[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11465-H11472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AMERICA'S EDUCATION CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I am again here to talk about the education 
crisis and the failure of our elected decision-makers to respond to 
that crisis.
  I have been asked by people, why do you continue to come back and 
talk about the same subject? Well, I do that because the American 
people have made it quite clear in poll after poll and focus group 
after focus group that education is their number one priority.
  No matter how we approach it, and I know ABC has now a series on it, 
because of the fact that they have recognized and want to pay tribute 
to the fact that continually the American people say education and the 
problems related to education should receive the highest priority when 
it comes to government assistance and the attention of our decision-
makers in the Nation.
  A poll was recently taken for the State of Ohio, and it came up 90 
percent of the people said education is the number one priority. No 
matter how we approach the problem in this democracy, the people speak 
with one voice, that they understand what the most important priority 
is.
  What is amazing, what I cannot comprehend, is why in this democracy 
elected officials do not respond to that clearly-designated priority. 
How many times do the American people have to say it? How many ways do 
they have to say it? Well, there are some people who say we are 
responding to the priority, and I want to talk about that mistaken 
assumption.
  I think that there is a lot of activity, a lot of rhetoric, related 
to education as a result of understanding that the general public, the 
overwhelming majority of the American people, want some action of great 
significance on education. Instead of acting, there is a lot of 
rhetoric. There is a lot of posturing.
  I think we might call education the most trivialized priority in the 
history of political dialogue in this country. Education is the most 
trivialized priority. That is the response of a collective elected 
official community.
  Too many of our elected officials are like the group of whales that 
were documented recently. There was a documentary where a group of 
whales were filmed beneath the ocean tossing a bloody baby seal around 
as sort of a game. I suppose eventually they ate the seal, but they 
tossed it around for a long time, and played with it. When we look at 
what is happening with education, the political functionaries who have 
the power to do something of great significance, the Governors, the 
mayors, the Congressmen, the White House, everybody seems to be willing 
to toss the bloody baby seal, instead of dealing with the problem.
  Now, there are some of these whales, and whales come in many species, 
some whales are truly without vision. They do not understand how to 
deal with the problem. Some whales do not care. They understand the 
problem. They do not care about the public school system. Public 
education in America is like a baby seal bleeding and they do not care 
whether it bleeds to death or not. They do not care how long they play 
with it. They really do not intend to do anything about it.
  Then there are some other whales that are too cautious, too 
frightened. They understand the problem but they do not dare venture 
out and talk about a real solution to the problem. So the bleeding baby 
seal keeps dying, and we keep tossing him about, but nothing is 
happening of great significance.
  The public school system needs to be saved. We need to do it with 
some kind of activity comparable to the kind of activity exhibited by 
Thomas Jefferson when he decided he would purchase a territory which 
was larger than the United States at that time, it was a big, 
significant action; or when they decided to build the transcontinental 
railroad.

  The transcontinental railroad was built not by private industry, as 
most people think, it was built by the government subsidy. The 
government hired private companies to do it, but the money came from 
the taxpayers. The initiative came from the government. The 
transcontinental railroad which linked the East and the West Coast was 
a monumental undertaking.
  The Morrill Act, the Morrill Act which established land grant 
colleges in every State, it took Morrill a long time to get the idea 
across, but finally he did. That was a huge undertaking which 
transformed the American education system in very important ways. 
Especially, it gave to the agricultural industry a scientific 
engineering base that has made agriculture in America something that no 
other Nation has ever been able to get close to, agricultural 
production in America.
  We have undertaken the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was no small, 
trivialized step toward the rebuilding of Europe. It took billions of 
dollars. If we look at the Marshall Plan dollars in terms of today's 
dollars, it was fantastic.
  Somebody could have been sitting in the corner saying, look, we 
cannot solve the problem of the revitalization of the European 
economies by throwing money at it. Let us not do it. Europe would have 
probably gone Communist in a few years if they had not moved in a 
dramatic fashion with an overwhelming amount of aid.
  So we know how it is done. There is an American way of approaching 
the problem if we really want to solve it. But when it comes to 
education, we seem to think that the American public will soon get 
tired. There is no issue, there is no phenomenon which maintains and 
holds onto the attention of the American public indefinitely. There is 
always the hope that it will go away, that the concern will cease.
  I hope not. That is why I make the trip here as often as I can to 
remind the voters that they are right, and the elected officials and 
their failure to respond places them in a situation where they are 
wrong. The American people are right. The American voters, they are 
right. Their common sense is on target. Do not give up. Do not stop 
demanding.
  At the focus groups when they call you on the phone, keep saying, we 
want government to provide some significant assistance to education. We 
want to go on in some overwhelming way and deal with the problem, 
instead of playing games with it.
  There are a lot of things that are happening in the area of education 
which we have to look at. It is such a complex problem until, like the 
blind men feeling the elephant, you can get a part of it and tell the 
truth. If you feel the trunk, you may describe the elephant one way. If 
you feel the tail, you describe him another way.
  It is a complex problem, education. I do not want to belittle any 
aspect of

[[Page H11466]]

the problem. They all deserve attention. We have to deal with reading, 
we have to deal with science laboratories, we have to deal with 
libraries, we have to deal with certification of teachers, we have to 
deal with standards, testing, and most of all we need to deal with what 
I call the opportunities to learn.
  We have had some great strides in the establishment of new curriculum 
standards. We have had some great strides in the area of testing. It is 
the area of opportunities to learn which seems to be the area where we 
lose vision, and that is the most important area of all.
  The opportunity to learn involves what are you going to do. The 
question is, what are you going to do to make certain that the students 
in the schools have what they need to deal with the curriculum that we 
have established and to be able to pass the tests that we are 
establishing.
  I have served on the Committee on Education and Labor, and what is 
called now the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I have served 
on that for the entire time I have been in Congress.
  On the occasion of the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Assistance Act 5 years ago we had a great debate 
about this whole matter of establishing curriculum standards and 
establishing testing standards.

