[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 112 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7888-H7897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR,
HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees,
pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on the
highest funding level possible for the Department of
Education; and to insist on disagreeing with provisions in
the Senate amendment which denies the President's request for
dedicated resources to reduce class sizes in the early grades
and for local school construction and, instead, broadly
expands the title VI Education Block Grant with limited
accountability in the use of funds.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, under the House rules, is it permissible to
divide a motion to instruct? Because we would agree with part of this,
that is the funding level for education, but the rest of it we do not
agree with. Is it possible to divide a motion of this type?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from Illinois specify
how he would like the question divided?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it be divided after the
line 4, the word ``education, semicolon,''
[[Page H7889]]
and so that we would consider the highest funding level possible in one
segment and then there would be a separate motion for the rest of it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that as
a 20-day motion under clause 7(c) of rule XXII, the motion is
grammatically and substantively divisible under the precedents and that
at the end of the debate the Chair will put the question on the
divisible portions.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are here on this motion today in large part because
yesterday a motion to instruct conferees on this bill was made on that
side of the aisle and I indicated that if we were going to get into the
business of instructing conferees then we would have a significant
number of motions on our own on this side.
{time} 1245
I do not particularly enjoy this process, but I do not think we can
sit by while the guns are being fired by only one side on an issue as
important as education, for instance.
I am also disappointed, frankly, because I understood that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our good friend, was going
to offer a motion which would have instructed the House to support the
idea of making major appropriations to Title VI for the purpose of
providing funding to local school districts, which they could use with
great flexibility. Let me state, if that motion had been offered, I
would have voted for it.
My position on this, and I think the vast majority of people on this
side of the aisle feel the same way, is that we are for all of the
money that we can get into education and get back to local school
districts. We think that is the number one priority facing the country.
However, we believe that there ought to be accountability in the way
that money is used, and we believe that whatever funds are provided
from such a block grant, for instance, should be provided in addition
to the funds that are provided to meet national priority needs, not as
a substitute for funds which are provided for those priority needs.
There is a second reason that we are here, because I think we need to
clarify what it is that both parties are trying to do in the conference
on the Labor, Health and Education appropriation bill. To explain that,
I need to put it in context.
Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, the majority party, when they took over
control of this House, produced a budget which, among other things,
tried to cut the Education budget 20 percent below the budget of the
previous year; they tried to eliminate the Department of Education, and
they felt so strongly about it that they were willing to see the
government shut down in order to force their budget priorities on the
President. They did not exactly win that argument, and they certainly
did not win the political argument associated with it. So they slowly
but surely have backed off that proposition, but they continue at every
opportunity to show their basic antagonism toward initiatives made by
the President to strengthen education.
The latest evidence of that is the fact that in the bill which moved
out of the House, they made very large cuts in the President's
education budget. They cut some $400 million out of after-school
funding that the President had proposed. They cut $1.3 billion out of
school modernization, they cut $1.7 billion out of the President's
class size initiative, and instead tried to fold that money into a
block grant arrangement under which a major ability to achieve
accountability is lost. That is one of the places where we part
company.
The majority now, in conference, has chosen to add about $5.5 billion
of their priorities back into the Labor, Health, Education bill, but so
far, there appears to be no room in the inn for our priorities or the
President's priorities.
I want to make it clear. We do not believe that providing flexible
funding to school districts is automatically opposed to the idea of
providing specific funding for specific purposes to local districts. We
think we ought to do both; and, in fact, we have provided that we do
both, by supporting significant funding for Title VI. But we want to
make it clear. We are for the President's efforts to provide $1.7
billion for his class-size reduction program. We are for the
President's efforts to provide $1.3 billion in assistance to local
school districts to renovate ancient, outmoded and dangerous buildings.
I just had one closed in my district last week by the State Department
of Public Construction, for instance; and we are for some other things.
The majority party has increased funding for special education by a
significant amount, and yet the bill does not fully reflect the amount
for special education that this House indicated it wanted to see when
on May 3, it passed the authorization. So we believe that there ought
to be a substantial increase in special education funding above the
amount provided in the House bill. We also believe that since we are
providing huge amounts of money to Colombia for drug interdiction, we
also ought to have a significant increase of well over $200 million in
funding for drug treatment slots here at home.
We also believe that we ought to substantially increase Pell Grant
funding above the amount provided by either the administration or the
majority party in its budget so far.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the problem we face is that
under the newest of proposals raised by the majority party on how to
deal with the surplus, they indicate that there would be about $28
billion on the table that could be used for a variety of purposes. So
far, it appears that they intend to use $2 billion of that in the
Energy and Water bill; it appears that the interior bill is going to
come back to the House $3 billion to $4 billion above the level that it
was when it passed the House originally, yet we are told that none of
that money should be, none of that $28 billion should be devoted to
increases in education above the amount stipulated by the majority
party. We do not agree with that.
Mr. Speaker, we think, therefore, that this motion is proper in both
of its aspects. We simply ask that the conferees provide the highest
funding level possible for the Department of Education, and we also ask
that we disagree with the provisions in the Senate amendment which
would fund the flexible money that goes back to school districts in the
form of block grants at the expense of the President's two initiatives
on school modernization and on class-size reduction. We are perfectly
willing to see an increase in Title VI, provided that we have adequate
accountability for those funds, but not at the expense of the
President's priorities.
Mr. Speaker, we believe this country is healthy enough and prosperous
enough to fund both the majority party's priorities and ours and the
President's, and that is the purpose of this motion to instruct today.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) very cleverly
writes a motion, the first part of which says that the House should
insist on the highest funding level possible for the Department of
Education. Certainly, all of us agree with that, proposition. Then adds
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), adds provisions that he knows
we disagree with dealing with control by Washington over the
expenditure of funds by local school districts.
