of instruction as a condition of eligibility to
receive funds under this title.
(b) State and Local Determination.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not issue any
regulation regarding the type of classroom activities or
services that may be assisted under this title.
(2) Instructional method and setting.--No local educational
agency shall be required to provide services under this title
through a particular instructional method or in a particular
instructional setting in order to receive funding under this
title.
SEC. 107. REPEALS.
The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20
U.S.C. 5881 et seq.).
(2) Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20
U.S.C. 5911 et seq.).
(3) Title VI of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20
U.S.C. 5951).
(4) Titles II, III, and IV of the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 6121 et seq., 6171 et
seq., and 6191 et seq.).
(5) Section 1502 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6492).
(6) Section 1503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6493).
(7) Section 1002(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(8) Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621 et seq.).
(9) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6641 et seq.).
(10) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
(11) Part A of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(12) Part B of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.).
(13) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7311 et seq.).
(14) Part B of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.).
(15) Part C of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.).
(16) Part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
(17) Part B of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8031 et seq.).
(18) Part D of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8091 et seq.).
(19) Part F of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8141 et seq.).
(20) Part G of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8161 et seq.).
(21) Part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8241 et seq.).
(22) Part J of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8271 et seq.).
(23) Part K of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8331 et seq.).
(24) Part L of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8351 et seq.).
(25) Part A of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.).
(26) Part C of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8671 et seq.).
(27) Subtitle B of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421 et seq.).
SEC. 108. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title, $2,740,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; $2,800,000,000
for fiscal year 2000; $2,870,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
$2,940,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and $3,001,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003.
TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. EXPANSION OF ED-FLEX DEMONSTRATIONS.
(a) Waiver Authority.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the
Secretary may waive any statutory or regulatory requirement
applicable to any program or Act described in subsection (b)
for a State educational agency, local educational agency, or
school if--
(A) and only to the extent that, the Secretary determines
that such requirement impedes the ability of the State, or of
a local educational agency or school in the State, to carry
out the State or local improvement plan;
(B) the State educational agency has waived, or agrees to
waive, similar requirements of State law;
(C) in the case of a statewide waiver, the State
educational agency--
(i) provides all local educational agencies and parent
organizations in the State with notice and an opportunity to
comment on the State educational agency's proposal to seek a
waiver; and
(ii) submits the local educational agencies' comments to
the Secretary; and
(D) in the case of a local educational agency waiver, the
local educational agency provides parents, community groups,
and advocacy or civil rights groups with the opportunity to
comment on the proposed waiver.
(2) Application.--(A)(i) To request a waiver under
paragraph (1), a local educational agency or school that
receives funds under this title, or a local educational
agency or school shall transmit an application for such a
waiver to the State educational agency. The State educational
agency then shall submit approved applications for waivers
under paragraph (1) to the Secretary.
(ii) A State educational agency may request a waiver under
paragraph (1) by submitting an application for such waiver to
the Secretary.
(B) Each application submitted to the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) identify the statutory or regulatory requirements that
are requested to be waived and the goals that the State
educational agency or local educational agency or school
intends to achieve;
(ii) describe the action that the State educational agency
has undertaken to remove State statutory or regulatory
barriers identified in the application of local educational
agencies;
(iii) describe the goals of the waiver and the expected
programmatic outcomes if the request is granted;
(iv) describe the numbers and types of students to be
impacted by such waiver;
(v) describe a timetable for implementing a waiver; and
(vi) describe the process the State educational agency will
use to monitor, on a biannual basis, the progress in
implementing a waiver.
(3) Timeliness.--The Secretary shall act promptly on a
request for a waiver under paragraph (1) and shall provide a
written statement of the reasons for granting or denying such
request.
(4) Duration.--Each waiver under paragraph (1) shall be for
a period not to exceed 4 years. The Secretary may extend such
period if the Secretary determines that the waiver has been
effective in enabling the State or affected local educational
agencies to carry out reform plans.
(b) Included Programs.--The statutory or regulatory
requirements subject to the waiver authority of this section
are any such requirements under the following programs or
Acts:
(1) Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
(2) Part A of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
[[Page H8055]]
(3) Part A of title V of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(4) Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
(5) Part B of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(6) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act.
(c) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary may not waive
any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs or
Acts described in subsection (b)--
(1) relating to--
(A) maintenance of effort;
(B) comparability of services;
(C) the equitable participation of students and
professional staff in private schools;
(D) parental participation and involvement; and
(E) the distribution of funds to States or to local
educational agencies; and
(2) unless the underlying purposes of the statutory
requirements of each program or Act for which a waiver is
granted continue to be met to the satisfaction of the
Secretary.
(d) Termination of Waivers.--The Secretary shall
periodically review the performance of any State, local
educational agency, or school for which the Secretary has
granted a waiver under subsection (a)(1) and shall terminate
the waiver if the Secretary determines that the performance
of the State, the local educational agency, or the school in
the area affected by the waiver has been inadequate to
justify a continuation of the waiver.
(e) Flexibility Demonstration.--
(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the
``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act''.
(2) Program authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out an education
flexibility demonstration program under which the Secretary
authorizes not more than 50 State educational agencies
serving eligible States to waive statutory or regulatory
requirements applicable to 1 or more programs or Acts
described in subsection (b), other than requirements
described in subsection (c), for the State educational agency
or any local educational agency or school within the State.
(B) Award rule.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall select for participation in the demonstration
program described in subparagraph (A) three State educational
agencies serving eligible States that each have a population
of 3,500,000 or greater and three State educational agencies
serving eligible States that each have a population of less
than 3,500,000, determined in accordance with the most recent
decennial census of the population performed by the Bureau of
the Census.
(C) Designation.--Each eligible State participating in the
demonstration program described in subparagraph (A) shall be
known as an ``Ed-Flex Partnership State''.
(3) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the
term ``eligible State'' means a State that waives State
statutory or regulatory requirements relating to education
while holding local educational agencies or schools within
the State that are affected by such waivers accountable for
the performance of the students who are affected by such
waivers.
(4) State application.--(A) Each State educational agency
desiring to participate in the education flexibility
demonstration program under this subsection shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require. Each such application shall demonstrate
that the eligible State has adopted an educational
flexibility plan for the State that includes--
(i) a description of the process the State educational
agency will use to evaluate applications from local
educational agencies or schools requesting waivers of--
(I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements described
in paragraph (2)(A); and
(II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to
education; and
(ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to education that the State
educational agency will waive.
(B) The Secretary may approve an application described in
subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that such
application demonstrates substantial promise of assisting the
State educational agency and affected local educational
agencies and schools within such State in carrying out
comprehensive educational reform, after considering--
(i) the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational
flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
(ii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for
the activities and goals described in such plan;
(iii) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory
requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
(iv) the quality of the State educational agency's process
for approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory
or regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and
for monitoring and evaluating the results of such waivers.
(5) Local application.--(A) Each local educational agency
or school requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or
regulatory requirement described in paragraph (2)(A) and any
relevant State statutory or regulatory requirement from a
State educational agency shall submit an application to the
State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the State educational agency
may reasonably require. Each such application shall--
(i) indicate each Federal program affected and the
statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
(ii) describe the purposes and overall expected results of
waiving each such requirement;
(iii) describe for each school year specific, measurable,
educational goals for each local educational agency or school
affected by the proposed waiver; and
(iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local
educational agency or school in reaching such goals.
(B) A State educational agency shall evaluate an
application submitted under subparagraph (A) in accordance
with the State's educational flexibility plan described in
paragraph (4)(A).
(C) A State educational agency shall not approve an
application for a waiver under this paragraph unless--
(i) the local educational agency or school requesting such
waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable
to such agency or school, respectively; and
(ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory
requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) will assist the
local educational agency or school in reaching its
educational goals.
(6) Monitoring.--Each State educational agency
participating in the demonstration program under this
subsection shall annually monitor the activities of local
educational agencies and schools receiving waivers under this
subsection and shall submit an annual report regarding such
monitoring to the Secretary.
(7) Duration of federal waivers.--(A) The Secretary shall
not approve the application of a State educational agency
under paragraph (4) for a period exceeding 5 years, except
that the Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary
determines that such agency's authority to grant waivers has
been effective in enabling such State or affected local
educational agencies or schools to carry out their local
reform plans.
(B) The Secretary shall periodically review the performance
of any State educational agency granting waivers of Federal
statutory or regulatory requirements described in paragraph
(2)(A) and shall terminate such agency's authority to grant
such waivers if the Secretary determines, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, that such agency's performance has
been inadequate to justify continuation of such authority.
(f) Accountability.--In deciding whether to extend a
request for a waiver under subsection (a)(1), or a State
educational agency's authority to issue waivers under
subsection (e), the Secretary shall review the progress of
the State educational agency, local educational agency, or
school affected by such waiver or authority to determine if
such agency or school has made progress toward achieving the
desired results described in the application submitted
pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B)(iii) or (e)(5)(A)(ii).
(g) Publication.--A notice of the Secretary's decision to
grant waivers under subsection (a)(1) and to authorize State
educational agencies to issue waivers under subsection (e)
shall be published in the Federal Register and the Secretary
shall provide for the dissemination of such notice to State
educational agencies, interested parties, including
educators, parents, students, advocacy and civil rights
organizations, other interested parties, and the public.
SEC. 202. EXPANSION OF SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS.
Section 1114(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6314) is amended by striking
``if, for the initial year of the schoolwide program'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting a period.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
House Report 105-726.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, 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 postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in House
Report 105-726.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-726 offered by
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Request for Modification of Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified to include the Alaska Native Education Act.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
[[Page H8056]]
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The inclusion of the Native American in Alaska and Hawaii in this
list of 31 programs that are to be block granted is wholly
inappropriate and basically inexplicable. The whole purpose of this
list, as I have been able to rationalize it, is that presumably those
programs were to have some national perspective and, therefore, lumping
all of the monies in these programs into one block grant and allowing
the States to make a decision as to which ones they wanted funded was
the purpose of the legislation.
Unfortunately, in drafting the list of 31 programs, the majority
included the Alaska Native Education Program and the Hawaii Native
Education Act. And it makes no sense, because these two programs are
designated specifically for the Native American population in these two
States. To take the monies away from this program and put it into a
block grant making the total dollars available for the entire Nation
and sacrificing these two designated programs is absolutely untenable.
The Native Hawaiian Education Act was established by Congress in 1988
and it was part of the Federal Government's assumption of
responsibility for the Native Americans that were in the State of
Hawaii. That was true also for the Alaskan native peoples as well.
The program is comprised of 6 programs and is funded in fiscal year
1998 at $18 million. To completely obliterate this special funding
denies my State and the Native American population in my State of $18
million and puts this whole funding into a national pot.
Notwithstanding what the majority has been saying about the funding,
I have been advised that if this bill is enacted into law, that my
State will lose 67 percent of the funding based upon the current level
of funding in our programs, and Alaska will lose 52 percent, and we are
the two States with the highest loss. That is directly attributable to
the loss of this specific funding, which we would otherwise be entitled
to receive.
The Congress has a unique responsibility to Native Americans. There
are no other Native American programs that are included in the 31 that
are being eliminated, except for Hawaii and Alaska. It is a basic
failure to understand the purpose and policies that were behind the
enactment of these special laws.
The Native Hawaiian Education Act is an acknowledgment of the Federal
Government's responsibility for the improvement of the quality of
education, the quality of health and other areas of our native
population.
Therefore, I hope that this House will recognize the uniqueness of
these two programs and support the amendment that I have offered.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our leader.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time on this very
important amendment offered by our good friend from Hawaii.
About four years ago I offered an amendment on this floor during the
appropriations process to eliminate this $5 million program called the
Native Hawaiian Education program, intended to provide some money to
help in the education of native Hawaiian children. The reason for that
is very simple. In Hawaii there is the Bishop estate left by the heir
to King Kamehameha and this Bishop estate has a $10 billion endowment.
That is $10 billion.
Their sole purpose, their sole charter is to educate native Hawaiian
children.
This estate has squandered this money for a number of years to the
point where the school that receives this funding of the amendment
offered by my friend from Hawaii, this school is being investigated by
the Attorney General in the State of Hawaii. The school is being
audited, investigated by the Internal Revenue Service. The trustees of
this Bishop estate are paid, in 1996, $843,109, $843,000 to each
trustee, more than what most CEOs in America are paid.