                              {time}  2200

  We were, in the case of a group of Democrats on the committee, afraid 
that if you established curriculum standards that are national, 
although States have the freedom to deal with their own standards but 
they do not have to be dragged into it, but if you established models 
that are replicated State by State and then you established the testing 
standards and that became some national testing standards that were 
going to be used all over the country, if you did all of that, there is 
a danger that you could ruin the lives of youngsters by having these 
high-stakes tests circulating all over and determining who gets pigeon 
holed for the time that they are in school and college or for 
determining their ability to get a job.
  There were a number of reasons why we were afraid of testing, but 
those of us who were afraid of a national testing policy to accompany a 
national set of curriculum standards agreed that we would accept 
national testing standards and national curriculum standards if you 
also had a national opportunity to learn standards. Opportunity to 
learn standards was the third set of standards. We called it a troika 
for education reform. And after many weeks of debate, finally we got 
that passed into the legislation. It was added to the legislation. Of 
course, Democrats were in control of the House at the time. We had the 
majority and we were able to prevail, and the opportunities to learn 
standards are included with the curriculum standards and the testing 
standards.
  The problem now is that our schools are not going forward. We are not 
getting results, because we have eliminated a part of the troika. 
Actually, in a back-room deal, the Committee on Appropriations which 
had no authority to do it but all parties agreed, the administration 
agreed, both parties agreed, they took out the opportunity to learn 
standards, and we are zooming forward with the curriculum standards and 
with the testing standards.
  Every State, every local education agency is now dealing with ways to 
tell the students that you have to measure up to certain standards. The 
curriculum is going to be tougher, but what the States and local 
education agencies are not willing to deal with is we are also going to 
provide you with the opportunities to learn; that what you need, we are 
going to provide you with whatever you need in order to be able to 
measure up to these standards; pass the tests. We are going to provide 
you with decent buildings, decent libraries. We are going to provide 
you with laboratories. We are going to provide you with necessary 
books. We are going to provide you with teachers who are able to teach 
what they are assigned to teach in the classrooms, certified, competent 
teachers. Those are the things we backed away from.
  In New York, you have a new set of tests. All students have to pass 
certain regents tests. Otherwise, they do not get any type of paper. 
There was a time when you get what you call a general diploma which 
said you were sitting in the seats when you were in high school and you 
attended, you met certain minimal standards, so here is a general high 
school diploma. That is being eliminated. You have to pass certain 
tests.
  I have no problem with the tests. I have no problem with the 
curriculum standards, if only we can add some opportunity to learn 
standards. We do not want children who have to sit in classrooms that 
are still threatened with asbestos. We do not want children to have to 
sit in classrooms that have the pollution from coal-burning furnaces. 
We do not want children who have to sit in overcrowded classrooms where 
there are too many in there.
  We do not want children who have to eat lunch at 10:00 in the morning 
because the school has twice as many students as it was built for. In 
order to cycle them through the lunchroom, you have to have three 
different lunch periods or four different lunch periods. The first 
lunch period has to begin at 10:00. The last one ends at 1:30 or 2:00. 
So the children who eat last are very hungry excessively and the 
children who eat first are being force fed after they have already had 
breakfast.
  We do not want these atrocities to go on. You have to deal with 
opportunities to learn by guaranteeing the right kinds of facilities 
and the right kinds of materials and conditions. If you take New York 
as a case study, and I think that whenever I talk about New York I 
later on get comments that are e-mailed or faxed or come over the 
telephone where people indicate that it is not unique to New York.
  You have got similar problems in many other places. There are other 
places where children have to eat lunch at 10:00 in the morning, I 
found out. There are numerous places where the overcrowding has reached 
a point where it is almost impossible to conduct classes. Even after 
the trailers are added and the kids have to walk through the snow to 
get to the restroom from the trailers, or even after you add trailers 
in order to bring down the class size, the conditions still continue to 
be detrimental to learning. It is not just New York. It is not just big 
cities. The reason we keep getting the polls which show that the 
American people want education to be treated seriously, as a high 
priority item from all over the country, is because the situation does 
exist in most parts of the country; but New York is a good case study.

  Whatever I discuss with respect to New York is applicable elsewhere 
in the country. I got a letter from some people who were working very 
hard in New York about some of the comments that I have made 
previously. In essence, a very respected retired judge, Thomas Russell 
Jones, who is a retired judge who works very hard to try to improve 
education, he is the president of an organization that he and his wife 
established called the Children's Times. The Children's Times continues 
to work away at the problems.
  To carry my analogy of the ocean a little further, they are not 
whales tossing a bloody baby seal. They are people who desperately at 
the bottom of the sea are searching for pearls, polishing those pearls 
and trying to in every small way do something significant to help 
improve education. I applaud all of the efforts, no matter how small 
they are, to try to come to grips with problems related to our 
educational system.
  I don't mean to say that those people are not serious. I am talking 
about public officials with power, Members of Congress, governors, 
mayors, people with power are the whales who are playing with the 
bloody seal.
  We can do far more, and I suppose what Judge Jones was saying to me 
is that he would like to see me stop talking so much and do more. I 
agree with the judge's comments in the letter he wrote.
  He says of my October speech, he criticizes me for not proposing any 
real solutions. He must not have listened to the very end because I 
always propose solutions. The solutions that I propose are not small 
ones, however. They are not nickel and dime solutions. They are 
solutions that are worthy of government action, certainly Federal 
Government action, but I will just quote a little from Judge Jones' 
letter.


[[Page H11467]]


       Dear Congressman Owens, your October 12 speech to the House 
     of Representatives as the designee of the Democratic minority 
     informs the American people about a number of problems with 
     education. You inform us that 81 percent of the American 
     people favor placing computers in the classrooms of all 
     public schools. You inform us that students in our country 
     are going to have to seek jobs in a world where if one cannot 
     use computers and use them effectively there is little hope 
     for them to make a decent living. You have said that, quote, 
     ``black parents do not have any faith left in the public 
     school system. They have given up hope.'' The Children's 
     Times' directors agree with your findings and conclusions. We 
     congratulate you for focusing attention on the findings of 
     the Washington Post poll released on September 5, 1999, which 
     reports that the American people place the immediate 
     improvement of public schools at the top of their agenda year 
     after year. Your statement, however, does not present any 
     concrete, practical proposals to guarantee a modern education 
     to 1.1 million children who attend public schools in New York 
     City. The Children's Times petitions you to address the 
     critical deficiencies in the elementary schools of New York 
     City with respect of computer equipment in the classrooms and 
     the effective closing of libraries in all public schools. I 
     respectively request that you publicly endorse the statement 
     of United States Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts 
     delivered to the U.S. Senate on July 29, where he reported 
     that the teacher shortage has forced many school districts to 
     hire uncertified teachers or ask certified teachers to teach 
     outside their area of expertise. Each year more than 50,000 
     underprepared teachers enter the classrooms. One in four new 
     teachers do not meet standard certification requirements. 
     Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training. 
     Students in inner city schools have only a 50 percent chance 
     of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher.

