[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10649-H10650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FUNDING EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to 
join the chorus of those who to want discuss education.
  It is interesting, we have had a lot of discussion from the White 
House, we have had a lot of criticism from Democrats about the process 
that we are going through on education. Is it political rhetoric? Is it 
a serious commitment to helping our local schools across America? That 
is the question I want to ask, Mr. Speaker.
  We have those who want to start school construction programs in the 
Federal Government.
  First, I would like to state that Federal money is not simple to use. 
I come from a rural part of Pennsylvania, where many school districts 
obtain very few Federal dollars because they need consultants, they 
need people who understand the Federal programs, and they have to work 
for months and sometimes years to get into the system and figure out 
the language the bureaucrats in their State capital want and the 
bureaucrats in Washington demand. So most small rural school districts 
do not receive much Federal money because they do not have consultants, 
they do not have grantsmen, they do not have the people that speak the 
right language that bureaucrats understand.
  Now we are going to Federalize school construction. We have 15,600 
schools across America, approximately. The school construction program 
proposed by the President will take half the money and will give it to 
100 urban poor schools. That leaves 15,500 some school districts with 
no funding. Now they will have a chance at the other half, but urban 
poor districts are not prohibited from going after that.
  And this is a program for all of America? I do not think so. This is 
a program to go to President Clinton's base in the urban parts of 
America.
  Now urban poor school districts have problems, but so do rural poor 
school districts, and they should have an equal shot. The construction 
program that has been designed by the President will not be a program 
that will help many schools in this country. The vast majority of the 
schools will never see a dollar. And those that choose to use this will 
lengthen the process of constructing schools by a year or two.
  I have never seen a Federal program that even worked the first year. 
Last year, we had the technology program, had a half billion dollars in 
it. They have spent less than 100 million so far, and the year is over. 
Because Federal bureaucrats cannot make programs work in 1 year's time.
  This will delay construction in America. This will make it more 
complicated to construct schools in America. It will make it more 
costly to construct schools in America because of the Federal 
bureaucracies that will have to be met, and Davis-Bacon, which will 
raise the cost of construction itself.
  Then we have the program of teachers in the classroom, 100,000 
teachers. That is a good cause. I think most of us would like to see 
100,000 additional teachers. Probably 40 or 50 school districts in 
America will receive some kind of grant to do that or maybe 100, at the 
most, or 150. But that leaves 15,400 or 15,500 school districts with no 
change. Should we not have programs that get out equally across America 
where the need is, whether it is urban or whether it is rural or 
whether it is suburban, if there are school districts in trouble?

[[Page H10650]]

  We can do that. We could expand the loan forgiveness program and get 
teachers into low income rural and urban shortage areas, and we could 
do that overnight. We could fund special ed, would get money into every 
school district. The ones that would get the most would be those who 
have the most poor students, the most students that need special 
education, and we would have the money right where it is most needed. 
The money they could free up on their own they could use to hire more 
teachers; they could use to fix their schools.
  Vocational education, we have flat-funded vocational technical 
education year after year. This President again flat-funded it this 
year, or recommended flat funding. We are passing legislation to allow 
more immigrants to fill the technology jobs because we do not have an 
educational system that is training them, and it all starts in 
vocational education.
  Most recently, we passed in the House, it did not get action in the 
Senate yet, a Dollars to the Classroom program that combines 31 
programs and puts the money directly back into school districts. That 
frees up $700 million to $800 million without raising taxes because it 
does away with Federal bureaucrats, it does away with State 
bureaucrats, and it puts the money in the classroom where they can hire 
teachers or where they can improve the classroom.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's goal to help education is 
honorable, but I think the direction he has taken is election year 
politics because it is a new program that he can put his name on.
  I want to say, new Federal programs do not work; 1999 will not see a 
school constructed, 1999 will not see more teachers in the classroom, 
because these programs cannot work in one year.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe if we are going to increase funding for 
education I would support that. Let us fund vocational education. Let 
us fund special education. Let us fund loan forgiveness for low income 
rural and urban shortage areas.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to get the money out where it can work, not 
in some new ideas created by the White House that will not work and 
will not help our schools across America. It will only help a few.

                          ____________________