[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11300-S11309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3061, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Department
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle amendment No. 2044, to provide collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by
States or their political subdivisions.
Gramm amendment No. 2055 (to amendment No. 2044), to
preserve the freedom and constitutional rights of
firefighters, law enforcement officers and public safety
officers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from New Hampshire is recognized to offer an amendment, on
which there shall be 60 minutes debate to be equally divided.
Amendment No. 2056
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the two
managers of the bill in setting up a timeframe for this amendment.
We have discussed this issue innumerable times in this Chamber. This
is the issue of whether or not we are going to fund, at the expense of
low-income children, school construction. The amendment is very simple.
It takes money which is not authorized--in fact, the dollars which are
being spent under this school construction account, that authorization
was rejected by this Congress, by this Senate on innumerable
occasions--it takes the money which is being spent under this
appropriations bill, which is therefore not authorized, and moves it
into the authorized account of the title I targeted formula, the
targeted formula being that formula which benefits low-income children
in this country.
The purpose of funding under the Federal education initiatives has
basically two goals. Our primary responsibility as a Federal Government
involves two basic areas in elementary and secondary school education.
The first is special education funding, IDEA funding.
I congratulate this committee and Senator Harkin and Senator Specter
for the tremendous job they have done in the area of funding special
education. They have added over $1 billion in the special education
accounts. That is very appropriate.
The second primary purpose authorized by the Federal Government and
chosen by us as a Congress as to where we were going to focus Federal
attention is in helping low-income children be more competitive in
their school systems and have an opportunity to succeed along with kids
who do not come from low-income families. Thus, we have put an
exceptional commitment of resources into those accounts.
Unfortunately, it is a formula which was put in place 6 years ago to
target the Federal money for kids who come from low-income backgrounds.
It has never been adequately funded--in fact, was never funded at all
until this bill. Instead, we have peeled dollar after dollar off for
other programmatic activity, which is not the primary thrust of the
Federal effort.
Specifically, in the area of school construction, which we have
rejected as a purpose of Federal responsibility, it being traditionally
the responsibility of the States and the local communities to make the
decisions as to what school construction should occur, we have now put
in this bill $925 million for this program of school construction which
is not authorized. We have essentially taken that $925 million away
from the title I children--the low-income kids. We have taken it away
from the targeted funding formula.
My amendment very simply takes the unauthorized construction money
and moves it back to the authorized new targeted title I formula so
that low-income children will get the dollars and the support from the
Federal Government.
The practical implications of this for each State are reflected in a
chart which is going to be made available to every Member of the
Senate, which I hope they will take the time to review. It shows that
every State is essentially a winner under this amendment. The new
targeted formula, when initially funded by the $925 million,
significantly increases the money under title I that flows to low-
income kids for every State.
What is happening under the school construction money? It doesn't go
to low-income children. It can go to rich districts. It can go to poor
districts. It can go anywhere you want in the school system. It can
also go, for example, for the purposes of school safety, which makes it
not only unauthorized under this bill but duplicative of the money we
already put into the system for school safety in the Commerce-State-
Justice bill.
We are spending $925 million for bricks and mortar. That was a
program rejected by both the Senate and the House. It does not have any
strong component of poverty in it. This basically can be a welfare-to-
rich-district funding mechanism. It is being done at the expense of
low-income kids.
We know for a fact that our low-income children simply aren't getting
what they need out of the school system. We are about to reauthorize
the ESEA bill in an attempt to do a better job with the dollars that
are directed to low-income schools. But we know, regrettably, that 70
percent of the children in high-poverty schools score below the most
basic levels in reading; that two out of three African-American and
Hispanic fourth graders can barely read; in math in high-poverty
schools, they remain two grade levels behind their peers; in reading,
they are three to four grade levels behind their peers; that half the
students in our urban school districts don't graduate at all.
It makes no sense, when we are supposed to be funding a formula
targeted for low-income kids who obviously need more support as
reflected by those statistics, that we end up instead funding a bricks-
and-mortar program that can go to high-end school districts and which
is not authorized and which is duplicative of at least three other
major programs we have at the Federal level that are authorized and
that are funded.
The result of my amendment is essentially this. A State such as
Louisiana--I see the Senator from Louisiana in the Chamber--would
receive a 21-percent increase as a result of this amendment in their
title I count. It would be targeted. A State such as California would
receive a 37-percent increase. It would be targeted to the low-income
poverty districts and students.
When we pass the ESEA bill on which we reached agreement in
conference,
[[Page S11301]]
we will give those low-income districts strong, new tools to help those
kids in those districts catch up with their peers. But those tools will
only work if there are dollars to support them.
This amendment goes a long way down the road to accomplishing the
goal of getting the dollars where the Federal Government has set the
priorities, the dollars to the low-income child instead of to some sort
of grandiose bricks-and-mortar program that may not benefit the low-
income child at all.
That is the concept of this amendment. It is really pretty simple. It
takes $925 million out of a program which has been on two different
occasions rejected by this Senate, the school construction program, and
moves it to the new targeted formula for low-income kids under title I.