I am pleased that the Chair has told us that we can divide this
question. If we look at what we have done on education in our tentative
conference report, and we have completed the conference and have the
report but have not filed it, we are already $600 million in funding
for the Department of Education above the President's budget. We have
$600 million more than the President committed to providing adequate
resources for education. We have plussed up important accounts, making
a Federal commitment to education that is far greater than the the
President of the United States submitted to the Congress earlier this
year.
Look at the accounts. In education technology, we are ahead of the
President. In education for the disadvantaged, a $9 billion account, we
are ahead of the President. Impact Aid: the
[[Page H7890]]
President has attempted every time he has offered a budget to cut that
responsibility of the Federal Government; we have increased it. We are
$258 million ahead of the President's request on Impact Aid, which is
important in many school districts impacted by the Federal presence.
Special education: We have increased this account. In fact, we have,
doubled, this account in the last 6 years. Our increase this year is $1
billion more than the President asked for. Education for the homeless:
We are ahead of the President. Rehabilitation services: We are ahead of
the President. Vocational and adult education: We are ahead of the
President. Student financial assistance: $300 million ahead of the
President, and we have increased Pell Grants far more than the
President asked for, because we know that young people in America need
this help to get a higher education. Historically Black Colleges and
Universities: We are substantially ahead of the President. Hispanic-
serving institutions: We are substantially ahead of the President. The
TRIO program: Another program like special education and Pell Grants,
where every year we have been substantially ahead of the President's
budget, providing more money than he asked for in this fiscal year.
Higher education: Ahead of the President.
So, Mr. Speaker, in program after program, especially those programs
that are important to those most at risk in our society where they need
the resources to get ahead educationally, we are substantially ahead of
the President of the United States.
So, do we disagree with the first part of this motion to instruct
saying that we should fund it at the highest possible level? Absolutely
not. We are already way ahead of the President of the United States in
our commitment to education.
The second part of the motion deals with fundamental differences
between the two parties. And here, yes, we definitely do disagree. Who
should be responsible for making education decisions? Washington, D.C.,
which is what they want, or local school districts, which is what we
want. Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about this in terms of
accountability. Do not be fooled. This is not accountability, this is
who controls where the money is spent. It means accountability to
Washington, not accountability to the local taxpayers who provide most
of the funding for education in our country. So do not be fooled by the
word accountability; it is controll by Washington that the gentleman is
proposing, and do we disagree with that? Absolutely, we disagree with
that.
On school construction. The conference agreement puts $3.1 billion
into Title VI, the block grant that allows local school districts the
discretion to spend these funds according to what they believe are
their needs. They may use it for school construction, reducing class
size, professional development, or what their needs are. Should they be
forced to use this money for school construction when they do not need
it? Of course not. But it should be available to them for training
teachers or reducing class size or doing other things that they know
very well, much better than Washington, what the needs may be.
The President's approach wants Washington control, it ignores local
flexibility in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the
Federal Government. We think that is wrong. We think most Members in
this body think that is wrong. We very much oppose the gentleman's
motion in that part of it that deals with this philosophical,
difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just said that obviously all of us on the
House floor agree with the first part of the motion that asks the
conferees to fund education at the highest possible level. But, in
fact, the conferees yesterday repeated early and often the fact that
they were not willing to go one dime above the level now contained in
their bill for the Labor, Health, and Education budget.
It is true that our friends have now, belatedly, after 5 years of
trying to savage the education programs, it is true that at this point
they are above the President on some aspects of the education budget.
But that is largely due to the additions in Pell Grants and the
additions in special education, both of which we support on this side
of the aisle. We have no quarrel with that. We believe that this
country is wealthy enough that there ought to be room enough for both
Republican priorities and Democratic priorities when it comes to
education.
When it comes to the disadvantaged, for instance, the fact is that
the majority party is $85 million in total below the President's budget
for Title I, and within that reduced number they have eliminated the
President's request for $250 million to use to fix schools that are in
the most trouble and are failing. On vocational education they are
above the President on State grants, but they are $200 million below
the President on voc-ed tech prep programs. And the list can go on and
on.
When we cut through it all, the fact is very simple: we are asking
the majority to put at least $3 billion in additional funding for
education into the Labor-HHS bill. If Members are for that, then vote
for this motion. If my colleagues are not for it, and they vote for
this motion, they will be walking both sides of the street. If we are
for adding that $3 billion, then we do not need any more motions to
instruct. Just bring out the conference report, and we will have a bill
that can fly through both Houses, if we deal with some of the other
problems that have to be fixed in the Labor Department and in the HHS
Department.
So when we cut through it all, in the end, what counts is whether or
not we will bring to this floor a bill which in the area of education
will provide $3 billion above the level that has been provided up to
this point. That is what this argument is about, and that is what we
are going to continue to fight for.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) has 24 minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
has 19 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, what I learned more than anything else in
the 20 years I sat in the minority on the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, and even I am reminded today as the chairman of that
committee, the approach that we took all those years positively did not
help children, and that is what this is all about.
We sat there year after year after year and we said, if we just had
one more program, if we just had another billion dollars, if we could
just cover another 100,000 children, everything would be better. And
what are the results? Well, the results are that the achievement gap
has grown. It has not decreased at all. Because over and over again we
said we have the programs, from Washington, D.C. One size will fit all.
We know better than anybody else.
But, more importantly, what we did was we took all of the money and
divided it up over and over and over again, because we kept adding new
programs. So now we are down to the point where they do not have enough
money to do anything worthwhile unless they commingle funds. And what
were our auditors doing during this time? The auditors did not ask
whether it is a quality program; they did not say is this program
succeeding. What they said was, ``If you commingle one penny, you have
had it. Boy, we will be down your throat.'' So a local district, who
could take a couple small programs and make them into a worthwhile
program, could not do it. So as I said, the achievement gap just gets
wider.
