[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1840-H1847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). 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 heard the previous speakers close out with 
the name of Al Gore. I understand they have been talking about the Vice 
President, who is the probable Democratic Party nominee for president.
  I certainly would like to begin my statement with a hearty 
congratulations to Mr. Gore for proposing a $115 billion education 
reform program over the next 10 years, to allocate $115 billion over 
the next 10 years.
  The details of Mr. Gore's proposal I do not particularly agree with. 
However, the perspective, the understanding of the need and the scope 
that we have to move on is welcome. I welcome Mr. Gore's vision, I 
welcome his commitment, and he is in line with where the American 
people want to go.
  I think we are in an area where the people, the ordinary citizens, 
are out there ahead of the Members of Congress, ahead of the decision-
makers even in the White House, ahead of the decision-makers in the 
local governments and in the State governments, because the polls 
repeatedly keep showing that the average American out there views 
education as the number one priority for governmental action. Education 
is the number one priority.
  There was a time when education was in the top five, in fact, that 
has been the case over the last 5 years, but education was not number 
one. Reducing crime at one time was number one, saving social security 
at one time was number one, Medicare and shoring up the Medicare fund 
was number one at one time. But not now. Education consistently for the 
last 10 months has been in all of the polls, and I think the Republican 
polls are showing exactly what the Democratic polls are showing, that 
education is the number one concern of the American people.
  So a candidate who proposes to come to grips with the problem in a 
time when we have considerable wealth in this Nation, at a time when we 
see the estimates for revenue, revenue, being so much greater than 
expenditures, and the projection after we take care of the surplus of 
social security and put that away just for social security, the 
projection is $1.9 trillion in surplus over a 10-year period. So surely 
it is appropriate that one could talk in terms of investing $115 
billion of that $1.9 trillion surplus in education reform.

                              {time}  2015

  I do not think that goes far enough. I think that $115 billion is 
about half of what we need. And the Congressional Black Caucus 
alternative budget that was on the floor as an alternative to the 
Republican budget a week ago, the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
recommended that we use 10 percent of the projected $1.9 trillion 
surplus, 10 percent should be used for education. Of that 10 percent, 5 
should go to school construction and the other 5 percent should go to 
other kinds of improvements in education; reduction of class sizes by 
having more teachers, more training for teachers, education technology.
  There is a whole range of things that needs to be done and should be 
done. And for the first time in the last 50 years, the revenues are 
there. The resources are there. Will we reinvest those resources in 
education and get a return on them, or will we invest them in trivial 
weapon systems that are redundant and not needed?
  Will we do as the Republican majority has done, add $17 billion to 
the President's defense budget? The President already put in an 
increase for defense in his budget that was submitted to the Congress, 
and the Republicans have added $17 billion to that. Are we going to 
throw the money away in redundant weapon systems, or are we going to 
invest the money in education and the kinds of activities that are 
going to pay off, because there will be a return on those investments?
  Now, I have had some comments made about some of the remarks that I 
have made during Special Orders, especially remarks made about school 
construction and the fact that I continually seem to be obsessed with 
one subject. I just want to confess that I have certainly spent a lot 
of time on this particular subject, on education, in general, but, more 
specifically, on school construction.
  I am going to talk quite a bit about it again tonight, because, you 
know, in the American political process, the dialogue is invaluable. As 
a Member of the minority party here in the House of Representatives, 
all we have left, in many cases, is dialogue, the ability to talk and 
the opportunity to reach our allies out there in the general public. I 
have just said we have been reading polls now for the last 10 months, 
which show that the majority of the American people consider government 
assistance for education to be the highest priority.
  If that is the case, then I have many allies. We have many allies, 
those of us who want to see more resources from the Federal Government 
put into education. I want to talk to our allies. I want to talk to all 
the school children out there who need help. There are 53 million 
children who go to public schools, and many of those public schools are 
in serious trouble.
  Public schools in the inner cities are in very serious trouble in 
most of our big cities. Public schools in some of the suburbs also need 
a lot of help. Public schools in the rural areas are in many cases in 
the worst shape of all. Help is needed.
  I repeat many things over and over again because it is important for 
us to try to understand this very unusual phenomenon. We have a 
situation where the people clearly have sent a message that they want 
to go one way and the overwhelming majority of the powerful 
decisionmakers in our government are going in a different direction.
  The response of the public figures, the public decisionmakers, the 
response of the leaders, including those who are running for President, 
has been to talk about the issue of education incessantly. There is 
plenty of discussion. Among Members of Congress and the Senate and 
candidates for the presidency, governors and State legislators and city 
council people and mayors, there is an understanding that when you see 
the polls, you understand that people are primarily concerned about 
government assistance for education, your response should be to talk 
about it, the rhetoric is important; but do not take any significant 
action, play around with the game of education, make education a game.
  Everybody is an expert on education. They want to talk about the 
phonics system versus the whole word system. They want to talk about 
the need for more discipline. They want to talk about teachers working 
harder and the need for certification. Most of the things they want to 
talk about have some validity, in terms of need.
  We need to deal with all of those components. There are different 
components, and they should be addressed; but few of the 
decisionmakers, the public officials, want to talk about the need for 
more resources. They want to deal with the fact that we have Stone Age 
budgets in our schools. Everything else has taken off. The stock market 
has soared. It is three times the size it was 10 years ago.
  The degrees are different when you start talking about wealth and 
money

[[Page H1841]]

in every other area that you want to examine; but when it comes to 
schools, suddenly we want to take a horse and buggy approach. We can 
only see incremental gains being made, small experiments here and 
there. That is the approach of the present Department of Education. 
They cannot think big. They cannot see that this is a time to come to 
grips with the major problem and put major resources behind it; and at 
the heart of the problem of education is the need for new infractures 
that I continue to talk about.

