[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 138 (Saturday, October 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11465-H11474]
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
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that
I presented yesterday pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Lowey 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. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
{time} 1230
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that we even have to debate the
importance of these issues. Members from the other side of the aisle
say that education is their number one priority.
[[Page H11466]]
Then why has it been necessary for Members from this side of the aisle
to fight to preserve our investment in class size reduction and finally
begin our investment in local school construction?
It has been 4 years since I conducted a survey of New York City
schools and found that one in every four schools held classes in
hallways, gymnasiums, bathrooms and janitors' closets. Two-thirds of
these schools had substandard building features, such as roofs, walls
and floors. I repeat, this was 4 years ago; and despite the outpouring
of support from both sides of the aisle, Congress has not provided even
one cent to alleviate overcrowding, and improve the physical condition
of our schools. In fact, 2 days ago, when we considered the tax bill,
we had the opportunity to include the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson school
modernization bond proposal, and we did not.
We in our local communities have an obligation to all children. We
make the decisions locally and pay the taxes locally, but we as a
Nation have an important role as well: to use Federal resources to
encourage excellent programs, to jump start local investment, and to
support national priorities.
That is why I firmly believe that Congress must join with the
President to support school modernization and smaller class sizes. We
know that smaller class sizes means better learning for students and
less disciplinary problems for teachers. By continuing our efforts to
hire more teachers in the critical early grades, we can offer 2.9
million more children the benefits of more personal instruction and
will see the results in their academic performance.
We need to fix the shameful state of too many American schools.
School enrollment is skyrocketing. We will need at least 2,400 new
public schools by the year 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments and
to relieve overcrowding. Our modernization needs are no less pressing.
High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a luxury;
yet we still have Pokemon-generation kids in classrooms straight out of
Charles Dickens with their asbestos-filled ceilings and coal stoves. It
would be laughable, I say to my colleagues, if it was not so
disgraceful.
In fact, the National Education Association estimates that the unmet
school modernization needs in American schools total over $300 billion;
and that is on top of what school districts and States are already
spending. This problem is just too big for local and State officials to
handle alone.
Simply stated, we need dedicated programs to help local schools
reduce class size and modernize their buildings. These are national
problems that demand a national response. The Federal Government has a
responsibility, I say to my colleagues, to ensure that public education
is more than a promise, and our students cannot learn when they are
stacked on top of each other and the walls are literally crumbling
around them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, I would say that we are not going to
support this motion to instruct as we did the last one. Even
considering the fact that we supported the last one, there was more
political rhetoric that came from the other side than in most campaign
meetings. So I suspect that is going to be the same this time because
we are not going to support this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, there are major differences between the political
parties. One of the big major differences is that one party believes
that all of the power should be centralized in Washington, that whoever
works in the bureaucracy here is smarter than anybody else in the
country. That is not our party, Mr. Speaker. Not yours and not mine.
That is their party.
We believe that States and local communities and the people in those
States and local communities have a right to make decisions for
themselves. That is one of the major differences between the two
parties.
Now, when the Constitution was first written, and we have all
applauded the Framers of the Constitution so many times, they
originally created a Constitution that created a very powerful central
government. They gave all of the power of the government to the Federal
Government. But then they realized they had made a mistake and they
created what? The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights. The Bill of Rights that protected the people's rights as
individuals, that protected the rights of the States as individual
States of a union, and what we are trying to do is to maintain what the
Framers intended with the Bill of Rights, and that is to protect the
rights of the people in our communities to make decisions for
themselves, except in those cases where the Federal Government is the
only agency that is able to deal with things such as national defense,
such as Social Security, such as Medicare, things of this nature.
Education has become a large issue; and believe me, we support
education. In fact, in this legislation that we are debating here and
negotiating, my colleagues will find that we have provided more money
in that bill than the President of the United States asked for.
The major difference between us, and other speakers will go into this
in more detail, but the major difference is who decides how the money
is spent. Their side thinks that Washington should decide it all for
people in my community, people in his community, people in others'
communities; and we disagree with that. We believe that the needs are
different in different parts of the country. We understand that there
are some school districts where they need more schools and construction
is important. We also understand that there are some places in the
country where they need more teachers, or they need more special
education, or they need more technology, some computers, some
laboratories. We understand that the needs are different. They are not
all alike in every community in this Nation. Our approach is to give
those communities the opportunity to make the decisions on what they
will do with the money that we will provide through the block grant.
Mr. Speaker, for years and years in this country of ours, people
opposed Federal aid to education, and the reason that I heard from my
constituents and many of my colleagues heard from their constituents,
is that they were not opposed to the Federal Government being
interested in education, but they did not want the Federal strings that
came from Washington. They did not want the strings that came with
Federal aid. They preferred to go it on their own, which they do 95
percent of the time anyway, with local and State funds.
However, now we are talking about more involvement on the part of the
Federal Government from the standpoint of centralized education from
their side than from the standpoint of a block grant as far as we are
concerned. We think we are on the right side, and that is the position
that we have taken; and that is the position we are going to stand by,
and that is the position we are going to support today by opposing this
motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to respond to the
gentleman from Florida, my good friend, the chairman of the committee,
to make it very clear that our position is that this Congress builds
highways, bridges, and responds to emergencies.
When I began with this issue in 1996, we had a $112 billion
emergency. It is now a $300 billion emergency. We believe that we can
assist local governments by lowering their property taxes and
responding to these emergencies, and then support the Rangel-Johnson
bipartisan bill that will also help local governments, because they
make the decisions, we help with the financing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), my good colleague and my friend on the committee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership in championing this issue over the years, the issue of
school construction.