I pleaded with the President over and over again to not put the cart
before the horse. When he came up with the magnificent idea that we
need a national test, I said, ``Mr. President, first of all you have to
set the higher standards; then you have to prepare the teacher to teach
to the higher standards; then you have to test the teacher
[[Page H7891]]
to see whether they are ready to teach to the higher standards; and
then, after they teach the higher standards, then you test the child.
Because before that, all you will be doing is telling, for $100
million, 50 percent of the youngsters one more time that they are not
doing well. That is all they have ever heard.''
Then he came up with the sexy eye-catching idea that we need 100,000
teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. Well, anybody knows
if we can reduce class size in the early grades, and we have a
competent, quality teacher in the classroom, that is a plus. The
problem is, as I reminded him over and over again, if we do not have a
quality teacher to put in that classroom, then we have done nothing
except spend money and make it even worse for the children because now
they do not even have a quality teacher.
So we allowed him to have a third of those. And what happened when we
did that? Thirty-some percent of all of those first teachers had no
qualifications whatsoever. So now in the place where we need them the
most, real rural America and center city America, they ended up having
to put someone in that classroom, and the children most in need got
anything but a quality teacher. That is a tragedy. And that is what
happens when we dictate from here.
I kept telling him over and over again, ``Do you realize that in some
of those districts they may have some teachers that are fairly good;
that if they had the opportunity to better prepare those teachers, they
would have a quality teacher in the classroom?'' But, no, we had to do
something that appeared sexy. And, of course, when we look at it, we
are looking at 15,000 school districts. We are looking at a million
classrooms, and we are talking about 100,000 teachers. Again, the cart
before the horse.
When I became the chairman, I said, we have to do better. These
children are not achieving. We are not closing the achievement gap. So
we said let us do everything based on seven major principles: quality;
better teaching; local control; accountability, but the accountability
is to the children, the accountability is to the parents; more dollars
to the classroom, basic academics; and more parental involvement and
responsibility.
What we will do if we go this route that is being suggested, however,
is that now we will backtrack. And now we will be down to the business
where there is a one-size-fits-all from Washington, D.C. After all, We
know what is better than anybody else. We will let the parents out of
this whole equation; we will forget the children in this whole equation
because, as I said, more programs, more dollars have not closed that
achievement gap. It has been spread so thinly that we have not been
able to do anything about quality.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The previous speaker just said that the answer to everything is
teacher quality. If that is the case, I would like to know why the
majority party cut the President's teacher quality initiatives by $527
million below his request.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valued member of the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the strongest of
terms to reject the Obey approach to education. And I want to make two
quick points and then a larger point.
The first point I would make is to reiterate what my chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), said. When our friends on the
Democratic side say accountability, they really mean Federal control.
They really mean the absence of local flexibility. And, in my opinion,
they mean the absence of accountability to the schoolchildren and to
the parents. That is my first point.
The second point, and it needs to be understood over and over, not
only by the Members in this room but by the American public, is that we
have increased the President's education budget in this conference
report. We are over $600 million higher than the President's request on
education. Now, that is point number two.
Point number three comes down to what we are really talking about. It
is a difference in philosophy between the two political parties on the
very important issue of education, and that is the questsion, do we
insist on the President's request for his program on school
construction?
Now, there is not a soul within the sound of my voice who would not
like for us to have better schools and better school buildings and
better school facilities. We are all for that. The question is how do
we do it. I say we send Federal education dollars to the local school
districts on programs that we know will work, that are proven already
to have worked, and we free up money on the local level for local
schools to do what they have always done in school construction, and
that is to make school construction decisions themselves. That is the
Republican approach.
The approach that is being urged on us today is to say that, although
the President has signed seven straight appropriation bills with regard
to education, in this, the 8th year of his term, we must insist, before
we can pass the bill, before we can get out of this town at the end of
the fiscal year, we must insist on a new Federal program to build
school buildings at the local level, something that we have never done.
Now, listen to me. This bill would provide $1.3 billion in school
construction and start us on the slippery slope of spending billions
and billions and billions of dollars. There is no telling where it
would end on school construction. We are told now that the needs
currently for school construction are $254 billion. This proposal would
fund less than one-half of 1 percent, approximately, of the total
needs. Ten times that amount would only give us 5 percent. Where will
it end?
My colleagues, please think before we enter into this vast and
expensive new Federal program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I again yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman has just denounced the idea of having a Federal school
construction program. I would point out the Republican chairman of the
authorizing committee has introduced his own school construction
program which at least matches the President's in size. Why can we not
simply fund it, since apparently the need is recognized on both sides
of the aisle?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has
16\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 18
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been on this subcommittee for many years. In
1983, Terrell Bell, then the Secretary of Education, issued a report.
That report was entitled: A Nation at Risk. It said that we were at
risk of becoming a Nation of mediocrity because our educational system
was not keeping apace. The response of the Reagan administration was to
send down a budget which had the largest cut in education funding at
the national level to that date in history.
Now, that budget that Ronald Reagan sent down was not passed. It was
increased substantially. But me thinks the chairman protests too much
in saying we are all for the first sentence, that we want to spend more
for education. It is useful, I think, to remember a little bit of the
history of why we are here and why this motion, we think, is necessary.
First of all, when we passed the House bill, we were $3 billion less
than the Senate bill on education, $3 billion less.
{time} 1315
So that, when the House took its action, all of this euphoria about
spending more on education was not present. But we have had a lot of
policies, Mr. Speaker, since then about what the American public care
about. We have had a lot of debate between the Presidential candidates,
and everybody is falling all over themselves to be for education.
So what do we see between then and now, between the passage of a
Republican budget that provided little funds
[[Page H7892]]
for education and today? Well, we see a $3.7 billion increase,
notwithstanding the fact that we Democrats stood on the floor when this
bill passed and we opposed its passage, of course, and said we needed
more money.