  It is the kingpin issue, school construction, infrastructure, 
infrastructure involving a number of things, school repair, new school 
construction, modernization of schools, the wiring of schools, the 
developments of new security systems, you know, electronic security 
systems within schools.
  There are a number of ways dollars for infrastructure might be spent, 
but they are critical in the case of a great number of inner city 
schools, like the schools in New York City. You need the basics. You 
need to deal with health-threatening issues. In New York out of the 
more than 1,000 schools, we still have 200 schools that still burn coal 
in their furnances. Coal-burning furnaces are still in at least 200 
schools; a year and a half ago, there were 275.
  I am happy to report that this talk, this repeated focus on the issue 
has moved some things faster. Certainly in my district, I have seen 
several schools watch their coal burning furnances being removed and 
replaced with other cleaner fuels. There are still 200 left.
  There are schools in our city, at least a third of them or more, 
where children have to eat lunch in the morning at 10 o'clock because 
the school is overcrowded. The lunchroom was built for a certain number 
of kids. They cannot get them all in there so they have to have three 
or four cycles, the cycle is three or four. They have to force some to 
eat lunch at 10 o'clock while some are forced to wait until 1:30 to eat 
lunch.
  The kids at the end are much too hungry and have been deprived, and 
the kids at the beginning have been abused by having been forced to eat 
lunch shortly after they have breakfast.
  I will not go into all of these examples, which I have given many 
times before.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring you up to date. I feel it is 
important to talk about it today because today the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, which I have served on for 18 years, has 
begun the process of a markup of the final section of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
was a creation of Lyndon Johnson and Adam Clayton Powell during the era 
of the great society.
  They broke new ground in providing assistance to elementary and 
secondary schools. That new ground was broken on the basis of the fact 
that there were areas of the country of great poverty and where the tax 
base and various other devices were not measuring up to the provision 
of adequate education to those children who lived in those areas.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act's primary focus is on 
children in poverty, and title I is a primary ingredient of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act. We have taken care 
of title I already in last year's session. Now there are other elements 
in the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act, which we 
started to discuss today.
  I am proud to announce that we spent about the first 2 hours of 
consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They have 
another name for it. It is called Education Options now. The first 2 
hours were spent discussing school construction. This is quite an 
achievement.
  I am here to report tonight that we are winning in the battle to get 
school construction on the agenda, and the battle to get school 
construction to be seriously considered. We are winning. We are 
winning, because not only could we not have a 2-hour discussion in the 
committee of jurisdiction before, the committee of jurisdiction had 
ruled that the discussion of construction was not germane.
  School construction was not germane a year ago. They would not even 
let us discuss it. The Committee on Education and the Workforce had 
surrendered its jurisdiction on school construction to the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The only bill in the Congress which dealt with school construction 2 
years ago was the bill in the Committee on Ways and Means which was 
sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) which was 
supported by most Democrats. It was, of course, proposed by the White 
House, initiated by the President; and it cost $25 billion in bonding 
authority to be backed up by the Federal Government with interest 
payments. The Federal Government, in other words, would pay the 
interest on $25 billion worth of bonds that States and local education 
agencies might borrow.
  If you borrow the money, all you have to pay back is the principal. 
The Federal Government would pay the interest, and over a 5-year period 
that interest came out to be estimated to be about $3.7 billion. In the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the process of paying back the interest on 
bonds would have yielded a 5-year commitment of the Federal Government 
of $3.7 billion for school construction. Now, that is a very tiny 
amount compared to what we need.
  It is at least a recognition that the Federal Government has a role 
in school construction. We all have supported that consistently. I am 
happy to report that we are winning. For the first time, the bill also 
has a Republican cosponsor, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson), who is a cosponsor now with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel). We have hopes that we will have enough votes, if it is allowed 
to come to the floor, we will have enough votes with the supporting 
majority party, Republican party, and the Democrats to be able to pass 
such a bill now that we have Republican cosponsorship, as small as it 
is, as meager as it is, as inadequate as it is. It at least recognizes 
the role.
  It would be a breakthrough to actually have it pass on the floor or 
even come to the floor for serious consideration. I assure you that 
there are real problems with more than just the amount. Not only is it 
too small an amount but it will not help New York State, for example. 
The great State of New York with millions of childrens in school will 
not be helped by this bond authority bill, even though the Federal 
Government is willing to pay the interest on the bond.
  We have had two bond issues related to school construction over the 
last 10 years and they failed. The voters have voted down two bond 
issues, and the likelihood that they will vote for another one, even if 
it has the Federal Government paying the interest, is very slim. So it 
will not help us.
  We need a direct appropriation. There are hundreds of jurisdictions 
across the country, local education agencies and counties and States 
that have the same requirement, that the voters have to approve the 
borrowing of money for schools, and the voters consistently in many 
places are not approving that.
  We had a dialogue about it, though, in the Education and the 
Workforce Committee. The dialogue was very interesting. We should 
report the very fact that we had the dialogue, as I said before, is an 
indication of the facts that we are winning. We are winning because we 
had the dialogue about school construction on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, which has been in denial for the last 6 
years.
  Since the Republicans gained control, they have refused to discuss 
the issue of school construction in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. Today we had a discussion. Part of the stimulus for the 
discussion was the offering of an amendment by the ranking Democrat, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), to amend the Republican-
sponsored substitute by placing in that substitute the President's $1.3 
billion direct appropriation for school repairs.

                              {time}  2030

  The President has offered $1.3 billion for a direct appropriation for 
emergency repairs, and that itself is a breakthrough. Because the 
President and the White House also, for the last 6 years, the last 5 
years, have only had one initiative and that is the Ways and Means 
initiative with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the $25 
billion in authority to buy bonds

[[Page H1842]]

and we pay the interest on it. So when the President offered his budget 
for the year 2001 in February of this year, he included for the first 
time a direct appropriation, $1.3 billion, for education.
  The government really runs on direct appropriations. We do not fund 
helicopters or aircraft carriers or submarines with bonds. We do not 
say go out and buy bonds, we will pay the interest. We fund what we 
consider important with a direct appropriation. We fund the agriculture 
subsidies to farmers with direct appropriations.
  We fund many programs that are questionable with direct 
appropriations. I will not say that highways and roads are 
questionable. We all need them. But we authorize the funding of 
highways and roads and mass transit, too, subways and buses. We 
authorized $218 billion last year, $218 billion over a 6-year period 
for highways and roads; and that is going to be a direct appropriation. 
We did not say borrow the money and we will pay the interest.
  So when the Government is serious, when the decision-makers are 
serious, they do not talk about giving bond authority to go out and 
borrow the money and we will pay the interest; we have direct 
appropriations. And if we are going to be serious about school 
construction, we need direct appropriations.
  So I want to applaud the President, the White House, for taking this 
small step. A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. They 
broke the pattern of insisting that school construction funds have to 
be won through a bonding process, a borrowing process, and they 
recommended and they put in the budget $1.3 billion.
  So we were introducing, the Democrats, the minority Democrats were 
introducing an amendment to the majority Republican bill which would 
put the President's $1.3 billion into the bill that we are preparing to 
bring to the floor. And of course the majority had the votes and they 
voted it down. But we had 2 hours of discussion, and I consider the 2 
hours of discussion in the committee to be a victory, just as I 
consider the fact that the President moved off dead center and even 
made the proposal for the $1.3 billion a victory. We are winning. We 
are winning.
  The pressure of public opinion, the pressure of what is said in the 
polls and what people are telling their Congresspeople is beginning to 
get through. So I am here to say to all America that we are winning, 
and we must continue the pressure. Over the next 2 or 3 weeks we are 
going to be discussing this education bill. We probably have 2 more 
days before the markup is finished in the committee, and then probably 
in 5 to 10 days it will be on the floor of the House for discussion. 
And then, of course, the Senate will act and there will be a 
conference.
  Given the position of the majority party, the Republicans in the 
majority in the House of Representatives and the Republicans in the 
majority in the Senate, given the position of the majority party, it is 
not likely that any direct appropriations are going to pass out of the 
Congress for school construction. However, the dialogue is important. 
The record of the dialogue is important. The public ear in listening to 
the dialogue is important. Because in the final analysis, this issue is 
going to be decided in a set of negotiations, what I call the end-game 
negotiations.
  The President will veto a bill that is filled with outdated 
assumptions and throwbacks to the past, like the one that we were 
discussing today. I want to discuss the nonconstruction parts of it, 
where they talk about block grants and they are wiping out certain 
types of programs, including the program which provides more teachers 
for the classroom. There are many reasons why the President will veto 
the bill. So having vetoed the bill, there will have to be negotiations 
before we can come up with another bill. In those end-game negotiations 
we want the President to hear the voice of the American people. We want 
him to listen to what they have to say and understand that we are 
winning.
  We are much further along now than we were a year ago. When I first 
came to the floor with this hat as a symbol, we were way, way behind in 
terms of the recognition among Members of Congress that school 
construction is a major issue and it is an issue at the heart of 
education reform. Democrats and Republicans have a hard time 
understanding that. Although the polls show not only that education is 
of primary concern among the American voters, when they broke down 
education into components, one poll did this, they found at the head 
of the list of all the things that the public feels should be done in 
education the item of fixing the schools.