Anyone who is a parent or anyone who has been a child, so that
includes all of us, is familiar with the expression, the children are
listening. Indeed, the children do listen. They hear us telling them
that education is key to
[[Page H11467]]
their personal fulfillment and their success in life, that they must
apply themselves in school so that they can succeed; and yet we send
these same children a different message when we send them to schools
that are dilapidated, that are not even capable of being wired for the
future and are very, very unconducive to study.
What do children think if we say this is a value, it is very
important that you get a good education and by the way, we are placing
a very low value on it when it comes to the place in which we want you
to study. We spend money, the taxpayers' money here on research that we
all herald as important, and that research tells us that children do
better in smaller classes and indeed, that they do better in smaller
schools, Mr. Speaker.
The distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has
documented the need very clearly, a growing need, more than doubled
since 1996 for these improvements, these modernizations, or these
replacements of these schools. How can the Republican majority ignore
the scientific basis, which we fund and support and praise, about
children needing smaller classes and doing much better in those
circumstances, by not insisting that the funds that we put aside for
school construction and modernization, for smaller classes, not be used
for that purpose?
So I commend the gentlewoman for her motion, and I urge my colleagues
to support it, because, Mr. Speaker, the children are listening. Let us
not send them a confused message.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Representative Lowey's Motion to
Instruct the Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees to support the
Democratic initiative on school construction. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership has continually refused to support vital funding
to help local communities reduce class size at public schools.
America's schools are teaching more students than ever before and
generally, our schools work for most students. However, we can improve
our public schools by focusing our efforts on underperforming schools
and low-income areas with ongoing problems. We can overcome this
significant problem--the infrastructure and facilities at our schools
require modernization and investment.
what is the need?
Today, school enrollments are higher than ever, with a record 53.2
million children enrolled in our schools. By 2008, another million
students will be in America's schools.
By 2003, to meet rising student enrollments, America will need
another 2,400 new schools.
The average American public school is 42 years old. After 40 years,
school buildings begin to deteriorate rapidly and repair costs soon
exceed the costs to construct new schools.
According to the GAO report ``School Facilities: The Condition of
America's Schools'', one-third of all schools need extensive repairs or
replacement.
what would it cost to address these conditions?
According to a 1996 GAO report, it would cost $112 billion to repair
our schools. According to a 2000 National Education Association report,
it would cost $322 billion to repair our schools.
would it help?
Smaller class sizes are important because studies demonstrate that
reduced class size leads to more individual attention and increased
accountability.
We know that this investment in school construction would benefit our
schools, our teachers, and most importantly our children. I have heard
personal stories about: teachers teaching in converted bathrooms;
students eating lunch in shifts starting at 9:45 due to overcrowding;
leaky roofs and exposed lead paint leading to health and safety
hazards.
These conditions are intolerable, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the
Motion to Instruct and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
Motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we will attempt to stay within our
time limits that we were assigned.
I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling),
who is not only an educator in his own right, but is chairman of the
committee responsible for authorizing educational issues.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, this is a very curious motion to instruct.
In fact, it is the most curious motion to instruct I have seen in 26
years.
Why? Well, first of all, it was originally drafted and submitted to
this body on September 19. That is right, September 19, 5 weeks ago. At
that time we had not begun the negotiations with the White House or our
friends in the minority party on what the final appropriations
agreement would include or not include. At this point, to instruct the
House and Senate conferees in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation
bills on issues that have already been thoroughly discussed and
tentatively agreed to, and in other instances totally agreed to, just
does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is irrelevant given the status of our
negotiations; and as such, I oppose the gentlewoman's motion, as should
anyone who is working in good faith to successfully conclude work on
the bill.
I want to thank Members of both parties and the White House
representatives for working tirelessly the last 9 days, including last
Saturday and Sunday, day and night, to fashion an agreement in which
Members from both parties can take pride. It is my hope that when our
work is complete, we will continue funding to assist schools in their
efforts to reduce class size with qualified teachers.
As I tried to point out to the President when he came up with this
idea, which was political more than anything else, 100,000 teachers for
15,000 school districts and 1 million classrooms; and I said, if we do
not have quality people to put in there, it will not matter. I do not
care how we reduce the teacher-student ratio. And guess what? The first
30 percent that were hired, the first 30 percent that were hired under
this new program were not qualified.
{time} 1245
Where did they go? They went to the same school districts that
already had 30 percent, 40 percent, and 50 percent of unqualified
teachers already where they needed the very best teachers.
Again, I tried to point out unless we put the horse before the cart,
that is what is going to happen.
Last year we negotiated it, and I think it came out well, because
what we said last year was that 25 percent of the money could be used
to improve the quality of the teachers they presently have. Now, does
not that make sense? Why would I hire someone who is not qualified,
rather than train someone who is already in the system who shows great
potential?
We said 25 percent of the money can be used for that purpose, but we
said if we have 10 percent or more of unqualified teachers, and at the
time we were negotiating I was using a city not too far from
Pennsylvania, where they had 50 percent unqualified teachers, we said
you can use 100 percent of your money to improve the teachers that you
presently have. That was agreed upon. That makes sense.
I am pleased to say that we have been able to reach that same
agreement this particular year, and all schools with a high priority of
teachers that are not qualified will have the flexibility to use that
100 percent to improve the existing teachers.
Now, it has taken the administration to realize the fallacy of
reducing class size by ignoring teacher quality all of this time. I am
so pleased, as I told the negotiators as soon as we started, I am so
glad that here for the last year and a half down Pennsylvania Avenue
the word is quality, quality, quality, quality, because people on the
committee, of which I chair, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce are tired of hearing that word, too, I am sure.