Oh, no, it is fine. This is just a first inning in any event. We have
been just at the first inning in about 13 bills, which is why we are
stuck in the mud because this process has not been real.
Well, my colleagues are starting to get real. We understand that,
because November 7 footsteps are heard loud in these Chambers and the
American public's voice is heard louder as the days go by.
I rise in support of this motion. I believe that the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) our distinguished chairman who we are going to
lament will not be here next month to help us work on these issues
because he cares about these issues.
But I think we need this motion because we need to say we want to go
to those figures in our conference. The conference has not really been
a real conference. The reason it has not been a very real conference is
because the dollars that the Republicans say are available for these
bills keeps moving, it keeps moving as their political antenna quivers.
And every time they got a little quiver, there is a little more money
and they add it to the bills, which they should have done, of course,
on substance, not on politics, on the concern that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) says about children.
Now, the second part of this motion is a critically important part. I
have had this discussion with one of the Members of the United States
Senate. He says local control. I am for local control, but I am for
accountability for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when I go
home and say, we took your money and here is how we spent it, not the
school boards spent it, but this is what I said was a priority, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
I believe that there is a critical need in this country, as the
President believes, for us to help with school construction. Because we
know that schools are falling down, we know there are not enough
classrooms, we know that there are some schools that are not safe for
our kids to be in. So the President of the United States has proposed,
and I support, saying we are going to give some money for school
construction, not to build new pools in schools, not to have new
football programs, etcetera, etcetera. That is not my responsibility.
If the locals want to do it, they spend, as all of us know, 93 percent
on education. We spend 7.
But I believe that school construction is critically important if we
are going to have more classrooms. Because, in order to have more
smaller classes, we have got to have more classrooms; and in order to
have more classrooms, we have got to have more teachers. So the
President proposes that we have a program for more teachers, as well.
The Republicans made a deal last year when they passed the omnibus
appropriations bill that they were for that and they said they were for
that. Now, maybe they were for it because that is the only way the bill
would get passed, but notwithstanding the fact we had an agreement that
that would happen. That is what this motion to instruct is all about,
both ends of it, more money.
Now, yes, I agree, we seem to be moving in that direction because
they added not only $3.7 billion from the House bill, they added $8
billion in total to the House bill. Eight billion dollars they have
added to the House bill. We are glad they are getting there because the
children of America, the families of America need this investment.
I am prepared it take the responsibility for more classrooms, more
teachers, and to assist with school construction. I think that is my
responsibility, and I am prepared to stand up for it and vote for it.
So when they tell me, Mr. Speaker, that they want local control, I
want local control. But when they say that we should not make
determinations on specific needs, I think they are wrong. That is our
responsibility.
I urge passage of this motion to instruct.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that the money for school
construction is in the bill. It is in Title VI. It can be used, almost
all of it, actually a lot more than the President put, $2.7 billion of
Title VI can be used for school construction under the bill as it is
drawn.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I also correct, I ask the chairman, that
not a penny of it needs to be spent on school construction?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will tell the
gentleman that that is a decision for the local school boards and he
does not respect it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth, and Families of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to straighten out a few facts here. It
is correct that the Federal Government only applies about 7 percent of
the total financing of all K-12 education in the United States of
America. But here is something else which is a fact. This is an
absolute fact.
In the first 5 years of the last decades, while the Democrats were in
charge of the Congress of the United States of America and there was a
Republican President and then a Democratic President, the increase for
funding in education in the very budget that we are talking about here
was 6 percent per year.
In the last 5 years, not including this year, while Republicans have
been in charge of the funding mechanism for education in the United
States of America, the increase has been, on average, 8.2 percent per
year, a difference of 2.2 percent.
So I just want to put that little argument to rest. We are also ahead
of the President's budget as far as this year is concerned.
The real argument here is not funding. We could argue, for example,
that we should help our children with disabilities, something that this
Congress has many, many years through Democrats and even a little bit
under the Republicans, but particularly the Democrats, has ignored, 11
percent of what should be a 40-percent commitment for example.
We could argue that we need to help with construction. Indeed, $1.7
billion on a bill that is probably at least $400 billion, some say 300,
some say 500, let us round it off to $400 billion, does not even begin
to make a dent. That will still be done at the State and local level.
So I have no problem with the additional funding. I have always
supported the Federal role. I have always supported the Department of
Education. I have always supported the increases in terms of the
funding. But we passed last year an Education Flexibility Act to allow
our local and State educational entities to be able to make decisions
with respect to Federal funding and what they were going to do with it.
We clearly demonstrated here, Republicans and Democrats alike I might
add, we demonstrated that we wanted them to make a decision. We have in
Title VI basically a flexible instrument, if you will, to help with
education funding. And they can use Title VI, which truly is a block
grant with very few limitations on it, right in line with education
flexibility, they can use that for a variety of things.
They can use it to reduce class size. That is hire more teachers,
which the President wants to do and the Democrats want to do, I want to
do, and I think Republicans want to do on this side. They can use it
for school construction. Maybe that is needed someplace. Maybe it is
not needed other places. Remember, some places do not need school
construction, they need other things. Perhaps they need technology or
they want more professional development of their teachers or they want
to deal with problems of transportation or a variety of problems that
comes with education naturally depending on where they are in the
country. We want to give them that flexibility.
[[Page H7893]]
We are not arguing about the money here at all on this floor today.
We are arguing about the direction of the money. Should the Federal
Government direct it for just class size reduction and for the issue of
construction.
