[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3791-H3797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we are about to enter our July recess for the 
4th of July holiday, and it must be noted that this Congress has 
completed two major legislative developments to date. One of those, of 
course, has been fully completed: the tax bill. That is fully 
completed, signed into law, and checks will begin to move soon.
  Those checks will be going to the people at the very bottom of the 
rung as a result of legislation which was first proposed by the 
Progressive Caucus that every American should get some benefit from 
this tax cut. That did not exactly happen, but every taxpayer is 
getting a small benefit as a result of the action taken early in the 
session by the Progressive Caucus. The idea got out there and kept 
moving until finally it was incorporated in another form in the tax 
bill. So people at the bottom are going to get some small amount of 
money from the tax bill. That is real. It is completed.
  The other piece of legislation that has almost been completed is the 
education bill, the leave-no-child-behind legislation of the President. 
The new President, of course, made this a high priority; and we have 
moved in both Houses, with both parties cooperating extensively, to 
pass the leave-no-child-behind legislation separately in the House and 
in the Senate. But there has been no conference, and the bill is now on 
hold.
  I think it should be noted that there are rumors that the bill will 
be held deliberately until we have a chance to negotiate the major 
question of financing for the education bill. Education is on the 
legislative back burner right now; but in the hearts of the people who 
are polled out there, legislation is still a number one concern.
  Education has to remain on the front burner. The fact it is being 
held here is a good development in that the critical question in the 
legislation that passed the House versus the legislation that passed 
the Senate is the amounts of money that are appropriated to carry out 
the features of the bill. The amounts of money are critical.

[[Page H3792]]

  We do state in the legislation that passed the House that there will 
be an increase in an authorization for an increase in title I funds of 
double the amount that exist now in 5 years. In 5 years, in other 
words, we will have twice as much funding for title I as we have today. 
It will move from the present amount to about $17.2 billion in 5 years 
under the authorization. Authorization is there. That does not 
guarantee that the appropriation, of course, will keep pace.
  The Senate bill has even more money earmarked for increases, but they 
do not have a commitment from the White House that the appropriation is 
going to follow the authorization. The big question is will the 
authorizations be honored. We had a great deal of effort to get 
bipartisan agreements.
  I reluctantly voted for the education legislation because of the fact 
it did two things: one, it got rid of the consideration of vouchers for 
private schools as a Federal policy. And I think to clear the board and 
have vouchers off the discussion table was good for Federal legislative 
policy. However, the critical question of will we have more resources 
was also addressed. And the fact that the bill does promise to double 
title I funds, which are the funds that go most directly to the areas 
of greatest need, impressed me to the point where I voted for the bill, 
even though there were some other features, which I will discuss later, 
which I do not consider to be desirable.
  The critical point is, are there more resources? The need to have 
resources to maintain what I call opportunity-to-learn standards is a 
critical point that I have been trying to make for all these years. 
Opportunity to learn is the most important factor if we really want to 
improve education and have more youngsters who are attending our public 
schools benefit from the process. What we are trying to do, however, is 
force a process of accountability, insist that schools measure progress 
by the tests that are taken by the students and the scores on the 
tests, and that that is the way we should measure accountability. A 
school system is held accountable for improved test scores.
  On the other hand, the opportunity-to-learn standards are ignored 
completely. Opportunity to learn means that before the test is given we 
must guarantee that the student will have an adequate place to learn; 
classrooms that are not overcrowded, libraries that have books that are 
up to date, laboratories that have science equipment. The opportunity 
to learn means that we have the right equipment, the right facilities. 
It means that we have certified teachers in the classroom. It means 
that all the resources that are needed are there before we start the 
testing.