That is the most important part about class-size reduction, having a
quality teacher, the most important element as to whether a child
succeeds or not is that classroom teacher next to the parent.
We have made some progress on the issue of school construction. As I
said, we have met for 9 straight days and nights. I made it clear to
the administration that State and local flexibility must be a component
of Federal funding for classroom modernization and renovation. It is
important to see a significant portion of the funding available for
other pressing needs.
Again, who knows better? We or the local district? I believe it is
the local district. Again, I go back and point out that had we stepped
up to the plate with the 40 percent that we said would come with
special ed, 40 percent of the per pupil cost throughout this country
that we would send, Los Angeles alone
[[Page H11468]]
would have received more than $90 million extra every year.
Multiple that by 25, that sounds like a good bit of maintenance money
to me to prevent schools from crumbling. New York City would have
gotten $160 million extra every year. But we never meet those needs, we
just say we will go on and create something new, some other mandate,
and forget about what it was we promised to these very people.
What happened? They had to use their money. They had to use State
money, and they had to use local money to meet our mandate. So they
could not do the kinds of things they needed to do in school
maintenance. The primary responsibility for construction, certainly,
remains at the local level.
Mr. Speaker, I point out again that this motion to instruct conferees
at this particular time is irrelevant and it certainly is not
constructive when we had the kind of negotiations that are going on at
the present time that I hope will be completed in the very near future.
Let the conferees do their job. They are making real headway.
Let me point out one other thing. I think it is very important.
Education technology, they have already indicated they will provide $2
million more than the President asked for.
Education for the disadvantaged they have said, you will get $50
million more than the President asked for.
Impact aid, you will get $258 million more than the President asked
for.
Special ed, you will get $1 billion more than the President asked
for.
Education for homeless children, you will get $2.3 million more than
the President asked for.
Rehabilitation services, you will get $20 million more than the
President asked for.
Vocational and adult education, you will get $5 million more than the
President asked for.
Student financial aid, you will get $300 million more than the
President asked for.
Historically black colleges, you will get $60 million more than the
President asked for.
The Hispanic-serving institutions, you get $6 million more than the
President asked for.
TRIO, so important in higher ed, you will get $35 million more than
the President asked for.
Higher Ed, you will get $20 million more than the President asked
for.
Department of Education, $600 million.
In a bipartisan fashion, I believe they have done a good job, and I
believe they are continuing to do that. I certainly do not believe my
colleagues should interfere at this particular time and try to instruct
conferees, who in a bipartisan fashion with the help of the White House
are doing a pretty fine job in bringing this to a final positive goal
that both sides will be very pleased with.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the
use of personal electronic communication devices are prohibited on the
Floor of the House. Members are to disable wireless telephones before
entering the Chamber.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my friend, who has served so well in
education, that I would hope that the leadership would fund the teacher
quality initiative, because I know of our mutual interest in training
our teachers.
I would like to acknowledge to the group that the President's
reduction in class-size initiative has reduced the average size of a
class by five, which has made a real difference in teaching young
people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey), my good friend.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what kind of message do we send our
children when their community and when this Nation boasts new, elegant
shopping malls and new expensive sports stadiums while our kids are
forced to learn in overcrowded, crumbling schools?
I support the Lowey motion to instruct because we cannot expect our
children to get a first-rate education in second-rate and third-rate
school buildings.
Mr. Speaker, a recent GAO study found that 60 percent of our Nation's
schools need at least one major repair or they need replacement. It is
time to show our children that their school is equally as important as
a new mall or a new stadium. It is time to show our children that they
are important.
We must vote for the Lowey motion. It is a vote that makes our
children, 25 percent of our population but 100 percent of our future,
our highest priority.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished leader in education, a member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my colleague, for bringing
this issue.
I live on Long Island, and everybody thinks everyone on Long Island
is rich. Let me tell my colleagues all of my schools are over 50 years
old. A lot of my schools have boilers that are over 100 years old. What
does that have to do with it?
We are sending a message to our children that we do not care about
them to modernize our schools. I bring it as a health care issue. I
have high rates of asthma among my young children because of the
conditions of our schools. We here in Congress have to make a full
commitment all the way around.
We have to make sure our schools are the best schools for our
children to be in. I have been in schools where they are teaching our
children with disabilities out in the hallway.
I can tell my colleagues personally, if you have learning
disabilities, you have to have a quiet setting, not somewhere where you
are hearing everything out in the background. People with hearing
problems are being taught in hallways and closets. The bathrooms, I am
telling my colleagues, it is horrible.
This is what we are supposed to be doing. This is the money that we
should be giving to our children. Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone will
vote for this motion. We have to take education seriously.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez), my colleague who is a distinguished leader on
education.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lowey
motion to instruct. School construction is an issue with broad
bipartisan support.
This week, we had the opportunity to pass the President's school
construction bill. It would reduce class sizes in early grades, hire
20,000 new teachers, raise student achievement and make urgent safety
and help repairs in 5,000 schools in low-income areas. Instead,
Republicans did their own version, a watered-down version, that
postponed any school construction for up to 4 years and did little for
our needed schools.
I want to remind my colleagues, it is one thing to play games with
sham legislation here in Congress. It is another thing to send a child
to school in the boiler room or a broom closet or the hallway of a
broken-down school, like we in New York and too many any other
communities Nationwide. Too often, those affected are at-risk children
living in minority neighborhoods.