So my view is that we should support that aspect of it which
increases the funding and we should listen to our local people because
they are the ones that say that they want the flexibility to be able to
spend the money to help all children.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in fiscal year 1996, the Republican
majority tried to cut $5 billion, 19 percent, out of the President's
education request. The following year they tried to cut $2.8 billion
out of the President's request, 11 percent. The following year they got
religion and they only tried to cut $191 million, or 1 percent, out of
the President's education budget. The following year they tried to cut
$662 million out of the President's budget. Last year they tried to cut
$1.4 billion out of the President's education budget. And this year
they have been trying to cut $2.9 billion out of the President's budget
on the bill that left the House.
Now, the only reason that the final numbers wind up looking as good
as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has indicated is because
the majority party got beat for 5 straight years in negotiations and we
were able to get that money restored.
Since they want to brag about how ineffective they have been, go
ahead, but that does not impress anybody very much.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that education spending has grown so much under
Republican leadership of Congress is a fact that exercises my Democrat
friends, I know. I want my colleagues to know that it is a fact that
exercises some of us Republican Members, too.
But what this debate really is about is just what the maker of the
motion stated in his opening remarks, and that is that the motion was
made because there was another motion made yesterday to which he
objected and because that motion was accepted he decided to offer this
one.
As a parent of five children who rely on public education for hope
and opportunity, that kind of political gamesmanship breaks my heart,
Mr. Speaker.
I hope that the children of America and those kids who are in school
who count on us to focus in a serious way on education can see this
silly amendment defeated for its purposes, for its intent, and for the
fallacies that it contains. And there are several. It is a very
confining amendment that restricts school board members and States as
to how they can spend Federal education dollars.
So if they are in the business, Mr. Speaker, of constraining and
restricting and narrowing the scope for these Federal dollars, then
this is an amendment for them. But for the rest of us who hope that
these dollars can be spent on the priorities that exist in schools
across the country, this would be an amendment to oppose.
Now, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I
have had the opportunity to travel around the country and visit schools
from coast to coast. I have visited hundreds of them in my own
congressional district. I can tell my colleagues that every school
board member and every teacher has a hope and a dream for their
children that are in their jurisdiction that they can create schools
that allow these children to thrive and succeed in an American society.
But the challenges that face each school is different. In some
schools in my district, transportation is the top priority need. In
others it might be technology. And in others it might be teacher pay,
it might be class size reduction, it might be buying new buildings and
repairing the buildings that exist. But it is not the same priority
across the country.
We can all identify districts that have needs in school construction.
But some districts in America have gone to their local voters and
raised the mill levy to fix their schools. Some schools around the
country have gone to their local voters and persuaded them to spend
more through property taxes or sales taxes or income taxes to reduce
class size.
What does this amendment say to them? It says that their local
efforts to deal with these responsibilities locally are going to be
ignored because we are going to now take their income taxes that come
to Washington and we are going to spend then somewhere else on other
districts that have not identified school construction as the highest
priority.
We should reject this amendment and this suggestion because of the
confining, restraining nature it entails, chop out the red tape that
accompanies Federal funds, and provide real liberty and freedom to
American schools.
{time} 1330
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of this motion to instruct. I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on this matter. We know very well why the
increased moneys in education have been put there, because of the
insistence of the minority in Congress and the insistence of President
Clinton in the negotiations. And each and every time they have made
these terribly inadequate bills that have been reported out of this
House better.
But let us understand something. The Obey amendment is about whether
or not we are going to meet our commitment to the children of this
Nation. Yes, some of the money is targeted, but how do you think those
school buildings got in the condition they are in today? Because of the
neglect of the local school boards and others. What we are suggesting
is that the Federal Government ought to make an effort, because the
children who are doing the poorest most likely are in the poorest
condition schools. We ought to try to target some effort so that those
local communities could fix up those schools and make them appropriate
for the education of our young children.
To sit here and suggest that somehow local school superintendents and
others cannot move around Federal money, then you ought to get yourself
a new superintendent because restraints are minimal. Most
superintendents will tell you the problem is with the State Department
of Education, not with the Federal Department of Education.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair would request
Members from both sides who have been frequently going over the time
limit to attempt to stay within the time yielded to them for debate.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not expected this many people to want to
participate in debate. I am now getting a lot of additional requests
that we had not expected. Could I persuade the majority party to agree
to a unanimous consent request to add 10 minutes to each side?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would object to the request. We have had
ample notice of the amount of time, and the gentleman and I have an
important meeting we have to go to as well.
Mr. OBEY. I would just note that we had thought that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was going to be offering his motion
which had been noticed, and we had expected that there would be two
hours of debate on it.
Mr. PORTER. I would again inquire of the Chair the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 10 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois not
only for the time he has given me but also for the great work he and
the ranking member have done in providing more funds for education in
this year's budget. But I rise specifically to answer
[[Page H7894]]
rhetorical questions that have been asked and gone unanswered. My good
friend from Wisconsin, with whom we both share a mutual excellent
friend and our chancellor at our university system in Georgia, being
the man that I know he is, wants answers to those questions. I want him
to listen closely.
When you say that we cut money out of teacher training, the truth of
the matter is that last year's settlement of the 100,000 teachers was
our recommendation. Yes, we will hire 100,000 teachers if they are
certified; and if they are not, local systems have the ability to use
the money to train teachers that are already teaching and are not
certified. That is the problem in America. But the political promise
that we were going to hire 100,000 teachers, which sounds good, is not
a promise on which can be delivered. So we turned that money into
workable money to train teachers.
The second question, I too am a coauthor of that bill on school
construction. And so everyone knows the clear difference in our
proposal and that which is proposed by the President, our proposal was
to use a fixed amount of money to fund the unfunded mandates of the
Federal Government in asbestos removal, IDA classroom conformity and
things like that which is a finite number. The President's $1.3 billion
proposal is less than .3 percent of the unmet need in classrooms in the
United States of America. It exceeds the surplus in the fiscal year
2000 budget. And worst of all, it is a promise to the American people
we cannot keep. It was the President himself who in 1994 and 1995, and
I am sorry I do not have my notes in front of me, struck $200 million
in classroom construction because he said we could never start funding
classrooms in this country. You pass a bill with the promise that you
are going to build schools in local districts, and you will never pass
another bond issue; and you will never pass another local sales tax,
and America's needs for schools will skyrocket.