  I agree with all of these observations by Judge Jones and his son 
David Jones, who as the head of the Community Service Society some 
years ago was responsible for a survey which showed that in two-thirds 
of the schools in the city, those schools that were serving Hispanic 
and African American children, practically all the teachers who were 
teaching science and math had not majored in math and science in 
college.
  So, Judge Jones, you have laid out several different aspects of the 
problem. I will not belittle any of them. Everything that you point out 
is correct. I applaud the Children's Times for staying on the case, but 
listen carefully. I do propose solutions. I propose solutions at all 
levels. On several previous occasions I said that New York City had 
part of the solution to the problem in its hands. New York City had a 
$2 billion surplus last year. Their budget had $2 billion left over 
after they met all city obligations, and the city could have moved to 
begin to deal with some of these problems without Federal assistance.

  New York State had a $2 billion surplus last year and New York State 
not only did not do anything about the problem, when the State assembly 
and the State Senate finally reached agreement that they would 
appropriate $500 million of that $2 billion for school repairs, the 
governor of the State vetoed that part of the budget. He would not use 
$500 million out of the $2 billion for school repairs all across the 
State.
  So these problems deserve attention, and I am a Member of Congress 
and am here to represent my constituency at the Federal level. The 
Federal Government must lead the way because that is where most of the 
money is.
  All taxes are local. All the money in Washington came from the local 
level, and we should not flinch or hesitate to send some of that money 
back to deal with basic problems like the public school system.
  I also received a letter from Mrs. Jones, Bertha Jones, Judge Jones's 
wife, who is a secretary of the Children's Times, at a later date, and 
she is talking about our libraries. The Children's Times Associates has 
launched a campaign to reestablish functioning libraries in the 
elementary schools of the City of New York.
  The facts, the New York State Department of Education Division of 
Library Development, the State agency which supervises public school 
libraries throughout the State, informed the Children's Times 
Associates by a written memorandum dated August 23, 1999, that 550 
elementary schools out of a total of 672 schools report a shortage of 
550 certified librarians.
  The memorandum adds that many public school libraries are presently 
staffed by teachers who have no library or technological training, or 
by para-professionals who lack expertise of any kind. I would not say 
para-professionals lack expertise of any kind, but certainly they are 
not qualified to run school libraries.
  The United States Department of Education statistics reported 
recently that the New York City School System has hired fewer than one 
library media specialist for every 1,042 students. Library media 
specialists are trained to provide local media and telecommunications 
materials and access to experts whose advice and instructions teach 
children how to prepare classwork and homework on their own.
  The Children's Times Associates predict that if children do not learn 
to read and do basic arithmetic by the fourth grade, they will be 
playing a losing game of catch-up for the rest of their academic lives, 
which may not be very long.
  When libraries are reestablished in all elementary schools in New 
York City, under the supervision of library media specialists, in 
compliance with the New York State education law and the commissioner's 
regulations, 533,695 students will have access to the instructions and 
technology they need to work for their livelihoods as adults in 2000 
and beyond, and that is signed by Bertha Jones, the secretary of the 
Children's Times Associates.

                              {time}  2215

  Again, as a former public librarian, my profession is library 
science, I have a master's degree in library science, I wholeheartedly 
agree that this is a very devastating report of a blind spot in the 
public school system.
  Libraries have always had to fight to exist in elementary schools. It 
looks as if we are losing that battle in New York City. Nothing is more 
important than what goes on with respect to libraries and the processes 
that children learn there about how to learn on their own, how to use 
the great fountain of knowledge that exists to take care of their own 
needs and to facilitate ways to educate themselves. Nothing is more 
important than encouraging youngsters also to do as much reading as 
possible.
  I wholeheartedly agree with Mrs. Jones. I talk a lot about computers. 
I talk a lot about the need to bring our students to the level where 
they can run a cyber civilization, where they can deal with the fact 
that the world is now being more and more digitalized. It is not 
computer literacy, it is computer competence. The ability to work with 
imagination dealing with computers and web sites and the whole 
telecommunications revolution requires very well educated people. I 
have talked a great deal about that.
  But do not misunderstand me. I know that begins with reading. Nobody 
learns how to deal with the information technology if they do not know 
how to read, if they do not know basic arithmetic. It all begins with 
the basics, and I do not want to ever appear to have down played that.
  In response to the Children's Times Crusade to provide libraries for 
the schools in New York City, let me say that I have joined with my 
colleague in the Senate, Jack Reed, and Senator Jack Reed was a member 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce when we passed the last 
Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act, and we placed in that act the 
opportunity to learn standards.
  So he knows very well that one of the things we have to do if we are 
going to improve education in America is to go beyond curriculum 
standards, go beyond national testing, and deal with providing 
opportunities to learn.
  So Senator Reed has already introduced a bill, and I have introduced 
the same bill, companion piece October 4, a few weeks ago, which 
provides for amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, to provide up-to-date school library media resources and well-
trained professionally certified school library specialists for 
elementary schools and secondary schools and for other purposes. This 
bill's number is H.R. 3008, H.R. 3008 in the House. The companion 
Senate bill is S. 1262. Now, I have just recently put out a Dear 
Colleague letter asking all of my colleagues to join me on this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Going beyond the statistics which Mrs. Jones cited for New York City, 
let us talk about the whole country. Looking at libraries in the whole 
country,

[[Page H11468]]