I think the Bishop estate has its own series of problems. The Clinton
administration, in 1997, zero funded this same program because they
said that the services provided by the special $5 million grant were
already covered under other programs that these children would qualify
for.
This is nothing more than $5 million worth of extra pork intended to
go to one State. It is unnecessary, and the amendment should absolutely
be defeated.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, it is very difficult to talk about
the amendment which we have in front of us when the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) has brought up an entirely extraneous point.
I hope the chairman will recognize this stuff and that this has
nothing to do with the amendment. The estate that he is talking about
is involved with a private school. We are talking about public funds
here that go to public schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with
the Bishop estate, with the Kamehameha school. None of this money goes
to that school or to the estate.
This is a completely extraneous issue, and I beg the Members, please,
not to be, I will say misled, because maybe the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) has a misconception. I would be happy to discuss it with
him at some other point. Our amendment has to do with this block grant
proposal. I indicated to the chairman yesterday and to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon) that we were not arguing with the block
grant proposal. That is an argument for another day.
What we are saying is that we will be eliminated. The gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) himself used the word ``eliminate'' because that was
the object. We would be eliminated, as would the native Alaskans. So
all we are asking for is consideration, not an exception but
consideration to be included. If this amendment does not pass, the
likelihood of our being able to be included in the block grant in any
way that would allow us to adequately participate in any of these
programs is virtually eliminated.
I beg the Members, we can argue at length, and I would be happy to do
it, not argue but discuss at length the efficacy of the gentleman from
Ohio's (Mr. Boehner) remarks in another context. But with this
particular amendment, I urge with all the sincerity that I can that we
not confuse the issue of the public schools, the money to go to
children that would otherwise not necessarily have the opportunity if
the amendment does not pass.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Because I have the greatest admiration and respect for the
gentlewoman from Hawaii and because I enjoy her company, publicly, that
is, better make that clear, I am going to ask everyone to vote no on
her amendment.
Why would I do that if I have that much respect for her? Because I
want to give her more than 18 million to spend. At the present time she
can only spend 18 million on her program, only 18 million. With this
program that we are offering, she can spend the total, the total
allocation of all of these programs on that one specific program.
Now, I am sure that the State of Hawaii will not neglect their
obligation to native Hawaiians. In fact, she assured me that would not
happen. So I want Members to vote no on the gentlewoman's amendment
because I want her to be able to spend more than 18 million, and the
only way she can do that is if we defeat her amendment and pass the
underlying legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and,
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 105-726.
[[Page H8057]]
Amendment No. 2 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report
105-726 offered by Mr. Martinez:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Class-Size
Reduction and Teacher Quality Act of 1998''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Rigorous research has shown that students attending
small classes in the early grades make more rapid educational
progress than students in larger classes, and that these
achievement gains persist through at least the elementary
grades.
(2) The benefits of smaller classes are greatest for lower-
achieving, minority, poor, and inner-city children. One study
found that urban fourth-graders in smaller-than-average
classes were three-quarters of a school year ahead of their
counterparts in larger-than-average classes.
(3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with
more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction
and less on other tasks, and cover more material effectively,
and are better able to work with parents to further their
children's education.
(4) Smaller classes allow teachers to identify and work
more effectively with students who have learning disabilities
and, potentially, can reduce those students' need for special
education services in the later grades.
(5) Students in smaller classes are able to become more
actively engaged in learning than their peers in large
classes.
(6) Efforts to improve educational achievement by reducing
class sizes in the early grades are likely to be more
successful if well-prepared teachers are hired and
appropriately assigned to fill additional classroom positions
and if teachers receive intensive, continuing training in
working effectively in smaller classroom settings.
(7) Several States have begun a serious effort to reduce
class sizes in the early elementary grades, but these actions
may be impeded by financial limitations or difficulties in
hiring well-prepared teachers.
(8) The Federal Government can assist in this effort by
providing funding for class-size reductions in grades one
through three, and by helping to ensure that the new teachers
brought into the classroom are well prepared.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to help States and local
educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000
additional teachers over a seven-year period in order to--
(1) reduce class sizes nationally, in grades 1 through 3,
to an average of 18 students per classroom; and
(2) improve teaching in the early grades so that all
students can learn to read independently and well by the end
of the third grade.
SEC. 3. PROGRAM FUNDING.
For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $1,500,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,
$1,735,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $2,300,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004, and $2,800,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2005 through 2008.
SEC. 4. ALLOCATIONS TO STATES.
(a) Reservation for Evaluation.--From the amount
appropriated pursuant to section 3 for each fiscal year, the
Secretary may reserve up to $2 million to carry out the
evaluation described in section 13.
(b) Reservation for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to
section 3 for each fiscal year and remaining after any
reservation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall reserve
a total of not more than 1 percent to make payments, on the
basis of their respective needs, to--
(1) American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for activities,
approved by the Secretary, consistent with this Act; and
(2) the Secretary of the Interior for activities, approved
by the Secretary, consistent with this Act in schools
operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(c) Allocations to States.--(1) After reserving funds under
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall allocate to each
State an amount that bears the same relationship to the
remaining amount as the amount of funding the State received
under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 for the previous fiscal year bore to the total
amount available for allocation under that section.
(2) If any State chooses not to participate in the program
under this Act, or fails to submit an approvable application,
the Secretary shall reallocate its allocation to the
remaining States, in accordance with paragraph (1).
SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.
(a) Application Required.--The State educational agency of
each State desiring to receive a grant under this Act shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
form, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(b) Contents.--Each application shall include--
(1) the State's goals for using funds under this Act to
reduce average class sizes in regular classrooms in grades 1
through 3, including--
(A) a description of current regular classroom class sizes
in the local educational agencies of the State;
(B) a description of the State's plan for using funds under
this Act to reduce the average class size in regular
classrooms in those grades; and
(C) the regular classroom class-size goals the State
intends to reach and a justification for those goals;
(2) a description of the State educational agency's plan
for allocating program funds within the State, including--
(A) an estimate of the impact of those allocations on class
sizes in the individual local educational agencies of the
State;
(B) an assurance that the State educational agency will
make this plan public within the State; and
(C) a description of the current and projected capacity of
the State's school facilities to accommodate reduced class
sizes;
(3) a description of the State educational agency's
strategy for improving teacher quality in grades 1 through 3
within the State (which may be part of a broader strategy to
improve teacher quality generally), including--
(A) the actions it will take to ensure the availability,
within the State, of a pool of well-prepared, certified
teachers to fill the positions created with funds under this
Act; and
(B) a description of how the State educational agency and
the local educational agencies in the State will ensure
that--
(i) individuals hired for positions created with program
funds (which may include individuals who have pursued
``alternative routes'' to certification) will meet all of the
State's current requirements for full certification, or will
be making satisfactory progress toward achieving full
certification within three years;
(ii) teachers in first through third grade will be prepared
to teach reading effectively to all children, including those
with special needs, and will take part in continuing
professional development in effective reading instruction and
in teaching effectively in small classes; and
(iii) individuals hired as beginning teachers in first
through third grade will be required to pass a teacher
competency test selected by the State;
(4) a description of how the State will use other funds,
including other Federal funds, to improve teacher quality and
reading achievement within the State;
(5) a description of how the State will hold local
educational agencies that use a significant portion of their
allocations under section 8(a)(2)(B) accountable for that use
of funds;
(6) an assurance that the local educational agency and its
schools will comply with the requirements of subsections (a)
and (b) of section 11; and
(7) an assurance that the State educational agency will
submit such reports and information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(c) Approval of Applications.--The Secretary shall approve
a State's application if it meets the requirements of this
section and holds reasonable promise of achieving the
purposes of this Act.
SEC. 6. WITHIN-STATE ALLOCATIONS.
(a) State-Level Expenses.--Each State may use not more than
a total of one-half of one percent of the amount it receives
under this part for any fiscal year or $50,000, whichever is
greater, for the administration costs of the State
educational agency and for State-level activities described
in section 7.
(b) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--(1) Each
State shall use the remainder of its allocation to make
subgrants to local educational agencies, for the purpose of
reducing class size and improving instruction in grades 1
through 3, on the basis of--
(A) current or projected regular classroom class sizes in
grades 1 through 3 in those agencies; and
(B) the relative ability and effort of those agencies to
finance class-size reductions with their own funds.
(2) Each State shall make the allocations described in
paragraph (1) in such manner as to enable local educational
agencies to reduce their average class sizes in regular
classrooms, in grades 1 through 3, to the average class size
proposed in the State application.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), each State shall ensure,
in allocating funds under this subsection, that each local
educational agency in which at least 30 percent of the
children are from low-income families, or in which there are
at least 10,000 children from such families, receives at
least the same share of those funds as it received of the
State's allocation under section 1122 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 for the preceding fiscal
year.
(c) Maintenance of Effort.--(1) A local educational agency
may receive an allocation under this section for any fiscal
year only if it submits to, or has on file with, the
[[Page H8058]]
State educational agency an assurance that it will spend at
least as much from non-Federal sources as it spent in the
previous year for the combination of--
(A) teachers in regular classrooms in grades 1 through 3 in
schools receiving benefits under this Act; and
(B) the quality-improvement activities described in section
8(b).
(2) The Secretary may waive or modify the requirement of
paragraph (1) for a local educational agency if the Secretary
determines that doing so would be equitable due to
exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances affecting that
agency.
SEC. 7. STATE-LEVEL ACTIVITIES.
East State educational agency may use the funds it reserves
for State-level activities under section 6(a) to carry out
activities described in its application, which may include
such activities as--
(1) strengthening State teacher licensure and certification
standards;
(2) developing or strengthening, and administering, teacher
competency tests for beginning teachers; and
(3) program monitoring and other administrative costs
associated with operating the program.
SEC. 8. USES OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--(1) Each local educational agency shall
use all funds it receives from the State under this Act,
except for funds it reserves under subsection (b), to pay the
salaries of, and benefits for, the additional teachers needed
to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 to the level set
by the State as its goal in the State application.
(2) A local educational agency that has already reached
this level may use those funds to--
(A) make further class-size reductions in grades 1 through
3;
(B) reduce class sizes in kindergarten or other grades; or
(C) undertake quality-improvement activities under
subsection (b).
(b) Quality Improvement.--(1) Each local educational agency
shall use at least 10 percent of the funds it receives under
this Act for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for
activities to ensure that teachers who will teach smaller
classes are prepared to teach reading and other subjects
effectively in a smaller class setting.
(2) The activities described in paragraph (1) may include--
(A) training teachers in effective reading instructional
practices (including practices for teaching students who
experience initial difficulty in learning to read) and in
effective instructional practices in small classes;
(B) paying the costs for uncertified teachers hired in
grades 1 through 3 to obtain full certification within three
years;
(C) providing mentors or other support for teachers in
grades 1 through 3;
(D) improving recruitment of teachers for schools that have
a particularly difficult time hiring certified instructors;
and
(E) providing scholarships or other aid for education and
education-related expenses to paraprofessionals or
undergraduate students in order to expand the pool of well-
prepared and certified teachers.
SEC. 9. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this Act may be up to 100
percent in local educational agencies with child-poverty
levels greater than 40 percent, but shall be no more than--
(1) 95 percent in local educational agencies with child-
poverty rates of more than 30 percent but not more than 40
percent;
(2) 85 percent in local educational agencies with child-
poverty rates of more than 20 percent but not more than 30
percent;
(3) 75 percent in local educational agencies with child-
poverty rates of more than 10 percent but not more than 20
percent; and
(4) 65 percent in local educational agencies with child-
poverty rates of not more than 10 percent.
(b) Local Share.--A local educational agency shall provide
the non-Federal share of a project under this Act through
cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, except that if an
agency has allocated funds under section 1113(c) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to one or more
schoolwide programs under section 1114 of that Act, it may
use those funds for the non-Federal share of activities under
this program that benefit those schoolwide programs, to the
extent consistent with section 1120A(c) of that Act and
notwithstanding section 1114(a)(3)(B) of that Act.
SEC. 10. CARRYOVER OF FUNDS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds
received under this Act by a State or by a local educational
agency shall remain available for obligation and expenditure
by the State or local agency for one fiscal year beyond the
fiscal year described in section 421(b) of the General
Educational Provisions Act.
SEC. 11. ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) School Report.--Each school benefitting from the
program under this Act, or the local educational agency for
that school, shall produce an annual report to parents and
the general public on its student achievement in reading
(using available evidence of reading achievement of its
students in grades 1 through 5 and the assessments the State
uses under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, disaggregated as required under that
part), average class size in its regular classrooms, and
teacher certification and related academic qualifications in
grades 1 through 3.
