[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11000-H11007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION PRIORITIES SUPPORTED BY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Republican colleagues
tonight on the other side when they started to talk about the agreement
that has been reached between the House and the Senate and between the
Democrats and the Republicans and the President, and I must say that I
am pleased also that this agreement has been reached. Particularly,
because it does include one of the major Democratic initiatives, and
that is to add 100,000 teachers across the country to our various
school districts.
But I do want to say that although I am happy with that result, the
bottom line is that the Republican leadership has refused, really, to
address the Democrats' education initiative. For a long time, they were
opposed to 100,000 teachers. They continue to be opposed to the school
modernization plan. Do not let them kid you and suggest that somehow
from the very beginning they were interested in having the Federal
Government more active in education and helping our local school
district, because the fact of the matter is they have been slashing
funding for education on a regular basis here for the
[[Page H11001]]
last 4 years since they have been in the majority.
I would also point out that the record of this Congress, even with
this budget agreement, is dismal. This is clearly the do-nothing
Congress. This Congress has not addressed managed care reform. This
Congress has not addressed the need to increase the minimum wage. It
has not addressed campaign finance reform. It has not addressed teen
smoking. It has taken no action to safeguard the surplus for Social
Security. And, essentially, this has been a do-nothing Congress.
{time} 1930
The fact that in this last few days, because the Democrats have
insisted that we include this additional funding for the 100,000
teachers, while that may be good, it does not take away from the fact
that there are so many other initiatives that the American people have
been crying out for that simply have not been addressed.
I heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side tonight talk
about the Republican education initiative. Let me just indicate that
over and over Democrats have tried this year to talk about initiatives
to reduce class size and modernize our classrooms for the 21st century.
But each time Republicans have rejected them. So do not let them come
to the floor now and tell you that they were for 100,000 teachers and
this Democratic initiative.
On two occasions this year Democrats offered amendments that would
have given local school authorities billions of dollars worth of new
low cost bonding authority to build new schools and modernize their
existing classrooms, and Republicans rejected this amendment both
times, in May and again in June of this year. Several weeks ago
Democrats offered an amendment that would have started the effort to
reduce class size in first through third grade classrooms to 18
children per class and Republicans opposed this proposal, too. That was
in September.
I heard some of my colleagues on the other side say, we were always
for this 100,000 extra teachers initiative. We wanted the Democrats to
show how they were going to pay for it. It was not until the last
couple days, when the Democrats agreed that they would pay for it by
making cuts elsewhere, that we agreed to it.
From the very beginning of this year, when the President introduced
his budget and he talked about the school modernization initiative and
adding the 100,000 teachers, the President's budget in January of 1998
included all the offsets that were necessary to pay for both of these
education initiatives. In fact, the 1998 Democratic budget resolution
provided funding for hiring the new teachers and $21 billion in low-
cost construction bonds for local school authorities while staying
within the guidelines set by the 1997 balanced budget agreement. And
Republicans rejected this budget and instead adopted a budget that cut
education by $5.7 billion.
So do not let them tell you that they did not come to this dragging
and screaming. They did.
I know we have gone through these various attempts that the
Republicans have made over the last year to try to destroy public
schools and eliminate equal education opportunities. I am not even
going to talk about all of them, but I want to mention some of them.
First, eliminating the Department of Education. From the very
beginning they have been continuing to talk about the need to eliminate
the Department of Education. They have also spent a tremendous amount
of time, wasted time all year trying to divert billions of dollars in
public school funds for private school vouchers, taking the money away
from the public schools, giving it to private schools. That failed. But
do not forget that that was a major part of their efforts this year.
Also cutting school lunches for poor children, block granting
critical education programs, destroying bilingual education,
eliminating the summer jobs program, eliminating school to work
opportunities for high school students, and eliminating the safe and
drug free school program. So again, I am very pleased tonight to hear
them all say that they are now for the 100,000 teachers initiative. But
all along they were against it, and all along this year they have been
trying to slash education funding.
I am joined this evening by some of my colleagues. We are going to
talk a little bit about the Democratic education initiative and some of
the other things that we have wanted that have not been enacted in this
Congress.
I yield to the gentlewoman in California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding to me.
The last Republican that was up here talking spoke about how
wonderful this bill was and how there might be a few problems in this
large bill but that if we would read it, we would understand that there
is more good than bad.
Apparently he has been able to read it, because I do not know about
my colleague from New Jersey, but we have actually been asking for 24
hours to be able to get a written bill and to be able to go through it
and see what is in the bill. So hopefully the Democrats will have their
wish honored by the other side and will actually get a copy of this
bill that is supposedly being written right now, because I would like
to vote on something, and I would like to have at least read the bill
once before I need to take a vote on it.
I sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I have gotten
to see the struggles between both sides about what is important. Let me
tell you, these guys were not for 100,000 teachers in the classroom,
just as a few years ago they were not for 100,000 cops on the streets.
We have seen that to be one of the most effective programs that the
President has been able to push in this country, and we have
neighborhood after neighborhood asking for more of this neighborhood
policing that is going on. At least that is the way it is back in
Anaheim and Garden Grove and Santa Ana.