                              {time}  1845

  But the process that we have pushed here is a process which tries to 
ignore the opportunity to learn as a major factor.
  So we need to hold the education legislation because that vital 
component is missing. Let us hold it until we can negotiate an increase 
in the resources, an increase in the amount of money we use to purchase 
resources, and those resources will provide the opportunity to learn. 
It may be that it will be end-game negotiations all of the way to the 
end of the session. Education legislation has benefited greatly over 
the last few years through the end-game negotiation process, right down 
to the very last hours of the session. When the White House and the 
Congress came together and they had their priorities on the table, 
education has fared very well.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that by holding the legislation this time until 
we get to that end-game negotiation, we will get the kind of funding 
necessary to make the legislation that we have passed have some real 
significance. If we do not get some additional funding for the Leave No 
Child Behind funding, then it is a fraud. It has no substance if it is 
not going to provide additional resources.
  There is a need to refresh ourselves and come back to an 
understanding of the fact that we have passed these two pieces of 
legislation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. There is no 
reason to rest on our laurels. We still have a basic problem of that 
bill that passed having great gaps in it, and those great gaps are not 
going to be closed in the end-game negotiation unless the people that 
we represent, our constituents, understand where we are and why there 
is a great need for more Federal involvement in the improvement of 
education.
  I want to use as an example a series of articles that have appeared 
in the Daily News in New York City to talk about the New York City 
school system, and I want to use New York City as a negative model. It 
is not the way it should be, but it is the way that it is in most of 
our large cities. I would not bore my colleagues with a discussion of 
what is going on in New York City unless I did not think that it was 
applicable all over the country in other big cities, and it is also 
applicable in rural areas.
  Yesterday we voted on a bill to establish a commission to plan for 
the anniversary, 50th anniversary, of the Brown v. Board of Education. 
That anniversary relates to the question of segregation in public 
schools and whether or not it was legal. The Supreme Court struck down 
the fact of segregation and clearly made it illegal. Our concerns with 
segregation have begun to fade as far as segregation by race is 
concerned. The phenomenon we face now is a more subtle phenomenon. We 
have segregation in another way; not by race, but segregation of the 
people who have no power away from those who do have power. It turns 
out in many cases that the people who do not have power in the big 
cities are people who happen to be minorities also.
  In the rural areas there are large numbers of whites in scattered 
pockets throughout the country; these are poor people who are in the 
same position because they have poor schools as a result of having no 
power. Folks who have money, who have power, always guarantee that 
their children get the best schooling possible. People with money in 
larger and larger numbers are sending their children to private 
schools; and, of course, there are not enough private schools even if 
everybody had money to afford them. There are not enough private 
schools to accommodate 53 million children. Others who have power and 
are in control of their schools and of the budget-making processes of 
their counties or cities or their school districts, they make certain 
that they have good schools. Where they have the power to do that, they 
have done it for their children.
  We have a problem, however, because many of the people who have 
power, who have control about the decisionmaking over the budget are 
not involved to the point where their children or grandchildren are in 
the schools. The people who have the power, the people who have the 
most influence do not care about public schools enough to follow 
through on guaranteeing that you have the best schools possible.
  We have a serious situation where we have schools that are stuck in a 
time bind. One of the greatest problems of our schools is that 
physically so many of them are so old. When one looks at the physical 
age of the structures, one gets a good visible manifestation of the way 
in which education and schooling are viewed in that area as a whole. 
New York is in that kind of bind.
  I am going to make it simple by reading from an excellent editorial 
that appeared in the Daily News which accompanied their series on the 
New York City school system. I think it was a magnificent series. It 
pinpointed the problem and was forthright in dealing with the exposure 
of rampant waste and corruption and inadequacies. At the same time 
every day this series sought out uplifting models that could be 
replicated, and it sought out models which contradicted the general 
notion that the poor cannot learn, the notion that poor neighborhoods 
cannot have good schools. There were examples all over New York City 
which prove this not to be true.

  But in the end the Daily News pinpoints the fact that the school 
system is in great trouble. In terms of service to the majority of the 
children attending the schools of New York City, we are failing at a 
faster and faster rate, and it is likely that school systems in Los 
Angeles, Philadelphia, a number of big cities, are failing in the same 
way, at the same rate, for the same reason, and that is why I want to 
bring to your attention what this Daily News series has pointed out, 
and how the implications reach across the Nation.

[[Page H3793]]