The gentleman from Maryland talked about wanting to build schools
back home. His State's unfunded school construction locally exceeds the
amount of money that the President wants to put in for the entire
United States of America. We Republicans and the Democrats are for our
children. We want them to have the best of everything. But what we need
to do is recognize where our priorities are, and ours should be in
flexibility at the local level. It should be in accountability, and it
should be giving credit where credit is due. I give the gentleman from
Wisconsin his credit. He has done a lot towards education in this
country. But so too has the gentleman from Illinois and those others of
us who are working to enrich our children without offering a false
political promise that we could never meet. The good appropriator that
he is would never want to promise spending more money than the surplus
we have just to make people think we are going to build the schools
America needs. Americans are through local bond issues, through local
referendums and through commitment. We do not have enough money to do
it, and I believe the gentleman knows it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The position of the majority party has been that while there is $28
billion in money on the table to allocate under their budget proposal,
that not one additional dime should go to education. That is crazy.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say to
the gentleman from Wisconsin, he is fighting a battle on a budget which
he well knows as an appropriator does not allocate funds to anything.
All it does is give the overall spending figure. The rest of it is all
advisory, and it means nothing to anybody. It never has and he knows
it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Is the gentleman
denying that yesterday Senator Specter told us in conference that your
leadership said that we could not go one dime above the education bill
that you had already put together? Is the gentleman denying that?
Mr. PORTER. Yes. The gentleman mistook who said what. I think it was
his leadership that said that to him.
Mr. OBEY. Well, the last time I looked, his leadership was
Republican.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and
in opposition to what appears to be the Republican education plan that
is going to be put before us because the Republican plan fails the test
of some common sense conservative ideas. If you want to reduce crime in
this country, you ought to know that a lot of juvenile crime is
committed after school. But the Republican plan would deprive 1.6
million children of after-school programs. If you want economic growth
in this country, you understand that a good labor force is the key to
economic growth. Many of our citizens do not speak English as their
primary language. But the Republican plan cuts 15 percent from
bilingual education.
If you want money for school construction, and it is true that the
Republican plan apparently would put $1.3 billion in, but it says to
the local districts, spend the $1.3 billion as you see fit. We believe
that money should be spent for the purposes for which it was intended.
And when we put $1.75 billion forward to hire new quality teachers to
reduce class sizes, we believe the money should be spent for the
purposes for which it was intended, a common sense conservative
principle.
The watchword of the day is compassionate conservatism. The
Republican plan is neither compassionate nor conservative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the State of
Wisconsin for yielding me this time. It has been said that, quote,
``Our children are our message to the future that we may never see.''
We should not be arguing so much about this spending level or that
spending level rather than the priority of working in a bipartisan way
to help in education for our children, to help the quality of teachers,
which is one of the most important issues we face.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and I have a bill in that
would help bring more teachers into the teaching profession that is
nowhere to be found on the floor today, to try to help designate
smaller class size, local control but smaller class size so that
teachers are not overwhelmed with 26 kids but may have 16, 17 or 18
kids to try to again give local control over targeted resources in
title I to help the most vulnerable kids.
I offered an amendment a year ago that got 39 Republican votes to
increase funds for title I. Where is that bill today? Where is that
money to help kids today? Our children are our message to the future.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, while we are debating the great issues of
education, I just want to recall a visit to Reedville Elementary School
in Aloha, Oregon, where the class size initiative is working exactly as
intended. There were 54 kids in the first-year class elementary school.
Because of the Federal class size reduction initiative, instead of two
classes of 27 kids, there were three classes of 18 kids. In Reedville
in Aloha, Oregon, this program has made a difference. Let us keep it
alive. Let us keep it going.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this Obey
motion, and I hope that there will be bipartisan support for this
motion. We need to help more local districts deal with their desire to
try to get to smaller class sizes. That, I think, is a goal that all of
us can agree on. We know that smaller class size yields better academic
results. We know why smaller class size works. It works for a simple
reason. Parents spend one-third less time with children today than they
did 20 years ago. Family life has changed in America. People have more
jobs, more hours, more single-parent families, more traffic jams, more
time commuting, more time away from home. And even when we are at home
with kids, sometimes we do not communicate with them the way we once
did.
[[Page H7895]]
And the one institution in our society that has the ability to help
families fill in some of these holes is the schools.
Now, we also know that in today's world with children having less
time with parents, it means they need more supervision and more
attention from teachers.
{time} 1345
But it is one thing to teach 30 kids or 35 kids when I grew up in the
1950s, and it is a very different thing to be teaching 30 or 35 kids
today who have the chance to spend much less time with their parents.
Now, frankly, if we could have agreed on putting more dollars into
this effort and left it kind of flexible as to what local districts
would do, I think we could work that out. But I hope Members on both
sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way will vote for this motion.
It makes sense, because it is reaching the right goal. The passion of
this House must be helping parents carry out their most important
responsibility, and that is raising our children to be productive law-
abiding citizens. And class size, we know from experience, is the best
way to do that.
We are willing to talk about other variations on the theme. We are
willing to talk about flexibility, but we simply must in this
appropriation budget process put the right amount of dollars and the
right amount of effort behind America's most pressing and important
need, and that is, making sure our classroom size is consistent with
every child in this society being a productive law-abiding citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote
enthusiastically for the Obey motion.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I might say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) that I think he has just sung our song. We have the money in
the account under Title VI, the education block grant, to provide for
class size reduction. We have the money in the account to provide for
school construction. There is money for teacher training. There is
money for education technology.