This is not the way to treat our most precious resource, the young
people who will follow in our footsteps in this great institution.
Mr. Speaker, I support and I urge my colleagues to support this
motion to instruct.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work and I associate myself
with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our
education chairman.
I have the greatest respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) and for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and I want
to take two comments they made and try and bring this to fact and
reality.
[[Page H11469]]
First of all, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said that
the children of America are listening. Well, I doubt if many of them
are right now, but I hope they all are and I hope their parents are as
well because Mrs. Lowey made one statement of fact that is absolutely
correct and then bundled around it the delusions that many are trying
to portray on this floor as a lack of commitment on one side or the
other to education when, in fact, I would submit to my colleagues that
both sides are committed to it.
The gentlewoman's fact that was correct was that there is an unfunded
need in America of $303 billion for classroom construction; that is
absolutely the exact number published in the report she cited. What she
did not tell my colleagues is that the President's proposal to solve
that is $1.3 million in the appropriations act, which is three-tenths
of 1 percent and would take 35 years of annual appropriations just to
meet today's need, if there was no other need in the future.
The fact of the matter is, our difference is let us do something that
is meaningful and within our scope. Let us not try and lead an illusion
that we are going to fix every stairwell or replace every school. The
negotiators right now have said, let us agree on school construction,
let us agree on it to do those Federally mandated things, such as IDEA,
asbestos removal, health safety and welfare of our children. That is
what they are negotiating right there.
We are not talking about building and replacing every school in
America. We are talking about an illusion in this motion that we would
do that when we cannot.
The reason I say illusion is because the distinguished lady from New
York (Mrs. Lowey) said this would give property tax relief to her
constituents. Property taxes are what schools are built upon in the
local level. If we ever pass the false hope that we can build the
schools America needs, the demand of which is greater than our surplus
today, then there would never be a local bond issue passed, and
American education would be a travesty.
Secondly, on school size and classroom size. Last year, the
Republicans and the Democrats agreed on classroom size reduction. It is
in the budget now. It just simply says that we must also have trained
teachers in the classroom, not just teachers in the classroom.
On this Wednesday, Secretary Riley and our committee and many Members
on the floor on the other side heard it. When asked the question, are
there 100,000 trained and certified unemployed teachers to be hired;
well, no, there are not. There are many that need training to be
brought up to date, which is why last year's agreement was to be able
to use the funds to hire new teachers or to train teachers that exist
at the local level who are not certified.
{time} 1300
We are on the cusp, the negotiators are right now. We are on the cusp
right now. We agreed basically on classroom size reduction that was
done last year and redone this year. We are now about to agree on what
is meaningful in construction but also doable in construction.
If the children are listening and the parents are listening,
Democrats and Republicans are this close to making a real solution and
a meaningful contribution to education.
But this motion portends that we can do what they know we cannot,
that we would make a false promise to the American people; and that
would be wrong for us to do in a motion, just as well as it would be
wrong for us lead people to believe we could do it in a budget.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that
remarks in the House are to be directed to the Chair, and not to other
persons outside the Chamber.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson). We are talking about an emergency $1.3 billion
to respond to the emergency that is out there because this Congress has
not acted in spite of the crumbling schools. Then we would like to pass
the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson bill that would provide tax relief for
the local government, which is a tax bill that would provide for the
tax on the bonds that will be issued by the local government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the remarks made initially by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, and to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Both
spoke very rationally. They spoke to the point. I wish we could have
more of that kind of debate.
But there is a difference, I tell the gentleman from Georgia, and it
is a significant difference. It is a substantive difference. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), when he made his presentation, said
that the difference between us is that we want Washington to decide and
they want the LEAs to decide, the local education agencies to decide.
Because it is their proposition, effectively, that the money that they
have included in is not targeted for school construction, indeed, not
targeted, per se, for teachers, but is a revenue-sharing program. That
is essentially the flexibility. I am sorry that you grimace.
But the fact of the matter is the rhetoric on their side has
continually been that the locals can decide. Some people may need
classrooms. Some may need additional teachers. But some may need
computers. Some may need recreational facilities. They will have the
flexibility.
Now, I suggest to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) that he is
correct that this amendment will not solve the classroom shortage in
America. No amendment could do that. No bill in one year could do that.
What this amendment, however, seeks to say, I tell the gentleman, is
that we at the Federal level have identified two very significant
critical problems. One, we do not have sufficient classrooms in America
to house the swelling number of students in America. Two, we do not
have sufficient teachers, quality teachers to teach those children.
There are other problems in America. But as we do on so many of the
educational programs that my colleagues referenced and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in particular referenced, we say there
is a problem here. We are going to put some dollars. LEA, if one wants
to solve the problem here, are the dollars to do it.
That is the difference between us. We do not want to turn this $1.5
billion into simply a grab bag. It is for emergencies that exist in
school construction and safety.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is exactly correct. The
gentleman ignored the tax component of this, which spends $5 billion or
$6 billion to leverage five times that or 500 percent times that, five
times that to $25 billion in bonds that can be issued by local
governments.
Now, who decides to hire the teachers? The local government. Who
decides whether to build the schools? The local government. The Federal
Government does not make that selection, nor does it demand that the
local governments do that.
To that extent, I suggest to my colleagues that, when they represent
that we want government at the Federal level to decide, that is a
misrepresentation and not useful for this debate. The issue really is
whether or not we have a targeted sum or we have a general sum. The
general sum clearly, I tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson),
will not solve the school construction problem or the teacher problem.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for
helping me make the case that I set out to make a few minutes ago,
partially helping make that case I would say.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for his support for
[[Page H11470]]
quality public education in the United States of America.