(b) Local Educational Agency Reports.--(1) Interm
Reports.--Each local educational agency shall provide each
year, to its State educational agency, a report summarizing
the information reported by, or for, its schools under
subsection (a).
(2) Subsequent Reports.--Within three years of receiving
funding under this Act, and each year thereafter, each local
educational agency shall provide evidence, to its State
educational agency, of the reading achievement of its
students, in grade 3, 4, or 5 in schools served under this
Act, which shall be--
(A) in a form determined by the State educational agency;
(B) based on the assessments that the local educational
agency is using under title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, or on comparably rigorous State or
local assessments; and
(C) disaggregated to show the achievement of students in
individual schools and of students separately by race and by
gender, as well as for students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency, migrant students, and
students who are economically disadvantaged.
(c) Program-Improvement Plan.--A local educational agency
with schools that fail to show improvement in reading
achievement within three years of receiving funds under this
Act shall, with the approval of the State educational agency,
develop and implement a program-improvement plan to improve
student performance.
(d) Reduced Local Allocations.--If a school participating
in the program under this Act fails to show improvement in
reading achievement of its students within two years after
the local educational agency develops a plan subsection (b),
the State educational agency shall reduce the allocation to
that local agency by an amount equal to the share of the
local agency's allocation attributable to that school.
SEC. 12. PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS.
Each local educational agency receiving funds under this
Act shall, after timely and meaningful consultation with
appropriate private school officials, provide for the
inclusion (in a manner proportionate to the number of
children residing in the area served by the agency's project
under this Act who attend private schools) of private school
teachers in the professional-development activities the
agency and its schools carry out with those funds.
SEC. 13. EVALUATION.
With funds reserved under section 4(a), the Secretary shall
carry out an evaluation of the program authorized by this
Act, including a measurement of its effectiveness in
accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993.
SEC. 14. WAIVERS.
The Secretary may, at the request of a State educational
agency, waiver or modify a requirement of this Act if the
Secretary determines that such requirement impedes the
ability of the State to carry out the purpose of this Act and
that providing a waiver would better promote the purpose of
this Act.
SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given that term in section 14101(18)
(A) and (B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez) and a Member opposed, each will control 30
minutes.
{time} 1030
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling)
claim the time in opposition?
Mr. GOODLING. I claim the time in opposition, Madam Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will
control 30 minutes in opposition.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) is recognized.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment I have will establish an initiative to reduce class
sizes in grades 1, 2, and 3 to an average of 18 students per class by
the year 2005. It would enable schools to hire over 100,000 additional
teachers and would require school districts to contribute matching
funds, with the amount of the match depending on the level of poverty
in the district. Funds could be used to recruit, train, and pay teacher
salaries of the additional teachers necessary to reduce the class size,
and to ensure that all teachers are equipped with the latest and most
successful instructional techniques. In ensuring
[[Page H8059]]
this program has strong accountability provisions, school districts
would be required to demonstrate how reduced class sizes are resulting
in increased student achievement.
This amendment would help make sure that every child receives
personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further learning, and
learns to read independently by the end of the third grade. The impact
of reducing class size was highlighted in the recent report issued by
the Department of Education, ``Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?''
This report reached three conclusions:
Research shows that smaller classes promote student achievement in
early grades. The significant effect of class size reduction on student
achievement appears when class size is reduced to the point between 15
and 20 students. If class size is reduced from substantially more than
20 students per class to below 20 students, the related increase in
student achievement moves the average student from the 50th percentile
up to the 60th percentile. For disadvantaged minorities, the effect is
even larger.
Students and teachers and parents report positive effects from the
impact of class size reduction on the quality of classroom activity.
Most importantly, the study shows that 25 States already have started
or are considering some sort of class size reduction initiative showing
how this initiative truly has widespread support.
Madam Chairman, I believe this amendment is a critically important
aspect of the education reform for today's schools and urge all Members
to support its adoption.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is
just the opposite of what we should be trying to do if we really are
interested in reform in local school districts.
One size fits all has no place in this debate whatsoever. That has
been the problem. With the money they now get, they can take it all and
reduce class size. That is the beauty of this. If that is their most
important initiative. But let me tell my colleagues, there had better
be another initiative that is even more important, and that is teacher
preparation. I do not care what size the class may be in relationship
to students, if there is not a competent teacher in that classroom, it
is not going to make a difference. Many sisters who taught in large
classes for years will attest to that. It was the excellence of the
teacher and the control of the teacher of the classroom.
So I do not want to tell somebody that they have to use this money to
reduce class size. I want to tell them if that is what they want to do,
that is allowable. And if they are going to prepare the teachers for
those reduced classes, that is allowable. So the beauty of what the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is offering is the fact that it
gives those local areas the opportunity to determine what they need
most in order to improve education in their local area. And that is
what we should be considering.
We have to forget the bureaucrats who are campaigning against any
changes because of what they get as far as the bureaucracy is
concerned. And many of them are private, and they still get these
grants. Many of them are grants that they do not even have to compete.
So, again, let us not mix apples and oranges.
We have a golden opportunity. If in our districts we want to reduce
class size, we can use the money for that purpose. If we want to better
prepare teachers so that they can better teach, we can use it for that.
If we want to use it because the equipment and the textbooks and so on
are in bad shape, it can be used for that. It can be used for a
combination of things. But, please, do not come here and tell the local
district one more time that we, in Washington, D.C., have all the
answers and they can only use the money specifically as we say, one
size fits all.
Let me close just by again reminding everyone: The money that is
available here can be used for the same activities that they have been
using the money for in the past. What we take away is the one size fits
all, we take away the paperwork, and we give them the flexibility to
determine what is most important in their local district to improve
education for all children.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to just comment that the gentleman has just said it: They can
use the money for anything they feel like. So that if those programs
that have been protected for so long by the national interest are not
of vital concern to that locality, they will not use the money for it.
So, in reality, the beauty of this, as they see it, is that these
things may never happen.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
reduce class size and opposition to the underlying bill.
Because I wish I were as wealthy as Bill Gates does not mean I am. If
I wish that I could be as great a basketball player as Michael Jordan,
it does not mean I am. And this debate is not about what we wish, it is
not about families. Because I even agree with the philosophy of trying
to drive more dollars to our local schools and classrooms and that
parents and teachers should be in charge. This debate is not about
families, it is about facts. It is about where this money is and where
it actually goes.
To get to the facts, with all due respect, we said, let us see how
all 50 States come out of this formula from this block grant that the
chairman has devised, and so we said that we would not use the
chairman's number, out of all due respect, and we would not use the
Department of Education numbers either, and we would not use the
Democrat or Republican numbers. We went to the CRS. The Congressional
Research Service is a bipartisan organization. We wanted to see what
they say, with the thick glasses and the green eyeshades and pounding
the statistics.
Well, here are the facts: They say 27 States lose money. Twenty-seven
States lose money.
Fact one. When we send money to the State and the local schools, 27
States come out lower under this bill.
Fact two. And we all know this is a fact. We can authorize and wish
and hope and pray under this committee that we are going to get this
money, but when the appropriation committee cuts this money by $550
million, a half a billion dollars cut, more States lose money.
So the fact of the matter is, my colleagues, look at the CRS money.
This is not a debate on a philosophy that I think we all disagree on:
Trying to get our parents and teachers more involved in our local
schools, trying to get our families more involved. It is not over
promising to the parents and others that they are going to get all this
money. Let us be truthful. Let us be real. Let us look at the facts.
The second point on this amendment. If we are going to make a
difference in schools, it is with charter schools and public choice, it
is with better trained teachers, it is with accountability and family
involvement, and it is with discipline. And, with this amendment, it is
with more teachers, better-trained teachers, and less children in the
classroom.
This amendment, if we are going to make a difference, as this
amendment does, reduces the average class size from 26 to 18. A teacher
is teaching 18 children rather than 26. That is a huge difference. In
Indiana, we have the Indiana prime time in first grades, where when we
do this, reading scores are going up and up and up.
Let us make a difference, making the hard choices, providing more
teachers and providing better ratios for our teachers in our schools.
Vote for the Clay amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, before yielding to my colleague from Pennsylvania, to make
sure everybody understands that fact one is totally wrong. CRS has made
it very clear that that is totally wrong. And, in fact, in fact one he
is again mixing apples and oranges. He is talking about an
appropriation bill. We do not know what the appropriation bill will be
when it is completed. I will guarantee it will be more, as it always is
every year.
[[Page H8060]]
Fact two. Completely wrong. Mixing apples and oranges, because he is
talking about an appropriation bill. CRS did this very clearly, very
carefully, and the State of Indiana will receive $5,432,568 more down
to the classroom to help reduce class size and to help better prepare
teachers.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Madam Chairman, again the Democrats are cooking the books.
This amendment takes away the States' flexibility that we are trying to
provide under our bill. It is based on the philosophy that the Federal
Government knows best. The States and local districts should be making
the decisions about how best to achieve the goal of improved student
performance.
Under this amendment, States are allowed to use only one-half of 1
percent of their funds to carry out activities relating to improving
teacher quality. At the local level such use of funds are only
allowable after they have met certain specific targets in class size
reduction. In effect, this amendment puts a very low priority on the
importance of teacher quality and too much faith in the benefits of
class size reduction.
In fact, teacher quality is more important than class size. After
all, what good is a classroom of 20 or 10 or even 5 students if the
teacher has no idea about the subject in which he or she is teaching?
We have seen massive class size reduction efforts in several States
that have led to negative impacts in certain poor and rural areas where
already they are experiencing shortage of qualified teachers. A mandate
that further reduces class size will, in effect, force them to hire
more inexperienced and unqualified teachers with emergency license.
This amendment will only force thousands more children to be sent
into trailers parked in the backs of schools. Is this what the
supporters of this amendment really want? The quality of the teacher is
much more important. We should emphasize that and let the local
districts and the States, who understand that, have that flexibility.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member from
California for yielding me this time, and would ask that Members study
the CRS numbers, which I will submit for the Record, and see for
themselves the 27 States that are cut under this funding.
I think it is very important for my colleagues to be able to see not
what the Republican committee has put together, not what the Democratic
administration at the Department of Education has put together, but
what the nonpartisan number crunchers at CRS have put together. I would
ask Members to look at the 27 States that are cut under those figures.
And more States will be cut under that table when the Committee on
Appropriations follows through on a $550 million cut in the
appropriations process, when that bill comes to the floor.
Now, the committee chairman says it is apples and oranges. We all
know that an authorization bill is directly tied to the appropriation
bill and the appropriators determine the funding level. That is fact.
Madam Chairman, the tables I referred to above are submitted
herewith:
Alaska--52.3% ($11,395,724)
Young
Connecticut--8.5% ($2,566,669)
Shaps
Johnson
Delaware--13.2% ($1,538,907)
Castle
D.C.--66.2% ($19,594,406)
Hawaii--67.5% ($23,428,242)
Idaho--7.8% ($1,022,722)
Chenoweth
Crapo
Iowa--39.8% ($15,248,832)
Leach
Nussle
Ganske
Latham
Kansas--0.6% ($151,556)
Moran
Ryun
Snowbarger
Tiahrt
Louisiana--5.3% ($3,293,031)
Livingston
Tauzin
McCrery
Cooksey
Baker
Maryland--3.7% ($1,617,157)
Gilchrest
Ehrlich
Bartlett
Morella
Massachusetts--10.1% ($6,040,778)
Montana--12.2% ($1,590,614)
Hill
Nebraska--31.7% ($6,830,260)
Bereuter
Christensen
Barrett
Nevada--2.0% ($257,989)
Ensign
Gibbons
New Hampshire--17.3% ($2,296,611)
Sununu
Bass
New Mexico--18.5% ($4,841,853)
Wilson
Skeen
Redmond
North Dakota--22.0% ($2,851,323)
Oklahoma--5.5% ($1,916,615)
Largent
Coburn
Watkins
Watts
Istook
Lucas
Oregon--0.9% ($268,893)
Smith
Rhode Island--29.5% ($4,738,033)
South Carolina--0.7% ($242,524)
Sanford
Spence
Graham
Inglis
South Dakota--25.9% ($3,693,337)
Thune
Utah--13.1% ($2,840,436)
Hansen
Cook
Cannon
Vermont--17.4% ($2,075,763)
Virginia--4.3% ($2,241,574)
Bateman
Goodlatte
Bliley
Wolf
Davis
Washington--16.5% ($9,409,741)
White
Metcalf
Smith
Hastings
Nethercutt
Dunn
West Virginia--10.8% ($2,635,214)
Wyoming--17.4% ($2,032,323)
Cubin
____
TABLE 11C.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS UNDER H.R. 3248, AS ORDERED TO BE REPORTED, COMPARED TO ESTIMATES
PREPARED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) OF FY1998 GRANTS UNDER ALL PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO BE
CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248
[H.R. 3248 Estimates: An Amount Equal to FY1998 Allocations Under Formula Grant Programs To Be Consolidated Is
First Allocated To Each State, Next, Remaining Block Grant Appropriations (Assumed To Be Equal To $2.74 Billion
Minus the Formula Grant Portion) Are Allocated With 50% In Proportion To ESEA Title I, Part A Grants And 50% In
Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Grants Are Estimated At The Maximum Authorized Level For FY1999.]