I hope everybody here will review how their State benefits from this
in their title I accounts.
Amendment No. 2056
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and
Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 2056.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for targeted grants under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
Beginning on page 54, strike line 19 through ``and
renovation:'' on line 14, page 57, and insert the following:
Education for the Disadvantaged
For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 as amended by H.R. 1 as passed by the
Senate on June 14, 2001 (``ESEA''); the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act; and section 418A of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, $12,804,900,000, of which
$5,029,200,000 shall become available on July 1, 2002, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2003, and of
which $6,953,300,000 shall become available on October 1,
2002, and shall remain available through September 30, 2003,
for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $7,398,721,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall
be available to the Secretary of Education on October 1,
2001, to obtain updated educational-agency-level census
poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further,
That $1,364,000,000 shall be available for concentration
grants under section 1124A: Provided further, That grant
awards under sections 1124 and 1124A of title I of the ESEA
shall be not less than the greater of 95 percent of the
amount each State and local educational agency received under
this authority for fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, grant awards
under 1124A of title I of the ESEA shall be made to those
local educational agencies that received a concentration
grant under the Department of Education Appropriations Act,
2001, but are not eligible to receive such a grant for fiscal
year 2002: Provided further, That $1,437,279,000 shall be
available for targeted grants under section 1125 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6335).
Impact Aid
For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by
H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June 14, 2001,
$1,130,500,000, of which $954,000,000 shall be for basic
support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be
for payments for children with disabilities under section
8003(d), $68,000,000 shall be for formula grants for
construction under section 8007(a), $50,500,000 shall be for
Federal property payments under section 8002, and $8,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for facilities
maintenance under section 8008.
School Improvement Programs
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by sections 1117A and 1229 and subpart 1 of part F of title I
and titles II, IV, V, VI, parts B and C of title VII, and
title XI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended by H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June
14, 2001 (``ESEA''); and the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
$7,792,014,000, of which $240,750,000 shall become available
on July 1, 2002, and remain available through September 30,
2003, and of which $1,765,000,000 shall become available on
October 1, 2002, and shall remain available through September
30, 2003, for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That
$28,000,000 shall be for part A of title XIII of the ESEA as
in effect prior to Senate passage of H.R. 1 to continue the
operation of the current Comprehensive Regional Assistance
Centers:
On page 69, strike lines 14 through ``2002'' on line 6,
page 73.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I wonder if the Senator is speaking to my amendment or her
amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will speak, unfortunately, against the amendment of
the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I presume the Senator is taking her time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take the time from my side.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield
time to the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I yield such time as the Senator desires.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I find myself in an unusual and awkward
position because I normally come to the floor to support the amendments
of the Senator from New Hampshire and to support his great efforts and
his leadership in reforming education. He truly has been a clarion
voice to lead us in many of the ways we really need to go in this
country. His commitment is really exemplary. I find myself in an
awkward position to oppose the amendment he has offered on a couple of
very valid grounds.
One is, while in a bipartisan way we certainly have supported, along
with the President, targeting our dollars more carefully so that the
Federal dollars actually bolster the reform efforts at the State level
by helping Governors and mayors and school board members who are on the
front lines who are trying to reform education, we have attempted this
year for the first time --which is a pretty extraordinary victory we
are about to achieve--to target more of our Federal dollars to reach
those Governors, to reach those school boards, and to reach those
mayors who are struggling to rebuild their systems. So the Senator is
correct when he speaks about the need to target.
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have done a magnificent job on
this great piece of legislation to accomplish many of these new goals.
The underlying bill indeed does that. For the first time, we will be
laying down $1 billion through the targeting grants to help close the
gap between those counties, and parishes in Louisiana, that have
greater capacity to fund their schools and those counties and parishes
that have less capacity. That is clearly one role where there is
virtually no disagreement that the Federal Government should fill: to
be actively engaged in leveling the playing field between the richer
and the poorer districts. That is the American way. That is what the
underlying bill does.
I understand Senator Gregg is saying: Let's not put any money in
school construction; let's take that money and add it to targeting. I
would normally be supportive of that because many of us have been
leading the fight for targeting. But as important as it is for teachers
to be given new tools, and for us to support these reform efforts,
children cannot learn without the right physical facilities. It is very
important.
They do not need palaces such as this one or Taj Mahals, but they do
need warmth in the wintertime. They do need to have fresh air in hot
summers. They do need to be able to walk in safety in schools and not
have inadequate windows or light fixtures or be in buildings that make
it impossible to learn. They do need to have electrical systems in
their buildings so they can install their computers and get on line and
have other high-tech tools of learning.
I do not have to explain to the Presiding Officer or to many Members
in this Chamber how deficient our schools are. So let's not move money
from one very important program, which is school construction, to
targeting. That
[[Page S11302]]
is why I will have to oppose the amendment of the Senator from New
Hampshire.
We can do the school construction funding so that we can help build
our schools and give our children the kind of physical facilities they
need to meet these new goals and standards.