  Now, fix the schools can mean a lot of different things, but they 
mean physically fix the schools. There was repair, new schools, 
modernization, wiring for the computers and the Internet, but that 
emerged clearly. The physical infrastructure emerged clearly among the 
concerns about education as the top concern.
  Why? Because a lot of the other things become jokes. Common sense out 
there among the people and the teachers and the students tells us that 
it is hard to envisage a modern education with new computers, new 
technology in the school, in the classroom, if the school has a coal 
burning furnace and the kids have respiratory illnesses and the 
teachers have respiratory illnesses. It is kind of hard to deal with 
the dream, the vision of an education for the digitalized world. The 
new computers coming in are resented because they would like to see the 
coal furnace go. Or if the windows are broken and have not been fixed 
for some time; or if the top floor of the school cannot be used.
  One school I know of, with three floors, has the top floor abandoned 
because the walls are caving in. No matter how hard they try to fix the 
roof, they cannot stop the moisture from leaking in and the walls on 
either side are caving in. It is time to leave the school. It is time 
to abandon that building. But they are still there, and the school is 
over 100 years old. They cannot believe that we are serious about 
education when we talk about everything except the physical 
infrastructure because we say that that is too expensive. Let us focus 
on something else because we cannot afford to fix that. Let us focus on 
new technology. Let us focus on the teachers.
  The great cry about the fact that teachers are not qualified, and in 
poor schools we find a large number of uncertified teachers, where 
people have not even bothered to take the test that certifies teachers, 
because there is a great teacher shortage in the inner city schools in 
particular. Number one, the suburban schools surrounding most large 
cities are paying larger salaries; and, number two, the working 
conditions are so much better.
  Why should a teacher teach in a school that is burning coal in the 
furnace and have her own lungs jeopardized when they can have a choice 
and teach under better conditions. Working conditions for teachers are 
as important as working conditions for people who work in factories. 
Unions bargain and working conditions are always a major item on the 
bargaining list. Why should teachers teach in conditions that threaten 
their health when they can go and teach in schools that are not only 
safe and healthy but also conducive to learning? They have decent 
lighting, they are painted, the ventilation is adequate. All of these 
things do not exist in many of the inner city schools that the teachers 
are running from.
  So we cannot solve the problem of certification by focusing only on 
the problem of teacher certification. We cannot have high standards for 
teachers if the pool of teachers is always going to be very shallow. 
These school systems do not have a choice. If they want a body in front 
of the classroom, they are going to have to take an inadequate teacher, 
a teacher that is not certified.
  In fact, we had a dramatic situation in one district. In my 
congressional district there are four different school districts. And 
in those school districts they have varying kinds of problems, but one 
has an intense problem with uncertified teachers. The teachers' union 
offered the uncertified teachers in one district their tuition. They 
said they would pay their tuition. They would cover the cost if they 
would go finish their education, so they can take the test and be 
certified. The majority of the uncertified teachers, many of whom have 
been around for years, did not want to bother, even with the tuition 
paid and the benefits the union was willing to offer. They refused.
  And, of course, the superintendent of that district said, well, 
everybody who

[[Page H1843]]

refuses to accept the offer will place their job in jeopardy. The 
answer came back from some of the uncertified teachers, go ahead. 
Because they knew if they were fired, they could go to another 
district. If they were fired, they knew there would be nobody in front 
of these classes. They understand very well things are at such a low 
point in terms of teacher availability and teacher training that most 
districts are desperate to have a body in front of a classroom. They 
must have an adult in front of a classroom, and that is their first 
priority. They cannot demand that people get certified.
  Uncertified teachers do not have the same benefits as certified 
teachers. They suffer a few hardships, but there are some people in the 
world who just want a basic job and have no ambition or whatever. The 
pool is so shallow until we cannot weed those folks out. There was a 
time when people coming out of college, the first job that they had was 
teaching. It was a time when large numbers of people, certainly in the 
minority community, had no options. So we had some of the best teachers 
in the Nation in the minority schools because we had brilliant people 
who could not get jobs elsewhere who became great teachers.

  That is not the condition that exists anymore. We have a shallow pool 
to begin with, and if we make it difficult for them, they will not be 
there. Only those who cannot go anywhere else, the worst, the worst 
college graduates and the worst lingerers, people who have been around 
for years and years and not bothered to finish their education, all 
kinds of people have become uncertified teachers for life. It becomes a 
career, a career as an uncertified teacher.
  So we cannot solve the problem, though, if we do not address a number 
of issues. And certified teachers have now been given health benefits, 
vacation, a number of things; but the pool keeps being eroded because 
the certified teachers, the best teachers, keep leaving a system that 
has problems, including problems of poor working conditions; poor 
working conditions that sometimes jeopardize their health.
  So we can take any problem that we want to talk about: the fact that 
the regents of New York State have now said a student cannot graduate 
unless they pass a battery of tests; English test, math test, et 
cetera. There was a time when they would allow youngsters to graduate 
with a general diploma. They would march in the line and nobody would 
know the difference whether they had really completed all of their work 
or not. Now the general diploma has been eliminated so the State board 
of regents that oversees all education in the State looks good.
  That is a politician's dream, to take action, affirmative action to 
do something about poor education. But most of the affirmative action 
is directed at the students, forcing the students to live up to 
standards. They still do not have any improvements in the quality of 
the teachers. There are some schools who lost their physics teachers 5 
years ago, and they have not been able to find another person who 
pretends to know physics. Oh, yes, they will get some English teacher 
or some person who is brave enough to volunteer to go into the 
classroom, but there is a great shortage of physics teachers and other 
science teachers.
  There is one school I know of that has not had a physics teacher in 5 
years; yet we are going to make this student pass a science test when 
the teacher is inadequate in the area of science. We are going to make 
them pass a science test when the school has no laboratory. Not an 
inadequate laboratory, but there are some schools that have no 
laboratories where students can go and experiment.