One of the issues I want to talk about tonight is this whole idea
about school modernization. Because while we will now get our 100,000
teachers program, the fact of the matter is, probably the most
important thing that you have in the classroom is a teacher that is
eager to teach, one that is eager to help students, one that makes that
comfort zone, that nurturing that must happen with the student in order
for that light bulb to go on and for a student to say, I can make
something of myself. I am really interested in these science projects
and I can work on this.
But the other issue is also about what type of a classroom they sit
in when they are getting that instruction. And I will tell you, from
personal experience, I am one of those fortunate Members that get to
represent their own hometown. That means that the schools that I
represent, the children and where they go, those are the schools that I
attended. And it is a shame to see what is going on in California.
First of all, California is one of the five fastest growing student
enrollment States across the Nation. While that is over 15 percent over
the next 5 years, the fact of the matter is that the school districts
that I represent are almost twice that growth rate with enrollment.
That means we have a lot of kids coming through the system and still
the same number of elementary schools that existed while I was going
through the system over 30 years ago. So there is a major problem.
We need to look not only at modernizing those elementary schools and
middle schools and high schools that we have in our town, but also
creating more, because we have such a large enrollment coming on.
In fact, in Anaheim alone, we grow at over 1000 students in the
elementary school system a year. That is the equivalent of at least one
elementary school.
So it is really important that we address the modernization and the
new construction of new classrooms.
I go back to schools, and when they built the schools in my town,
they built the elementary schools all off the same pattern. So the same
elementary school had the same pattern as any of the others that you
would go around to in town. I have been to them. And that place where
the custodian used to wheel his wheelbarrow full of mops and brooms for
the night is now a classroom for 6 special ed children and a teacher.
The broom closet is a classroom for students in my school district. Or
worse, where we used to walk
[[Page H11002]]
through the silent tunnel to get between classes so we would not have
to go all the way around the entire school building, that now has a
wall slapped up and a door and that has become a large classroom for
students. We are really looking for more space.
For example, there were four portable, we used to call them bungalows
when I went to that elementary school, there are now more. And they are
sitting right there on the blacktop where I used to play tether ball
and on the grass where we used to play football and dodge ball. This
keeps going on and on in almost every single elementary school in
Anaheim and in Santa Ana and, yes, even in Garden Grove. And so it is a
real problem, the facility needs that we need.
I hope that before this budget deal is cut that we will be able to
find the monies that we need to help local school districts with their
modernization and their new schools.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I yield to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me, I share the concern
of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) about not having a
bill. We have heard a series of Republican speakers this evening in
these special orders discussing this great bill. This is the bill that
we have right now, an empty table. So we hope it is a great bill, but
we have not seen a great bill.
I hope that there is time to study this bill. I hope the country has
some time to study this bill. We have been embarrassed before by going
home and finding things in the fine print that we all wish we had known
before. I hope that we will have some time this weekend to look at this
bill before any vote.
On this issue of schools and education, I visited a school recently
in my district. I visit a lot of them. The superintendent was talking
to me about the decisions that they had made as a district to pay their
bills. And he said some years ago, in fact it was before he became
superintendent, the district was having such a problem, rapidly growing
district, such a problem paying the bills, they made a decision, we are
going to push class size to the legal max. We cannot keep up, we cannot
keep up with the buildings that we have to do, the new classrooms we
have to put on. We are going to put our classes as large as they can be
so that we can get this district out of debt and be financially sound.
He acknowledged to me, we think there was a loss by doing that.
He said he is convinced at this stage in his career that people
cannot be thinking about more teachers separate from the issue of
school buildings. And it is a very obvious math problem. If he has
classes in the elementary level of one to 24, for example, and all his
classes are 1 to 24 and he wants to get them down to 1 to 18, how does
he do that? He pulls 6 kids out of 3 classes. So he goes from three
classes of 1 to 24 to three at 1 to 18. But what does he have? He has
18 kids standing in the hallway because they do not have a classroom.
These two issues go hand in hand. That is what is so confusing to me,
why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been so
resistant to helping local school districts with school modernization
at the same time they seem to have agreed in the last 24 hours to go
along with helping them hire more teachers. You have got to have a
place for these folks to teach. If you are going to reduce class size,
you have to create additional classrooms.
That is a separate issue from problems we also have in Arkansas with
just the need for improving our school buildings. I am sure, like all
the Members here that are interested in education, I visit a lot of
schools. The problems fall into two areas. You have districts that are
rapidly growing and every year they are having to add additional
classrooms because of rapid growth, or you have either urban or rural
districts that are old buildings. And I followed a superintendent
around as we went from building to building and he said, this one was
built in the 1930s and then we did this addition, we think it was
around 1945. And then this section was in the 1950s, but now the
heating system we think was in the 1960s, but it is old and out of date
and just these horror stories, at the same time discussing the problems
that they have in financing these improvements.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this evening to
discuss this important issue. I hope our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle have not given up on this school modernization. I know the
American people have not. I know the people of Arkansas have not. Those
folks that visit school buildings anywhere in the country know of the
tremendous work that needs to be done.