we are talking about almost one-third of the U.S. public schools lack a 
full-time school library media specialist.
  The national average is one library media specialist to every 591 
students in American elementary and secondary schools. The ratio of 
students to school library media specialists varies widely from one 
school library specialist for every 287 public school students in 
Montana to one library media specialist for every 942 public school 
students in California.
  A 12-State U.S. study found that funding for school library materials 
annually vary from $15 to $58,874 for elementary school libraries and 
$155 to $100,810 for secondary school libraries. In other words, the 
funding for some elementary school libraries as low as $15. For others, 
for some high school libraries as low as $155, this funding for school 
library materials. But in some schools, it was as high as $58,874 in 
some elementary schools and as high as $100,810 in some secondary 
schools.
  So the disparity is obviously there. It is one of the problems which 
the Federal role in education has always sought to address, the great 
disparity between the richest districts and the poorest districts.
  Reading further in terms of the findings that make this school 
library bill important, the median per pupil expenditure by school 
library media centers in America in the 1995-1996 school year was $6.73 
for elementary schools. The per pupil expenditure, the median was $6.73 
for elementary schools, that is all, and $7.30 for middle schools, 
$6.25 for senior high schools. In a Nation which is enjoying 
unprecedented prosperity, we can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not read further from this Dear Colleague letter, 
but I include for the Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 1999.
       Dear Colleague: Almost one-third of U.S. public schools 
     lack a full-time school library media specialist. The 
     national average is one library media specialist to every 591 
     students in American elementary and secondary schools.
       The ratio of students to school library media specialists 
     varies widely: from one school library specialist for every 
     287 public school students in Montana to one library media 
     specialist for every 942 public school students in 
     California.
       A 12-state U.S. study found that funding for school library 
     materials annually varied from $15 to $58,874 for elementary 
     school libraries and $155 to $100,810 for secondary school 
     libraries.
       The median per pupil expenditure by school library media 
     centers in America in the 1995-1996 school year was $6.73 for 
     elementary schools, $7.30 for middle schools, and $6.27 for 
     senior high schools.
       School libraries have become the heart of the learning 
     experience for students being prepared to enter the Twenty-
     First Century, the age of almost unlimited information access 
     available at a touch. But many of those children will not be 
     ready for the demands of the third millennium if something is 
     not done to make access to that information equally available 
     to every student in America. As the numbers above show, there 
     is a lot to be done to make that a reality.
       That is why I have introduced a bill that will provide the 
     technology and the expertise to all elementary and secondary 
     public schools across the country. H.R. 3008, The Elementary 
     and Secondary School Library Media Resources, Training, and 
     Advanced Technology Assistance Act, which is a companion bill 
     to S. 1262 introduced by Senator Jack Reed, will provide 
     funding for media resources for elementary and secondary 
     school libraries as well as well-trained, certified library 
     specialists for students. Through the establishment of the 
     School Library Access Program, these resources will be 
     available to students during regular school hours, during 
     after-school hours in the evenings, on weekends, and during 
     school breaks. Schools with the greatest need will receive 
     priority funding consideration, as will local educational 
     agencies with a high level of community support, coordinated 
     services, and non-school hour activities for students.
       The bill has been endorsed by the American Library 
     Association and retired New York State Supreme Court Justice 
     Thomas Russell Jones, now Chair of the Advisory Committee for 
     CHILDREN'S TIMES Associates.
       If the quality of America's future leaders is as important 
     to you as it is to me, please join me in being a cosponsor of 
     the Elementary and Secondary School Library Media Resources, 
     Training, and Advanced Technology Assistance Act. Together, 
     we can help to shape an even stronger, more vibrant nation 
     and maintain America's cutting leadership in the field of 
     information technology. Please contact Beverly Gallimore in 
     my office by Monday, November 15, at 5-6231 to be a 
     cosponsor.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Major R. Owens,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to congratulate the Children's Times and 
what they are doing in New York City. As I have just illustrated, the 
problem is not a New York City problem only. The case history of New 
York City is relevant for numerous local school districts across the 
country. New York State is a good case study, though, in many ways. We 
are having a problem that many other States have faced. We have a 
problem. We are attacking that problem in a new way. Many other States 
have done the same thing.
  The political situation is such that the whales who play with the 
baby seals do not play with all the seals in the same way. The whales 
provide to let some seals go free while others bleed and die. In 
numerous States, one has drastic unevenness between the funding for 
certain schools. Some States like New York, the difference may be 
between $17,000 or $18,000 per pupil funding compared to they say 
$8,000 in New York City. But in New York City, there are 32 school 
districts. Within the city, the funding for some school districts is as 
low as $3,000 per pupil, which means that some districts in the city 
are getting far more than they should be receiving.
  When one averages it all out, it is going to be $8,000 to $9,000 per 
pupil. That is another problem I am going to deal with in a minute. But 
in numerous States, rural schools and big city schools face the same 
problem of not being funded equally with State aid.
  In New York City, the problem has been a serious one for a long time. 
They have many devices that result in some parts of the State getting 
greater aid per pupil than others. One of the archaic and most 
devastating devices is the hold-harmless formula where no school 
district gets less money one year than it got way back 20 years ago.
  Each year, the hold-harmless formula says that, no matter what 
happens, you do not get less. That means that, if the school district 
gets a reduction in the number of pupil they are going to be receiving 
as the district, the same amount of money they received when the pupils 
were much higher, the amount per pupil will go for that reason.
  There are many other devices used to produce a result where New York 
City per-pupil expenditure is about between $450 to $500 less than the 
per-pupil expenditure average in the rest of the State.
  A group called the Campaign for Fiscal Equity has brought a new court 
suit. We have had a few suits over the last 30, 40 years where court 
actions, litigation has attempted to try to correct this problem of 
unequal funding throughout the State.
  The new one has been launched by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. I 
want to congratulate the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. They are doing 
something about the problem. The trouble is that what they are doing, 
as noble and as necessary as it may be, it is still dealing with how 
are we going to, in a fairer way, divide up the pie that exists 
already.
  I say the pie that exists already is grossly inadequate. We must 
address both problems, how to divide it up so that you do have 
equitable funding. But the biggest problem at this point is also how do 
we use the resources of this Nation in a more creative way, in a more 
generous way to deal with the problem of funding for schools.
  Campaign for Fiscal Equity is suing the State. The trial is under way 
now in Federal court. In the past, these battles have been fought out 
in State court because the State has primary responsibility for 
education in New York State, as is the case in most States.
  But the campaign for Fiscal Equity is arguing on the basis of a 
violation of civil rights, unequal protection under the law. This is 
going to be a landmark case.
  What they are also using now that they did not have before is a 
definition of what an adequate education is. The State has always in 
the past argued that, even though one school district may get far more 
money from the State than another get per pupil, the State is only 
responsible for doing an adequate job; and that the student receiving 
the lower amount of money is still getting enough money to provide an 
adequate education.
  How does one define adequate education? Well, prompted by the Federal 
Government, prompted by our legislation, Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, the States have moved to

[[Page H11469]]

define adequate education. They have established standards. Now we can 
hold the State to its own standards.
  The State of New York has established some curriculum standards. The 
State of New York has established testing standards. They have said no 
student in this State will receive a high school diploma unless they 
measure up to certain standards. They must pass the test to a certain 
level. So we have a way to measure what is an adequate education.
  The next question is: If this is your definition of an adequate 
education, what does one need, what kinds of materials, what kinds of 
facilities, what kinds of teachers do you need in order to meet that 
standard, in order to provide that adequate education.