  Reading from their own editorial page, ``This week in a Daily News 
special report entitled Save Our Schools, you have been reading about 
the meltdown of the New York City educational system. As documented in 
chilling detail in more than 20 articles, the crisis has reached 
critical mass.''
  Now, Daily News is not a radical newspaper. They very seldom use 
extreme words like ``meltdown.'' When they say ``meltdown,'' you have 
to consider that they have been shocked, and this is truly a serious 
situation.
  ``This laboratory of failure, this culture of catastrophe, puts 1.1 
million school children at risk. It must end. That is why the Daily 
News has launched a campaign, no, a crusade, to rescue what was once a 
world-class system that created opportunities for millions.''
  I think it is important to point out that the New York City school 
system was once considered a world-class system. It gave a lie to the 
notion that any big system, any bureaucratic system is automatically a 
wasteful system and a nonproductive system. The New York City school 
system produced the young people who went on to city colleges and who 
created a record of achievement and higher education in science and you 
name it; every scholarly endeavor that you can mention were the 
products of the New York City school system and of New York City 
publicly financed colleges. At one point City University had the 
highest percentage of Ph.D.s of any college in the Nation.
  This was a system that was once a world-class system, and I submit it 
was a world-class system at a time when the people who were in charge 
of the system also had children who were attending the schools in the 
system; when the power, the power to make the system work was in the 
hands of the people whose children were attending the system. We have 
lost the kind of concerns and the kind of scrutiny and the kind of 
effective application of resources because of the fact that the people 
who are in charge and the people whose children are in the schools are 
not the same.
  Continuing with the statement in the Daily News, ``How abysmal is the 
situation? Sixty percent of the students in public elementary and 
middle schools cannot read at grade level. A third are functionally 
illiterate, and 70 percent lack proficiency in math. Nearly 50 percent 
finish high school in 4 years. In the original class of 2000, 19.5 
percent dropped out before graduation, a 12 percent leap from the class 
of 1999.'' This percentage who dropped out before graduation represents 
a 12 percent change from the class of 1999.
  A mere 35 percent of the kids take the Scholastic Assessment Test 
required for college. A mere 35 percent take the SAT, versus 73 percent 
of the rest of the children in New York State who take that same test. 
Only a broken system produces such a rock bottom number. It is 
appalling.
  Just 44 percent of teachers hired last year for city schools had 
credentials, down from 1999. Meanwhile, 16 percent of all teachers are 
uncertified, the most in a decade.
  Ten percent of parents did not bother to pick up their kids' report 
card. Fifteen percent do not know what grade their child is in, and the 
PTA at one school has only two members.
  Oh, yes, they say in passing, ``The buildings are falling down. 
Eighty-five percent of schools need major repairs.'' I am going to 
repeat that paragraph because herein lies the story of denial of 
opportunities to learn.
  How can the children of the New York City school system score well on 
the series of tests that are being proposed? The Leave No Child Behind 
legislation pushed by the White House and now passed by both Houses has 
a testing regimen which starts in the third grade. From the third to 
the eighth grade, children will be tested. If you test children who are 
going to school under these conditions, I can tell you now without 
looking at the tests, most of them will fail.
  Here are the conditions that the school, the children in the schools 
of New York will be facing as they take the tests. I am repeating this 
paragraph because herein is the story of the denial of opportunity to 
learn by the children in the schools of New York.

                              {time}  1900

  ``Consider more numbers: Just 44 percent of teachers hired last year 
for city schools had State credentials, down from 59 percent in 1999.''
  If you talk about meltdown, you are in a terrible situation at 44 
percent hired last year, or only 44 percent have State credentials, are 
certified. The fact that that is increasing at a rapid rate lets you 
know that you are in a much worse situation than just the fact that 
only 44 percent hired were certified. That is down from 59 percent the 
previous year. If you look at the year before that, I am sure that we 
had many more who were certified. We are rapidly losing all the 
qualified teachers needed in schools where the best teaching is needed.
  ``Meanwhile, 16 percent of all teachers are uncertified, the most in 
a decade. As for parents, 10 percent didn't bother to pick up their 
kids' report cards. And 85 percent of schools need major repairs.''
  What they do not tell you is that of this 85 percent, quite a number 
of these schools are 100 years old and should have been replaced a long 
time ago.
  There are honeycomb success stories among the failures. They give 
examples of public schools that are doing a great job.
  Continuing to read from the Daily News editorial statement of June 
22:
  ``Unfortunately, such efforts are but seeds of real reform. To truly 
transform education, activist moms and dads must team up with better 
trained teachers and with principals who don't double as building 
managers. Schools must no longer be fettered by the United Federation 
of Teachers' crippling work rules and its lifetime protection program 
for inept instructors. Finally, the Board of Education must be 
abolished so that accountability--and mayoral control--can reclaim the 
system.
  ``Those 1.1 million kids deserve a genuine chance to become beacons 
for the city's future, a chance they will have only if New Yorkers 
unite to save our schools.''
  I disagree with the remedies. The New York Daily News set of articles 
clearly states the problem and is to be applauded for that. It leaps to 
conclusions that have no basis in fact or experience as to remedies. To 
abolish the board of education is to throw away any opportunity for 
this generation of New York children to get an education. It would take 
more than a generation to rebuild anything that is half as good as what 
you have already. The board of education obviously has serious problems 
at present, but most of these problems are problems which are directly 
related to a lack of resources, the denial of the resources.
  We have just gone through a situation where a clear statement was 
made by a judge after months of considering a case that was brought 
against the State of New York in terms of its allocation of resources 
to the City of New York. That case sums up the need for opportunity to 
learn in a way which is far simpler than I could state it elsewhere. 
But it is important that we understand that nothing would be more 
beneficial to the well being and progress of the Nation than the 
provision of the opportunity to learn that I am talking about.
  Opportunity to learn for all would mean that we understand that 
brainpower is the greatest need of the Nation and the world. Education 
for all, including the least among us, is a vital investment in the 
future of the Nation. Economic power, technology power, the power of 
cultural influence and even military power is directly dependent on our 
reserve of brainpower. About 2 years ago, we launched the last super 
high-tech aircraft carrier that we launched and the Navy admitted at 
that time that it was about 300 crew members short because they did not 
have the necessary trained personnel. There was a lack of brainpower. 
There was a lack of young crewmen who had the aptitude to be trained to 
run the high-tech equipment on the aircraft carrier.
  I am saying again that New York City schools are examples of what is 
happening all over the country. They are frozen in time in terms of 
providing a basic education. They do not even do as well as they were 
doing 50 years ago. But here is the challenge that faces us in terms of 
going into the future, where the challenges are much greater and the 
education system needs to be equipped to do a far better job. 
Brainpower is the key to where this Nation