                              {time}  2045

  Most of them that do have laboratories are woefully inadequate, they 
are stone-age creations and have nothing to do with textbooks and the 
kind of things that textbooks are talking.
  The libraries are a disgrace. Most of the libraries have books that 
are 20 and 30 years old. It is better sometimes not to learn than to 
learn the wrong facts by reading a 20- or 30-year-old book, especially 
if it is a geography book or a history book. There are a number of 
books that it is dangerous to believe the map of the world is the way 
it looked 20 or 30 years ago, the nations and the United Nations as 
they were 20 or 30 years ago. And on and on it goes.
  So all of these other problems are very real, but if we do not have 
adequate facilities, if we do not have an adequate infrastructure, the 
solution to the other problems become that much more difficult.
  We have a situation now where we are about to pass, and it is going 
to pass because very few people are against it, and I have mixed 
feelings about it, another extension for H1-B.
  H1-B is a piece of legislation that comes out of the Committee on the 
Judiciary which changes the immigration quotas for professional 
workers. Professional workers, people with expertise needed in a 
country, the agitation for these kinds of changes comes from industries 
that have the greatest need.
  The industry that has the greatest need is the information technology 
industry, the industry which uses computers and has taken us into the 
whole world of digitalization. They need people. There are real 
vacancies. They are not exaggerating. And I suspect, even with the 
gyrations of the stock market, the fact that it has gone up and down 
and some technology companies may be in trouble, I suspect they will 
have no real impact on their need for more high-tech employees.
  So we are going to have the bill on the floor to greatly increase the 
number of people who are allowed in the country exempted from the other 
immigration rules given a red carpet into the country to fill these 
jobs.
  I think it was increased less than 2 years ago to 125,000. And now I 
think they want to double or triple that. They are really going for 
broke in terms of many, many more to bring in. And that is the way we 
solve the problem of not having an adequate pool of young Americans who 
can meet the requirements of the age of the cybercivilization.
  We are into the cybercivilization. It surrounds us in many ways, not 
just industry and the high-tech industries. But in the military they 
are having serious problems finding young people who have had enough 
exposure to training in computers and related matters to be able to go 
into the Army, the Navy, or the Marines and deal with the high-tech 
military equipment.
  The last super aircraft carrier that was launched was 300 people 
short. They were short 300 personnel because they could not find the 
personnel who had the aptitude to learn how to operate the high-tech 
equipment. They probably solved the problem by now. But they had to put 
out to sea and launch the aircraft carrier 300 personnel short.
  So those who think that pouring billions of dollars into defense is a 
noble and adequate act relevant to our times, stop and think about the 
fact that the high-tech military that we have is as much in need of 
brain power as our economy is or any other sector of operation.
  Brain power is the power that drives everything. And surely, if the 
public out there, the voters who clamor for more government assistance 
for education, if they understand this, why do the elected Members of 
Congress, most of whom have gone to college, most of whom read quite a 
bit, most of whom are in an atmosphere where these items are discussed, 
why do they cling like savages to the taboo that Federal assistance to 
schools should not include school construction?

  Let me just read two items here, portions of it. April 4. ``Today the 
Clinton-Gore administration put out a `National Call to Action' to 
close the digital divide.'' To close the digital divide means that 
there is a segment of our population, the elite segment, they are very 
much well versed in the whole digital age, computers and Web sites, and 
they are off and running, they are making a lot of money, they are 
improving technology by leaps and bounds, we have geometrically 
increases in our knowledge, but they are leaving behind them a large 
segment of the population, not just the poor and the minorities, but 
there are many children of working families who are not minorities who 
will also be left behind.
  Children of working families in America need first-class schools and 
need world-class schools, and they are being denied those schools by 
the kind of decision making that refuses to recognize the need for 
school construction.

[[Page H1844]]

  So we have the phenomenon of President Clinton announcing today that 
over 400 companies and nonprofit organizations have signed a ``National 
Call to Action'' to bring digital opportunity to youth, families, and 
communities. President Clinton's ``National Call to Action'' is a 
challenge to corporations and nonprofit organizations to take concrete 
steps to meet two critical goals.
  Goal one is to provide 21st century learning tools for every child in 
every school. For children to succeed, they need to master basic skills 
at an early age. The ability to use technology to learn and succeed in 
the workplace of the 21st century has become a new basic, creating a 
national imperative to ensure that every child is technologically 
literate.
  To reach this goal, America needs a comprehensive approach to connect 
every classroom, provide all students with access to multimedia 
computers, train teachers to use and integrate technology into the 
curriculum, and to provide high quality on-line content and educational 
software.
  Goal number two is to create digital opportunities for every American 
family and community. For all families and communities to benefit from 
the new economy, we must ensure that all Americans have access to 
technology and the skills needed to use it. We must work to meet the 
long-term goal of making home access to the Internet universal to bring 
technology to every neighborhood through community technology centers, 
empower all citizens with information technology skills, and motivate 
more people to appreciate the value of getting connected.
  And then the President proceeds to announce a number of initiatives 
being taken in connection with Government and private industry. And it 
is the private sector, of course, that is taking the initiatives which 
involve money, additional funding. Because we are at a standstill here 
in this Congress in recognition of the fact that we are going into the 
cybercivilization, and we need to address the investment of more of our 
money into the education of our populous.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statement: The 
Clinton-Gore Administration: Related to a ``National Call to Action'' 
to close the digital divide:

The Clinton-Gore Administration: A National Call To Action To Close the 
                             Digital Divide