  You cannot play with it anymore. If you are saying that every student 
has to pass a math test at a certain level, you cannot continue to 
provide uncertified math teachers in junior high school and high school 
who did not major in math. Nobody, no matter how smart they are, is 
going to be able to adequately teach math in junior high school and 
high school if they did not really major in math in college.
  You cannot pretend you are doing that if you are saying that every 
student, before they get any kind of diploma must meet certain math 
standards. You provide the teachers who can produce that.
  You cannot say that, if you say that every student must meet certain 
science standards, display certain kinds of knowledge with respect to 
science, if you do not provide any laboratories in the high schools, if 
you do not provide adequate laboratories in the high school to deal 
with what you are going to have on your test.
  As I said before, great strides are being made in the establishment 
of curriculum standards. Great strides are being made, and a lot of 
this is being driven by elected officials, politicians in testing. We 
want to hold everybody accountable. I am sorry not everybody. We want 
to hold students accountable. We do not want to hold the school system 
accountable. We do not want to hold the State accountable for funding. 
We do not want to hold the city accountable and say that you should not 
have neglected to spend some part of your $2 billion surplus on 
education. We want to hold students accountable. Everybody is focusing 
on the student and dumping the load, the burden of changing the 
education standards and system on the students.
  New York City recently, and this is an article that appeared in the 
New York Times yesterday, New York's new curriculum guides set up 
standards grade by grade. In an effort to help parents hold schools 
accountable for what children learn or do not learn, the New York City 
school systems has produced a series of guides to what every child 
should know from kindergarten through 12th grade. Wonderful.
  The guides being distributed to teachers and parents beginning today 
decree that a fifth grader multiply with speed and accuracy, understand 
exponents, write a report using three sources of information, and know 
how to punctuate with quotation marks, commas, and colons.

                              {time}  2230

  ``A kindergartner should be able to count to 10 and tell a story 
using letters, drawings, scribbles, and gestures.''
  I do not know enough to know whether those are reasonable standards 
or not, but I applaud some kinds of standards.
  The school's chancellor, Rudy Crew, said yesterday that the new 
guides are intended to be so clear and so simple that all parents can 
understand these guidelines and became partners in their children's 
education. He said that they would give parents the tools to hold 
schools responsible for what their children learn and whether they 
learn it.
  Dr. Crew said the pamphlets, one for every grade, are intended to at 
least implicitly establish a common curriculum. Although he talked 
about ensuring that children throughout the city are learning the same 
thing every day, every week, every month, he cannot ensure that; but 
the guides do set goals like ``write daily for extended periods,'' but 
not specific content. They do not list books that all children in one 
grade should read or math problems that they all do. But for the first 
time there is a consistent framework of student achievement across the 
whole system regardless of the borough, the district, or the classroom, 
Dr. Crew said.
  ``In the last few years,'' again New York is not alone, and I am 
reading from a New York Times article which appeared yesterday, 
November 2. ``In the last few years, many states, including California, 
New York, and Virginia, have tried to take a stronger hand in dictating 
curriculum after years of giving schools and districts control. Indeed, 
Dr. Crew, at a news conference at the Board of Education Headquarters 
in Brooklyn, said that New York City is actually entering the game 
rather late, a decade after the movement to tie curriculum and 
standards together actually began in California and other states.
  ``The project was also clearly intended to fend off lawsuits, one has 
already been filed, challenging Dr. Crew's plan to end the automatic 
promotion of failing students. In New York, Florida, and other states 
parents have argued that it is unfair and even illegal to hold back 
children if they have not been clearly told what is expected of them 
and if the curriculum does not reflect the standards.
  ``In June, thousands of children in New York City were held back 
based on test scores alone, setting off a lawsuit by some parents who 
contended that other factors like attendance and classroom work should 
be considered. Until now, Dr. Crew said yesterday, curriculum was set 
by a combination of state and city standards, which he criticized as 
too vague, as well as standards of the textbook publishers.
  ``Because this is the first year of our new promotional policy, it is 
very, very important that parents understand what is acceptable grade 
level work said Judith Rizzo for instruction.''
  And on and on it goes.
  Everybody is in harmony with establishment of these standards. The 
questions that are not being considered in this article are, what are 
we going to do to make certain that you have the teachers, the 
materials, the libraries, the science laboratories which allow the 
children to measure up to these standards?
  Diane Ravitch, an old colleague of ours here in Washington, has 
certainly pinpointed one the problems. Diane Ravitch, in this same 
article, says, ``the new goals would only be effective if teachers were 
trained to use them and tests were designed to measure them.
  ``The board released guides covering English and math in kindergarten 
through grade 8 yesterday and will add grades 9 through 12 shortly, the 
officials said. It also plans to issue social studies and science 
guides. The officials said the guides will be sent home with students 
in time for parent-teacher conferences this month and will be available 
in several languages.''
  I applaud the work of the Board of Education and Dr. Rudy Crew in 
coming to grips with the need for curriculum guides. Now we can take 
the curriculum guides and create another column, a column next to each 
set of measurements for the curriculum standards, and lay out what is 
needed in order to meet that standard.
  If you are teaching science, then we can ask the question, does the 
school have science laboratories? We can ask the question, does the 
school, if you want children to read at a certain level and be able to 
write reports, do they have a library, can they get access to books and 
be able to be stimulated to read more and learn how to write reports? 
On and on you can go.
  Once you have established standards and curriculum, now you certainly 
have tests which are serious. Because if children do not pass the test, 
they are not going to make the next grade.
  No social promotion is a policy that everybody has jumped on board. 
It is a great wonderful policy, no social promotion. We will have a 
problem with no social promotion because one of the things that happens 
is you increase the over-crowding in schools. The schools that are 
already overcrowded are going to be even more crowded. Classrooms are 
going to be even more crowded if you do not have social promotion, and 
you will have to deal with that problem.

  But the other problem is too often the primary determinant as to 
whether a youngster is promoted or not is the test. And the test, as 
administered by

[[Page H11470]]

the New York City Board of Education last spring, as scored by the firm 
that they hired to do it, the tests had 20,000 youngsters labeled as 
being not eligible to move on to the next grade because they made 
mistakes.
  In the computation of the test scores they made mistakes. And large 
numbers of children had to sit through summer schools in hot buildings 
that had no air conditioning. They had to go through torture of summer 
schools when they had not failed, they had passed, and the blunders of 
the bureaucracy had placed them in this situation.
  So it is a high-stakes game. These tests determine what happens grade 
by grade, and these tests are going to determine what happens in the 
life of the students that have to go through it. If we are going to 
have these standards, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Incorporated, 
that has the trial going at Federal courts is on target. If you are 
going to have these standards, then you have to provide the resources 
starting with the provision of State aid to the City of New York at the 
same level per pupil that you have provide to the rest of the State.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article that appeared in 
the New York Times, November 2, 1999, ``New York's New Curriculum 
Guides Set Up Standards.''