[[Page H3794]]

is going. Unless we have a system that can educate all of the young 
people and guarantee that there are pools of trained personnel to draw 
from, then our entire society is in serious trouble. We do not just 
have a shortage of scientists, we do not just have a shortage of 
trained computer personnel, information technology personnel, we have 
shortages right across the board.
  Half of the graduate students in our big universities are foreigners. 
More than half of the graduate students studying science at the highest 
levels are foreigners. Whether you focus on chemistry or physics or 
engineering, or all of the technical and scientific pursuits, more than 
half are foreigners, which means you have a problem in terms of 
theoretical and scientific know-how. When you come down to the next 
level of technicians, there is a great shortage. If you look at any 
area, whether you are talking about auto mechanics or sheet metal 
workers, even carpenters, there is a tremendous shortage of people who 
can do the ordinary jobs in our society because those jobs have become 
more and more complex. They need more and more skills.

  I visited a sheet metal training facility in Queens more than a year 
ago, and I was surprised at the use of computers. They make extensive 
use of computers in the training of sheet metal workers. Obviously, 
sheet metal workers use computers a great deal. There is almost no area 
where the skills required, the knowledge required is not far greater 
now than it was 25, 50 years ago.
  That is the other problem. The first problem is to have a basically 
sound school system that is functioning at minimum level. The bigger 
problem is to have a school system which is able to cope with the 
challenges of the 21st century. New York fails on the first rung and 
cannot continue to exist as a school system unless it moves rapidly to 
the second rung, because that is where the soul of the city lies, in 
the production of brainpower. To solve this brainpower crisis in the 
information technology industry, for example, corporations are using 
foreigners more and more. But we cannot use foreigners to run our 
aircraft carriers. We cannot use foreigners to run the armed services. 
We cannot use foreigners to vote intelligently for our elected 
leadership. The survival of our constitutional civilization is directly 
dependent on the pools of brainpower we develop and maintain inside the 
Nation.
  Our complex society is doomed without adequate checks and balances. 
This goes far beyond the executive, judicial, and legislative units of 
government. The press and media, the nonprofit organizations, the 
private corporations, these are also vital parts of the system of 
checks and balances. Without constantly increasing brainpower reserves 
and replacements, these institutions will diminish and lose their 
potency in the collective decision-making process.
  In other words, I pointed out the crisis in science. It is not only 
in the area of science but in the area of writers, in the area of 
social workers. Wherever you examine the need for trained people, there 
is a shortage; and the shortage is increasing. The police are having 
difficulty recruiting qualified candidates. The fire department is 
having difficulty recruiting qualified candidates. A more complex world 
demands people who are slightly better trained, and as a result we do 
not find them in the pools of manpower and brainpower that we have now.
  We presently have a growing shortage of teachers and educated 
supervisors and administrators. That is the most critical shortage. 
This will greatly hamper any meaningful education reform. But similar 
shortages, as I said before, are appearing among numerous other 
categories of professionals.
  Right now there is a great negotiation taking place in New York City 
in respect to teachers' salaries. It is seen as a collective-bargaining 
problem, and really it is far beyond a collective-bargaining problem. 
The salaries of New York City teachers is a major public policy issue. 
The kingpin of the school system is the leadership, the quality of the 
teachers and the principals, the assistant principals and the other 
personnel. If we do not get higher salaries for the people who are 
running that system, considering the fact that we are competing with 
salaries in all the surrounding suburbs and cities and towns who draw 
off the best personnel from New York City, then the rapidity, the speed 
with which we are losing the best teachers and administrators, will 
greatly increase and it will be totally impossible to change the 
system. When you talk about meltdown, nothing will speed the meltdown 
of the system faster than the failure of the present negotiations to 
greatly increase the salaries of the teachers and the education 
personnel in New York City in order to allow it to keep pace with the 
personnel salaries in the surrounding areas.
  We have pinpointed that one of the most important opportunity-to-
learn standards, opportunity-to-learn factors, is the provision of 
qualified and trained teachers. That is number one. Without the 
leadership, without qualified trained teachers, without principals and 
administrators, the system does not go anywhere. No study and 
experimentation will be necessary to understand what maximum 
opportunity to learn means. To provide an adequate and basic elementary 
and secondary education, we already know what works. There is no need 
for a great deal of discussion and controversy. There is a need for 
more resources. We need the money to pay the teachers decent salaries, 
we need to raise the standards, raise the morale, stop the brain drain 
and improve in all the other opportunity-to-learn areas, like the 
physical facilities, the equipment, the books, et cetera.