       President Clinton Will Announce Today That Over 400 
     Companies And Non-Profit Organizations Have Signed A 
     ``National Call To Action'' To Bring Digital Opportunity To 
     Youth, Families and Communities. The President will be joined 
     by the Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, Senator Barbara 
     Mikulski and Julian Lacey, a longtime volunteer at Plugged 
     In, a Community Technology Center in East Palo Alto, 
     California. He will announce his ``National Call to Action'' 
     to help bring digital opportunity to youth, families and 
     communities around the country. Over 400 companies and non-
     profit organizations have agreed to sign this Call to Action.
       President Clinton's ``National Call To Action.'' President 
     Clinton has issued a ``National Call to Action'' to challenge 
     corporations and non-profit organizations to take concrete 
     steps to meet two critical goals:
       Provide 21st Century Learning Tools For Every Child In 
     Every School. For children to succeed, they need to master 
     basic skills at an early age. The ability to use technology 
     to learn and succeed in the workplace of the 21st century has 
     become a ``new basic''--creating a national imperative to 
     ensure that every child is technologically literate. To reach 
     this goal, America needs a comprehensive approach to connect 
     every classroom, provide all students with access to 
     multimedia computers, train teachers to use and integrate 
     technology into the curriculum, and to provide high quality. 
     online content and educational software.
       Create Digital Opportunity For Every American Family And 
     Community. For all families and communities to benefit from 
     the New Economy, we must ensure that all Americans have 
     access to technology and the skills needed to use it. We must 
     work to meet the long-term goal of making home access to the 
     internet universal, bring technology to every neighborhood 
     through community technology centers, empower all citizens 
     with IT skills, and motivate more people to appreciate the 
     value of ``getting connected.''
       The President Will Announce Several Initiatives To Help 
     Bring Digital Opportunity To All Americans. The President 
     will announce the following initiatives that demonstrate a 
     real commitment by the public and private sectors to work 
     together to bridge the digital divide:
       $12.5 Million For An ``E-Corps.'' The Corporation for 
     National Service will commit $10 million to recruit 750 
     qualified AmeriCorps members for projects aimed at bringing 
     digital opportunity to youth, families and communities. These 
     volunteers will provide technical support to school computer 
     systems, tutor at Community Technology Centers, and offer IT 
     training for high-tech careers. The Corporation for National 
     Service will also commit $2.5 million for digital divide 
     projects under the Learn and Serve program, which allows 
     young people to make a difference in their communities while 
     going to school.
       Yahoo! Will Invest $1 Million in Digital Opportunity. 
     Yahoo! will provide an Internet advertising campaign worth $1 
     million to enlist volunteers with high-tech skills for 
     AmeriCorps' digital divide initiative. The Yahoo! banner ads 
     will help AmeriCorps meet the challenge of recruiting 
     volunteers with high-tech skills to work on technology-
     related projects.
       3Com Launches NetPrep GYRLS. In partnership with the YWCA's 
     TechGYRLS program, 3Com will announce NetPrep GYRLS, a 
     $330,000 program that will offer girls aged 14-16 training in 
     computer networking. Currently, women represent less than 30 
     percent of U.S. computer scientists and computer programmers. 
     The 3Com NetPrep curriculum will allow high school girls to 
     focus their technical education on computer networking, 
     leading to an industry-standard certification. 3Com expects 
     to reach 600 girls in 30 NetPrep GYRLS locations across the 
     country.
       American Library Association. The American Library 
     Association will pledge to help bridge the digital divide by 
     working with its members to create or expand ``information 
     literacy'' programs in at least 250 communities around the 
     country. People with information literacy skills are able to 
     recognize when information is needed and have the ability to 
     locate, evaluate, and use it effectively.
       President Clinton Will Also Announce His Third New Markets 
     Tour--From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. On April 
     17-18, President Clinton, accompanied by CEOs, Members of 
     Congress, Cabinet Secretaries and community leaders will 
     focus national attention on initiatives aimed at overcoming 
     the digital divide and creating opportunities for youth, 
     families and communities. The President will travel to East 
     Palo Alto, California; the Navajo Nation in Shiprock, New 
     Mexico; and Chicago, Illinois to highlight private and 
     public-sector initiatives to help bring digital opportunity 
     to all Americans. Later this month, the President will travel 
     to rural North Carolina to stress the importance of expanding 
     rural access to the emerging broadband Internet.

  The Importance of Bridging the Digital Divide and Creating Digital 
                     Opportunity for All Americans

       Access to computers and the Internet and the ability to 
     effectively use this technology are becoming increasingly 
     important for full participation in America's economic, 
     political and social life. People are using the Internet to 
     find lower prices of goods and services, work from home or 
     start their own business, acquire new skills using distance 
     learning, and make better informed decisions about their 
     healthcare needs. The ability to use technology is becoming 
     increasingly important in the workplace, and jobs in the 
     rapidly growing information technology sector pay almost 80 
     percent more than the average private sector wage.
       Technology, used creatively, can also make a big difference 
     in the way teachers teach and students learn. In some 
     classrooms, teachers re using the Internet to keep up with 
     the latest developments in their field, exchange lesson plans 
     with their colleagues, and communicate more frequently with 
     parents. Students are able to log on to the Library of 
     Congress to download primary documents for a history paper, 
     explore the universe with an Internet-connected telescope 
     used by professional astronomers, and engage in more active 
     ``learning by doing.'' Students are also creating powerful 
     Internet-based learning resources that can be used by other 
     students--such as award-winning Web sites on endangered 
     species, the biology of sleep,human perception of sound, and 
     an exploration of the American judicial system.
       Access to computers and the Internet has exploded during 
     the Clinton-Gore Administration. Unfortunately, there is 
     strong evidence of a ``digital divide''--a gap between those 
     individuals and communities that have access to these 
     information Age tools and those who don't. A July 1999 report 
     from the Department of Commerce, based on December 1998 
     Census Department data, revealed that:
       Better educated Americans more likely to be connected. 
     Between 1997 and 1998, the technology divide between those at 
     the highest and lowest education levels increased 25%. In 
     1998, those with a college degree are more than eight times 
     likely to have a computer at home and nearly sixteen times as 
     likely to have home Internet access as those with an 
     elementary school education.
       The gap between high- and low-income Americans is 
     increasing. In the last year, the divide between those at the 
     highest and lowest income levels grew 29%. Urban households 
     with incomes of $75,000 or higher are more than twenty times 
     more likely to have access to the Internet than rural 
     households at the lowest income levels, and more than nine 
     times as likely to have a computer at home.
       Whites more likely to be connected than African-Americans 
     or Hispanics. The digital

[[Page H1845]]

     divide also persists along racial and ethnic lines. Whites 
     are more likely to have access to the Internet from home than 
     African-Americans or Hispanics have from any location. 
     African-American and Hispanic households are roughly two-
     fifths as likely to have home Internet access as white 
     households. However, for incomes of $75,000 and higher, the 
     divide between whites and African-Americans has narrowed 
     considerably in the last year.
       Rural areas less likely to be connected than urban users. 
     Regardless of income level, those living in rural areas are 
     lagging behind in computer ownership and Internet access. At 
     some income levels, those in urban areas are 50% more likely 
     to have Internet access than those earning the same income in 
     rural areas. Low income households in rural areas are the 
     least connected. with connectivity rates in the singles 
     digits for both computes and Internet access.
       In addition, data from the National Center for Education 
     Statistics reveals a `digital divide' in our nation's 
     schools. As of the fall of 1998, 39 percent of classrooms of 
     poor schools were connected to the Internet, as compared to 
     74 percent in wealthier schools.