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 2, 1999]

   New York's New Curriculum Guides Set Up Standards, Grade by Grade

                        (By Anemona Hartocollis)

       In an effort to help parents hold schools accountable for 
     what children learn--or don't learn--the New York City school 
     system has produced a series of guides to what every child 
     should know from kindergarten through 12th grade.
       The guides, being distributed to teachers and parents 
     beginning today, decree that a fifth grader multiply with 
     speed and accuracy, understand exponents, write a report 
     using three sources of information and know how to punctuate 
     with quotation marks, commas and colons. A kindergartner 
     should be able to count to 10 and tell a story using letters, 
     drawing, scribbles and gestures.
       Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew said yesterday that the new 
     guides are intended to be so clear and simple that all 
     parents can understand them and become partners in their 
     children's education. He said that they would give parents a 
     tool to hold schools responsible for what their children 
     learn, and whether they learn it.
       Dr. Crew said the pamphets--one for every grade--are 
     intended to at least implicitly establish a common 
     curriculum. Although he talked about ensuring that children 
     throughout the city are learning the same thing every day, 
     every week, every month, the guides set goals, like ``write 
     daily for extended periods,'' but not specific content. They 
     do not list books that all children in one grade should read 
     or math problems that they all should do.
       ``For the first time, there is a consistent framework for 
     student achievement across the system, regardless of the 
     borough, the district or the classroom,'' Dr. Crew said.
       In the last few years, many states, including California, 
     New York and Virginia, have tried to take a stronger hand in 
     dictating curriculum, after years of giving schools and 
     districts control. Indeed, Dr. Crew, at a news conference at 
     Board of Education headquarters in Brooklyn, said that New 
     York City is actually entering the game rather late, a decade 
     after the movement to tie curriculum and standards together 
     actually began in California and other states.
       The project was also clearly intended to fend off 
     lawsuits--one has already been filed--challenging Dr. Crew's 
     plan to end the automatic promotion of failing students.
       In New York, Florida and other states, parents have argued 
     that it is unfair and even illegal to hold back children if 
     they have not been clearly told what is expected of them, and 
     if the curriculum does not reflect the standards. In June, 
     thousands of children were held back based on test scores 
     alone, setting off a lawsuit by some parents who contended 
     that other factors, like attendance and classroom work, 
     should be considered.
       Until now, Dr. Crew said yesterday, curriculum was set by a 
     combination of state and city standards, which he criticized 
     as too vague, as well as standards of the textbook 
     publishers.
       ``Because this is the first year of our new promotional 
     policy, it is very, very, very important that parents 
     understand what is acceptable grade-level work,'' said Judith 
     Rizzo, deputy chancellor for instruction.
       Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of 
     Teachers, said the idea was ``terrific,'' but that the union 
     believes it will not be complete until the school system has 
     a ``much more thorough and really core curriculum.'' The 
     union is working on such a curriculum, to be unveiled next 
     school-year.
       But some parents said yesterday that the learning standards 
     were too vague to be useful and feared that the pamphlets 
     would be used to blame children and parents if students did 
     not measure up.
       Sylvia Wertheimer, the mother of a fifth grader at Public 
     School 41 in Greenwich Village and an assistant district 
     attorney in Manhattan, said the goals articulated in the 
     pamphlets sounded just like the goals that her school already 
     uses in its report cards. She also fretted that teachers and 
     administrators would be defensive if she tried to use such 
     standards to confront them about their shortcomings.
       ``More gibberish,'' she said. ``I feel like they want the 
     parents to do everything, whatever deficiencies children 
     have. Why don't they just teach them?''
       Diane Ravitch, an education historian, said the new goals 
     would only be effective if teachers were trained to use them, 
     and tests were designed to measure them. ``Al Shanker always 
     used to say, `Does it count?' '' Dr. Ravitch said, referring 
     to the former president of the American Federation of 
     Teachers.
       Despite his vision of 1,200 schools doing the same thing at 
     the same time, Dr. Crew's plan would not be as regimented as, 
     say, the French school system, where if it is 10 a.m., 
     children everywhere are learning ``Phedre'' by Racine.
       Neither Dr. Crew nor his aides were able to explain how 
     they would enforce the new learning standards in a system as 
     complex as New York City's, where local districts and schools 
     have historically enjoyed a high degree of autonomy.
       For each grade, the new guides describe how the standards 
     will be used to determine whether children go on to the next 
     grade or are held back, and warn that no decision will be 
     made based on one factor alone, like a test score.
       The board released guides covering English and math in 
     kindergarten through grade 8 yesterday and will add grades 9 
     through 12 shortly, officials said. It also plans to issue 
     social studies and science guides. Officials said the guides 
     would be sent home with students in time for parent-teacher 
     conferences this month, and will be available in several 
     languages.

  The Campaign for Fiscal Equity is a noble attempt, I said, to deal 
with the fact that the amount of resources available are not being 
distributed appropriately. A lot of the activity and energy that has 
been put forth surrounding education in this House of Representatives 
for the past few years has dealt with the same problem of no new 
resources; let us argue about how we use what we have.
  One of the big issues that was on the floor of this House a few weeks 
ago related to the passage of the title I funding out of the committee 
that I serve on was, shall we take what exists already, title I 
funding, nearly $8 billion for the whole Nation, shall we take that and 
change the original target.
  The original target for that funding under the original law was that 
the poorest children in America needed the most help. The school 
districts where the poorest children resided were not capable of giving 
the kind of help that they should give, and the Federal Government 
intervened, just as the Federal Government intervened before in school 
lunch programs to make sure that every child gets nutritional care in 
terms of food, and a number of other ways the Federal Government has 
over the years intervened.
  By the way, it even intervenes in the case of highways. We have a 
national highway system which is fantastic because the Federal 
Government intervened to provide a highway system. So when we have had 
needs, the Federal Government has intervened.
  A lot of people say, well, there is nothing in the Constitution that 
makes the Federal Government responsible for education. There is also 
nothing in the Constitution that makes the Federal Government 
responsible for railroads, but we built the transcontinental railroad. 
There is nothing that says the Federal Government is responsible for 
highways, and yet we spent billions of dollars for a highway system. 
And recently we authorized $218 billion over a 6-year period to 
continue to build and refine our highway system.
  So the Federal Government, under Lyndon Johnson, decided to intervene 
and provide education for those schools that need it most. Title I 
funding is for the poorest schools and the poorest youngsters. The 
formula for title I is driven by poverty. The measurement for poverty 
is the number of youngsters who qualify for free school lunches 
provided by the Federal Government.
  We have had situations where the intent of the law, the target 
population, has been circumvented. Too many districts that did not have 
poor children were going to receive title I funds, or only had only had 
a tiny amount. We dealt with that when the law was reauthorized 5 years 
ago, tightened it up.