As I was sitting here, Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate and
hearing the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce speaking, it occurred to me
that he has worked an entire lifetime for education in the United
States of America. This may be one of the last speeches that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) will be able to make on
the floor of the House with regard to education.
I salute him for an entire career devoted to quality public
education, flexibility at the local level, and the absence of Federal
mandates. That is really the difference in philosophy that we are
talking about here on the floor of this House on this Saturday
afternoon.
I have two children in public schools in Mississippi. I support
public education. I have a record of supporting public education, not
only in this Congress, but also when I was a State legislator. We all
support quality public education, and there is not a Member within the
sound of my voice this afternoon in the House of Representatives or in
the other body that does not support better school facilities and
better school construction. We would all like to have better school
buildings all across the United States of America.
The question is, how can we as a Nation get the job done. This points
out the difference in philosophy. Regardless of what the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the previous speaker, said, there is a strong
difference in the way we would approach this bill.
Now, my friends on the Democratic side see a need somewhere in the
United States of America, and they immediately see a Washington, D.C.
Federal solution to the problem. We on the other hand, particularly
when it comes to education, when we see an education problem, we try to
find out how best to solve that problem at the local level and how to
provide the flexibility and authority to local governments to solve
those problems.
Now, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) pointed out, and as
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) pointed out, there are over
$300 billion in school construction needs right now. Those needs,
undoubtedly, will go up. She terms them an emergency. The President's
proposal would fund only a very, very small percentage of those
problems.
But what if we start out this year at $1.5 billion, Mr. Speaker? What
will that program look like with all the Federal bureaucracy and all of
the regulations that it will entail, what will it look like in 5 years?
I say we can expect a Federal program of about $15 billion in 5 years.
A few years later, we might have a program of $150 billion. That is the
way it always works.
I implore my colleagues to vote against this motion today. If there
is any notion left of local control over school construction decisions,
we will oppose this motion. Let us provide more flexibility for
education at the local level.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), someone who really knows
about this issue because he was the former superintendent of schools in
North Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as I listen to the
debate today, this is the same debate that I heard over 4 years ago
when I decided to run for this body, because I was so disgusted as a
State superintendent at a Republican leadership that was going to
abolish the Department of Education, reduce school lunches, and the
list is long. That would have directly impacted in the most negative of
ways the children of this country.
Now we are saying we do not really need to put in school
construction. We will do this; we will do that. Let me explain to my
colleagues very quickly, if I may, because the Republican leadership's
tactic, in my opinion, may have changed. But their cynical game is the
same. Back then, the revolutionaries wanted to do all the things I have
talked about.
Today they continue to play politics by blocking what I think is a
bipartisan piece of legislation to build schools. Bottom line, $25
billion will build schools. Local units will determine where it is. All
we do is pay the interest.
Let me tell my colleagues what one of the House leadership Members
said yesterday. We are winning the education debate. That is not my
words. They are published in today's Record.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this loud and clear. Our children are too
important to fall victim to partisan politics. Bottom line, the quality
of education that we provide our children today will literally
determine the future of the kind of Nation that we are going to have in
the 21st century. This is not a game.
Despite the cynical politics the Republican leadership is talking
about, this is about our children. The stakes are high. I say let us
pass it. I support this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lowey motion. It is long
past time for this Congress to do the right thing on school
construction. Four years ago, I sought this office because I was sick
and tired of watching Republican politicians in Washington playing
politics with our children's future. The Republican leadership's
tactics may have changed, but their cynical game is still the same.
Back then, the Republican revolutionaries were trying to cut school
lunches, slash student loans and shut down the entire Education
Department. Today, they continue to play politics by blocking our
bipartisan school construction bill because their goal is partisan
politics. The House Republican Leader yesterday said, ``we are winning
the education debate.''
Mr. Speaker, let me say this loud and clear: our children are too
important to fall victim to partisan politics. The quality of the
education we provide our children today will literally determine the
kind of nation we will become in the 21st century. This is not a game,
despite the cynical politics of the Republican leaders. This is about
what kind of future our children are going to have in this country. The
stakes could not be higher. Right now, we have a crisis in this
country. Throughout America children are stuffed into overcrowded
classrooms, trapped in run-down schools and stuck in makeshift
trailers. We in this Congress have an opportunity and a responsibility
about this crisis by passing meaningful school construction legislation
for our children. I call on the Republican leadership to call off their
partisan tactics and pass the bipartisan school construction bill--now.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say we are not
talking about construction, we are talking about maintenance and
renovation. It would really be a joke if we were talking about
construction at $1.3 billion.
I also want to compliment North Carolina in the last 4 years. In the
last 4 years, North Carolina has made dramatic steps forward in their
public education system. In the last 4 years, they did not come to
Washington and ask them to do it for them or tell them how to do it
either.
But I would hope that we start thinking more in terms of quality and
not quantity. I would hope we would start thinking in terms of results
and not process.
My colleagues talk about flexibility and the whole idea of pupil-
teacher ratio. Let me give my colleagues one example how something that
looked good went awry. In the very next school district to my school
district, they got two teachers federally financed. Their ability to
finance their own system is much greater than the one that I live in,
which I pay $4,000 school tax. So I do not mind paying my income tax to
help the city of York. But it does not make sense that I am buying two
teachers when I am already paying in my own district far more school
tax then they are paying in the district where they are more affluent.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) use her time. I think she has considerably
more time left than I do.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), our gracious chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Johnson-
Rangel bill. It is a bipartisan bill that provides a tax credit to deal
with the school districts we have been discussing this morning and the
school construction problem. It is a bill that preserves local control
to school districts to decide how to spend the money.