If we are going to reduce class size by hiring more teachers, we have
to have places for them to go and teach with these reduced class sizes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and I want to
emphasize again, as you have, that the arguments that our Republican
colleagues are using with regard to the school modernization really
make no sense. From listening to some of the speakers on the other side
tonight, after saying that somehow they were in favor of the 100,000
teachers, which we know they were not, because we know there were votes
taken that I mentioned before that they actually voted against 100,000
teachers or additional teachers, one of the other arguments they were
making, which is not a legitimate argument, was that somehow the
Democratic proposal was giving control to the Federal Government and
that we were going to be controlling these 100,000 teachers, how they
were hired or how they were going to be administered, whatever. And
then they used the same argument with regard to school modernization,
that they are not in favor of this program because it is Washington
bureaucracy and walking away from the local school boards.
I just want to say, nothing can be further from the truth. I even
heard the similar argument used with regard to the cops grants, that
the cops grants was no good initially because we were going to control
the cops grants from Washington. But once it was decided that the local
authorities would control it, then it was okay.
Well, this is just a lot of garbage, frankly. From the very beginning
with the cops grants and also with the 100,000 teachers, the Democrats
were saying that we were simply providing the funding. The teachers
would be hired locally just like the policemen were hired locally.
There were almost no strings attached other than you had to use the
money for teachers or you had to use the money to hire the police as
opposed to just giving a block grant where the towns can do whatever
they want with it.
The same is true for the school modernization. The way the Democratic
program is set up, we are essentially giving money to basically pay the
interest on the bonds for the construction of the school, which lessens
the cost for municipalities that have to build new schools or renovate
the schools. But local school boards are going to decide what to do
with the money, whether to renovate schools or wire schools or build
additional classrooms.
{time} 1945
There is just no basis at all to some of the arguments that they are
using.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, just to talk a little bit about that, the
gentleman spoke about the fact that they think the money is going to
somehow be filtered through an administrative process and never get to
the school system. The fact of the matter is that the building program
is not talking about money from Washington.
What it is really talking about is not sending taxes to Washington
because it is a tax cut. It is a tax write-off on an income tax form.
We have already got that program in place for some modernization of
schools. We passed it in this highly touted 1997 Tax Relief Act that
the other side voted for and some of us on this side voted for.
The fact of the matter is that we have an existing program in school
construction that says, if a local school district and the community
decides it is important enough to modernize a school, and they take it
upon themselves, they take the responsibility of doing that, that in
fact, when they float the bonds, they will be able to get a tax break.
The tax break will be equal to the interest that they would have had
to pay for borrowing the money. That is a tax
[[Page H11003]]
credit from Washington. There is no money that comes to Washington. So
there is no administration process. It is one line sitting on a tax
form. It is already there, because we already have the modernization
bonds.
Now what we want to do is to pass a program that would create new
schools because some districts need more schools, not just
modernization of their buildings.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
What she is pointing out we are just basically saving the local school
districts money, and that lowers property taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, that comment, I mean it is exactly right.
It lowers local property taxes, and that is so critical. My State of
Connecticut, people feel like they are choked with taxes; and property
taxes are particularly onerous.
So I commend the gentleman and the gentlewoman for making that point
so particularly. It just shows how convoluted our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are, how they want to obstruct the meaning of
these programs, and their intent, and, in fact, really throw up a smoke
screen about programs that could help, not only to make sure, as our
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas said, that we have modernized
schools, afford the increased numbers of teachers, to be able to assist
our children, and to be able to do something for local areas with
regard to the tax burden that they have.
I just want to say that, over the last several days, I have been so
proud to join with my colleagues while we have talked about these
issues on the floor of the House, with the entire Democratic Caucus,
for standing so tall on this issue of education and our kids and their
future and with the President.
Because despite what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are saying tonight, and I understand psychology, but I think the
American public has heard loud and clear over the last few days where
the Republican leadership in this House was on the issue of 100,000 new
teachers, and where the President of the United States and the
Democratic Caucus has been on this issue.
We won this particular piece today for the children of America,
100,000 teachers, because, and I want to set the record straight,
because the Democrats fought very, very hard to make it happen. It was
not because the Republican leadership in this House felt that this was
worthwhile fighting for.
I will tell my colleagues what they did think was worthwhile fighting
for in these last few days. They wanted to put more money into the
defense budget for a study of chewing gum. Chewing gum. Something
called Stay Alert, which may have an effect in keeping people awake,
keeping even our troops awake.
I use that little point to say that, no matter what they say today,
we need to take a look at their remarks from yesterday and the day
before and the day before and over this last year of what they felt
about adding 100,000 new teachers, about reducing class size, and about
modernizing our schools. There is a lengthy record, and I believe the
American people understand it loud and clear.
I also think it is very, very relevant to this debate that, after
they have caved in on this issue, because of the strength of the
Democratic will on holding firm, they take it as a badge of victory as
to not have moved on the issue of school modernization. They claim that
is a victory.