[[Page H11471]]

  But then we had a situation where they wanted to define which schools 
are eligible to have schoolwide programs. And when you determine who is 
eligible to have a schoolwide program instead of focusing on individual 
children, we had a figure of the number of percentage of children who 
are poor as a factor to decide whether or not they could have a 
schoolwide program.
  If you had 75 percent of the children who were poor, then we could 
have a schoolwide program that did not have to focus on individual 
children, but the whole school could benefit from the dollars that the 
title I program provided.
  It started out at 75 percent. Then it was reduced to 50 percent. One 
of the battles we had a few weeks ago on the floor was the fact that 
the present majority, Republican majority, decided they wanted to 
reduce that further to 40 percent. One of the members on the Committee 
on Education, Republican majority member, also even wanted to go to 25 
percent.
  Well, if a school qualifies with only 25 percent poverty, you could 
see how you then have to cover more schools. And many of those schools, 
with only 25 percent of the children being poor, would absorb dollars 
and help fewer poor children. So you could describe it accurately as 
the Robin-Hood-in-reverse approach. Instead of appropriating more money 
if you want to reach more children, we were going to take money from 
the poorer children and give it to the children who were better off and 
the schools that were better off, circumventing and undercutting the 
intent of the law.
  Well, that is going forward. On the floor of this House there was an 
amendment offered to keep it at 50 percent, where it is now, and that 
amendment lost. So the legislation that went to the other body contains 
in it the 40 percent figure. And probably if the Republican majority 
had their way, they would eliminate any percentage, because they came 
on the floor shortly after the title I bill was passed with another 
bill called the Straight A's act.
  The Straight A's act says, let us give all money related to education 
to the governors and the States and let the governors decide how to 
spend the money, and they probably certainly will not use any 50 
percent formula.
  The history of the States is that they operate in a way which 
satisfies the most powerful elements in the State, and poor people are 
seldom the most powerful elements in the State political arena.
  Right now you have large numbers of States that have surplus funds 
for welfare. They are not providing the funds that they should for day-
care and for other kinds of services to welfare recipients, even though 
it is Federal money. They have saved it in various ways, and they are 
supposed to provide that money to help train and provide jobs for 
welfare recipients and day-care services.
  New York State is a place where there is a tremendous need, large 
waiting list for day-care services. There is a surplus now, and the 
governor and the State have moved so slowly, until you have a surplus 
but large numbers of unserved families who want day-care and need day-
care and cannot get it.
  The likelihood is that, the more discretion you give to the State, 
the fewer poor people would get service. History has demonstrated that 
the States will not take care of the poor. The Robin Hood approach is 
to not provide more money but to spread it out.
  We have a situation in New York City where the number of poor 
children drive the formula, determine the amount of money that comes 
into New York City. New York City is composed of five counties; and in 
the distribution of money in the counties, we found that the children 
in some counties were getting far more of the title I funds than 
others. And we corrected that 5 years ago by changing the formula to 
make it similar to the formula that applies to the rest of the Nation.

                              {time}  2245

  The formula says that money must come to New York City by county, so 
that the poorest county, the county with the largest number of poor 
children, Brooklyn, found that it was getting far less money than it 
should get if you use the straight formula as was used in the rest of 
the Nation. So we had a battle and we had forces lined up to challenge 
that and try to fight again for the pile, the limited pile, how to 
divide that was going to become a fight. I hope that that fight does 
not materialize.
  I would like to join all my colleagues in New York State, certainly 
from New York City and take a look at how we can deal with the fact 
that the city as a whole and the State as a whole does not get the kind 
of funding from education that it should be receiving per student. We 
should have a unified effort to try to bring in more funds instead of 
dividing up the pile. The Robin Hood approach at the local level is no 
more desirable than the Robin Hood approach at the Federal level. We do 
not want to have title I formulas distorted. We do not want to have 
favoritism in the bureaucracy determining that children who are poor in 
one part of the city will get far more than they deserve while other 
children are robbed of their fair share of title I funding. We want to 
deal with that. There are many positive solutions that we can go 
forward with while we are waiting for reelection by the levels of 
government that have real power. The Federal Government, State 
government, governors should stop playing games. I go back to the 
analogy of the bleeding baby seal. We should stop tossing the bleeding 
baby seal about and having fun with it, pretending we are going to do 
something about education while the bleeding baby seal dies. We should 
do big things to deal with a monumental problem. Education is a 
monumental problem. It requires a big solution, a big approach.
  I understand there are some candidates running for President who say 
that it is the duty of the Federal Government to deal with big problems 
with big solutions. The Marshall plan is one example I told you. The 
Transcontinental Railroad, the Morrill Act which established land grant 
colleges, the GI bill which provided education for all GIs after World 
War II. We have numerous examples of how we have dealt with big 
problems with big solutions.
  I want to close by reading a letter I sent to the President to appeal 
to him to offer leadership in this area. I think that as I have said 
many times, there are many components of the problem of education 
reform, many components. They are all important. But the kingpin 
component is what are you going to do about facilities, what are you 
going to do about the infrastructure, how are you going to send a 
message to all the students that we really care about public education 
by letting them see the highly visible changes that we can make to 
improve education? I wrote this letter to President Clinton on October 
13, and I want to read parts of it. First I am going to read a part 
which does not relate to education but relates to my great appreciation 
of President Clinton because I think we need to reestablish a 
perspective on the man we are dealing with. I do not agree with all the 
people who seem to say that he has no legacy. I think he has a legacy 
already, but I would like to see the legacy improved upon.
  ``Dear President Clinton:
  ``Let me begin with an expression of my deeply felt admiration of 
your leadership in a period cluttered with many more political perils 
than most citizens have realized. Your leadership has been the vital 
defense against an unprecedented right wing assault on the unique 
institutions and programs which extend the benefits of our democracy 
down to the ordinary men and women of our Nation. When all others were 
traumatized by the Republican blitzkrieg, your maneuvers held their 
forces in check. Despite the petty problems highlighted by the partisan 
impeachment effort, Mr. President, you have already established firmly 
an impressive legacy. For many millions, you already have the 
unwavering loyalty and heartfelt appreciation that you deserve. You 
have preserved the conscience of the country. That is a legacy that 
historians will eventually be compelled to acknowledge.
  ``But, Mr. President, there is one more vital request we must make on 
your unique ability to fuse the practical with the idealistic. Now is 
the time for you to crystallize, solidify, concretize your legacy as 
the Education President with actions that will catapult our Nation 
forward. I strongly advise, urge and plead, Mr. President,

[[Page H11472]]

that you launch an omnibus, cyber-civilization education program to 
guarantee the brainpower and leadership needed for our present and for 
the expanding future digitalized economy and high-tech world.
  ``At the heart of such a comprehensive initiative, we must set the 
all-important revitalization of the physical infrastructure of 
America's schools. These necessary brick and mortar creations will long 
endure not only as highly visible symbols of your overwhelming 
commitment to education but they will serve also as practical vehicles 
for the delivery of the kind of high-tech education required in the 
21st century. To the working families who depend on public schools, it 
would be a resounding message that a vital segment of our Nation's 
children have not been abandoned.