The only difference here is that we do not make the local school
districts spend it for what Washington thinks it ought to be spent for,
we let local school districts make this decision because they know
their needs far better than we do.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, just
talked about flexibility, that is exactly what we are doing. We are
providing the resources and saying to the local school districts, you
make this decision; we are not going to make it in the Department of
Education down on Independence Avenue. You are going to make the
decision because you know best what your needs are.
The commitment for these needs is there. The flexibility is in the
conference report. The motion would simply say do not give the local
school districts flexibility, make sure that the control remains in
Washington. That is why we ought to oppose this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey
motion. The Labor, HHS Education bill should provide the highest level
of funding possible for the Department of Education. We have
flexibility under current law for school districts to do what we want,
what we do not want is to have local school districts take Federal
money and put Astro turf on the football field instead of providing for
kids in those classrooms.
My wife is a high school algebra teacher. I trust my local school
districts. But I also know that if we tax folks, we ought to know where
the money is going and not just send a blank check home. In Texas, 76
percent of our schools need repairs just to reach ``good'' condition,
46 percent need repairs and building features such as plumbing, air
conditioning, heating and cooling, 60 percent have at least one
environmental problem. That is why we have need to provide as high a
funding as the Obey motion calls for the Department of Education.
Over the next decade, we will see our schools grow even more and
more. We have to provide the funding through this motion and not just
send a blank check to everybody in the country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago, I had an
opportunity of traveling around my congressional district visiting many
schools and getting into a lot of technology classrooms that our kids
are using, but I also used that as an opportunity to release a study
that I had conducted in the congressional district in regards to where
we were on class size reduction. And the study actually showed that in
western Wisconsin we are doing a pretty good job and the results are
showing with enhanced student performance.
But as I talked to the administrators and teachers and parents, they
were asking for the creation of more partnerships and more dedicated
revenue streams for class size reduction. In Wisconsin, we have
something called revenue caps that prevents our local school districts
from increasing revenue spending on priority areas and education.
One of the sources of funding that they are looking to more and more
as a result of this policy is a revenue stream from Washington, and
that is why I think the Obey amendment being offered here today is very
important, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Schools throughout my home-State of Wisconsin are tapping every
resource available to reduce class size. School districts are also
struggling to maintain and build the facilities necessary to offer a
quality learning environment.
Class size reduction efforts at the local, State and Federal levels
are proving effective at improving academic achievement. Schools across
Wisconsin have been taking advantage of both the State class size
reduction program, known as SAGE, and the Federal Class Size Reduction
program to hire new teachers and provide professional development
opportunities for their staffs.
We in Congress must remain committed to these priorities to ensure
that all of our students benefit from the enhanced learning environment
smaller classes and modern buildings offer. These efforts must not be
considered short-term fixes, but long-term commitments.
But we should be committed to providing critical resources to
particular areas and students in need. The role of Federal Government
in education has always been to help those children with the most need
and to address problems of national significance. At this point in
time, simply increasing Federal block grants at the expense of proven,
needed programs does away with that focus and simply reduces the role
of the Federal Government to that of a new stream of revenue for
Governors unwilling to tackle education issues directly through State
funding.
Everyone's talking about education this election season. And I
believe I hear candidates from both the Democratic and Republican
parties talking about the need for greater accountability. Yet, more
open-ended block grants are not going to advance accountability.
I'm all for local control of schools, but let's be honest; the level
of funding we provide, while critical to many individual students and
local schools in need, does not circumvent local control over their
schools. But by targeting funds to those most in need and projects of
most critical need we will continue the commitment to education we all
claim to have.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has
5 minutes, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 2 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have only 1 remaining speaker, and I
understand I have the right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the issue here is not
about money. We are substantially above the President in most education
accounts. We are, overall, $600 million ahead of the President's
requests for the Department of Education's funding in the conference
report. We are substantially ahead of the President, a billion dollars
ahead of the President, in special education. We are ahead of the
President in student financial assistance. We are ahead in Pell Grants.
We are ahead in TRIO, higher education, Historically
[[Page H7896]]
Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions,
education technology, education for the disadvantaged, impact aid,
education for homeless, rehabilitation services.
We are ahead of the President in many of the important educational
accounts, and overall we are over half a billion dollars ahead of the
President in our commitment to funding of education. The real argument
here is on flexibility or control.
Republicans insist that the local school districts that are in our
society be charged with the responsibility for educating our kids,
together with the States, 95 percent of the expenditures are State and
local money, they ought to control how the money is spent. The
Democrats on the other hand insist that Washington can make that
decision for them and not want accountability. That is a nice word, it
is control.
It is saying Washington is going to tell you how this money is going
to be spent and you have to spend it that way. We put the money in; the
money is there. It is there for class size reduction. It is there for
school construction. It is there for teacher training, but the control
is not there, the control is left where it should be with those who are
accountable for educating our kids, the local school districts.
Mr. Speaker, we think that is the way to go. There is a profound
philosophical difference here, and this motion does define that
difference. If Members want local control, vote against the motion. If
Members want local control, vote against the motion. If Members want
control by Washington, vote for it. I would urge Members to vote no.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, no one is against districts having flexibility, but I
would point out that under Title VI, which they want to expend without
any strings whatsoever, audits discovered that one State used those
funds to purchase an automobile for the State department of education;
another State used it to pay their entire State education printing bill
at the expense of the Federal Government; a third State used these
funds for a banquet related to an entirely different program; another
State used them for graduate classes taken by an employee of the State
education agency. That points out for the need for accountability.
Mr. Speaker, 93 percent of the money spent at the local level is
under control of local, State, or local and State school agencies; that
will remain under local control. We are talking about whether we ought
to have some ability to target the remaining 7 percent which comes from
the Federal Government. We think we should.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) says this is not about
money. That is absolutely not true. We want at least $3 billion more in
that bill for education, for school modernization, for class size
reduction, for afterschool programs, for Pell Grant increases, for
special education increases and a number of others that we outlined.
