[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10650-H10652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CREATING NEW OLD PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, during the morning hour this morning, I 
asked the question, why all of the political rhetoric in the last week 
about education?
  Make no mistake, everyone back home knows it is political rhetoric. 
So why all of the political rhetoric on education in the last week?
  There were those who said we need a day's debate on education. The 
105th Congress, the real education record, we have had 30 days of 
debate on the Floor of the House about education, passed 25 major 
accomplishments in the area of education and job training. So why all 
the rhetoric?
  I think there are four reasons probably. First, it is a diversionary 
tactic. Now, I suppose I can understand that, divert the attention from 
anything else, but I hate to see children used as part of that 
diversionary tactic.
  Secondly, of course, the polls say education is a sexy issue, and so 
that is the thing we should talk about: education. Now, I hope my 
colleagues are very careful, because those very same polls say that we, 
the American people, distrust most of all the Federal Government's 
involvement in elementary-secondary education.
  The American public distrusts the Federal Government's involvement in 
elementary-secondary education. They also distrust the States' 
involvement. They believe that their local elected officials, their 
school board members, their superintendents, their teachers, their 
principals and their parents know best on the local level how to bring 
about reform so that all will have a quality elementary-secondary 
education.
  Then I think there is a third reason. I have always suspected from 
day one that this administration wants to micromanage elementary-
secondary education, micromanage from D.C. It has never worked in the 
past, will not work now, will not work in the future, but it is 
certainly a goal and, again, the American public does not want that 
micromanagement of their elementary-secondary schools from Washington, 
D.C.
  Fourth, and probably the major reason, pride of authorship. Every 
president wants a legacy and every president recently seems to want 
that legacy to be in the area of education. So new old programs have to 
be created. I say new old programs because most every program is on the 
book already. Just give it a new title, a new name, and somehow or 
another it is yours.
  As I said to the White House last week, it does not matter who gets 
credit, as long as we are trying to provide a quality education for all 
students.
  Let me give a good example of how all of the rhetoric about school 
maintenance and school building, all the rhetoric about 100,000 new 
teachers, can be solved by using an existing program. If someone really 
believes there is an elementary teacher shortage, they apparently do 
not spend very much time studying statistics.
  There are about 150,000 elementary teachers now certified who cannot 
find a teaching job, and they are working in department stores, fast 
food restaurants, offices. In my district, depending on the school 
district, there are anywhere from 50 to 200 applicants for an 
elementary teaching job, for every opening.

                              {time}  2030

  So what is the problem? Well, the problem is that they will not go 
where they are most needed, or, because of discipline problems, they 
give up after a short while. So in the higher education bill we did 
something about that. We said we will give you some loan forgiveness if 
you will go to center-city and teach, if you will go to rural America 
and teach.
  I do not know how to deal with the discipline problem from the 
Federal level. I suppose we could send the toughest Marine we have, one 
to every classroom. That would not be of any value whatsoever, because 
they would not be allowed to discipline anyway, so it would be a waste 
of money.
  You see, unless parents are going to discipline, there is nothing 
that can be done, because the public has said the school may not 
discipline. So I do not know how to solve that problem. But if you were 
to fully fund special education, let me just show you what it means in 
several districts.
  In my district, the City of York has 49,000 people. Thirty years ago 
the former majority mandated, mandated, 100 percent of everything that 
a local school district must do in the area of special education. One 
hundred percent. And they were very generous. They said however, we 
will not send you 100 percent of the funds to do that. What they said 
is, we will send you 40 percent of the excess cost, 40 percent of what 
it costs more to educate a special needs youngster than it does to 
educate a regular student. Forty percent of that excess cost.
  Now, in the City of York, 49,000 people, they spend $6 million on 
special education; $6 million on a 100 percent mandate from the Federal 
level. They have to raise almost $4 million of that locally, a very 
difficult chore if you realize the tax base they have to work with.
  If we would fund the 40 percent that was promised 30 years ago, they 
would have more than $1 million extra every year, to reduce class size, 
to hire extra teachers if they need extra teachers, to repair 
buildings, to do everything that somebody else says we need some 
special program in order to do that.
  Let me give you a couple of others. The special school district of 
St. Louis, they spend $170 million each year to fund the 100 percent 
mandate from Washington, D.C. for special education. $170 million. They 
have to raise $127 million of that locally. Locally. If we were to send 
them their 40 percent that was promised, they would get an additional 
$24 million to maintain their buildings, to build new buildings, to 
reduce class size, to do everything that they believe is necessary to 
provide a quality education for all.
  If you went to West Contra Costa Unified District in California, they