  ``The message will also state that we are willing to make an 
overwhelming investment in a workforce which will help to guarantee the 
viability of Social Security. We are willing to make an investment in a 
massive student pool that provides the military with the recruits 
needed to operate a high-tech defense system. We are willing to make an 
overwhelming investment in a massive body that can produce the full 
range of geniuses, scientists, engineers, administrators, managers, 
technicians, mechanics, et cetera, necessary to launch and maintain a 
cyber-civilization.
  ``In other words, Mr. President, it is of vital importance that you 
carry your own movement to a highly visible apex. Please consider the 
fact that it is not by accident that the most brilliant American 
President, Thomas Jefferson, chose a message for his tombstone which 
only noted that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. If 
there had been no first model State university established by 
Jefferson, there would have later been no Morrill Act to establish land 
grant colleges in every State.
  ``The America of the year 2000 requires from you, Mr. President, a 
comparable pioneering act to guarantee its brainpower leadership in the 
world.''
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the entirety of this letter for the Record.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 13, 1999.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: Let me begin with an expression of 
     my deeply felt admiration of your leadership in a period 
     cluttered with many more political perils than most citizens 
     have realized. Your leadership has been the vital defense 
     against an unprecedented right wing assault on the unique 
     institutions and programs which extend the benefits of our 
     democracy down to the ordinary men and women of our nation. 
     When all others were traumatized by Newt Gingrich's 
     blitzkrieg your maneuvers held his forces in check. Despite 
     the petty problems highlighted by the partisan impeachment, 
     Mr. President, you have already firmly established an 
     impressive legacy. From many millions you already have the 
     unwavering loyalty and heartfelt appreciation that you 
     deserve. You have preserved the conscience of the country. 
     That is a legacy that historians will eventually be compelled 
     to acknowledge.
       But, Mr. President, there is one more vital request we must 
     make on your unique ability to fuse the practical with the 
     idealistic. Now is the time for you to crystallize, solidify, 
     concertize your legacy as the Education President with 
     actions that will catapult our nation forward. I strongly 
     advise, urge and plead that you launch an Omnibus CYBER-
     CIVILIZATION Education program to guarantee the brainpower 
     and leadership needed for our present and expanding future 
     digitalized economy and hi-tech world.
       At the heart of such a comprehensive initiative we must set 
     the all important revitalization of the physical 
     infrastructure of America's schools. These necessary brick 
     and mortar creations will long endure not only as highly 
     visible symbols of your overwhelming commitment to education; 
     they will also serve as practical vehicles for the delivery 
     of the kind of hi-tech education required in the 21st 
     Century. To the working families who depend on public schools 
     it would be a resounding message that a vital segment of our 
     nation's children have not been abandoned.
       The message will also state that we are willing to make an 
     overwhelming investment: in a workforce which will help to 
     guarantee the viability of Social Security; in a massive 
     student pool that provides the military with the recruits 
     able to operate a high-tech defense system; in a massive body 
     that can produce the full range of geniuses, scientists, 
     engineers, administrators, managers, technicians, 
     mechanics, etc. necessary to launch and maintain a global 
     Cyber-Civilization.
       All of the most brilliant and visionary education 
     achievements of your administration may be merged and focused 
     through these vital physical edifices: The NET-Day movement 
     for the volunteer wiring of schools; The Technology Literacy 
     Legislation; the Community Technology Centers; the Distance 
     Learning pilot projects; and the widely celebrated and 
     appreciated E-Rate for telecommunications. The lifting of 
     standards, the improvement in school curriculums and the 
     support for smaller class sizes are also initiatives that 
     require the additional classrooms and expanded libraries and 
     laboratories that school modernization will bring.
       In other words, Mr. President, it is of vital importance 
     that you carry your own movement to an ultimate highly 
     visible apex. Please consider the fact that it is not by 
     accident that the most brilliant American President, Thomas 
     Jefferson, chose a message for his tombstone which only noted 
     that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. If 
     there had been no first model state university established by 
     Jefferson, there would have later been no Morrill Act to 
     establish land-grant colleges in every state.
       The America of the Year 2000 requires from you a comparable 
     pioneering act to guarantee its brainpower leadership in the 
     world. You have the opportunity to bequeath a new system for 
     public education. Highly developed human resources are 
     clearly the key to power and prosperity in the century to 
     come. To minimize the crippling waste of human potential 
     there must be a broad sweeping public school system forever 
     striving toward education excellence. The kingpin for the 
     education improvement effort, the temples for the promotion 
     of excellence are our school buildings.
       Mr. President, an adequate and landmark modernization and 
     construction program requires that we move beyond HR 1660, 
     the Rangel Ways and Means payment of the interest on school 
     bonds (3.7 billion over a five year period). For New York and 
     numerous other states which require that voters approve all 
     borrowing for school construction, this legislation will 
     provide zero funding. I strongly urge that you revamp your 
     position and support HR 3071, my bill which provides direct 
     funding at a level commensurate with the magnitude of the 
     problem of school wiring, security, safety, modernization and 
     construction (110 Billion dollars over a ten year period).
       On a trip to New York more than a year ago, as your guest 
     aboard Air Force One, I had the privilege of chatting with 
     you about education issues and problems. When you asked my 
     opinion of the growing endorsement of vouchers among African 
     American parents, I replied that our public school reforms 
     were moving too slowly and sometimes even lurching backwards 
     with the results that large numbers of parents have lost 
     hope.
       Mr. President, the trip was much too short and when we 
     ended our brief exchange you invited me to forward a more 
     thorough statement of views and vision on the education 
     challenge. Although I have had the pleasure of speaking to 
     you in group meetings since that discussion, I have not until 
     now attempted to offer a thorough summary of my position on 
     the need for an overwhelming campaign to greatly improve 
     public education in America. A massive school construction 
     initiative must be placed at the core of this campaign for a 
     CYBER-CIVILIZATION Education Program.
           Sincerely Yours,
                                                   Major R. Owens,
                                               Member of Congress.

     

                          ____________________