  I will not go through the entire piece because it is available on the 
Internet from the White House, and now we can get it from the Library 
of Congress THOMAS because it will be entered into the Record here for 
this special order.
  There is another document that I would like to also read some 
excerpts from. This is a document that came from a group in California 
near Silicon Valley: Jacqueline S. Anderson, the vice president of the 
Bay Area Chapter of Black Data Processing Associates; Hattie Carwell, 
who is president of Northern California Council of Black Professional 
Engineers; Eric Harris, who is the chair of the National Society of 
Black Engineers Alumni-Extension in the Silicon Valley Chapter; Henry 
Hutchins, the president of San Francisco Bay Area Chapter National 
Black MBA Association; Dr. Keith Jackson, the National Society of Black 
Physicists; Harvey Pye, Human Resources Network of Black Professionals; 
Kervin Hinkston, the president of the Bay Area Chapter Black Data 
Processing Associates; Frederick E. Jordan, the co-founder of the 
Northern California Council of Black Professional Engineers; John 
William Templeton, Books'n'Bytes, the Technology Alliance for African 
American Students.
  They sent this letter to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) 
and they sent copies to Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
etc.
  They did not send a copy to me. But in the Congressional Black Caucus 
meeting today, it was passed around and I found it to be very relevant 
to what is taking place right now in our Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and what will be coming to the floor probably next week, if 
not tomorrow, the H1-B visa issue.
  As I said before, H1-B visa is an exemption that is granted for 
professionals and experts to come into the country without having to go 
into the usual procedures to speed into the country those people which 
the industry needs in high-tech jobs and other positions requiring 
expertise.
  We went through that less than 2 years ago, and we increased the 
quota greatly. And now they are coming back for a still greater 
increase in quota. These people whose names I just read, all 
minorities, practically all African Americans, who are professional, 
who are experts, who are scientists, have written to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) about the dilemma they face at a time when we 
are bringing in H1-B professionals from all over the world.
  I am going to read some excerpts here from this letter, and I will 
submit the rest of it for the Record.

       Dear Representative Gephardt, more than 10,000 African 
     American students in physics, chemistry, and engineering have 
     met in the past 30 days. Only a token number of Silicon 
     Valley companies showed up to recruit them.
       When the National Council of Black Engineers and Scientists 
     met in Oakland in 1998, not a single Silicon Valley company 
     showed up to recruit them. You can ask Representative Barbara 
     Lee (D-California) because she spoke at the event.
       Those young people are counting on you and the Democratic 
     Members of Congress to protect their right to earn a living 
     in the highest wage, highest growth sectors of our economy. 
     That is why we are quite disturbed that you and other members 
     of the Democratic Caucus are supporting gargantuan increases 
     in the H1-B program that exceed the total number of projected 
     new jobs in the high-technology industry.
       Dr. Anita Borg of the Institute on Women and Technology, 
     pointed out on 60 Minutes that the jobs being filled by H1-Bs 
     correspond almost exactly with the underrepresentation of 
     women and minorities in science and technology education. The 
     proposal you are quoting as backing would not only fill all 
     those jobs but all the available university slots at the same 
     time as many States are ending their affirmative action 
     programs.
       Back in 1876 the Hayes-Tilden compromise set in motion an 
     irreversible series of events that led to Plessy v. Ferguson 
     and Jim Crow laws. The ability to impose segregation in 
     practically every employment sector was undergirded by 
     extensive immigration.
       The point here is that immigration has been used to defeat 
     the training of people with insight and the employment of 
     people who are already inside the country.
       In January of this year, we received the entire file of 
     labor condition applications from the Department of Labor for 
     the western United States. After selecting 100 LCAs at 
     random, we solicited resumes for the jobs among groups of 
     older white programmers and African-Americans. We were able 
     to gain a sufficient number of responses within 4 days and 
     submitted the data to the applicant companies. We have yet to 
     get a single response.

  They go on and on talking about the great need in Silicon Valley for 
people that is being voiced by the companies there as they are joining 
the other high-tech companies around the country, and they are 
demanding that we get more foreigners in through the H1-B visa process 
while they are not making the opportunities available to people within 
their own jurisdictions, own areas.
  These are people who have already gotten training and have said that 
they are being locked out because the H1-B visa process brings in a 
more desirable people in terms of people from other countries who are 
willing to work for lower salaries and for other reasons that they 
claim they cannot quite comprehend but prejudice and discrimination are 
at the heart of it as they see it.
  I do not agree with the statement here that we have enough people in 
the country already to fill all those vacancies. But I do sympathize 
with these workers because they represent another part of the problem.

                              {time}  2100

  Part of the problem we are faced with when they bring in workers from 
outside is that they are paying them much lower salaries. In fact, one 
of the great sources of high-tech workers, information technology 
workers, is India. India had a vision more than 20 years ago to see 
that this was an area where they wanted to develop a large pool of 
highly trained people, so they have become the suppliers of high-tech 
personnel all over the world, especially in English-speaking countries. 
So India, because it is an English-speaking country that has the 
professionals who have this kind of expertise, has become a major 
supplier. But they come and they work for much lower salaries. The 
appeal of the lower salaries is a factor in the push to get more of 
them in rather than to have better training programs and greater 
opportunities being created here in this Nation for people who are here 
already.
  They conclude by saying:

       We do not see the gesture of applying H1-B fees to 
     scholarships and K-12 education as significant. Those funds 
     should go to enforcement and streamlining the immigration 
     process, already overwhelmed by current numbers. As written, 
     the scholarships are likely to go to visa holders. The amount 
     needed to bring inner city schools to current standards for 
     high-technology instruction is about $20 billion, the same 
     amount Congress recently spent on so-called juvenile justice. 
     Instead, we would encourage requirements of direct 
     scholarship and internship assistance by any company filing 
     for such a guest worker, the funds for scholarships should go 
     to community colleges, area public institutions, historically 
     black colleges and universities, et cetera. We would also 
     give a priority for H1-B approvals to companies that meet or 
     exceed local community representation in their workforces as 
     measured by the EEO-1 for underrepresented groups.
       In conclusion, it is untenable for America to spend 
     billions locking up African American and Latino youth or 
     forcing them to fight overseas wars just to gain skills or an 
     education and then to lock them out of the best-paying jobs. 
     If there is a choice in the

[[Page H1846]]

     2000 elections, then we would expect you to stand up for 
     those who have traditionally supported you. You have the 
     benefit of history to guide your decision. Don't let Jim Crow 
     come back.

  This letter from the professionals from the Bay Area I would like to 
submit in its entirety for the Record.