I mean, what kind of a victory and where are my colleagues' values if
they believe that modernizing our schools is not a direction that we
ought to be going in and to make it possible for our kids to have the
opportunity for advanced technology, for wiring to the Internet, for an
environment which is an excellent learning environment.
The fact of the matter is, is that we are here, and we have been here
for the last several days because of a Congress that is controlled by
the Republican Party that has failed to do anything, not only on
education, but on HMO reform, on saving Social Security, on campaign
finance reform, on tobacco legislation.
I would like to just read, not a quote from any Democrat, not a
comment from any Democrat, but this is a quote from Jack Kemp. As far
as I know, he has not changed his party in the last 24 hours.
He says, ``Today, the Republican Party is adrift, without an agenda
and without purpose beyond its seeming preoccupation with saving the
congressional seats of its incumbents.''
That is what they are about. It is not about meeting the needs, not
only of our children, but America's working families and the people who
send us here to do a job on their behalf. So I know we are happy about
the 100,000 teachers. But we do not have enough time to sit back and
say it is done. It has only just begun. We have to stand tall every
single day and every single night and be on this floor to talk about
those issues that the American people care about.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to also say, because I know
the gentlewoman brought it out, and both the gentlewoman from
California and the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out that we have to
beware, so to speak, the next few days when we look at this document to
see what is in it.
The gentlewoman mentioned how we have not addressed the issue of
teenage smoking, one of the issues that has not been addressed here.
Yet, the other day, I was at an event where we had the copy of the
amendment or a portion of this omnibus bill that was supposedly going
to provide $10 million to promote the sales of tobacco or cigarettes
overseas.
So there are all kinds of things that we have got to look at to see
what is in here. We may very well find, as we proceed, that they put in
things that are actually contrary to the Democratic initiatives that we
have talked about and have not actually been included and have not been
addressed here.
So I want to mention the early speakers that have pointed out about
what we do not have in the bill. We need to beware.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding to me. I could not help being in my office and
listening to this debate and discussion.
I wanted to first acknowledge my colleagues the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), because I would hope that, as we discuss
this, the realization would not be any form of mean-spiritedness or
that we got you, because I think we need to sort of reflect on where we
have come from.
Frankly, let me applaud the persistence of the President, because all
of us are reminded that it was in his State of the Union address that
he clearly enunciated a plan to help America's children, to help
educate them.
I am always believing in the concept that education is the great
equalizer. Over and over again, he noted the problems or the weaknesses
with our education system, at least in the primary levels, no teachers,
large classes. I think he was wise enough, and Democrats were wise
enough in their analysis, to recognize that no teachers, large
classrooms, and crumbling buildings.
We did, just a couple of months ago, a massive transportation bill,
because the very arguments were made about America's crumbling
highways. So I thought that it would be a logical nexus to say that we
have the same conditions dealing with education, the potential
engineers and architects and contractors and mathematicians and
scientists who will be the ones that take us into the 21st century.
We are sitting in classrooms where there were curtains drawn to
separate classrooms, where teachers did not have to tell them about the
log cabin days, because there were more grades in one class or more
students in one class who sort of understand what it meant to have a
bunch of people in one room and different ideas being taught because
there was not enough space.
My own high school in Houston, Texas, in my district, with
outstanding students, Jeff Davis High School does not have a library.
We are fighting for a library for high school students. It pains me
that I have to say to these students, well, wait a few more months, a
few more years.
I am gratified that our local community is going to rise to the
occasion.
[[Page H11004]]
But like my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, where is the
tax relief that we would have been able to present to them with the
modernization program so we would have been able to give a big package,
one to help rebuild the schools, the crumbling schools, and then put
those talented professionals in the classrooms, teachers, to make a
difference?
Out of that would have come the opportunity to professionally enhance
these teachers as well, meaning that we need professional development.
So I am gratified that this long journey from the State of the Union
has finally come to the point where we have the 100,000 teachers.
Let me say this as someone from the ``fourth largest city in the
Nation,'' this 100,000 teachers is not a rule versus urban or suburban,
it is a need issue. It is wherever the need is.
I want my friends, wherever they might live in America, to understand
we fought for this for you so that, wherever you raise your hand and
say I have need, you are going to be right in the mix just like you
were for the 100,000 police officers.
There were no biases going out of here. Those police officers found
themselves in large metropolitan areas. But they found themselves in
communities with 10 police officers or less. They found themselves in
suburbia. So we fought to ensure that our Nation's teachers would have
the opportunity.
I would just simply say that I am gratified, I am committed to the
fight on modernization. But I do believe our work is still to be done.
Frankly, I am delighted that we have helped farmers. I am from the
urban district, but I live in the State of Texas, and farmers are
suffering. I know there is more we have to do.
I am also delighted, having a community that has suffered heat
disaster, which no one can understand what happens with heat, and then
had on the back heels of that a flood, that we were able to ensure that
we had the right kind of disaster funding that we were missing.