[ED Estimates of FY1998 Grants: Include Actual Or Projected Grants Under All Programs Proposed To Be
Consolidated. For Grants to Entities That Provide Services Nationwide, Funds Are Spread Among All States, In
Proportion To Population Aged 5-17. Data Were Received From ED on Sept. 15, 1998.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated
grant under
H.R. 3248 at ED estimates of Percentage
State FY1999 total FY1998 difference
authorized grants
level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................... $43,427,000 $37,847,464 14.7
Alaska........................................................... 10,396,000 21,791,724 -52.3
Arizona.......................................................... 42,557,000 39,586,425 7.5
Arkansas......................................................... 26,450,000 21,687,428 22.0
California....................................................... 315,580,000 298,178,752 5.8
Colorado......................................................... 31,706,000 31,361,652 1.1
Connecticut...................................................... 27,552,000 30,118,669 -8.5
Delaware......................................................... 10,134,000 11,672,901 -13.2
District of Columbia............................................. 10,009,000 29,603,406 -66.2
Florida.......................................................... 126,307,000 120,603,903 4.7
Georgia.......................................................... 72,595,000 62,047,160 17.0
Hawaii........................................................... 11,295,000 34,723,242 -67.5
Idaho............................................................ 12,016,000 13,038,722 -7.8
Ilinois.......................................................... 118,597,000 106,357,682 11.5
Indiana.......................................................... 48,734,000 47,454,205 2.7
Iowa............................................................. 23,036,000 38,284,832 -39.8
Kansas........................................................... 23,464,000 23,615,556 -0.6
Kentucky......................................................... 42,372,000 37,141,163 14.1
Louisiana........................................................ 59,024,000 62,317,031 -5.3
Maine............................................................ 12,505,000 12,142,653 3.0
Maryland......................................................... 42,122,000 43,739,157 -3.7
Massachusetts.................................................... 53,801,000 59,841,778 -10.1
Michigan......................................................... 109,986,000 90,721,762 21.2
Minnesota........................................................ 40,119,000 36,383,455 10.3
Mississippi...................................................... 37,531,000 32,293,424 16.2
Missouri......................................................... 49,873,000 49,857,568 0.0
Montana.......................................................... 11,462,000 13,052,614 -12.2
Nebraska......................................................... 14,727,000 21,557,260 -31.7
Nevada........................................................... 12,648,000 12,905,989 -2.0
New Hampshire.................................................... 10,987,000 13,283,611 -17.3
New Jersey....................................................... 66,235,000 54,511,691 21.5
New Mexico....................................................... 21,328,000 26,175,853 -18.3
New York......................................................... 211,655,000 185,851,927 13.9
North Carolina................................................... 59,565,000 59,271,274 0.5
North Dakota..................................................... 10,131,000 12,982,323 -22.0
Ohio............................................................. 110,142,000 96,755,688 13.8
Oklahoma......................................................... 32,982,000 34,898,615 -5.5
Oregon........................................................... 28,316,000 28,584,893 -0.9
Pennsylvania..................................................... 116,992,000 106,949,829 9.4
Rhode Island..................................................... 11,349,000 16,087,033 -29.5
South Carolina................................................... 34,950,000 35,192,514 -0.7
South Dakota..................................................... 10,562,000 14,255,337 -25.9
Tennessee........................................................ 48,747,000 48,234,290 1.1
Texas............................................................ 220,192,000 188,545,340 16.8
Utah............................................................. 18,817,000 21,657,436 -13.1
Vermont.......................................................... 9,830,000 11,905,763 -17.4
Virginia......................................................... 50,445,000 52,686,574 -4.3
Washington....................................................... 47,584,000 56,993,741 -16.5
West Virginia.................................................... 21,863,000 24,498,214 -10.8
Wisconsin........................................................ 49,155,000 43,326,942 13.5
Wyoming.......................................................... 9,650,000 11,682,323 -17.4
Puerto Rico...................................................... 71,099,000 51,413,604 38.3
Outlying Areas................................................... 13,700,000 12,140,665 12.8
BIA.............................................................. 13,700,000 9,749,076 40.5
Other............................................................ ............... 28,726,870 na
----------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 2,740,000,000 2,686,289,000 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table prepared by CRS on Sept. 16, 1998.
{time} 1045
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, when the gentleman gets around to
putting charts in the Record, I will put
[[Page H8061]]
the CRS chart in that the CRS just recently sent us, which will
disprove all of that.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey
(Mrs. Roukema) a very important member of the committee who will be
receiving $12,253,118 for her local classrooms through this
legislation.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I know we will put it to good use.
Absolutely. Because in this legislation and, by the way, I oppose this
gutting amendment, but in this legislation, not only are we giving that
local discretion to the informed people at the local level who know
what their choices are and what their needs are, but we have here a
vast number of really good options open to them. I think the debate
thus far has distorted the meaning of the options that are there at the
local level. For example, the implication has been that you cannot have
more teachers in the classroom. We not only have more teachers in the
classroom but they can use it to decrease teacher-pupil ratio and
increase professional development for teachers. I could go on about the
various things. In fact, here in the report, there are a number with
specificity to the professionalism and the way it is going to improve
standards, whether it is math and science or computers right in the
classroom. I want to stress, as a former teacher, as a former PTA
President, and as a former school board member, we at the local level
know where this money should be going. That is the best way to do this.
Finally, and I do not think it has been stressed enough, the State in
this legislation must comply with reporting to Congress, and those
requirements to report how the funds are spent. We are not just giving
them a blank check with total discretion. But they have to report back
and explain exactly how, with precision, those funds were used to
increase student achievement by the measurement of the State standards.
I urge defeat of this gutting amendment and support for the bill.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us
today.
It is time for the federal government to leave more decision, and
send more money, to the local level.
This legislation will send 95%--that is 95%--of every dollar to the
local school district. This is a $2.68 billion bill that we are
discussing. Based on last year's figures, that is over $2.54 billion
that will go directly to local school districts!
But that is just the money in the various programs. This bill also
allows the schools to use their limited federal dollars to focus on the
areas of most importance to that school district. They will not be tied
to use funds in a program dictated by the federal government, but
instead can make their own informed discretion--choices such as
teachers in the classroom options, 27 uses, professional development,
math and science instructions, computers, and teachers-pupil ratios.
This legislation allows the local school district to decide what
program it wants to emphasize. This bill consolidates 31 separate
federal education programs, and pools that money together to send to
the local school districts.
It will be the local school district that decides whether to use that
money on programs to combat illiteracy, efforts to reduce the pupil-
teacher ratio, activities of comprehensive school reform, or any of a
long list of allowable activities.
As a former teacher, PTA president, and school board member in my
home community, I have always been active in the local school system. I
believe that our schools are best prepared to meet the educational
needs of our youth when decisions about our school are made by that
local community.
This bill would allow the schools the option of continuing any of
these 31 programs in their own school. The great benefit is that the
school is not tied to any one particular program, but instead could use
the funds for whichever program the school chooses to emphasize.
(b) Local Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this
section to a local educational agency shall be used for the
following classroom services and activities:
(1) Programs for the acquisition and use of instructional
and educational materials, including library services and
materials (including media materials), assessments, reference
materials, and other curricular materials which are tied to
high academic standards and which will be used to improve
student achievement and which are part of an overall
education reform program.
(2) Professional development for instructional staff.
(3) Programs to improve the higher order thinking skills of
disadvantaged elementary and secondary school students and to
prevent students from dropping out of school.
(4) Efforts to lengthen the school day or the school year.
(5) Programs to combat illiteracy in the student
population.
(6) Programs to provide for the educational needs of gifted
and talented children.
(7) Promising education reform projects that are tied to
State student content and performance standards.
(8) Carrying out comprehensive school reform programs that
are based on reliable research.
(9) Programs that are built upon partnerships between local
educational agencies and institutions of higher education,
educational service agencies, libraries, businesses, regional
educational laboratories, or other educational entities, for
the purpose of providing educational services consistent with
this section.
(11) The acquisition of books, materials and equipment,
payment of compensation of instructional staff, and
instructional activities that are necessary for the conduct
of programs in magnet schools.
(12) Programs to promote academic achievement among women
and girls.
(13) Programs to provide for the educational needs of
children with limited English proficiency or who are American
Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian.
(14) Activities to provide the academic support,
enrichment, and motivation to enable all students to reach
high State standards.
(15) Efforts to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.
(16) Projects and programs which assure the participation
in mainstream settings in arts and education programs of
individuals with disabilities.
(17) Projects and programs to integrate arts education into
the regular elementary and secondary school curriculum.
(18) Programs designed to educate students about the
history and principles of the Constitution of the United
States, including the Bill of Rights, and to foster civic
competence and responsibility.
(19) Mathematics and science education instructional
materials.
(20) Programs designed to improve the quality of student
writing and learning and the teaching of writing as a
learning process.
(21) Technology related to the implementation of school-
based reform programs, including professional development to
assist teachers and other school officials regarding how to
effectively use such equipment and software.
(22) Computer software and hardware for instructional use.
(23) Developing, adapting, or expanding existing and new
applications of technology.
(24) Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and
services, including the acquisition of hardware and software,
for use by teachers, students, and school library media
personnel in the classroom or in school library media
centers, in order to improve student learning.
(25) After-school programs designed to engage children in a
constructive manner and to promote their academic,
developmental, and personal growth;
(26) Developing, constructing, acquiring, maintaining,
operating, and obtaining technical assistance in the use of
telecommunications audio and visual facilities and equipment
for use in the classroom.
(27) Developing, acquiring, and obtaining technical
assistance in the use of educational and instructional video
programming for use in the classroom.
We all read about the many concerns people have with schools today.
This is one way to improve our schools.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Clay
amendment to reduce class size. We know that the size of the class and
the quality of education go hand in hand and that overcrowded
classrooms are one of the biggest obstacles to improving education for
our children. We now have studies to confirm what parents and teachers
have known for years. The smaller the class size, the better the
learning experience. Even the very Republican governor of my home State
of California has made smaller class size a priority for our State. But
it costs money to reduce class size. Smaller classes mean training and
hiring more teachers and building more classrooms. The Clay amendment
will give school districts a good start toward smaller classes.
Matching Federal and local funds could be used to recruit, to train, to
pay the salaries of new teachers. Unlike the Dollars to the Classroom
block grant, the Clay amendment holds schools accountable for the use
of these funds. It requires school districts to show how reduced class
size results in increased student achievement.
I urge my colleagues, vote for the Clay amendment. Turn H.R. 3248
from a bill that takes dollars from the classroom into a bill that
improves education for all of our kids.
[[Page H8062]]
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Georgia, I want to make sure that no one thought that I was questioning
the gentleman from Indiana's figures in relationship to the figures
that he had. The figures that he had is a CRS study that includes
nonprofits and nonschool district. We are only talking about money to
the classroom in the local school district. That is a big difference.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) another member of the committee who will receive $11,536,998
more to his local classrooms.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, we thank the chairman and, of course, we
are delighted to see that. I want to point out that this is just the
facts. This is just the facts, folks. We are going to get it right this
particular time. I am really for reducing class size. That is
important. But I am for each school district determining if they need
to reduce their class size.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3248, the Dollars to
the Classroom Act. Guaranteeing that 95 percent of Federal funds for
elementary and secondary schools is spent directly in the classroom and
not on the bureaucracy is common sense.
A recent Department of Education study found that 15 percent of every
Federal education dollar is eaten up by the Federal and State
bureaucracy. I am sure they have got another study giving us another
number. Everybody has got their studies. The bottom line is we want
this money to go to the students and go to the classrooms where people
at home can make the decision about what is best for their children.