     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gephardt: More than 10,000 African-
     American students in physics, chemistry and engineering have 
     met in the past 30 days. Only a token number of Silicon 
     Valley companies showed up to recruit them. When the National 
     Council of Black Engineers and Scientists met in Oakland in 
     1998, not a single Silicon Valley company showed up to 
     recruit them. You can ask Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, who spoke 
     at the event.
       Those young people are counting on you and the Democratic 
     members of Congress to protect their right to earn a living 
     in the highest wage, highest growth sectors of our economy. 
     That is why we are quite disturbed that you and other members 
     of the Democratic Caucus are supporting gargantuan increases 
     in the H1-B program that exceed the total number of projected 
     new jobs in the high technology industry.
       Dr. Anita Borg of the Institute on Women and Technology 
     pointed out on 60 Minutes that the jobs being filled by H1-Bs 
     correspond almost exactly with the underrepresentation of 
     women and minorities in science and technology education. The 
     proposal you are quoted as backing would not only fill all 
     the jobs, but all the available university slots at the same 
     time as many states are ending affirmative action programs.
       Frankly, it is a shame that two conservative Republicans, 
     Reps. Lamar Smith and Tom Campbell, from the two highest-
     growth technology areas, Austin and Palo Alto, are sounding 
     the alarm for the protection of American workers, while the 
     Democratic Caucus appears to be chasing campaign dollars.
       Back in 1876, the Hayes-Tilden Compromise set in motion an 
     irreversible series of events that led to Plessy vs. Ferguson 
     and Jim Crow laws. The ability to impose segregation in 
     practically every employment sector was undergirded by 
     extensive immigration.
       In Silicon valley, the progress of the African-American, 
     Latino and Native American communities since the 1960s to 
     break into technology has been reversed since 1996. Our 
     analysis of 253 EEO-1 forms from Northern California high 
     tech firms showed an absolute decline in the employment from 
     these groups. In addition, 80 percent of high tech companies 
     do not even file the EEO-1 form. By comparison, the same 
     cohort makes up 35 percent of the Department of Defense's 
     civilian and uniformed personnel.
       In January of this year, we received the entire file of 
     Labor Condition Applications from the Department of Labor for 
     the western United States. After selecting 100 LCAs at 
     random, we solicited resumes for the jobs among groups of 
     older white programmers and African-Americans. We were able 
     to gain a sufficient number of responses within four days and 
     submitted the data to the applicant companies.
       We have yet to get a single response. Keep in mind, under 
     the unenforceable ACWIA, each applicant company ``attests'' 
     that it can not find American workers for the job. However, 
     no government agency actually audits or monitors that claim.
       The seven-day response guarantee on LCAs looks like a 
     speedway compared to person who have filed discrimination 
     complaints with the federal government against high tech 
     firms. Waits of two years for a ``right to sue'' letter are 
     minimum. 3Com fired an African-American engineer, Lindsay 
     Brown, last year from its Palm Computing division the day 
     after he filed a complaint with the EEOC. That shows the kind 
     of contempt for labor standards that the H1-B program is 
     breeding in high technology. Although we informed EEOC and 
     OFCCP about the 80 percent non-response rate for EEO-1s two 
     years ago, neither agency has even sent a letter to the 
     offending companies.
       Only discriminatory practices can explain the fact that 
     there are more than 225,000 African-American engineers, 
     programmers and systems analysts, according to the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics, yet only 1,688 black professional employees 
     of any kind in those Silicon Valley companies.
       You should take note of the fact that the three states with 
     the highest demand for these H1-Bs have all taken steps to 
     reduce African-American and Latino enrollment in their 
     colleges, particularly in graduate and science programs, 
     through initiatives funded largely by high technology 
     executives.
       Putting the pieces together, Congressional approval of the 
     Abraham or Lofgren-Dreier bills would extend and accelerate 
     ethnic cleansing in the high technology industry, lock the 
     doors of opportunity for decades and harden racial inequality 
     into concrete and steel, instead of merely glass.
       We would encourage you to support and extend the worker 
     protection provisions in the Smith-Campbell bill by requiring 
     that companies with active ``right-to-sue'' letters from the 
     EEOC or OFCCP be barred from making ``attestations'' about 
     hiring American workers; by making filing of the EEO-1 form a 
     prerequisite for a Labor Condition Application; by funding 
     personnel to perform audits and backup checks on H1-B visas.
       We do not see the gesture of applying H1-B fees to 
     scholarships and k12 education as significant. Those funds 
     should go to enforcement and streamlining the immigration 
     process, already overwhelmed by current numbers. As written, 
     the scholarships are likely to go to visa holders. The amount 
     needed to bring inner-city schools to current standards for 
     high technology instruction is about $20 billion, the same 
     amount Congress recently spent on so-called ``juvenile 
     justice.'' Instead, we would encourage requirements of direct 
     scholarship and internship assistance by any company filing 
     for such a guest worker to community colleges, area public 
     institutions, HBCUS or OMIs. We would also give a priority 
     for H1-B approvals to companies that meet or exceed local 
     community representation in their workforces as measured by 
     the EEO-1 for underrepresented groups. Right now Congress has 
     made it cheaper to recruit from the Indian Institute of 
     Technology than from North Carolina A&T or Hampton 
     University. While Congress ponders giving $40 million to 110 
     HBCUs for graduate education, the Indian government has asked 
     for $1 billion from U.S. emigres for just six institutions.
       In conclusion, it is untenable for America to spend 
     billions locking up African-American and Latino youth or 
     forcing them to fight overseas wars just to gain skills or an 
     education and then to lock them out of the best-paying jobs. 
     If there is a choice in the 2000 elections, then we would 
     expect you to stand up for those who have traditionally 
     supported you. You have the benefit of history to guide your 
     decision. Don't let Jim crow come back.
           Sincerely,
         Jacqueline S. Anderson, Vice President Bay Area Chapter, 
           Black Data Processing Associates; Hattie Carwell, 
           President, Northern California Council of Black 
           Professional Engineers; Eric J. Harris, Chair, National 
           Society of Black Engineers-Alumni Extension, Silicon 
           Valley Chapter; Henry Hutchins, President, San 
           Francisco Bay Area Chapter, National Black MBA 
           Association; Kevin Hinkston, President, Bay Area 
           Chapter, Black Data Processing Associates; Dr. Keith 
           Jackson, National Society of Black Physicists; 
           Frederick E. Jordan, P.E. Co-founder, Northern 
           California Council of Black Professional Engineers; 
           Harvey Pye, Human Resources Network of Black 
           Professionals; John William Templeton, Books'n'Bytes: 
           the technology alliance for African-American students.