[[Page H11471]]
Now, we all say we are for aid with school construction, with money
which is the subject of the motion to instruct, and the tax credit. But
we need to get serious about this because the devil is now in the
details.
What I want to highlight to my colleagues is the fear I have that, in
the final appropriations bill, there either will be nothing on school
construction for tax credits, or there will be the language that we
voted on the other day, which I find extremely unacceptable because it
does two things that I think insult the intelligence of anyone that
supports school construction aid.
The first thing is the arbitrage issue, which says to a school
district that, if they borrow money to build schools and they hold that
money for 3 or 4 years, they get a benefit in a tax credit. No school
district is going to borrow money to build schools and let it sit there
3 or 4 years.
The second is, we have created a brand-new program called Private
Activity Bonds for School Districts. In my district, building schools
is a public responsibility, not a private activity. We need to do it
the right way through the Johnson-Rangel bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. Udall of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion of the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to instruct conferees on dedicated funding
for class size reduction and school renovation.
The school classroom size reduction program is helping the schools in
my home State of New Mexico. Of the $9.6 million that was awarded to
New Mexico school districts, 87 percent was used to hire an additional
230 teachers, 9 percent for professional development, 2 percent for
administration, and 2 percent for recruiting and training of teachers.
These are dollars that are targeted and managed at the local level.
This is not about Washington versus local control. This program
supports local school districts to hire teachers. The locals do the
hiring.
{time} 1315
The locals do the hiring. We are for the locals and for local control
and local control management of our schools.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion of the gentlelady
from New York to instruct conferees on dedicated funding for Class Size
Reduction and School Renovation.
The Classroom Size Reduction Program is helping the schools in my
home state of New Mexico.
The amount awarded to my state for the 1999-2000 school year was $9.6
million.
Depending on the amount of funds received by the school district,
funds could be used to recruit, hire, and train certified teachers and
be used for professional development.
Of the $9.6 million that was awarded to New Mexico school districts,
87 percent was used to hire an additional 230 teachers, 9 percent for
professional development, 2 percent for administration, and 2 percent
for recruiting and training of teachers. These are dollars targeted and
managed at the local level.
As you can see Mr. Speaker the Class Size Reduction program has had a
huge amount of success in my state and district--as I'm sure it has in
my fellow colleagues' states and districts.
In the area of School Construction in my State: 69% of schools report
at least one inadequate building feature (e.g., roof, plumbing,
electrical, etc.) 75% of schools report at least one unsatisfactory
environmental factor (e.g., air quality, heating, lighting, etc.)
Enrollment in New Mexico increased 12.3% over the last decade. And
current estimates indicate that my state faces a $1.8 billion cost for
school modernization, including $1.4 billion for infrastructure and
$340 million for technology needs.
By supporting the President's request for $1.3 billion for grants and
loans for emergency renovations--Schools in New Mexico and across the
country would be able to compete for funds allocated to the state to
assist them in their school construction needs.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education we need not think of the
politics which divides this chamber and polarizes our work. When we
talk about education we need to think about our teachers who teach in
over crowded classrooms.
We need to think about our students who are being taught in crumbling
classrooms and schools.
We need to think about these current problems--And we need to act
now, and act today by supporting the President's education agenda and
supporting our nation's teachers and students. Our students and their
families, and our country cannot afford anything less.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a town of
20,000 people, the middle school was closed because walls were
literally crumbling, threatening the safety of students. Now the middle
school students are crammed into the town's overcrowded high school
which has leaking roofs.
Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the majority passed a bill that assigned
$2.5 billion over 5 years for school construction bonds to build and
repair schools. In the very same bill they assigned $18 billion, seven
times as much, in business tax cuts over the same 5 years. Those
business tax cuts included increasing the business tax deduction for
meals from 50 to 70 percent and repealing several taxes on producers
and marketers of alcoholic beverages. Remember, the three-martini
lunches? That is a very clear picture of wrong priorities.
This is October 28. We are 4 weeks into the fiscal year, CR number
eight, and our work is not done. This is the longest session in the
history of the Nation.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a leader on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from
New York, for yielding me this time. I also want to commend the
Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who I have
served with for the last several years, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling).
I rise in support of a partnership between the Federal level and our
local communities to help on reducing class size, to help with
discipline in the classroom, to help with parental involvement, to help
with quality teachers.
Something that I have worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis) on and with several Democrats and Republicans is to try to move
and transition to teaching people with math and science and
technological experience from mid-career positions into the classroom.
That transition to teaching, to provide those people with expertise
from Main Street into the classrooms, will help us in our local
communities decide what to do about the challenges of educating all of
our children. It is local accountability, it is local flexibility, but
it is putting emphasis on quality teaching. I hope that this Congress
will act in a bipartisan way on that.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for this initiative; and, frankly, I think the Baltimore Sun
is right, this is a Republican gridlock. Because any parent in America
who can say to me that they have not seen crumbling school buildings or
overcrowded school buildings are probably not looking at the Nation's
schools in the last 10 to 15 years.
What we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a crisis,
similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. We need to confront
schools on a national level to rebuild them. What we are trying to say
is that this budget and appropriation bills that have been put forward
by the Republicans do not address the crisis and the emergency.
This is not a game. This is a serious effort to ensure that we leave
here with local communities having tax credits and incentives to put
the money directly on rebuilding the schools. It is plain and simple.
That is why we are here on Saturday. That is why we will be here on
Sunday. And that is why we will be here throughout the time, because we
need to do the right thing.