Having it eaten up by the Federal government, that should not be so.
If we are going to spend Federal dollars and, remember, that is your
dollars that you send up here for education and education programs,
then we should make sure that these dollars support those people who
actually teach our children.
That is not the only reason why I support Dollars to the Classroom.
Under this bill, the great State of Georgia will receive an additional
$26 million for education. With this legislation, each classroom in the
10th District of Georgia, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling), will receive an average of 425 additional dollars. For
a modest size, 20-classroom school at home, that can mean an additional
$8,500. Madam Chairman, that is real money for our teachers and
principals and students. Not only will this bill spend more Federal
education dollars directly in the classroom, it gives our schools
greater flexibility to receive money for any of the authorized uses for
the existing 31 programs block-granted under the bill. Schools can
choose to put a greater amount of moneys into priorities such as school
safety or school reform or teacher improvement and technology if that
is what that school determines it needs. Again, the key here is that
with the Dollars to the Classroom Act, we let the schools decide what
their priorities are.
I plead with my colleagues, do not let the Department of Education
confuse you. We are going to increase the number of dollars in this
bill. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3248.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, when Europe needed to be rebuilt after
World War II, we came forward with a massive Marshall Plan, $20 billion
to start and much more afterwards. When we needed to educate our GIs
coming home from World War II, we passed a massive GI Bill of Rights
education program and it did the job. Now we need to retool our
schools. We really need a massive investment in education. What we are
doing is playing Republican Chinese checkers, trivializing the whole
problem by shifting money around, abolishing the Department of
Education's authority and playing games by promising more money when it
is the same amount of money basically that we have always had. I think
the seriousness of the situation is better reflected in the statement
being prepared for the superintendents who will be convening here from
some of the country's most challenged school districts on Saturday.
They have prepared a statement which reads as follows: ``We believe
that there is a great necessity for an immediate meaningful Federal
increased investment in education. Funds for school construction, class
size reduction, technology and communications services must be at the
core of an expanded Federal appropriation for education. The E-rate
must be preserved as a permanent vehicle to lessen telecommunications
costs. Additional categories of increased Federal financial assistance
are needed and welcome. However, there are no substitute programs for
the priorities set forth above. The preservation of the public school
as an institution requires a highly visible assault on the problems
which serve as monstrous roadblocks to school reform progress. A safe
physical environment conducive to study is an absolute necessity.''
We cannot have reduced class size unless we have more classrooms. In
my district, several schools have twice the number of students they
were built for. All the schools are over capacity in my district. There
are several schools that still have furnaces which burn coal so the
children who sit in those classrooms are endangered by coal smoke. On
and on it goes.
We need a total package starting with the President's school
construction package at the heart of a Federal investment in education
which is adequate to meet today's needs.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
ranking member's amendment. One of the really fundamental ways in which
we can really direct dollars to the classroom which will have a
meaningful, long-term benefit for our children is to establish a policy
that the Federal Government is going to commit a block of money for the
reduction of class size. In my State, this would be an enormous boon to
the establishment of better quality education for a wide spectrum of
our classrooms where children are still suffering under very, very
large ratios of sometimes 30 or 32 students per classroom. We could ask
the question, ``Why don't you do something about the class size?''
Well, basically the biggest difficulty that districts have is in the
school construction area. So fundamentally, there probably should be an
additional amendment which would go to school construction, because in
order to lower class size, we have to find the accommodations for the
classes. But basically if we are able to add 100,000 additional
teachers to our school population of teachers throughout the country,
this will bring an enormous benefit directly to the classroom, directly
to the children. If this is the purported purpose of the majority's
support of Federal educational programs, here is an opportunity to
really support a direct program that will have a direct beneficial
impact on the education of our children. Individualization of education
through smaller class size is probably the best way in which we can
improve quality education for our children. This is not simply a way in
which Federal moneys pour in. It requires school districts to
contribute matching funds. I am in full support of this program, this
amendment, and I urge this House to adopt it.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
New York, I would merely say that there are several hundred thousand
teachers presently working at other jobs because they cannot find
teaching jobs where they want to teach. It would be amazing if we all
of a sudden decided we ought to create 100,000 more since there is no
study that indicates that there is any shortage now or will be in the
near future. As I said, hundreds of thousands of teachers are now
working at other jobs.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella) who like the other gentleman from New York who just spoke
will receive in his State an additional $13 million going to the
classrooms.
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the sponsor of this
amendment to improve education for all children across this country.
However, I believe that the Dollars to the Classroom legislation is
quite simply better.
[[Page H8063]]
In short, we believe that the State of New York and specifically the
people of Staten Island and Brooklyn deserve the flexibility and the
autonomy to spend their tax dollars as they see fit.
The reality as we heard is that with the Dollars to the Classroom
legislation, the State of New York or the State of Hawaii or the State
of Indiana can spend the money as they see fit. If they want to go out
and hire more teachers, they can do so.
{time} 1100
If P.S. 4 in Staten Island decides they want to start a softball team
they can do so. If P.S. 36 wants to expand the size of the classrooms
or limit the size of the classrooms; that is, the number of students in
that classroom, they can do so under this legislation.
As my colleagues know, it is important to look at those who defend
the status quo as opposed to those who really and truly want to seek
ways to improve quality of education in this country. Yes, education is
a national issue, but we believe it is a local responsibility, and
getting the money from Washington, from Albany, down to Staten Island
and Brooklyn is the right approach.
Just look at the last couple of months. Education savings accounts
where we wanted to provide parents the opportunity to set money aside
tax free to spend on their child's education, passed this House
narrowly, passed the Senate, vetoed by the President. Opportunity
Scholarships, 2,000 to the poorest children in the Washington, D.C.
school system to allow them to escape the horror of the public school
system in Washington, D.C., passed this House narrowly in the Senate,
threatened veto by the President and all the defenders of the status
quo. Once again we see it here, people who are truly concerned about
giving parents and teachers and local school boards the responsibility,
the flexibility, the autonomy to make the decisions best for their
children, we see the defenders of the status quo.
Once again, I urge the adoption of Dollars to the Classroom.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise with harboring deep concerns about the
utter absence of any accountability in H.R. 3248 which is why I am in
support of the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
With 3248 I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) who is my
good friend that my major concern, and I would agree with him that more
money is going to local school districts that make those decisions,
this is the right thing to do. But here in the Congress we passed the
Welfare Reform Act that made it clear that we wanted accountability
from welfare recipients. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle why would we stop or why that principle does not apply here. I
have no problem giving money to local school districts. All I would
like to see is that they demonstrate to us that indeed what they are
getting, the moneys they are getting from the taxpayers, is actually
resulting in improvement or increased through the performance, which is
why the Clay amendment is so important. It provides money to reduce
class size from 26 to 18, but the money will be taken away if the
school districts cannot demonstrate that the reduced class sizes has
resulted and increased student performance.
3248: Gone would be technology for education, gone would be the
Eisenhower Professional Development program. In the private sector we
spend anywhere from 6 to 10 percent training and training and
retraining workers. Why it is we do not see that it is important to
spend that type of money to train and retrain teachers is beyond me.
Gone would be the magnet schools programs. Gone would be charter
schools. Gone would be the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. New
ideas, new approaches; fresh ideas, fresh approaches.
Mr. Chairman, the Clay amendment is the right way to go for this
reason: accountability, accountability, accountability. On this side of
the aisle we constantly praise, and I must admit sometimes I am at odds
with the Reagan legacy. But Ronald Reagan said something I think that
even my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham),
would have to agree with: Trust but verify. That is all we are asking
for on this side. If we are going to give money to these local agencies
which are huge sums of money to Kentuckians, to Pennsylvania, to
Alabama and to Tennessee, let us at least hold these agencies
accountable for the students, for these 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds cannot
vote, we can, their parents can. Let us hold them accountable and do
the right thing.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge us to do the right thing and support the
amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that there is 1\1/2\ pages of
accountability in this legislation, very, very important
accountability. They have to show how they have used the money and how
it has improved their school district.
See, I wish we could get away from this business of saying that
somehow or other the programs that we have had for the last 30 or 35
years worked wonders. If those programs had worked wonders, why are 40
percent of our children at the end of third grade not able to read at a
third great level? If those programs worked so well where they
accounted every penny, every penny that counters came in to do, if they
worked so well, why would 50 percent of our students who graduate not
do well in math and science?
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
that wonderful State of Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from the wonderful State of California for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dollars to the
Classroom Act and in support of the Clay substitute. We should be
working to ensure that a free quality education is available to all
elementary and secondary education students in the United States and
one that is as equal as possible so that everyone has as equal a chance
as everyone else. That is not the way it is today, and the fact is that
the Dollars to the Classroom Act I believe would undermine public
education in this country because the basis of the bill is that not
enough funding is going directly to the classroom, but the independent,
very respected auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, would disagree. In an
independent audit of elementary and secondary education programs
administered by DOE Coopers & Lybrand found that the Department spends
$87 million to administer more than $20 billion in grants to elementary
and secondary education. That is four-tenths of 1 percent. These
programs include Eisenhower Professional Development Grants for
teachers, Goals 2000, et cetera, et cetera, and States can determine
how to spend that money as easily as they could with a block grant.
I do have concerns about the dissolution of the 31 programs
consolidated into a block grant, but I am most disappointed at the lack
of consideration for the school districts most in need of federal
assistance who would lose title I assistance. The Federal share of
funding is only a small percentage, as we know, of the overall dollars
spent on public elementary and secondary education because most Federal
education funding is raised at the local level through property taxes.
High poverty areas are at an automatic disadvantage in funding for
their public schools, and title I is their vital funding source to make
up for that disparity in funding between public schools in high poverty
areas and those in high income areas. Passage of this act would end
this important program for those areas with the lowest tax bases.
Rather than taking funding away from our public schools the substitute
of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) would add additional funding
to our classrooms. Under block grants, increases in the student body
would be ignored despite the fact that school crowding is one of the
most pressing problems. The Clay substitute would reduce class sizes,
and it ought to be supported.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to make
sure that people are not confused now that somehow or other title I
money is going to be in this block grant. We made very, very sure other
than some little tiny demonstration program, I made very sure that
title I was not in,
[[Page H8064]]
I made very sure that individuals with disabilities education is not in
because those are the two, only two, big programs that the Department
has, and I made very sure that they are not part of it. Some little
tiny demonstration program, yes, IDEA and title I. No, they are not
part of the block grant.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
again just to address the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling)
before I would allow him to recognize someone because they have more
time than we have. He said that yesterday in the Committee on Rules and
I explained to him in the Committee on Rules he better read his own
bill because in his bill there are two sections to title I that are
excluded as repealed in this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for this, speak on
behalf of Dollars to the Classroom and against this amendment, because
of how it works for Kentucky. Kentucky has long been cited for their
education reform bill that was passed in 1990, and I was proud to have
supported that bill and to have been on the partnership for the
implementation of it.
The entire bill, the entire reform was based on the fact that schools
know best what their talents are, what their obstacles are, what the
challenges are, their unique children in that school face, and the
ideal was to put the dollars in the hands of a cite-based decision-
making counsel made up of parents, made up of school employees, made up
of teachers and the principal, and all together now they have the right
to hire the teacher, hire the principals. They have the right to divide
up their allocation of money. And the one thing I hear repeatedly from
them is please stop telling us from Washington how we have to spend our
money, how we have to comply with all these little incremental
spendings instead of giving us the ability to really freely address the
challenges that most confront our kids.
I want to point out that Secretary Riley points to Kentucky very
often when he speaks as the model of school-based reform, the model of
what all schools should be after, and it is hard to believe that a
Department of Education would support a program that would fly in the
face of what he points to every day as a model of school reform.
This bill is compatible with education in Kentucky with school
reform. The substitute that has been proposed absolutely goes in the
opposite direction of everything he talks about being good for schools.
How we would possibly take a step like that when both sides agree that
schools succeed one school at a time, one classroom at a time, one
child at a time, and they have to be free and able to use their
resources to do that.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I just want to comment on the
fact they keep saying over and over again that only 6 or 7 percent of
the total amount of money that is spent on elementary and secondary
education in this country come from federal resources. So 93 or 94
percent of the resources come from state and local governments, but
when it comes time to talk about the condition of our schools which
people want to say could be much better and are not all that they
should be, 94 percent of the blame gets laid at the feet of the Federal
Government and 7 or 6 percent of the blame gets laid at the local and
State government.