Also, lastly, I heard a lot of people talk against the International
Monetary Fund, and it does not play well. It would probably be well for
me not to even speak of it. But I think people understand loss of jobs.
They understand a trembling economy.
I think it is good that we handle the IMF in a way that we are
comfortable. But I do not think Americans want us to turn our back and
close the door on an international monetary crisis that we can be of
help.
I am glad we stayed strong so I can protect jobs in Iowa or Austin,
Texas or Houston or protect them in Atlanta or New York, because I want
Americans working, and I do not want them to be undermined by an
international monetary crisis.
I would simply say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
that we waged an enormous battle for the Nation's children, no matter
who they are, no matter where they are educated, and for the Nation's
teachers.
I have often said to a teacher wherever I have met them, I am what
you have made. I am only the product that you have produced. I could
not be here without the Nation's teachers.
I am so grateful that we stayed here, and we will stay here tomorrow
so we can make sure the T's are crossed an the I's are dotted. The
Democrats worked so hard, and we believe in collaboration, to ensure
that we had 100,000 teachers as we walked out of here for our children
in America.
{time} 2000
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman and particularly what
she pointed out about the transportation bill. Because we have heard
Republicans say many times on the floor in the last few days how the
Federal Government should not be spending money on education
infrastructure, yet it is okay to spend money on transportation
infrastructure. There is really no reason why we should not do both.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. I would like to elaborate a little bit about why
modernization and new schools are so important. I alluded to the fact
that our school districts are actually working very hard with the
little that they have. They have created new classrooms out of what
were not classrooms. They have put portables on school grounds to have
more children come in. They have done other things. They have gone on
different tracking. That means instead of the regular school year that
you would have, September to sometime in June, there are now four
different tracks and they go year round, so that while a student is on
vacation for 3 weeks, a different set of students is using those
buildings. Our school districts have done that. The other thing that
they have done is to also go into double sessions. The elementary
school district of Anaheim had to do that in July of this year. While
it is important to understand that we need to modernize facilities
because maybe it might have asbestos or maybe the roof is falling in or
maybe we have got curtains and too many kids in the classroom or maybe
there is no air conditioning and now because we are going year round in
southern California we are hitting 100 and 102 degrees, we need air
conditioning, et cetera. But the fact of the matter is that there is
also a safety issue. When you have two sets of students going to
school, one earlier in the morning and then one starting later in the
morning but going later at night, when you get to the short days of the
year, you are sending your kid in the dark to walk home. This is about
personal safety for our children. It is also about personal safety
within the classroom.
Last night I talked about the fact that in Anaheim an elementary
school district only has three telephone lines in. There is very little
communication to each individual classroom on an on-time basis. So if
something is happening in a classroom and, remember, some of these
schools are rather large. There is a far-off classroom and there is a
gun in that class or there is a teacher in that class who has got an
off period who is grading papers and some intruder comes in, there is
no way to get a message to the principal or the rest of the school that
something is happening in one of these classrooms and that is
dangerous, also. That is why we need to think about phone lines into
the classrooms and intercom systems and everything that we do not have,
at least right now we do not have it in Anaheim. So it is also about
safety.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. To follow up on the gentlewoman from
California, I have schools in my district where you start lunch for
kindergartners or early, before-sixth graders, they start eating lunch
at 10 a.m. because they do not have enough space and they have to
stagger the lunch hour. So in order to get every child in to eat lunch,
they actually start them eating lunch at 10 a.m.; one, interrupting the
school day; but, two, feeding a child at 10 and they have to stay until
3. By the time you get to 3, those little ones can be very hungry and
then possibly the other ones not eating until 1 or 2. You are so right
about the question of what negative impact it has on a child. I think I
read somewhere where children perform better in a better constructed
environment. Clearly I think you have raised a very valid point on the
safety but also the quality of life for our children where elementary
school children are eating lunch at 10 a.m.
I wanted to say something that was not education-related, but I hope
that we can work on the disarray of the interim payment system. I know
that many of us have tried to work on that with home health care
agencies. We did not get there. Those are the hardworking folk who have
agencies that help the other hardworking folk to stay at home. It is a
system that is breaking the backs of many of our poor home health care
agencies. They need to be heard. Along with unfinished business, I hope
that we will certainly take into account improving the health care of
our elderly by providing them with home health care.
Certainly I just wanted to join the gentlewoman from California and
say that I have been aghast at going to speak at my schools and they
tell me, ``Well, you have got to wait until the second graders get out
of lunch,'' and I say, ``It's 10 a.m.,'' they say, ``Well, that's
because we don't have the space in order to feed our children.''
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman and also the gentlewoman
from California really brought up one of the other points about this
modernization program and, that is,
[[Page H11005]]
communications, technology, computer needs. A lot of this money where
as you say is not really money but the tax breaks for the local towns
would actually benefit the school systems because they would be able to
upgrade communications, technology systems, put in computers, and that
takes a lot of money. They just do not have it. It is not just bricks
and mortar, it is obviously a lot of these other things that are
important because of the communication and technology needs that we
have today.