[[Page H10651]]

spend $25 million every year in order to fund the 100 percent mandate 
from Washington, D.C. They have to raise $11 million of that locally. 
If we were to fund fully the promise that we made, they would get an 
extra $3.5 million.
  The third Congressional District in Virginia would receive an 
additional $54 million each year. The Los Angeles unified school 
district, they spend $600 million every year for the 100 percent 
federally mandated special education program. They must raise $325 
million of that locally. If we were to send the 40 percent that the 
former majority promised, they would get an extra $60 million every 
year. You see, the program is there. All you have to do is put your 
money where your mouth was when you did the mandate.
  Now, for twenty years as I sat in the minority I pleaded with this 
Congress, do what you promised you would do, because it is the one 
issue that is driving a local school district up the wall. They do not 
know how to fund our mandate.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) was the only person from the 
other side when they were in a very large majority that I could get to 
be interested at all. In the last couple of years, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has helped. But, boy, the school districts surely 
owe a big thank you to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). They put an additional 
$500 million in this year to help meet this mandate. They put in more 
than that last year. So it will be the first time that a local school 
district will be able to reduce their spending on special ed.
  Now, what has happened in some of these areas where schools are 
falling down? Well, I read over the weekend, a school in New York, the 
principal said he has asked for eight consecutive years for money to 
maintain the school building, money to try to keep the school from 
crumbling. Not one penny came his way. I know what happens. In order to 
avoid a strike, I am sure that in negotiating, they gave all the 
maintenance money to prevent the strike.
  He also said the principal before he came there had asked for many 
years the same question, please, where is the money to keep the school 
from falling down?
  Well, I want to take a little time to review the speech that the 
President gave on Saturday, because it was a speech on education. I am 
sure it was very confusing to most Americans, because you would have 
thought, if you listened to that speech, we have not done anything in 
the Congress of the United States in relationship to education. And yet 
this Congress, more than any Congress in the history of this great 
Nation, has done more in the area to try to help provide quality 
education and quality training programs. So the President said we 
should be able to make real bipartisan progress on education. We have. 
We have.
  Seven laws, they are law now, mostly in a bipartisan fashion. Higher 
Education Act, Special education, IDEA Act, Workforce Investment Act, 
Loan Forgiveness for New Teacher Act, quality teaching grants, 
emergency student loans, and, yes, a large bipartisan effort 
prohibiting Federal school tests.
  We also have seven other bipartisan bills waiting for the President 
to sign. School nutrition, charter schools, Quality Head Start, and the 
administration was trying to eliminate the ``quality'' part. Well, 
there is no reason, if you are not going to have a quality education 
component in an early childhood program, obviously the child is not 
going to be successful when they get to first grade. They are not going 
to be reading-ready. Vocational education, community service block 
grant, $500 million more for special education. A reading excellence 
act, all waiting for the President's signature. Fourteen pieces of 
legislation.
  We also sent eight more, A-plus Saving Account vetoed, Dollars to the 
Classroom Block Grant veto threat. We want to get the money down to the 
classroom. Teaching testing, vetoed. Prepaid college tuition plans, 
veto threat. D.C. scholarships, veto. Bilingual education reform, veto 
threat. A school construction plan, veto threat. Safe schools Anti-gun 
Provision, vetoed. We passed three more from the House that never made 
it through the Senate. Twenty-five different pieces of legislation, 
most in a bipartisan fashion, and some of them for the first time ever 
not only bipartisan, but bicameral.
  So, Mr. President, we did make real bipartisan progress on education.
  In the higher education bill, it will be the lowest interest rates 
that students will pay in 17 years. It will be the highest Pell Grants 
in the history of Pell Grants. And, yes, you mentioned quality? We have 
a provision in there that insists that teacher training institutions 
prepare quality teachers for the 21st Century.
  Yes, a job training bill. Yes, a Headstart bill with quality. Yes, a 
vocational education bill. Yes, a nutrition bill. All, all, in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  Our Nation needs 100,000 new highly qualified teachers to reduce 
class size in the early grade. I have already indicated there are 
150,000 out there who cannot get a teaching job. So what did we do in 
the higher education bill? As I indicated, we tried to encourage them 
with loan reduction to go into center-city, to go into rural America, 
where there is that need.
  Yes, in special education, as I indicated, if they got their 40 
percent, they could do all of the teacher-pupil reduction that they 
want to. They could do all of the construction work and maintenance 
work that they want to. But the budget that came up from the 
administration cut special education. It cut special education. The one 
place where everything that the administration wants they could do 
locally, if we only sent them that special ed money, and the 
administration's budget cut special education.
  Now, I heard on the floor from one gentleman that because their state 
is growing so rapidly, we really should be in there at the Federal 
level, getting money for teachers, money for classrooms. Guess what? 
Where do you think his growth is coming from? He happens to be in a 
right-to-work state. His people are coming from my state. My good jobs 
in a highly organized labor state are going to his right-to-work state.
  Now, if you carry that logic to conclusion, it seems to me he should, 
his state, should be sending money to my state because he is taking my 
tax base.
  A gentlewoman said she needs money again for schools and for class 
size reduction. I would love to have her county, her one county in my 
district, the highest income possibly in the United States. So, again, 
if you follow that to its logical conclusion, she should be sending me 
money, because I do not have that kind of wealth in my district.
  The budget should also bring cutting edge technology to the 
classroom. For two years the administration has not used one penny from 
the trust fund to do just that. What they did manage to do is allow 
telephone companies to put a surtax on your long distance telephone 
bills. That was not part of the negotiation.
  Then also we are told that we should have child literacy programs so 
every child will be able to read well and independently by the end of 
third grade. Too late. Too late. Our literacy bill that we have ready 
for you to sign, Mr. President, will make sure that they are ready to 
read and are reading in first grade. Obviously if they come to school 
not reading ready, then you know the end result: They either will fail 
first grade, and it was not the child who failed, it was the adults who 
failed the child, or they will be socially promoted, which will be a 
disaster and bring about not a physical drop out, but probably by 
fourth, fifth grade, a dropout in one sense of the word. So our bill 
does not wait until third grade. We say, they have to be reading-ready.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Speaker, if all of the grade programs of the 1960s would have 
worked the way people thought they would work, we would not have a lot 
of students who are in fourth grade and cannot read at a fourth grade 
level. We would not have a lot of students who graduate from high 
school that do poorly in math and science. Well, we have to admit, they 
did not work. And part of the problem was there was not any strength 
whatsoever in the education part of those early childhood programs; 
and, for many years, quality was missing. Baby sitting was available, 
child care was available, but the important part, the education 
component, was missed.