  Before we begin to search for the most suitable pedagogical 
approaches, we must first put in place this set of opportunity-to-learn 
standards. The physical environment of the class, the building, the 
library, the cafeteria, laboratories, all of these must be safe and 
conducive to learning. The first negative by-product of overcrowded 
classrooms and hallways is usually an exacerbated discipline problem. 
Constantly we hear complaints about discipline problems. There are no 
silver bullet solutions for discipline problems; but one thing is 
certain, if you have overcrowded classrooms and overcrowded schools, 
the hallways, the cafeteria, the auditorium, then certainly you are 
going to have greater discipline problems. And, of course, you cannot 
honestly lower the pupil-teacher ratio unless you have more classrooms.
  Right now we have a situation in New York City where we cannot 
honestly make use of the funds that were appropriated by the efforts of 
the last administration. We did get some movement in terms of funds to 
lower the pupil-teacher ratio in each class. We got a movement in the 
right direction, many teachers were employed; but the honest truth is 
that in New York City, instead of them having a lower pupil-to-teacher 
ratio in the classroom, they put another teacher in a crowded classroom 
because there were no classrooms.
  If you do not build additional classrooms, then you cannot have a 
lower pupil-teacher ratio in the classroom. They added a teacher to a 
crowded classroom which is not what the legislation was all about in 
the first place. We have done some creative maneuvers to get the money 
and use the money; but actually the benefit sought, a classroom where 
you had fewer pupils per teacher in order to be able to maintain 
greater order and give more attention to the students at a younger age, 
that did not happen and it is not happening in many cases.
  This is a self-evident requirement, that you have trained teachers 
and you have trained supporting personnel. We refuse to take our 
children to untrained, uncertified dentists or pediatricians, so why 
not pay and seek the best teachers? Why should any child be subjected 
to the fumbling, makeshift efforts of an untrained teacher? We do not 
normally expect successful outcomes when unqualified staff are in 
charge. It is an unfortunate factor in big-city school systems that the 
substitute teacher, the unqualified teacher who could not pass the 
test, who is not regularly on the rolls, who is not paid fully and who 
does not get full benefits, that substitute teacher becomes the teacher 
that children see the most often in the worst neighborhoods. In other 
words, in the poorest neighborhoods where other teachers do not want to 
teach, it is the substitute teacher, the unqualified teacher, that is 
usually brought in to fill the classrooms.
  In one of my sections of my district, District 23, at one point they 
had more

[[Page H3795]]

than half of the teachers who were not certified, who were substitutes, 
teaching in the schools. This was an area where the reading scores were 
very low and they needed the very best teachers.
  What I am attempting to explain is summarized with shocking 
simplicity at the end of the court order just handed down several 
months ago by Supreme Court Judge DeGrasse in New York State. The New 
York State civil judge heard the case that was brought which challenged 
the fact that the State of New York had been shortchanging the City of 
New York in terms of education funds. The court case went on for almost 
a year, testimony was heard, and the judge finally made a decision.