This asks two things: It asks, first of all, that we fund education
at the highest possible level. It means we should take some of that $28
billion in new money on the table and use it for education.
The majority party has told us in conference we cannot use a dime of
that additional money for education; that puts education last rather
than first as a national priority. That is backwards. The second thing
we say is whatever amount of money you provide for local flexibility,
do not use it as an excuse to gut our efforts to strengthen efforts to
provide modern school buildings and smaller class size.
This country is wise enough and wealthy enough to do both.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Obey's motion because
it seeks to ensure that H.R. 4577 includes dedicated funding to address
two critical needs of our public schools.
First, the motion seeks to preserve the Clinton/Clay class size
reduction initiative, which is intended to eliminate overcrowded
classrooms and boost student achievement.
Thus far, the class size initiative has enabled communities to hire
nearly 30,000 teachers for the current school year, providing smaller
classes in the early grades to an estimated 1.7 million children.
President Clinton has proposed spending an additional $1.75 billion in
FY 2001, which would allow support for almost 50,000 teachers.
We should fully fund the President's request, and also provide a
long-term authorization to ensure that the benefits of smaller classes,
led by highly qualified teachers, are extended to even more school
districts and students.
Mr. Speaker, I also support Mr. Obey's motion because it would ensure
H.R. 4577 includes funding to build and modernize 6,000 schools
nationwide.
Today, over 28,000 public schools, have inadequate heating and
cooling systems. Over 23,000 have inadequate plumbing, and more than
20,000 schools have leaking roofs. In addition, 2,400 new public
schools will be needed by the year 2003 to accommodate rising
enrollments and relieve overcrowding.
Mr. Speaker, if we fail to invest sufficient Federal resources in
reducing class sizes and building better public schools, we will fail
to give the help that is most needed to the students they serve.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Obey's
motion to instruct conferees to provide the ``highest funding level
possible'' for the Education Department which is embodied in H.R. 4577,
the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill.
The education of our nation's children is an issue of paramount
concern. As Members of the House of Representatives we need to be
committed to ensuring that all children are being educated in a safe
and clean environment that is conducive to learning. We know, however,
that in many school districts all across the country this is not the
case. Students are being educated in dilapidated school facilities with
severely overcrowded classrooms. We should support the Administration's
request for dedicated funds to reduce class sizes in early grades and
for local school construction.
Research and common sense suggest that smaller classes offer teachers
the chance to devote more time to each student which improves their
ability to learn. A 1998 U.S. Department of Education report,
``Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?'' indicates that reducing class
size is related to increased student learning. Other studies have shown
that smaller class sizes result in increased student achievement, a
reduction in discipline problems and increased instructional time for
teachers. In addition, smaller classes have been shown to be most
important in early grades, and for disadvantaged and minority students.
Under the leadership of the Administration's Class-Size Reduction
Initiative, a number of states have already implemented class size
reduction programs. The state of California, which I represent, began
its Class Size Reduction Program in 1996, giving money to school
districts for the purpose of reducing the student/teacher ratio to 20
to 1 in kindergarten through third grade. The goal of the K-3 Class
Size Reduction Program was to increase student achievement,
particularly in reading and mathematics, by decreasing the class size
to 20 or fewer students per certified teacher. The program has been a
great success as over 90 percent of the state's schools are
participating in the class-size reduction program, academic achievement
is up and the state has dedicated a record amount of money for teacher
recruitment and school construction. Similar results are being
experienced all across the country and serve as a testament to the
importance of promoting smaller class sizes.
Smaller classes require larger, modern facilities. The motion to
instruct conferees offered by my colleague, Congressman Obey,
recognizes that federal funds need to be targeted toward school
construction if we are to meet the needs of students across the nation.
Communities across the country are struggling to address critical needs
to renovate exiting schools and build new ones, School construction and
modernization are necessary to accommodate rising student enrollments,
to help reduce class sizes and to make sure schools are accessible to
all students. According to the General Accounting Office, two-thirds of
America's schools are in need of extensive repair and replacement of
major structures. The state of California has estimated $22 billion in
school infrastructure and modernization needs. I have walked through
school facilities with leaking roofs, splintered chairs, and walls with
severe water damage. This is unacceptable. America's students deserve
better, and I congratulate Mr. Obey for working diligently to ensure
that they get better.
I strongly support Mr. Obey's motion to instruct because it focuses
on the need to provide students with the best possible learning
environment which consists of smaller classes in safe school buildings,
that are conductive to learning.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
[[Page H7897]]
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A division of the question has been
demanded.
The Chair will first put the question on the portion of the motion
through the semicolon. The Chair will then put the question on the
remaining portion.
Without objection, an electronic vote on the second portion may be a
5-minute vote, if following a 15-minute vote on the first portion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the first portion of
the divided question.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on the
highest funding level possible for the Department of
Education;
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the first portion of the
divided motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The first portion of the motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the second portion of
the divided question.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on
disagreeing with provisions in the Senate amendment which
denies the President's request for dedicated resources to
reduce class sizes in the early grades and for local school
construction and, instead, broadly expands the Title VI
Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use
of funds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the second portion of the
divided motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 201, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 484]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--201
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Burton
Campbell
Hilliard
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
McIntosh
Nethercutt
Sabo
Vento
{time} 1421
Messrs. CHABOT, GUTKNECHT, GILCHREST, PICKERING, WELLER, YOUNG of
Alaska and METCALF changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SNYDER, GILMAN, BARCIA, GALLEGLY and ADERHOLT changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the second portion of the divided motion to instruct was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, two motions
to reconsider are laid on the table.
There was no objection.
____________________