I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. SNYDER. We spend a lot of time, I think both parties do but
particularly Democrats, we spend a lot of time talking about public
education. I think sometimes it is important to step back and remind
ourselves why do we talk about that. For a lot of us, we have to go
back to our own backgrounds. Education in America is about opportunity,
opportunity to dream, opportunity to support your family, opportunity
to compete, opportunity to have the skills that were denied to your
parents. For me personally I was raised by my mother in a single-parent
household. If it had not been for quality public schools back in the
1950s, I would not have been able to become a family doctor. I depended
on quality science classes throughout my public school career to
prepare me to do well in medical school. Then I went to a public
medical school, a State medical school, then got my residency in
Arkansas at UAMS, a very fine public medical school. Our opportunity,
our dreams as Americans depend on a sound public school system.
Sometimes we get so focused in on the numbers, this many teachers, this
kind of bond program for school modernization, how many kids per
teacher, all that kind of stuff. We need to step back and think about,
this is about the American dream. This is what all Americans have
dreamed of forever, is the opportunity for your kids to do well through
education.
I have worked overseas several times as a family doctor in some God-
awful places. There are people there that literally are dying to have
the opportunities that we have in public education. But we have to
nurture it. We cannot take it for granted forever. I visit a lot of
schools, as I mentioned earlier. I compare them with the quality that I
had back in the 1950s and 1960s when I was a youngster. We have got
some work to do. Some of the buildings are the same buildings. We all
know that. All of us who go back home, the buildings are the same. They
look about the same. They smell about the same. This is my soccer tie.
It is just plain coincidence I wore it today. I paid on the street of
Washington, D.C. five bucks for it and some people say I overpaid, but
when I was a kid in school, we did not have soccer in school, it was
something you had two days a year just to figure out what kids in Latin
America did, but it is a sign of how much change goes on around the
world. Schools are now having to provide the kinds of technology that
the gentlewoman from California was talking about, opportunities to
build soccer fields that they never had to do. There is need for
investment in infrastructure in our schools. The reason is to give our
kids the chance to fulfill those dreams, the chance to compete with the
rest of the world, and it is never going to happen in old buildings no
matter how many teachers you have crowded into one classroom.
Mr. PALLONE. It is interesting what the gentleman said about the
quality of the schools when we were younger, because I went, my school
district, and where I still live in Long Branch, New Jersey, is an
urban district and they have managed in my opinion over the years to
keep up, if you will, by renovating the school and having good
laboratories and facilities so that the science and math programs that
you mentioned I believe are really still topnotch. But it has been at
tremendous cost to the taxpayers. Their property taxes in the town are
very high compared to a lot of the other school districts in my
district, primarily because they have decided that they are going to
invest that money. But it has been a cost to them because of property
taxes. I know that when I decided to go to college and I ended up going
to a private college after I had gone to public school from
kindergarten to 12th grade, that one of the reasons that the college
was interested in me is because they knew that the school system, that
the public school that I went to had good science and math programs,
and that was a major factor for my being able to get into that school.
In fact, I never felt that I was that good in science and math compared
to some other areas, but I realized when I got to school even though it
was a private college or university that I had really been prepared
well in those areas even though they were not the areas that I really
liked that much.
It is very difficult for the school systems to keep up. I do not know
if it is true in every State but I know that in my State the
municipalities usually vote on whether or not they are going to have a
bond referendum to build a new school or to do these kind of additions
and it is very difficult to get support from the local taxpayers for
those bond issues because of the expense and the impact on the local
property taxpayer.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to add a comment because I think that the
gentleman is absolutely right, that it is the American dream and
education has been the great equalizer. We have said this on this floor
a number of times. It has been the opportunity that we have all had no
matter where we come from or what gender we are or what socioeconomic
group we are from, we have had the opportunity of public education.
That has allowed us to succeed. If you think about it, this age of new
technology, if the schoolhouse or the school building is not going to
be the place where youngsters can have access to the new technology,
which is truly the key to the future in the same way that we have had
access to textbooks, every child has a textbook, we are rapidly coming
to a situation where every child is going to have to have a computer.
We are looking at an infrastructure, an education infrastructure that
does not allow for that at this moment. So that you are going to take
education backward, because this new technology, if not available to
everyone and every school district, we are then going to have the haves
and have-nots, and that opportunity that public education being the
great equalizer then no longer holds true.
My community, I come from an urban area, in the northeast, it has an
old infrastructure, whether it is roads, whether it is buildings, or
anything else. We did a survey, we had 71 schools respond to it. The
average age of the elementary school buildings is 50 years old; more
than half of the schools regularly hold classes in areas designed not
to be classrooms as we talked about; more than 50 percent of the
schools have no computer lab or room. The majority of the schools have
no computers designated for teacher use. Many schools do not have
computers in every classroom. So a youngster does not get that
opportunity in the classroom. Now, it is true that many families today
have the economic wherewithal to have a computer, but many do not. So
when that child goes home, they do not have the same advantage as
someone who can go home and because of an economic status that that
family has this kind of a technology. If we are not careful, we are
going to set education back. We are going to set a generation of our
youngsters back.