  As I close, I would like to just go back to the fact that I reported 
when I began, that is, that there was a lengthy discussion in the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce today. I am proud of the fact 
that we finally had a discussion which almost lasted 2 hours on school 
construction, because the general tenor has been that school 
construction belongs somewhere else and the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce had surrendered its powers to the Committee on Ways and 
Means. It was a victory just to have the discussion. We also discussed 
it because there was an amendment offered to put the President's 
proposed $1.3 billion into the bill that the majority Republicans have 
put forth as they complete the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization.
  I see both of those items, the fact that the President even proposed 
a $1.3 billion amount for school repairs and the fact that we had a 
discussion as one more piece of evidence that we are winning, those of 
us who agree with the overwhelming body of American voters out there 
that it is only common sense to put more money into education, more 
resources into education; and among those items in the education 
budget, the school construction component is a vital component. It is a 
kingpin component.
  We are happy to see that we are beginning to win. Slowly we are 
moving off dead center. I also mentioned a few moments ago that the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has now joined forces with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in the Committee on Ways and 
Means; so even that bill, as inadequate as it may be, the bill which 
allows for $25 billion in borrowing authority and the Federal 
Government will pay the interest, as inadequate as that is, it never 
had a chance of passage before and with the joining of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut with that bill, it becomes a possibility.
  We are winning, and I want the message to go out there to all of our 
allies, all of those millions of people who keep showing up in the 
polls; and as I said before, the Republicans have the same polls as the 
Democrats. They are getting the same results. Nobody can hide from the 
fact that the demand of the American people is that our number

[[Page H1847]]

one priority for government assistance be the assistance to education, 
the improvement of education.
  Now, there have been some arguments made, Mr. Speaker, and you are 
aware of that, that the demand of people for funds for schools in 
general and more specifically for school construction should be met by 
the local governments and by the States. One other speaker during our 
discussion pointed out that the States have unprecedented surpluses and 
many localities have surpluses and that they should be the ones who 
provide the resources to invest in education. Those are good arguments.
  Nowhere is that truer than it is in New York City and New York State. 
Two years ago, a little less than 2 years ago, the city of New York had 
a $2 billion surplus. We have big budgets in the city; but even with 
those big budgets, the revenue that came in was $2 billion greater than 
the expenditures. At the same time, the State of New York had a $2 
billion surplus. The governor of the State of New York, who is a 
Republican, and the mayor of the State of New York both refused to 
spend a single penny on school repairs and school construction. This is 
in a city where there are 200 schools that still burn coal in their 
furnaces.
  The mayor did not do it. He would not spend any money to relieve the 
situation of overcrowding, the fact that children have to eat lunch at 
10 in the morning because of the fact that they are overcrowded and the 
lunchroom has to eat in cycles, the mayor did not move to provide any 
relief for that situation. The members of the city council did not even 
do what we do here in Congress. Democrats cannot pass anything, but at 
least we insist that there be a dialogue. The dialogue did not even 
take place in New York City. The horror of having a $2 billion surplus 
and not using it was not brought home to the people of New York City, 
the horror of a governor who vetoed a bill that the legislature passed.
  Now, in the State legislature in New York, the Assembly is controlled 
by the Democrats, the State Senate is controlled by Republicans, so you 
had a bipartisan bill which would have provided for $500 million, half 
a billion dollars for emergency school repairs. The Republican governor 
of New York State vetoed that even though he had a $2 billion surplus.
  Across the country, the Nation, you have the same pattern where the 
needs of the schools for some reason are not being met by local and 
State officials. I cannot get into the analysis of what is going on 
because I am not sure I know. What I do know is that a generation of 
children should not have to suffer because you have Neanderthals out 
there in the State and city governments, and we give them more and more 
power at the Federal level all the time.
  They cannot see the obvious, that there is a need to invest in 
education. The Nation has been shortchanged by the States many times. 
In World War I, in World War II, we found we had young people, young 
men that we had to send off to war who were unhealthy basically because 
they had poor health care and had been neglected in terms of basic 
nutrition. The Federal Government got very much involved in free lunch 
programs and all kinds of health programs because of the fact that it 
had to fight a war. The national interest was such that they had to 
have a population that could meet those requirements. They could not 
leave it up to the States. The States for some reason with all of their 
advantages, and they have gloriously served us in many ways, for some 
reason the States never take care of the people on the bottom.

  The States are examples of how democracy goes wrong and the majority 
overwhelmingly takes care of itself and the rights and the concerns and 
the welfare of the powerless minority gets neglected. That is the 
pattern. States have had responsibility for education since the 
founding of the country. The primary responsibility for education is in 
the States. The Federal Government has no direct responsibility spelled 
out in the Constitution and this is often used as a way to keep the 
Federal role at a very low level, or not there at all. But we have a 
responsibility for defense and we have a responsibility for the general 
welfare of the people.
  The general welfare is threatened as well as our military defense is 
threatened by the inadequacy of education at the State level. So we 
cannot let a generation go down the drain because the States and 
localities are too stubborn to take action and deal with the problem by 
appropriating the necessary resources. It is unconscionable; it is a 
threat to the entire Nation.
  There are several of my colleagues, the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is our 
premier expert on defense in the Democratic Caucus, they have recently 
written a letter to the President saying that we need to take a look at 
the complex of education and defense and the technology needs and the 
research and see how it all is inexplicably interwoven. You cannot 
separate the education effort from the basic research effort, the 
research effort, technology and the ability of the military to function 
in this modern world. It is all there together. With a $1.9 trillion 
surplus, we have the advantage of being able to breathe and take a look 
at it and place these investments where they should be placed.
  I am going to end by switching subjects just a bit, because I have 
spent most of the time talking about education, but there is another 
crisis in New York City which has captured the attention of most of my 
constituents and most of the people of New York. We have had a 
situation where a police killing, a man named Amadou Diallo, took place 
more than a year ago, almost 2 years ago now, I guess, and the final 
verdict set all four policemen who were responsible free. Again, the 
majority of the people in a poll in New York State showed that they 
were outraged at the verdict, and you have a lot of activity within the 
city around this.
  On top of this miscarriage of justice, recently another young man was 
shot to death by police and some unfortunate political moves were made 
by the mayor, pulling out his records as a 13-year-old and saying he 
was a troublemaker and implying that he deserved to die because at 13 
he had gotten in trouble. He was not convicted at 13; but he had been 
arrested at 13, and the record showed that. This is a boiling caldron. 
I have been trying to get people to see, it is very important that 
these matters with police brutality and police killings always touch 
off a kind of dynamite reaction on the one hand while the killing of 
children and the smothering of spirits in the education system that 
goes on and on year after year is never given much attention. They are 
related.
  I want to just close by saying that I heard that there was a group 
that met recently, a church packed with young people who decided that 
the solution of the problem was that they all should buy rifles. I can 
think of nothing more ridiculous and more dangerous than young people 
going out to buy rifles to try to solve a problem in the city. There 
are many more solutions that are to be proposed. I would like to close 
by saying that, again, education is at the heart of that. Being able to 
respond in a nonviolent way means you have to have discipline, and you 
have to have the leaders step forward and offer solutions to that 
problem in the appropriate way.

                          ____________________