I want to see children in safe, secure, well-heated and proper
schools. Mr.
[[Page H11472]]
Speaker, let us do the right thing together.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I have heard all my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, tout some of the successes of the committee. I serve on that
committee and am glad to serve under his leadership, but I might add
that some of the successes that we tout we have not seen them signed
into law. I think the chairman would admit that he has had difficulty
with some of these even on his side.
I heard the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) talk about how close
we are and how sad it is that we cannot close that gap. He mentions
that we are perhaps promoting something false on this side. There is
nothing false about kids learning in closets, there is nothing false
about children learning in bathrooms, there is nothing false about
children learning in trailers connected to their schools.
If we can find $.25 trillion a year to help build roads and highways
and bridges; if we can find Federal dollars to build prisons, then we
ought to be able to find some dollars to build schools for children.
The only quota that my friends on the other side of the aisle support,
and I have many friends on that side of the aisle and do not mean to
cast aspersions, is the quota to raise the number of foreign workers we
allow into our nation to hold down jobs which we cannot produce enough
people in our country to do that.
Let us pass this motion and do right by our children. I look forward
to working with both chairmen to get this done.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, to advise my dear friend from New York that I will be yielding
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) in just a minute, and then
I will reserve the balance of my time so I can have a closing statement
prior to the time the gentlewoman makes her statement.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the chairman and to advise him that I believe I have two more
brief speeches.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), but I just wanted the gentlewoman to know
in advance what my plan was.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
I have listened with great interest and with, sadly, some misgivings
to the tone of this debate. Let me start with a point of agreement. My
friend from North Carolina and my neighbor from New Mexico said this is
not a game. They are exactly right. How sad it is, then, that such
partisan invective is brought into this debate.
As the father of two children in the Cave Creek Unified School
District in Arizona, I have a firsthand knowledge of the challenges
teachers face in the classroom, of the special challenges of growth in
that school district, of the bond issue that will be on the ballot in a
few short days. I heard the litany of challenges outlined on this side.
I would not take issue with the reality of the need that is there. But
I am compelled to point out the fact to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker,
that just 2 days ago we empowered local districts with over $16 billion
to deal with a variety of projects.
My friend from Pennsylvania, under his leadership, we have moved for
the full Federal component of funding for children with special needs,
a promise made nearly a quarter century ago that was left unfulfilled.
There reaches a point, my colleagues, when we must put people before
politics. Join with us in the broad goals of empowering local
districts, parents in the homes, teachers in the classroom, leaders in
the communities, and give them the latitude they need.
Sadly, I must ask my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct and
deal with the reality and come together in an agreement that is good
for every child in this country.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago, in the City of
Cleveland, at a high school called East High School, the roof fell in.
I called the Department of Education and said, ``Is there emergency
money at the Federal level to assist my public school in a situation
like this?'' Sadly, it was reported that there was none.
In Ohio, the Supreme Court has determined that the way in which
schools are funded throughout Ohio is unconstitutional. It is done by
way of property tax. So that means that in one city in Ohio $2,000 is
spent on education per capita, but in another city in Ohio $15,000 is
spent on each child per capita.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct because our
schools need funding and assistance.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
I want to rise in support of this very important motion to instruct.
Over the last year, I have taken the opportunity to visit every school
in my district, and I have seen students trying to learn in hallways,
in bathrooms, in closets, and cafeterias. It is time to do something to
help our local school districts.
This is not about the Federal Government stepping in and telling
local school districts what to do, it is about working in partnership
with our school districts all over the country, whether they be in
rural or urban or suburban or fast-growing districts.
I urge this body to support the motion to instruct. There is nothing
more important we can do for our future and for our children.
I rise today in support of the School Construction Motion to Instruct
Conferees, because I believe the last days of this Congress present us
with a clear choice. We can help communities hire 100,000 new teachers,
reduce class size, and modernize schools or we can pass block grants
that don't ensure that a single new teacher will be hired or a single
classroom built.
My district, the Second Congressional District of Colorado, is a
microcosm of the American West. It is urban, suburban and rural, high
growth and unspoiled mountain communities. For all of my districts
diversity of terrain and community size, it is a district of crumbling
schools.
Since coming to Congress last year, I have traveled to every high
school in my district. I can tell you there are far too many kids
crammed in classrooms of 30 or more and far too many students trying to
work in modular or temporary spaces like trailers. One High School I
visited (one of the newer schools) is already surpassing its growth
projections. High Schools built in the 1970s and designed for
graduating classes of 200-300 students, now face numbers that are two
and three times that.
I am not happy to be here on a Saturday morning, nearly a month into
the fiscal year, to encourage the Majority to make good on their stated
goal of improving education. I would rather be at home with my family,
among my constituents, but I am here because a firm commitment to
school modernization and construction is needed nationwide. With this
vote we can send a message to the Majority that it is time to target
funds to build much needed new schools and to rebuild our crumbling
schools.
While time is running short, I believe there is still time to do
right by our nation's children.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my
good friend, for yielding me this time. We represent similar areas in
New York, Bronx County, Westchester County; and we know there are
problems with schools in those counties.
We need to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to get our schools'
classes down in size so there are no more than 18 students per class.
We will need to build new schools, hire 100,000 teachers and fix and
repair crumbling school buildings.
I am the father of three children. I am a former teacher; my wife is
a former teacher, I was a guidance counselor. There is nothing more
important
[[Page H11473]]
to the future of this Nation than to get our class sizes down. Any
parent knows that the less children there are in a classroom the more
the children can learn and get personalized attention.
