[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.

                          ____________________