[[Page H10652]]

  So, again, the American people do not want the United States 
Government to micromanage elementary and secondary schools. They do not 
want them to mandate to their elementary and secondary schools. They do 
not want them to interfere with the operation of their elementary and 
secondary schools. They realize that one cannot bring quality from top 
down. We have to build it from bottom up. And they know that the local 
parents, the local teachers, the local students and the local elected 
officials know far better than Washington, D.C., what is in the best 
interests if we want to really have quality education in their 
particular district. One size fits all from Washington, D.C., has never 
worked, will never work.
  And, again, I want to emphasize the tremendous effort made in this 
Congress to try to do what we could do to give the local schools an 
opportunity to improve their own school system.
  One of the things the gentleman in the chair brought to this Congress 
was the whole idea of getting dollars down to the classroom. Getting 
them beyond the bureaucracy in Washington, getting them beyond equally 
bureaucratic State governments, down to the classroom. That is where we 
make the difference, and that is what we wanted to do. And what do we 
get for our effort? A veto threat.
  Well, that is the only way it will work. This administration has to 
understand, we build from the bottom up. The programs are there. We do 
not need to take old programs and give them a new name. I made it very 
clear to the White House last year, the year before and this year that 
if you want to be a hero, if you really want to be remembered in the 
area of education, do something to help us fund the 40 percent of 
excess costs for special education; and the local district will then be 
able to take their money to provide a quality education for all 
students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pitts). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is 
recognized for the remainder of the majority leader's hour, 
approximately 35 minutes.

                          ____________________