                              {time}  1915

  I will read just a few excerpts from that decision. Quote, and this 
is Judge Leland DeGrasse, New York State Supreme Court, this court has 
held that a sound basic education, mandated by the education article, 
that is the education article of the constitution, consists of the 
foundational skills that students need to become productive citizens 
capable of civic engagement and sustaining competitive employment.
  In order to ensure that public schools offer a sound basic education, 
the State must take steps to ensure at least the following resources 
which, as described in the body of this opinion, are, for the most 
part, currently not given to New York City public school students.
  Number one, sufficient numbers of qualified teachers, principals and 
other personnel; two, appropriate class sizes; three, adequate and 
accessible school buildings with sufficient space to ensure appropriate 
class size and implementation of a sound curriculum; four, sufficient 
and up-to-date books, supplies, libraries, educational technology and 
laboratories; five, suitable curricula including an expanded platform 
of programs to help at-risk students by giving them more time on task; 
six, adequate resources for students with extraordinary needs; and 
seven, a safe, orderly environment.
  Now, these items laid out by Judge Leland DeGrasse, in the opinion of 
the New York State Supreme Court against the State of New York, 
accusing the State of not supplying these items, there is an exact 
parallel to the opportunity-to-learn standards, which I have been 
discussing. These are statements in another way of what opportunity to 
learn means. You are not provided sufficient teachers, qualified 
teachers and principals. You do not have appropriate class sizes. You 
do not have adequate school buildings. You do not have sufficient 
supply of up-to-date books, libraries, educational technology and 
laboratories, and as a result, your curriculum is not suitable. You do 
not have a safe, orderly environment. All of these are stated in the 
court decision.
  I might add that the judge gave the State of New York until the first 
of June, I think, to come forward with some kind of plan to respond to 
his decision. That has not happened.
  I might also add that the Governor of New York appealed the decision 
of the court, and the Governor in essence stated what the lawyers had 
been arguing for the Governor all along, and that is that in New York 
City the children are too poor to learn. The poverty is the reason they 
cannot learn.
  There is a condemnation out of which there can be no solution; that 
is to say, children cannot learn because they are too poor, and, 
therefore, we should not put resources in to try to teach children who 
are too poor to learn dooms the children forever. It is like condemning 
slaves for being illiterate, nonfunctional when they came out of 
slavery after having a series of laws in every confederate State which 
made it a crime to teach a slave to read. It is a crime to teach you to 
read. At the same time, of course, there was a big contradiction there 
because slaves were considered inferior, not quite human, and, 
therefore, why did they have to worry about teaching them to read? 
Evidently they were human enough, smart enough to learn how to read, so 
much so that laws were made. In every Confederate State there was a law 
that said it is a crime to teach a slave to read.
  Now we have a situation where a Governor of one of the most advanced 
States of the Union, the great Empire State of New York, is arguing 
that the problem of education in New York City is that the children are 
too poor to learn, and, therefore, do not expect the State to solve the 
problem by providing more resources because they are too poor to learn; 
more resources will not help the situation. It is a State where we 
spend $25,000 per year for an inmate to be kept in prison. In New York 
City we spend only $7,000 per year to educate each student. You can see 
the direction of the reasoning of the Governor. If you cannot educate 
them, and most of them end up in prison, they are going to cost far 
more later on, but I suppose there are some profits to be made in the 
prisons that we do not know about.
  Anyway, I can think of no more confused and hopeless reasoning than 
for a Governor of a State to say we cannot solve the problem because 
the children are too poor to learn.
  In the course of reforming the school finance system, a threshold 
task that must be performed by the State to the extent possible, the 
actual costs of providing a sound basic education in districts around 
the State has to be decided, but certainly you are going to have to 
ensure that every school district has resources necessary to provide 
opportunity for a sound, basic education. Taking into account 
variations in local costs and all the other things, the State should be 
in a position to provide what is necessary.
  The New York Daily News article does not pinpoint the Governor's 
position, the fact that the Governor is now spending State funds to 
appeal the decision of the court, which called upon the Governor to 
provide more funding for New York City. The New York Daily News article 
does not finger that as one of the great reasons why we have the 
problem.
  We have a meltdown in New York City schools. A meltdown is taking 
place right now, and the meltdown is primarily due not to the fact that 
children are too poor to learn. If that was the case, then New York 
City would not have produced some of the greatest scholars in our 
Nation.
  The City College, the city universities, would not have turned out so 
many Ph.Ds. They are spread all over the world. Poor youngsters who 
came out of the ghettos of New York in the past have learned and 
performed well. The poverty is not the problem. The problem is that the 
people in charge of the system have allowed the system to degenerate 
and not provide the opportunities to learn that should be provided.
  One great controversy raging right now is around the opportunity-to-
learn standard as reflected in school construction. School construction 
and the provision of adequate facilities is a major part of the 
problem. It is highly visible, and when you provide for adequate school 
facilities, you make a statement about the importance that you attach 
to education. If you refuse to provide for adequate facilities, you are 
also making a statement, and the continuing refusal to provide adequate 
schools is a statement that the people who are in power have made over 
the last 10 years. The Daily News recognizes the problem, but they do 
not pinpoint the fact that the mayor of the city of New York has been a 
major problem.
  The decision-making process at city hall has been a major problem in 
the provision of adequate school facilities. We have a problem now 
where it is another Catch-22. They are saying that the high cost of 
construction in the year 2001 is so great that we cannot go ahead to 
begin to remedy the problem of overcrowded schools. We have to wait. We 
have run into a situation where the money projected to build schools 
would not go as far as anticipated because the cost has gone up. Some 
people are proposing that we call a halt and not build any more 
schools, not repair any more schools because the costs are too great.
  Eight years ago there was a major confrontation between the present 
mayor and the chancellor of schools at that time because he proposed a 
$7 billion capital funding program. He proposed $7 billion, and the 
mayor said that was unreal, and there was such a clash until they drove 
that chancellor out of town.
  A few years later a second chancellor proposed an $11 billion capital 
expenditure program, and there was a clash with the mayor, who said 
that was