So I support this instruction for conferees. I think we should move
in a bipartisan fashion to fund our schools, and I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to support this.
Again, we need 100,000 teachers, we need to build new schools, and
fix and repair crumbling school buildings.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One point I would like to make to the gentlewoman
that said there was no money for her schools is that the Department of
Education's books have been unauditable. In one year, one year, they
have over $100 million of student loans they cannot even account for.
All of the agencies need to be digitalized so that they can at least
track the funds.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentlewoman from New York for bringing up this issue because this is a
good debate. We need to be discussing this issue.
I heard some things on that side that I agreed with. In fact, I heard
one of my colleagues on the other side say that this should be a
partnership. Mr. Speaker, I agree, this should be a partnership. That
is where both partners have equal enjoyment of the authority and the
jurisdiction. But under the motion to instruct, I just have the feeling
and I am really convinced that this would be a one-sided partnership
with the Federal Government being by far the most senior partner.
Now, that really disturbs me, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) just made the case that the Department of Education could
not account for $100 million worth of student loans last year and could
not audit their accounts. Now, I do not think I want that educational
department running the school districts in Pinellas County, Florida,
where I have the privilege of representing the teachers and the
students and the parents. But we will soon vote on this issue, and we
are going to decide whether or not we want the Federal Government and
Federal aid with all kinds of strings on it to our local systems.
But I want to make this as a closing argument. We believe strongly in
education, and the money that we have already agreed to provide is in
excess of what the President requested.
{time} 1330
Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. The money that we are agreeing to
provide as we speak today is in excess of what the President of the
United States asked for. As we negotiate the final agreement on this
appropriations bill, I am convinced that that number will be even
higher. So we are not arguing about the dollars. What we are arguing
about is who controls the dollars. Our position is that the dollars
should be controlled by the people in the school districts, where they
know what their needs are far better than the Department of Education
or some other bureaucracy here in Washington, D.C.
And then I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. I have spent a lot of my
time in the Congress, my assignment being national defense, national
security, intelligence, and I am proud of the fact that we have a
tremendous military capability. We have the best kids serving in our
uniforms. They are all not kids but the vast majority of them are. I
have visited with almost every one of the sailors aboard the U.S.S.
Cole who were injured. I visited with them as they came home, I visited
with them in the hospital, I even visited with some of them in their
ambulances. They are kids. But they provide a strong national defense.
We do not have the largest Army by a long shot. There are five or six
other countries with a much larger army than we have. In Desert Storm
we had 18 divisions. Today we only have 10. That is a tremendous
downsizing which I do not agree with. But we have a technological
advantage. We have created superior technology, superior weapons
systems, and we have smart young people who are able to handle these
defense systems. That is important, because without a strong national
security, most of these other things we argue about would not even be
arguable. In fact, without a strong national security, this Congress
probably would not even be here; we would not exist. Some dictator
would be running this country.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that without a good, strong, effective
educational system, we could not develop the technology that we have
developed, that is super, that is better than any other in the world.
There are still others out there that have nuclear weapons and have all
kinds of threats they could pose to the United States. But we have the
great technology, and we have the young men and women who are able to
handle, to manage, to administer that technology. If we do not maintain
and continue to improve our educational systems, the ability to defend
this country deteriorates as we allow our educational systems to
deteriorate.
We believe in a strong education. We are determined to provide for a
strong and effective education. But we understand that when we are
dealing with K-12 and local educational communities and local schools
and local teachers, that the decisions on whether they need new schools
or whether they need more new teachers or whether they need special
education, whether they need more books, whether they need computers,
those needs should be determined in the school district, by the people
who know what their needs are, not by the Department of Education in
Washington, D.C. who cannot even account for $100 million worth of
student loans this last year.
I hope we reject this motion to instruct the conferees. Let the
conferees continue on the track that we are on now, which is providing
more money for education but guaranteeing that local people, local
teachers, local taxpayers, local parents will have control over how
that money is spent.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go unanswered the comments of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the chairman about the Department
of Education, who, when they had some difficulty in one of their
audits, responded more quickly than any other agency I can remember in
righting that ship.
It is amazing for people that do not want to get partisan, they
neglect to note the fact that the Department of Defense financial
statements for 1998 were less timely than ever and a record $1.7
trillion of unsupported adjustments were identified by auditors. The
same was true roughly in the following year. They do not ask for the
Department of Defense to be closed down, but both the Texas platform of
the Republican Party and this party on the other side of the aisle is
in favor of closing the Department of Education. They should be ashamed
of raising an issue like that.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
been doing a lot of talking during this campaign about education. We
hear about how important education is. Yet they want to close down the
Department of Education. I want to make it very clear. I have visited
schools all over this country. I have seen young people who have to
work in the shiny corporations because they do not have computers at
their desk. There are wires hanging out of windows. Vandals will cut
them at night. There are youngsters who have to run from one side of
the building to the other side of the building because it is raining.
The schools are crumbling.
In 1996, the problem was $112 billion. Now it is $300 billion. If we
can build roads, bridges, highways, prisons, then while we are
assisting our local governments, we can provide the emergency aid to
rebuild our schools. Our children deserve no less.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair reminds all persons
[[Page H11474]]
in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. 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 150,
nays 159, not voting 123, as follows:
[Roll No. 573]
YEAS--150
Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Gilman
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NAYS--159
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Shadegg
Sherwood
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--123
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barr
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Calvert
Campbell
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Lipinski
Maloney (CT)
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Owens
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wynn
{time} 1356
Messrs. DeMINT, GILCHREST and GEKAS changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________