The fact of the matter is every level of government has
responsibility to step forward and participate in making sure that we
have the best educational system we can possibly have. People in my
district in Massachusetts understand that this is a responsibility that
is shared. They do not want to place the blame, they want to get moving
on doing some things that are going to help the educational system.
Block granting, it is never on the charts when we ask people how they
want to help improve their schools. They do not want to combine
programs, do away with accountability, let States shift money from
programs that are national priorities to other areas and then
eventually defund. They state very clearly what they want in
Massachusetts is for the Federal Government to step forward and play a
role to help them modernize their schools because locally they do not
have the resource, they have been unable to do that. So they have
asked, because it is a national issue and a national infrastructure
question, that the Federal Government step forward and provide funds,
that when it comes time to making the classrooms the appropriate size,
when instruction can best be done, they have not got the resources.
They have looked to the Federal Government to target that particular
area, and they have said give us some resources, and that is what this
amendment does, and that is the way this system should function.
We have seen time and time again through examples in Tennessee, in
Indiana, in North Carolina and Wisconsin smaller classroom sizes, a
smaller ratio of teachers to students, has a positive effect on the
ability of those students to learn, maintain their grade level
throughout, and do a better job eventually and lead to a better life
and a better community.
Let us stop with the politicking, let us stop with the slogans. As my
colleagues know, Dollars to the Classroom is something everybody wants.
It is not going to be done by defunding education through this system
or anything else, it is going to be done by an effective approach.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard speakers from Kentucky,
Tennessee; I see one from Missouri.
Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record letters which are unsolicited,
expressing enthusiastic support from professional educators from
Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas and several others.
The letters referred to are as follows:
Kentucky Association of
Professional Educators,
Lexington, KY, July 6, 1998.
Hon. Joseph Pitts,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and
board of directors of the Kentucky Association of
Professional Educators (KAPE), I want to express enthusiastic
support for H.R. 3248--Dollars to the Classroom Act.
It is time that: a shift in how federal education dollars
can be delivered to our nation's schools; dollars go directly
to the classroom while giving states and local educators more
funding options; teachers' hands not be tied with heavy
regulations and tightly restricted grant programs; educators
have greater flexibility to receive money for any of the
authorized uses of the existing 31 programs; school districts
are able to choose how federal money will be put into
priority initiatives such as school safety, school
technology, teacher improvement, and school reform.
It is our hope that Republicans will be ready to counter
the accusations that are sure to come, such as cutting
education programs, gutting the U.S. Department of Education
and hurting children. We hope you and the Republicans are
prepared to aggressively prepare to respond with arguments
outlining the real value and benefits of this act.
We encourage your continued efforts in seeing this piece of
legislation passed.
Sincerely,
Ruth Green,
Executive Director.
____
Professional Educators
of Tennessee,
Columbia TN, July 28, 1998.
Dear Representative Pitts: The Board of Directors of
Professional Educators of Tennessee register their support
for the principles of: (1) using more of the money returned
to the states from the federal government in the classroom
instead of in bureaucratic offices, (2) allowing the states
greater discretion in the use of dollars returned to the
states by the federal government and (3) giving those closer
to the child a greater voice in how education funds are
spend; and finding these principles in the Dollars to the
Classroom Act (H.R. 3248) by Representative Joseph Pitts of
Pennsylvania and Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas; we do
endorse the Dollars to the Classroom Act; and encourage our
Tennessee Representatives and Senators to support and vote
for the Dollars to the Classroom Act.
Professional Educators of Tennessee is an organization of
two thousand Tennesseans employed in education or preparing
for a career in education. Sixteen percent of our members are
education students in the universities of Tennessee. Of the
remaining members, ninety-seven percent are teachers and
administrators in the public schools of
[[Page H8065]]
Tennessee. Professional Educators of Tennessee has a presence
in 89 public school systems in Tennessee.
Sincerely
Walter Jewell,
Executive Director.
____
Professional Educators
of Iowa,
Oskaloosa, IA, July 21, 1998.
Hon. Joseph Pitts,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and
board of directors of Professional Educators of Iowa (PEI), I
am expressing our support for H.R. 3248--Dollars to the
Classroom Act.
PEI was formed in 1981 by a group of educators that were
concerned about the direction that the Iowa State Education
Association, a subsidiary of the National Education
Association, was leading teachers in Iowa with their
philosophies and methods. These brave educators felt the need
for a professional alternative that keeps the best interest
of children first.
PEI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan; professional alternative
to the labor union mentality that we believe is not good for
public teachers and their students. We believe that educators
should have the freedom to choose the organizations to which
they want to belong. We also believe that local control of
our schools is essential for the children of their respective
districts. This allows parental involvement in educational
programs, systems, curriculums and policies. Systemic change
must occur before there can be any significant improvement in
the public systems. Funding streams can be a key to positive
change.
In our spring survey, one of the questions we asked our
membership was if block-grant federal education dollars
should be given back to the state government to spend as they
see fit. The response is as follows: 50%--yes; 7%--no; 26%--
need more information; 17%--no response. Another question we
posed was that if block-grant funding passed, should it have
provision to eliminate the Federal Department of Education
within a specified time. The response is as follows: 44%--
yes; 9%--no; 31%--need more information; 16%--no response.
We believe that the overwhelming majority of Professional
Educators of Iowa members will support the Dollars to the
Classroom Act when they have an understanding of the
consolidation of other money streams and the return to local
control.
The growth of Professional Educators of Iowa (over 600%
since 1994) should help in your courageous battle to loosen
government control, and resist the giant union lobby to do
what is right and best for our children. Representative
Pitts, we applaud your efforts and encourage you to
persevere.
Thank you for your mission to improve America's schools.
Sincerely,
Jim Hawkins,
State Director.
____
Missouri State
Teachers Association,
Columbia, MO, August 20, 1998.
Hon. Joseph Pitts,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pitts: The Missouri State Teachers
Association (MSTA) has long been an advocate for state and
local control of public education. Founded in 1856, our
41,000 members have made local control a major tenet of our
platform. Your legislation, H.R. 3248, the Dollars to
Classroom Act, provides for a flexible grant program to
distribute current federal aid to states and their respective
community schools.
The history of federal programs has been one of bureaucracy
and red tape that restricts the educational community's
ability to prioritize federal funds to best assist
improvement in student achievement. The application of a
common sense approach to assist the needs of a local
community's public schools have been handcuffed by federal
rules, regulations and excessive administrative oversight.
MSTA has traditionally opposed federal intervention and
intrusion into state and local control of public education,
especially in the area of assessment and curriculum. MSTA's
adopted resolutions also state that should funding for
federal programs be distributed through block grants, then
the Missouri State Board of Education, through Missouri's
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, should be
given the authority to distribute those funds. In addition,
local school districts could also benefit from having direct
access to these funds under your proposal as more money could
be spent on children in the classroom, not on federal
bureaucracy and the administrators that run it. School
districts that want to continue with the 31 grant programs
that are being consolidated still have the opportunity to
continue those individual programs. That decision is an
exercise in freedom of choice and allows them to redirect the
funds as they choose.
A letter will be sent to the Missouri congressional
delegation to indicate our support of H.R. 3248 and
encouraging them to vote for its passage. Your legislation
allows the ``public'' in public education to have a larger
say in how their tax dollars are spent.
Sincerely,
Kent King,
Executive Director.
____
Associated Professional
Educators of Louisiana,
Baton Rouge, LA, August 13, 1998.
Hon. Joseph Pitts,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Pitts: It is with much enthusiasm that I
submit the enclosed resolution adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Associated Professional Educators of
Louisiana in support of H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom
Act. Our enthusiasm is generated by your common sense
approach to the generation of additional funding for
classrooms through the reduction of senseless and burdensome
paperwork and the return of financial decision-making to
those closest to the educational needs of our children.
Resourceful educators leave few stones unturned in their
search for additional funding, and as a result, they spend
countless hours in researching, applying, and then
documenting the application of grant funds. It is bad enough
that so much time is required of education department
personnel (at both the state and federal level) in
administering these funds, but the time spent by the teacher
in pursuit of these funds is robbing the classroom of
preparation time that might result in greater learning.
A number of studies have been made to determine how much of
our education dollars actually reach the classroom--with
varied results. Time and again, it has been reported that
from four to six times as much paperwork is required to
administer funding from the federal level as from the local
level. Because there is general agreement that no more than
84% of federal funding reaches the classroom, a tremendous
financial advantage would be gained through the passage of
your bill which guarantees 95% of funding would be provided
for classroom activities.
The purpose of education is to impart knowledge to students
not to increase payrolls and size of the staff. Every worker
spending time on burdensome paperwork--much of which could be
eliminated by the passage of H.R. 3248--is siphoning dollars
away from the necessities of education in the classroom.
Thousands of non-productive workers could be eliminated in
virtually every state under the concept you are proposing.
As noted in the resolution, we support H.R. 3248 and we are
encouraging the entire Louisiana Congressional Delegation to
support your measure, as well. We wish you the best of luck.
Sincerely,
Marcia Koopmann,
State President.
Resolution
Whereas, this independent organization of professional
educators was founded on the premise that educators deserved
an independent local voice that represented the consensus of
its members and that teaching methods, styles, and direction
should be compatible with the student population in schools
and the goals of the school district as determined at the
local level, and
Whereas, sufficient funding is one of the most critical
issues confronting successful education, the shortage of
which drives resourceful educators to devote much of their
precious time to the preparation of grant applications to
fund perceived needs not being met with regular funding
sources, and
Whereas, the administrative costs at the state and federal
level of processing, monitoring, and reviewing these grant
programs significantly reduces funding that is provided for
the true purposes under which the grant program was
established and the paperwork burden greatly increases the
personnel requirements, and therefore the financial
requirements at the state level, thus further reducing the
effective use of available funds, and
Whereas, legislation is currently pending before Congress
in the form of H.R. 3248, Dollars to the Classroom Act, by
Rep. Joseph Pitts, that would shift power and funding for
local schools from Washington to the states and would
guarantee that at least 95 percent of existing federal funds
reach the classroom. While not preventing the continued
participation in existing federal programs, this major policy
change would shift decision-making to the states and would
allow no more than 5 percent of this money to be used for
paperwork and administration. A `hold-harmless' provision
would guarantee that states receiving formula-based grants
could not receive less than the amount they would have
received to carry out those programs under existing statutes.
Instead of funneling billions of tax dollars through a
bloated bureaucratic system, the bill would ensure that money
reaches teachers, students, and principals who make local
decision that allow schools to succeed. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Associated
Professional Educators of Louisiana (A+PEL) does hereby
completely and enthusiastically support and urge the passage
of H.R. 3248--Dollars to the Classroom Act--and we strongly
encourage the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, by copy of
this resolution, to provide support as well. Be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be distributed to:
Representative Robert Livingston, Representative William
Jefferson, Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Representative James M. McCrery, Representative Richard H.
Baker, and Representative John Cooksey.
Official Action taken this 13th day of August, 1998.
[[Page H8066]]
Witness:
Doris F. Butler,
Mary Hall.
Attest:
Marcia Koopmann,
Polly Broussard.
____
Association of American Educators,
Mission Viejo, CA, July 28, 1998.
Hon. Joseph Pitts,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pitts: On behalf of the members and
board of directors of the Association of American Educators
(AAE), and our state affiliates (see the undersigned), I
write to express enthusiastic support for H.R. 3248--Dollars
to the Classroom Act.
The AAE was formed just a little over four years ago by a
group of concerned educators, many of whom are nationally
known and respected for their contributions to public
education (including 5 national educators of the year) who
were not happy with the direction that the nation's most
visible and vocal teacher organizations were leading us in.
We felt there was a critical need for a member organization
that was more concerned about our children's right to a good
education than they were with just their own benefits.
The AAE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, professional
alternative to the labor union mentality that we feel is not
a good fit for public school teachers. We are educators by
calling but professionals by choice. We adhere to a few basic
principles and beliefs, one of which is that public education
will be improved if our schools, their administration,
instructional services, and curriculum are under the control
of and accountable to the citizens and taxpayers of the local
communities they serve. We also believe that systemic changes
must occur before there can be any real improvement in our
educational system--especially in terms of education funding.
In that regard, an overwhelming majority of the members of
the AAE would endorse your ``Dollars to the Classroom''
legislation. In evidence, I offer the results of our third
annual survey of members of the AAE representing classroom
teachers from all 50 states. When asked if they would favor
legislation that would essentially block--grant federal
education dollars back to the state and local governments to
spend the money as they see fit--82% favored the idea, 13%
had reservations, and 5% weren't sure.