[[Page H3796]]

unreal, and the clash became so heated until that chancellor was forced 
to resign.
  Now we are at a point where we are finding that because of all of 
these delays and all of the roadblocks that have been placed in the way 
of the decisionmakers at the board of education in terms of going 
forward with a meaningful capital expenditure program and building the 
schools at a time when it probably would have cost less, we now have a 
logjam, and the prices are going up.
  The cost of construction has gone up. Well, is the cost of 
construction really up all over the Nation? Are we in a recession? Are 
we going toward a recession? Has the economy not slowed down? If they 
want to solve the problem of school construction in New York and keep 
the costs from rising, can we not appeal for some Davis-Bacon unionized 
contractors from all over the country to come in? We have no problem if 
they are willing to abide by Davis-Bacon. They can come into New York 
City and take the contracts and go ahead and build schools there.
  There are a dozen ways to solve the problem, yet there seems to be a 
willingness to point the finger at the board of education, at the 
current chancellor, and to play the kind of game that city hall has 
played all along; in other words, poor decision-making, incompetent 
decision-making, decision-making by people whose motives are 
questionable. After all, this is a mayor who has said that the school 
system, the board of education, should be blown up. The best way to get 
better education in New York City is to destroy the board of education. 
If you want to take that attitude, then it would be a contradiction for 
you to provide money for the board of education to build schools.
  The mayor has been consistent. The question is why have the leaders 
of New York allowed him to be so consistent? Why have the members of 
the city council not challenged the mayor? We at one point had $3 
billion; just 3 years ago we had $3 billion in surplus. New York City 
had a $3 billion surplus. Not a single penny of the surplus funds were 
used to repair schools or build schools or to do anything else for 
education, for that matter.