For me, I will be very honest with you, I thought the Internet was
something that Michael Jordan had worked out, it was a basketball thing
here. My kids have rapidly taught me that that is different. But I am
at the curve coming down. My kids, your kids, the youngsters today,
this is their ticket to success. If our education infrastructure does
not meet the demands of the time to allow our kids to compete, they are
going to continue to fall further and further behind. That is why this
is so critical, to maintain that standard, to realize that American
dream that our youngsters need to have.
Mr. PALLONE. And I think also that what we are trying to do as
Democrats is make the point that the Federal Government has to make
more of a commitment to public education. It is great that we have the
Republicans agreeing now to this initiative of 100,000 teachers, but if
they do not continue and agree to the school modernization initiative,
it is only half a loaf and if we want to see this Congress
[[Page H11006]]
and future Congresses go on record as being supportive of public
education and a Federal role or commitment to public education, we need
to keep pushing for the school modernization program.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to make one more point. I think it is
critical to understand that today in the newspapers and in the
commentary is that they feel they had won a victory by not moving on
the issue of school modernization. I think that speaks volumes. Because
you are right, we have got to have a Federal role, not do everything
but have an involvement as we have said here. But they take it as proud
that they did not do anything in this area.
Mr. PALLONE. We have got to have a whole change of attitude in terms
of what Congress is going to do in terms of its commitment to public
education. They obviously still do not have it when they are taking
pride in the fact that they did not get the school modernization
program in here.
Ms. SANCHEZ. There was a certain point that the gentleman from
Arkansas brought up, and I sort of want to expand a little on that.
Whenever I listen to the Republican side of the Congress talk about
this, it almost seems as if they want to pit private versus public.
There is a reason why the majority of us are looking after the
interests of public schools, because over 90 percent, I think it is 92,
94 percent of all children in America go to a public school. Does that
mean, for example, that I do not like private schools? That is not the
case at all. I am probably the most perfect example here of a public-
private partnership when it comes to education. First of all, I am the
only Congressperson who went to Head Start. That is a Federal program,
I think one that works very, very well. I went to a public school
system in Anaheim. I went to a private 4-year university, Chapman
University, right in my area. I went there with a Pell grant, with
student loans. Those are two Federal programs; with a Cal Aid grant,
that is a State program; with a scholarship from Retail Clerks Local
324 because I was an ice cream scooper in my first job and I was a
union member and they wanted to help me with my education. I also
received a private scholarship from a man named Bob Prawley, a trustee
at Chapman University who made sure every year I had enough money so I
could finish 4 years at Chapman and get my degree in economics. And
then I went on to get my M.B.A. out here at American University in
Washington, D.C. And who paid for that? Student loans and the Rotary
Club of Anaheim, California. You want to talk about public-private? I
know what that is about. So it is not like I am sitting here saying I
do not like private schools. In fact, the fact of the matter is I work
very hard with many of the private schools in my district. Let me tell
my colleagues a case in point.
Modern Day Catholic High School in my district, behind it is a local
neighborhood, very good neighborhood. I had a few calls from people
there. Actually I had a group who came in and talked to me in my
congressional office. They said, you know the kids park their cars in
the neighborhood. Well, you know, maybe that is a problem, people do
not want to see cars, you know, of the students. But that was not the
problem they came with. They said, we think there are drug houses in
our neighborhood, and unfortunately we think that some of the people
they saw too might be some of the students, and so can you help us with
this situation of getting the parking out of our neighborhood so that
we do not have these drug houses? So what did I do? I went and I
searched for more information. I went to Modern Day, and when I sat
down with the principal and the vice principal I told them the concerns
of this particular neighborhood, and they said to us, well, you know,
we do not think it is really our kids who are making the drug houses be
there, and I said, okay, well I can understand that. They said, but you
know there is a solution to the problem of the parking. They said as
soon as Bristol Street is widened, which is the frontage road right
there to the school, we will be able to build a parking structure so
that all our students can park in this parking structure. And I said to
them, well, what can I do to help accelerate that? They said, one, get
the funds to build Bristol Street and widen it, and secondly, we have a
capital fund going for the parking structure because it is a private
school. I said, well, I cannot solicit funds for you, but I can sure
mention it to my Catholic friends since I am a Catholic and say, you
know, school down the way might, you know, need some help with a
parking structure they have got going.
So what happened? In this transportation bill that you were talking
about earlier we got a very important project funded in the city of
Santa Ana, the widening of Bristol Street. We pushed it. It broke
ground for the project 3 weeks ago, and Modern Day is halfway to the
amount of money that it needs. It has got a capital fund going to build
the parking structure. And so here we have solved a problem of, one,
the neighborhood, unhappy; two, a parking structure that the school
needed; and three, a very important arterial that goes through the area
that needed to be widened for traffic purposes, and we have solved a
problem, and it is a win for the neighborhood, it is a win for the
school, it is a win for the city, it is a win for the people who use
the road.