Representative Pitts, I applaud your timely and sensible
legislation and hope it passes. You will undoubtedly receive
opposition from the protectors of the status quo--most
particularly the teachers unions. For the sake of America's
children, I urge you to stay the course. There is ample
evidence, even from the teacher union's own internal surveys,
that the union leadership does not represent the opinions of
hundreds of thousands of teachers in America. In fact, there
are now over 250,000 teachers who have chosen to join
nonunion professional alternatives, like the AAE, in states
where independent organizations have formed across the
nation. These groups are growing dramatically, proving the
big unions don't represent all teachers' beliefs!
Thank you for your vision for improving America's schools.
Sincerely,
Gary Beckner, Executive Director, Association of American
Educators; Polly Broussard, Executive Director,
Association Professional Educators of Louisiana; Ginger
Tinney, Executive Director, Association of Professional
Oklahoma Educators; Doug Barnett, President, Kansas
Association of American Educators; Ruth Green,
President, Kentucky Association of Professional
Educators; Randy Hoffman, President, Keystone (PA)
Teachers Association; Jim Hawkins, Executive Director,
Professional Educators of Iowa; Walter Jewell,
Executive Director, Professional Educators of
Tennessee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
{time} 1115
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my friend from
Pennsylvania yielding me this time.
This is really a very simple, straightforward policy decision. If my
colleagues think the most effective way to help education is to have 31
different Washington bureaucracies with 31 different sets of
regulations, 31 different auditors, 31 different sets of red tape,
reports and forms, so that school districts back home fill out forms
and have to keep track that they spend this dollar only in this box and
this dollar only in this box, and they actually have to spend time
recording everything they are doing, writing and filing reports; if my
colleagues think that Washington is the center of America's education
future and that bureaucracy is the answer to learning, then you should
note ``no.''
What this bill does is very daring.
This bill says, real learning occurs when the local teacher, the
local student, the local parent, and the local school board, and the
local classroom make a decision. This bill, block grants $2,700,000,000
to the States to allow the local teacher to have a decisive impact and
the local parents to have a decisive impact.
Now, today when people in Washington get up and say oh, we are really
helping education, here is $100 for education. What they do not tell us
is $65 gets to the classroom, $35 go to the bureaucrats, and that
understates what is really happening, because, of course, if one goes
to any teacher in America, particularly an older teacher who taught 25
or 30 years ago, and we say to them, do you fill out more paperwork
now? Are there more people in your school's front office handling
paper? Are there more people at the county office handling paper? We
will suddenly discover that there is a hidden additional cost. Not only
does 35 cents out of every Federal education dollar end up in the
bureaucracy, but it distorts the time of the teacher away from
education.
I used to teach both in college and high school. Education is a
missionary experience. It is reaching out with love and energy and
ingraining in students the interest in learning. When we make teachers
into bureaucrats, we kill the missionary spirit, we kill the emotional
investment. So what this bill does is it liberates teachers, parents
and students to once again focus on learning, not on reports, not on
regulations, not on bureaucracy, not on red tape.
Now, it also is very practical. If we are trying to balance the
budget as we are, and we have succeeded, if we are trying to make sure
we control spending in Washington, the question gets to be, so how do
we get more per dollar. Well, we move, with this bill, and I commend
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for his tremendous
initiative in developing and pushing this forward.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) used to be the
appropriations chairman of the State of Pennsylvania's legislature. He
knows at the State level what the Federal Government does in red tape
and bureaucracy and that is why he was able, with such passion, to work
with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) to get this money back home.
Here is what we are doing. Without raising taxes, without increasing
Federal spending, we are getting $800 million more to local classrooms.
Instead of 65 cents out of every Federal dollar getting to the
classroom, this bill moves it up to 95 cents, and I think that
understates the effect, because there are so many fewer reports, so
many fewer audits, so much less time spent on clerical bureaucratic
work.
Now, that is $425 a classroom, in the classroom. If we go up to the
average teacher and say, if you had 425 extra dollars this year,
whether it was for computers, whether it was for audiovisual, whether
it was for instructional material or for a field trip, and you knew
that you would have the ability with the local parents, the local
school board and your students to actually make the decision, not fill
out a form in 31 copies, send it to Washington, wait 6 months and maybe
get picked. There was a school district in Texas that spent $35,000 for
a $1,300 grant that actually used the entire grant to pay for the buses
to go and pay parking at an art museum. They lost almost $30,000 in the
transaction. That is eliminated by this bill, because this bill says,
the money will be back home, the teachers and parents will have it.
So I would just say to my friends on the left who are busy propping
up Washington bureaucracy, if they are comfortable going home and
saying, 65 cents on the dollar is all you are worth; I needed that
extra 35 cents for my bureaucratic allies. And saying, no, we do not
trust you, we are going to have 31 different auditors with 31 different
sets of rules on 31 different sets of records, vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I think for most Americans, people like the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) who was a teacher, like the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) who was a teacher, I was a teacher, many
of us who were teachers, we believe as teachers that getting that money
back home to the local teacher, the local parent and the local student
to make the decisions, that is the right way to strengthen education in
America, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
[[Page H8067]]
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the cochair of the Democratic Education
Task Force and former chief State school officer of the State of North
Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in support of this amendment and in
strong opposition to this bill. Let me tell my colleagues why. Dollars
for the classroom is nothing more than a hollow sound and it is a joke,
because what we are talking about is cutting the allocation to where
every single district in my State would lose $12 million of money they
badly need, and every other State loses money. These are the statistics
I have read and have come from the department.
I served at the State level. I know what it takes. I hear this talk
about paperwork, and it is true. But the truth is, usually it is not
Federal paperwork, it is either State or local. People want to point to
and use that as a reason not to send money.
Let me tell my colleagues what happens with block grants. I have been
out there where block grants come from. But before I was the State
superintendent of schools, I chaired the Committee on Appropriations of
my State for 4 years, so I know how to use block grants. We send them
out, and that is the best way I know; the next time comes there is a
nice fat cut and we say oh, by the way, we are going to cut you this
much and it is your job to reduce the administrative cost in it. And
then pretty soon if you cannot get any more, you say well, you know,
the problem with this program, we do not have enough accountability or
enough money, so we are just going to cut out the program.
Well, I am here to tell my colleagues, we are here at the point where
children are coming out of our schools at a greater number than at any
other time in our history. As a matter of fact, over the next 5 years
we will have more people showing up in this country than ever in the
history of America, and in my State, we will be the fifth fastest
growing State in the Nation.
Do not tell me we need to cut education money. We ought to be about
finding a way to put additional money in it and reduce class sizes,
because statistics prove when we reduce class sizes, educational
opportunities for children increase and learning improves. There is
abundant data available on that. Tennessee did the first study, and in
North Carolina today we are reducing class sizes in kindergarten
through third grade and we are doing it with State money.
Do not tell me we cannot blend these dollars at the State level and
make it available to the local level without cutting and reducing the
paperwork. It can be done, it is being done. This is just another way
to cut the money for the public schools, and I oppose it and I think
every Member of this body ought to vote against the bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 7 and one-quarter minutes remaining;
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker scheduled at this
time who has not arrived yet, so I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to proceed with his speakers.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I should preface this introduction by
saying Gordon would have been proud of the former State superintendent
defending the bureaucracy of the State superintendents. Gordon, of
course, everybody knows who that is.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and for his work on this bill.
We have heard a number of things in this debate today. We have heard
that IDEA was going to be ended. It is not. We have heard that Title I
was going to end. It is not. In fact, Title I is one of the programs
that already comes pretty close to the standard. I think it is well
over 90 percent of the money that we appropriate federally in Title I
gets to districts.
We have heard from our friend from Massachusetts a moment ago that if
we ask people in his district whose fault it is that education is not
producing the right result, they say, the Federal Government, even
though right before that, he said that only about 6 percent of the
money comes from the Federal Government.
Well, maybe this House ought to be more clear with the people we
represent and explain to them that only about 6 percent of this money
is Federal money, that local responsibility is paramount here, that we
cannot continue to confuse Americans by letting them think the solution
is going to come from somewhere where the solution is not going to come
from.
Local and State decision-making on programs like classroom size,
local and State decision-making on how and where we ought to add
teachers is possible under this bill. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Two things. The previous speaker said that mentioned IDEA. Nobody on
this side mentioned that IDEA was in this bill. We know that IDEA is
not in the bill, that it is a separate bill.
Number 2, again he referred to the fact that Title I was not affected
by this. Title I is affected by it. If my colleagues will read their
own bill, in the section 107, repeals, as I said before, and you go to
item number 5, it is section 502 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, 1965, which is part of Title I, and section 1503 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 is another part of it, so
Title I is affected by this bill.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody
understands that Title I is not part of this, other than a little
demonstration project. We have to make sure that everybody understands
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham), a former coach, a former teacher, a former dean of a
college.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why is the left against this bill?
Because they want big government control for education and they will
fight to keep it. They will do anything to keep those 760 Federal
education programs which strangle the dollars going to the classroom.
Let us take a look at the D.C. bill. We could have waived Davis-Bacon
for construction and saved $26 million, but did the left choose
children and schools? No, they chose their union. We had 8 witnesses in
a program, and the gentleman from North Carolina talked about block
grants, all different programs, all good programs. The gentleman, when
we asked which one of those that the other 7 had, they had none. The
whole idea of a block grant is where parents and teachers in the
community can make the decision, instead of a bureaucrat here in
Washington D.C. that does not know your children. The left would fund
all 8 programs, have bureaucracies here in Washington D.C. which take
money away from the classroom.
Let us take a look at 100,000 teachers. Well, I do not guess my
colleagues wanted the money, the surplus money for Social Security,
because that is where the 100,000 teachers would pay for. The left said
they want all the money for Social Security, but yet to pay for the
100,000 teachers, under the balanced budget agreement that the
President signed and many of the Members signed is not there.
Mr. Chairman, $3 billion in literacy that the President wanted. There
is 14 literacy programs. What is wrong with taking 1 or 2 and not just
fully funding it, but increase the funding of those that work and get
rid of the building, get rid of the bureaucrats that we have to pay
their paycheck and their retirement which takes away from the
classroom.
That is why the left does not want this bill. They want the big
bureaucracy, not for children.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise as one of the
members of the minority in this body, and that is that I am a classroom
teacher. I spent 7 years in the public schools in Pennsylvania, and in
fact, besides being a teacher and a head teacher in an impoverished
district, I also for 3
[[Page H8068]]
years was assistant director of a Title I program, and for 1 year
served in a program funded by Title III. I understand the need to get
money to classroom teachers so that they can better motivate children.
I also served in my capacity as vice president of my local education
association.
I rise with unequivocal support for this bill. I praise my colleague
and the leader of our committee who have done an outstanding job
because this bill does I think what all of us in America want to do: It
puts the dollars into the hands of those people who have the most
responsibility to motivate young people, and that is our teachers. It
is not the bureaucrats, it is not the pencil pushers in our regional
offices, it is the men and women who serve in the classroom every day.
And as one of them, I rise in strong support of this legislation and
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
{time} 1130
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this bill, and I can explain why. It is not bureaucracy
protection, it is people protection. Most of us know that a very large
percentage of the students in public schools are from poor families.
There is a reason why we are against repeal of Davis-Bacon, and that
is because we are trying to make sure that these children's parents do
not remain in such poverty that they remain the ones at risk, they
remain the people who are least educated.
All of us know that the labor unions in this country brought about
the quality of salaries, brought about the middle income population of
this Nation, the population that has the largest tax share of
responsibility for the whole Nation.
We have to give attention to children in poverty.
There are many of us who are very skeptical of our own States and the
way they handle things. We look at California to see how they are
against bilingual education when they have a very large number of
children that need it. That is the reason why we have some concern
about block granting the dollars back.
States rights have never been so good to the minorities of this
country. That is one of the reasons why we want to make sure that we
maintain some quality, accountability, and consistency in programs.
We also understand that well-qualified teachers with a smaller number
of students is more successful. We know that from experience. That is
the reason why we support reduction of class size and support more
quality educational opportunities for our teachers and better pay for
our teachers so we can maintain good teachers in the classroom.
It is clear that all young children need a good education. We say
that all the time. There are no jobs available without a good education
and without good preparation. We simply want to make sure that, as far
as we can be accountable, we can ensure that that happens in these
classrooms.