  So we have a situation again which has clearly been delineated by the 
Daily News. If you live in New York City and you are interested in 
education, then I urge you to read the Daily News articles. If you do 
not live in New York City and you want to see what big cities all over 
America are facing, you might want to read the same series of articles. 
It is a magnificent series of articles that pinpoint all of the things 
that have gone wrong and can go wrong and what the consequences are.
  Sixty percent of elementary and secondary middle school students 
cannot read at grade level. That is quite an indictment. Seventy 
percent are not proficient in math. Thirteen percent of this year's 
high school seniors, that is about 4,100 students, failed the math 
Regents test. More than 13,000 students from the class of 2000 dropped 
out between the 9th and the 12th grades. That is 19.5 percent of the 
class. Between 1996 and 1999, 30 percent of New York City students took 
Scholastic Aptitude Tests, a standardized exam for admission to most 
colleges. Seventy-three percent passed statewide and scored 40 to 50 
points higher than the New York City students.
  Sixty percent of elementary schools and 67 percent of high schools 
are overcrowded. Sixty percent of elementary schools and 67 percent of 
high schools are overcrowded, and the board of education's master plan 
for the year 2003 concedes that 85 percent of the schools need major 
repairs. Deterioration is occurring at a rate faster than we can save 
the systems, the board documents revealed.
  I think that that physical deterioration is the best visible 
manifestation of what is happening in general. When you talk about 
meltdown, look at the physical deterioration. I quote: Deterioration in 
the actual school buildings is occurring at a rate faster than we can 
save systems, the board documents reveal.
  In recent years about half of public school students have completed 
high school in 4 years; 9 percent have graduated later, by the age of 
21; and the rest have been lost completely. Is this an example, a model 
for where we dare go in terms of education in America?
  I am using the New York City school system because it is an example 
of where our big cities are. Now, there was a lot of praise for 
Chicago, and Chicago was being used as some kind of magic model for the 
improvement of big-city school systems. Now, I understand the tests 
have shown that Chicago is again in serious trouble, that there has 
been a lot of hype and a lot of public relations, but underneath the 
improvements have been minimal, and the improvements have been minimal 
because, again, the opportunity-to-learn standards have not been 
addressed sufficiently.
  They have not provided the kinds of quality facilities, trained 
teachers, adequate supplies and equipment, laboratories for science, 
library books and libraries. It is so simple, the opportunity-to-learn 
standards, but it is the area where nobody wants to engage in a 
discussion.
  Yes, we have two new pieces of legislation, one in the Senate, one in 
the House, which are professing to be the last word on education 
reform. A lot of people are already applauding the legislation before 
it is finalized, and before the President signs it. It is not the final 
word, I hope. If that is the final word, we are in serious trouble.

                              {time}  1930

  The final word has to be dictated by the insistence of the American 
people out there, who have made education the number one priority for 
the last 5 or 6 years. When you ask the question, what should Federal 
dollars be used for, where is the most Federal assistance needed, 
education continues to score right up there with other concerns like 
crime and Medicare and Medicaid. Usually education is ahead of them 
all.
  So the public is way ahead of the leadership. We must run to catch up 
with the leadership. What is happening right now gives us an 
opportunity to do that. As long as the bill is being held, as long as 
we do not go to conference, as long as we do not have a final signature 
by the President, then there is room for negotiation, as long as we are 
dealing with the appropriation process and it is understood that the 
glaring inadequacy of the present education legislation is in the area 
of resources, there is not enough money being guaranteed.
  Oh, yes, the money is authorized. There is a reasonable amount 
authorized. If you are going to double the title I funding from the 
present amount to $17.2 billion in 5 years, that is a great increase. 
That is an increase worth voting for. But at the same time the 
authorizing legislation says we can do that, the appropriation and 
budget process says there is no money.
  I started by saying we have had two great legislative developments up 
to now in this session of Congress. One was the passage of the tax 
legislation, and the other was the passage of education legislation by 
both Houses, although the education legislation is not complete.
  They do relate to each other. The passage of the tax legislation has 
put us in a situation where, despite the fact we have authorized more 
money for education, and the other body, the Senate bill authorizes 
even more than the House bill, we cannot actually get the money and the 
resources unless there is a change in the appropriation process.
  Somehow between now and the end of this session, more money has to be 
found in that budget; some new device has to be developed to increase 
the revenue; some changes have to be made, decreases in expenditures 
and other areas that are less important. Somehow we have to continue to 
press forward and make the case that brain power is the number one need 
for this Nation at this time. Brain power and the pools of people 
produced to qualify to run a more and more complex society are at the 
heart of where we are going. Nothing else is going to move forward 
unless we have the appropriate brain power. Therefore, brain power 
should be number one.
  If budget cuts have to be made somewhere else, we should make those 
budget cuts, or if we have to find some new source of revenue dedicated 
to education, then that has to be the case. We must save our schools, 
not only in New York City, from a growing meltdown; but we must 
understand that the same

[[Page H3797]]

process, the meltdown process, is occurring elsewhere, and only Federal 
funds can be utilized to stop it.

                          ____________________