So I am not sitting there saying I cannot do anything for private
schools. What I am talking about is working together in a good manner,
but first and foremost, we need to be worrying about the public schools
and the fact that the majority of our students, over 90 percent go
there, and that is why we are talking about public school funding here
tonight.
Mr. PALLONE. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, and I
think it is, you know, very obvious that all of us, you know, we try to
help private schools when we can as well. But the point is that
overwhelmingly in almost every district, I think, the students are in
public schools, and frankly we know how difficult it is for the local
school boards to raise the funding or, as you mentioned were the bond
issue, to get the bonds that float the bonds to put additions or do
renovations. And so we cannot just neglect them and say there is no
Federal role. There is clearly a Federal role.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman, and following up on
what my good friends have said, I was really struck by the gentleman's
comments from Arkansas because all of us can have our own stories about
what public education has done for us frankly, and I certainly am a
product of public school education for 12 years and then going to a
private college. So there is so much, there is so much that one can
gain by explaining to the American people, who already understand that
the public school education or our support for public school education
is not an either-or, it is not where we discard or attempt to replace
the private school education. In fact, when you go into your local
communities, you do not even hear this tension, there is so much
collaboration between public and private schools, exchange of students
and ideas, teachers teaching in the different schools, classrooms
sharing with private school settings. In fact, I know those kinds of
things occur all the time: private school students tutoring or working
with public school students.
So this big issue that there is an either-or I think is made up here
inside the Beltway, but what is understood by our local communities is
the value of tax relief, and I have not heard one principal or one
superintendent say, you know, if you pass the school modernization
bill, it will be intrusive, it will be big government from Washington
taking control, and we do not want it. And that is what I think is so
very important, that we sort of educate the American public so that
they can be comfortable with their own beliefs which is why not a
school modernization program? Why should we not have a program that
gives us tax relief?
And I think it is important taking up the points that were made by
both my colleague from Connecticut and California. I mean we can
document with great, great substance the idea that our schools are
falling behind on technology, not because they desire, but because it
is so expensive, one, to initially purchase the equipment, but the
infrastructure that they need, and then the technology changes so
quickly our schools will tell you that we need another set of
computers, maybe it is 10 in the school, maybe 18 months after
[[Page H11007]]
they purchase the first. So they know what it is like to suffer at the
hands of a moving technology, they want to have their children be
conversant with the technology, they want their teachers to be
conversant. Can we do no less than give them some relief, if you will,
by participating and supporting and passing a school modernization bill
so that there is some relief to all of the many things that they have
to do?
In fact, in visiting my schools one of the things that I find most
disturbing, and we have a very good program in Houston, is the unsafe
school yards where children are in need of safe school yards and good
equipment because of the fact that is a very strong part of their
education. And I want to applaud my local community for having a
program that helps them get good school yards and play areas.
But I do believe that we have a message, but we also have a challenge
that we must help America, not only with the hundred thousand teachers,
but we must help America rebuild our schools, and I hope that we will
make it very clear that we are not finished with our work yet on that
very important challenge.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I yield to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to say to the gentleman that I am proud to
have been part of an effort in these last several days to stand tall
and to stand strong for America's children.
The battle on this issue we won, and the Republicans had to cave on
that issue. We will fight the battle for school modernization, but we
will also in a Congress that failed to do what the American public has
clamored for to do something about managed care reform, to do something
about making sure that we save the Social Security system that has been
one of the success stories of this country, of today providing two-
thirds of America's seniors with over one-half of their income, and we
have to make sure that that is a program that is strong and safe not
only for those today who are in the program, for the next generation
and for generations after that.
And we have to focus our attention on those issues, as well as
tobacco legislation and campaign finance reform, and in the same way
that we stood tall and strong on the issue of education, the American
public needs to know that we are going to be there, the Democrats are
going to be there on these issues in the next several weeks, in the
next several months, in the next Congress which I believe we will hold
the majority in that Congress, and to make in fact the reality of
opportunities that the majority party let go in this session and that
they failed to do something about.
That is where we have to go next.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I appreciate the
fact that you are pointing out very clearly that although this Congress
is coming to an end, that these problems that this Republican Congress
have failed to address are not going away.
In my district every day people complain to me about problems with
HMOs, and those problems are not going to go away unless we pass
patient protection legislation like our democratic Patient Bill of
Rights.
And the same thing is true for campaign finance reform. We are about
to go into this campaign with all kinds of soft money being used back
and forth and the Republicans spending something like 30 or $40 million
of soft money on various campaigns. We need to reform the system. They
have ignored that. It is not going to get better, it is going to get
worse unless this Congress does something about it.
And the same is true for minimum wage. The minimum wage is too low.
We have economic prosperity, and things are pretty good out there, but
a lot of people are not benefiting from it because the minimum wage is
too low. We have to do something about it. We have to change it. We
have to raise it.
And we once again talked about public education here tonight. I am
glad that the Republicans agreed to this hundred thousand extra
teachers initiative, but there has to be a greater commitment to public
education here, and you know that the Republicans are just going to go
back to their anti public education agenda.
____________________