It is not just a sense of trying to protect bureaucracy. It is a
sense of attempting to protect people and especially poor people of
this Nation who work long hours for little pay, last hired and first
fired. That is what we are trying to protect. We are trying to make
sure that all young people are prepared to take on the future and be
ready for it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Martinez) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, reducing class size, boosting academic standards,
modernizing schools, these are real issues that affect our communities,
our children, and the people that we care about.
But instead of dealing with these challenges, instead of focusing
resources where they are most needed, this bill will take American
schools backwards.
Worse yet, it kills off educational programs that have proven
successful all across the country, programs like the School-to-Work
programs that train high school students for good jobs with good pay
with a mentor, programs like the Eisenhower grant that pays for more
teacher training, like the Goals 2000 programs that help schools boost
their academic standards.
These educational programs made sure that Federal dollars were spent
wisely and responsibly. The emphasis of this emphasis was on learning
and was on results.
Under this block grant program, funding will inevitably decrease.
Under this block grant program, funding is shifted out of the
classroom, out of the schools that most need it.
What we need here is accountability in our schools, and this bill
undermines that. It does nothing to reduce class size, to improve
academic performance, modernize our schools, or provide school safety.
These are the issues that we need to be focusing on.
Democrats have proposed hiring 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class
size in schools all across the country. Smaller class sizes have been
proven to increase discipline, boost academic performance. These are
the kinds of educational programs we should be supporting, not
shuffling funds around through block grants and calling it progress.
I oppose this block grant program. I must say to my colleagues this
afternoon that it is not coincidental that this attack on education and
the attack next week on Social Security comes at a time when some of my
colleagues think that the country is distracted from the issues that
they care about.
All of us who have been to our district understand how important
education is, how strong and important it is to support our education
and public education system.
They understand the need to preserve and strengthen Social Security,
not to raid it, not to raid the trust fund or rob the trust fund for
some kind of a tax program that my colleagues think is in the best
interest of their constituencies at the cost of taking it away from
literally millions of seniors in our country. They are watching this
Congress and how we act.
If we act responsibly in this very difficult time this country faces
or whether or not we are going to seek relief, invade educational
opportunities that have been set up for the people of this country,
whether we are going to invade the Social Security Trust Fund, whether
or not we are going to deal with the question of Health Maintenance
Organizations that the people of this country are crying out for some
reform.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this
block grant program. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is not in
the best interest of education. It diminishes the things that we have
built on. It takes away in an unresponsible manner, I believe, the
opportunities to move forward in our public educational system.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, aside from the fact that the other side keeps saying
that States are going to get more money, in lieu of the fact that we
know that the appropriators have cut the funds to all of these programs
and that they will not simply by that fact, but according to CRS, these
States will lose money: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia and
Wyoming.
Mr. Chairman, if the Members who represent those States and those
constituencies want to go back to their State and explain after the
fact that reality sets in that they have lost money and answer to those
school directors and school board members and superintendents and even
the teachers and especially the students, then let them do that and let
this fall on their head.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8069]]
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, this is just an amazing debate and a simple
question that everybody has to ask themselves. The question is, do we
trust the people at home, the elected school board members and the
community, to try to decide what they want to spend their money on or
do we in fact think that they are not very capable and so a handful of
us here in Washington ought to figure out what the heck the priorities
ought to be?
Now, I have to say, I think the country is coming over to our side. I
do not think they want all this red tape. I do not think they want all
these strings. What they want least of all is a bunch of people in the
city, who do not even know what area code it is we live in, to try to
tell us how to run our schools.
What the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has proposed in this
legislation is one simple thing, gather up as much of the money as you
can, cut the strings, the red tape, send it back to the school
districts and get the money in the classroom and let the schools decide
how to spend the money.
I have to say that this concept of local control is not about local
control. It is about faith and normal people who live and work in a
community.
I would rather put my trust into the hands of us who live locally
than to pass it off to some bureaucrats or some politicians in a far
away place. Support the bill offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
(Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored this bill because I think it just makes
sense. In my home state of New Jersey, this means that we would receive
roughly an extra 50 percent additional funding. That is $25 million
more for New Jersey, which translates into $425 more for each
classroom.
In my district, in central New Jersey, I have spoken and listened to
numerous teachers, school board members and school administrators. I
have heard about teachers carefully using their limited resources, yet
still coming up short. They have expressed to me their frustrations in
wasting limited time and funds with filling out paperwork to meet
requirements of these well intended programs.
We have been blessed with wonderful teachers but it is unfair that
their hands are tied from doing what they do best and what they were
trained and hired to do. That is why I support Dollars to the Classroom
Act. We should pass this legislation because it makes sense and will
make a difference for the children of America.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, if we go back to the early
eighties, we had a whole series of categorical grant programs. We, the
dictators here in Washington, said if you spend the money the way we
tell you to, you can have the money. We, Republicans and Democrats,
joined together. We eliminated most of those categorical grant
programs. We turned it into a block grant, we gave it to the States,
mandated that 80 percent of those block grant funds go on to the local
school districts so that their local autonomy could say what is best.
In Glens Falls, Queensbury, Clifton Park, Hyde Park, New York, they
know better than we do.
This is a great bill. It is an especially good bill for New York
State. I would ask the New Yorkers to come over here and vote for it.
Do not go yelling for more money.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody understands that
those names of States that were being read have nothing to do with
reality and have nothing to do with this legislation. Those States that
were being read deal with, as a matter of fact, nonprofits and
nonschool districts. We are interested in getting the money to school
districts. We are interested in getting the money down to the children.
What we are admitting is that the well-intended programs of the last
30 some years did not work. Let us admit it. Let us try something
different. That is why we have 40 percent of the children at the end of
third grade that do not read at third grade level. That is why we have
50 percent of our students that do not do well in math and science when
they graduate.
Let me remind my colleagues, on this amendment that is being offered,
they are talking about $20 billion over a 5-year period. They did not
say where it is going to come from. In all probability, it is going to
come from the very programs that they have been standing up here all
morning defending. It has to come from somewhere, folks. There is no
tree up there that is going to yield it.
I include the following for the Record:
TABLE 15.--ESTIMATED STATE ALLOCATIONS SPECIFICALLY TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEAs) UNDER H.R. 3248
COMPARED TO ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS TO LEAs UNDER CURRENT PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER H.R. 3248
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
estimated estimated
State grants to LEAs grants to LEAs Percentage
under H.R. under current change
3248 (at 96%) programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................ $32,480,640 $28,726,394 13.1
Alaska............................................................. 8,574,720 9,973,798 -14.0
Arizona............................................................ 31,996,800 27,196,850 17.6
Arkansas........................................................... 19,791,360 14,926,986 32.6
California......................................................... 237,103,680 212,174,852 11.7
Colorado........................................................... 23,698,560 18,948,065 25.1
Connecticut........................................................ 20,659,200 18,744,802 10.2
Delaware........................................................... 6,339,520 7,893,343 5.7
District of Columbia............................................... 6,355,840 7,431,557 12.4
Florida............................................................ 94,823,040 91,729,340 3.4
Georgia............................................................ 54,471,360 42,934,372 26.9
Hawaii............................................................. 8,868,480 8,996,313 26.8
Idaho.............................................................. 9,253,440 8,516,600 8.7
Illinois........................................................... 88,815,360 72,854,420 21.9
Indiana............................................................ 36,406,080 30,973,512 17.5
Iowa............................................................... 17,131,200 12,779,617 34.1
Kansas............................................................. 17,618,880 15,544,068 13.3
Kentucky........................................................... 31,801,920 24,600,251 29.3
Louisiana.......................................................... 44,208,960 34,665,652 27.5
Maine.............................................................. 9,648,000 8,159,272 18.2
Maryland........................................................... 31,515,840 25,493,567 23.6
Massachusetts...................................................... 40,377,600 38,492,132 4.9
Michigan........................................................... 82,742,400 65,986,110 25.4
Minnesota.......................................................... 30,007,680 23,832,451 25.9
Mississippi........................................................ 28,125,120 21,427,695 31.3
Missouri........................................................... 37,344,960 29,020,065 28.7
Montana............................................................ 9,038,400 7,169,578 26.1
Nebraska........................................................... 11,083,200 11,733,360 -5.5
Nevada............................................................. 9,667,200 8,894,488 8.7
New Hampshire...................................................... 8,675,520 7,389,104 17.4
New Jersey......................................................... 49,601,280 37,348,162 32.8
New Mexico......................................................... 16,026,240 13,700,687 17.0
New York........................................................... 159,475,200 146,444,545 8.9
North Carolina..................................................... 44,436,320 40,496,357 10.0
North Dakota....................................................... 8,333,760 7,915,178 5.3
Ohio............................................................... 82,574,400 85,323,229 26.4
Oklahoma........................................................... 24,687,360 20,223,570 22.1
Oregon............................................................. 21,254,400 17,502,102 21.4
Pennsylvania....................................................... 87,925,440 71,081,085 23.7
Rhode Island....................................................... 9,001,920 7,181,696 25.3
South Carolina..................................................... 26,136,000 23,189,775 12.7
South Dakota....................................................... 8,543,040 7,702,811 10.9
Tennessee.......................................................... 36,509,760 29,345,406 24.4
Texas.............................................................. 165,546,240 134,012,463 23.5
Utah............................................................... 14,062,080 11,304,868 24.4
Vermont............................................................ 8,186,880 7,350,078 11.4
Virginia........................................................... 37,687,680 30,384,386 24.0
Washington......................................................... 35,669,760 34,440,440 3.6
West Virginia...................................................... 16,408,320 13,455,322 21.9
Wisconsin.......................................................... 36,780,480 27,695,883 32.8
Wyoming............................................................ 8,081,280 6,853,872 17.9
Puerto Rico........................................................ 53,332,800 40,548,467 31.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I strongly support this
amendment because it seeks to alleviate a real problem that affects our
Nation's schools by reducing class sizes in grades 1st through 3rd. It
is clear that the ``Dollars to the Classroom Act'' cannot provide the
necessary support for our education system. Without this amendment,
H.R. 3248 is simply a politically-motivated measure that simply ignores
the actual needs of the schools.
This amendment would reduce the class size in grades 1st through 3rd
to an average of 18 students per class. The measure implements this
program by authorizing $1.1 billion in FY 1999 and $7.34 billion over a
five year period.
More importantly, this amendment would alleviate the concerns
surrounding overburdened teachers by enabling schools to hire over
100,000 by the year 2005.
Funding proposed by this amendment would allow schools to recruit,
train, and pay these additional teachers. Moreover, the funds would
ensure that the teachers are equipped with the most current and
effective instructional techniques.
The amendment also requires the school districts to demonstrate how
reduced class sizes are resulting in increased student achievement.
I firmly believe that this amendment will serve the educational
community well. Unlike H.R. 3248, this amendment serves the needs of
our schools.
[[Page H8070]]
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Martinez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 543, further
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 543,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 1
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 2 offered by the gentleman California (Mr.
Martinez).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 207, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 450]
AYES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--207
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Blagojevich
Burton
Clay
Cox
DeFazio
Fawell
Gonzalez
Goss
Hilliard
Hutchinson
Kaptur
Kennelly
Manton
McCollum
McDade
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (CA)
Parker
Pease
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Sanchez
Schumer
Stokes
Torres
Watts (OK)
{time} 1205
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Manton for, with Mr. Mica against.
Messrs. BATEMAN, GALLEGLY, CHABOT, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mrs. KELLY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LOFGREN, and Messrs. SCOTT, WHITFIELD, SHERMAN, FOX of
Pennsylvania, and OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Martinez
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a
subsitute.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a subsitute.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded voted was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 215, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No 451]
AYES--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
[[Page H8071]]
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--215
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Becerra
Blagojevich
Burton
Clay
Condit
Conyers
Cox
DeFazio
Fawell
Gonzalez
Goss
Hoyer
Hunter
Kaptur
Kennelly
Manton
McDade
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (CA)
Parker
Pease
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Sanchez
Schumer
Stokes
Torres
{time} 1213
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut for, with Mr. Mica against.
Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3248) to provide dollars to the classroom, pursuant to House Resolution
543, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 452]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
[[Page H8072]]
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--24
Blagojevich
Brown (CA)
Burton
Clay
DeFazio
Fawell
Gonzalez
Goss
Kaptur
Kennelly
Manton
McDade
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (CA)
Parker
Pease
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Sanchez
Schumer
Stokes
Torres
{time} 1233
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Mica for, with Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut against.
Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________