[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                THE CLASSROOM MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 27, 2000

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce, along 
with several of my colleagues, the Classroom Modernization Act of 2000, 
otherwise known as the CMA. This legislation will provide the necessary 
federal response to ensure that all children receive a high-quality 
education in a safe, suitable, and fully equipped classroom.
  Research shows that academic performance suffers when students are in 
school buildings that are below par. Safety code violations, outdated 
science equipment, inadequate vocational education laboratories, 
environmental hazards, structural impediments to personal safety, and 
facilities that are not user friendly for disabled students, can all 
adversely affect the degree to which students learn.
  Joining me today in the introduction of CMA are three Members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce who have been involved from 
the beginning in developing the legislation. Representatives Isakson, 
Castle, and McKeon have devoted considerable time and effort to this 
initiative, and the results bear their imprints.
  I have said repeatedly that the primary responsibility for school 
construction is and should remain at the state and local level. In FY 
1995, President Clinton chose to rescind funds that Congress 
appropriated for the school construction program authorized in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In FY 1996, the administration 
did not request any construction funds, and Department of Education 
budget documents stated:

       The construction and renovation of school facilities has 
     traditionally been, the responsibility of state and local 
     governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers; we are 
     opposed to the creation of a new federal grant program for 
     school construction. . . . No funds are requested for this 
     program. . . . For the reason explained above, the 
     Administration opposes the creation of a new federal grant 
     program for school construction.

  However, I have come to believe that the federal government can 
provide a measured response to this urgent need without usurping state 
and local decision-making. That is exactly what the Classroom 
Modernization Act does. It assists states and local educational 
agencies, including charter schools, with the expenses of federal 
statutory requirements and priorities relating to infrastructure, 
technology, and equipment needs.
  Specifically, it provides assistance to states and local schools to 
help them comply with federal statutory and regulatory requirements. 
Increasingly, states and school districts are finding that they must 
spend local funds on federal mandates. The CMA would help alleviate 
that burden. It is only proper that the federal government provide 
financing for such activities as facilities modifications in order to 
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and asbestos removal 
from school buildings in order to comply with the Asbestos School 
Hazard Abatement Act.
  It is also important that internet wiring, improvements in vocational 
and science laboratories and equipment, and school facility renovations 
undertaken to comply with fire and safety codes should be allowable 
uses of funds at the local level.
  Charter schools should also benefit significantly through CMA. 
Charter schools are public schools established under state law. 
Although a relatively new concept, charter schools are making great 
strides in improving and reforming public education. Initial reports 
show parental satisfaction is high, students are eager to learn, 
teachers are enjoying teaching again, administrators are set free from 
bureaucratic red-tape, and more dollars are getting to the classroom.
  Unfortunately, charter schools have faced roadblocks in financing the 
construction and acquisition of school facilities. Often those states 
that do allow charter schools do not provide a dedicated funding stream 
for capital improvements or new construction for charter schools. The 
bill I am introducing today remedies this situation by assisting with 
the infrastructure expenses of charter schools.
  CMA provides flexibility in the use of funds for charter schools. 
Specifically, as an incentive for states to direct funds to charter 
schools, the bill does not require a match for federal funds directed 
toward charter school infrastructure activities. As an incentive for 
states to operate a state guaranteed loan program in which charter 
schools participate, CMA allows states to retain funds for the 
administrative costs of operating such a program.
  I ask my colleagues in the House to take a look at the Classroom 
Modernization Act of 2000 and consider it as a carefully measured 
approach to dealing with school facilities.

                          ____________________