This is not the time to stop job creation in America. Let me repeat,
this is not the time to stop job creation in America. Millions of
people are out of work because of the September 11 attacks and
subsequent attacks because of their effect on our economy.
One billion dollars under Senator Harkin's and Senator Specter's
amendment--of which there is the attempt to move--will put 24,000
people who live in Georgia, in Louisiana, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire
to work.
One billion dollars spent on school construction will employ 24,000
people. Believe me, there are people in all of our States who want the
Federal Government to spend money on public investments. What better
place could we be spending money than building schools for our future,
giving our children a chance for a first-class quality education?
Finally, I will say this: I know the Republican leadership has not
been excited about school construction. They have fought it every step
of the way. There have been some Republicans who have supported it. The
Republican leadership is against the idea of the Federal Government
getting involved with school construction. And that argument has merit.
I am not saying it does not.
But in light of September 11, I would hope the arguments on the other
side would weaken because we need to be putting Americans to work.
These are good construction jobs. And they do two things. They give a
man or a woman a job, so he or she can bring home a pay check to feed
their family and pay their mortgage. By doing that, you are also
investing in our children by building schools so they can compete in
the challenging world which we all now face.
Those are the arguments. Again, I hate to oppose the Senator, but I
am opposing this amendment on those grounds. And I ask other Members to
join with me in that opposition and to support the mark of the chairman
and the ranking member.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM. I ask Senator Gregg to yield me 1 minute.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator whatever time he needs.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because we are
debating this amendment, that I be able to proceed on my amendment,
which is also pending, for 1 minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 2055, As Modified
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk, a very
simple modification. This amendment would be in order when this other
amendment is over, so rather than just wait I thought I would do it and
get out of everybody's way.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2055), as modified, is as follows:
After line 7 on page 9, insert the following:
``(6) Protecting the constitutional right of all
firefighters, law enforcement officers and public safety
employees who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect
our property, freedoms and loved ones in exercising their
right to follow their conscience in whether or not to join a
labor organization or pay dues or fees to a labor
organization in connection with their decision to pursue a
career dedicated to service and sacrifice in defense of the
innocent in order to provide for their own families.''
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, when I offered my amendment yesterday, in
guaranteeing the right, under the Daschle amendment, for people to join
or not join a union, I did not include the critical right for them, if
they choose not to join a union, to not have to pay union dues. I have
corrected this with this modification. It fits the principle we set
out.
The Daschle amendment preempts State law and preempts county
ordinances and city ordinances to set up a structure for unionism in
police and fire and sheriff departments. I am opposed to that. But it
seems to me, if the Federal Government is going to preempt State law
and preempt counties and cities to set up a structure for unionism, it
ought to also allow people to decide if they do not want to be members
of the union and they do not want to pay union dues. So through this
modification, I have corrected that problem.
I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Amendment No. 2056
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-three minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are again. Senator Gregg, my
friend from New Hampshire, is trying to say we have no obligation to
help our local schools meet safety and fire codes and to renovate and
rebuild our schools.
I find it kind of an odd argument to say we have no responsibility,
to say what he said earlier, that this is a State and local
responsibility. After all, we use Federal moneys for rural water
systems in this country. Should that be a State and local
responsibility? His State gets some of that. There are waste water
programs, bridges, highways, all kinds of things that the Federal
Government is involved in in terms of construction.
As we look around the country, we see our schools are falling down.
The average age is 42 years old. Fourteen million kids attend school in
buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. So, quite frankly, there is a
crying need out there for school construction.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, in their report card on
America's infrastructure, listed schools as the worst. They listed
bridges and roads and highways and sewage disposal systems and
airports, but the one that got the lowest grade was our public schools
in America.
My friend, with his amendment, basically is going to take the money
and put it into title I. So I think what he is trying to do is put all
the money in title I to send poor kids to poor schools.
I am not saying we should not be doing more for title I. That is why
I am going to be supporting the Cochran-Landrieu amendment, which I
think is a better formula for title I. But I find it odd that the
Senator from New Hampshire said we don't need to fix up these schools;
we just need to put more funds in for these poor kids. And they will go
to schools that are unsafe, insecure, with ceilings that are cracked
and with water leaking in. They do not meet fire and water safety
codes. They are not wired for the Internet. That is all right; we will
send them there anyway. I find that an odd argument.
I believe this is, indeed, a Federal responsibility. The way we have
constructed this, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is that the
money goes to the States. Then the States decide how to allocate this
money out to local school districts. So we are not saying exactly how
it is spent. This is sort of a State grant. I think my friend from New
Hampshire has been a big supporter of block grants in the past. This
basically is what it is. This goes out to the States and lets the
States decide where it goes.
Quite frankly, I have a chart in the Chamber which shows how much
money goes out to the different States and where this money goes. The
fact is, we have already seen that in the last year we put in $1.2
billion for school repair and renovation. Forty-one States have already
asked for and received their grants. That indicates to me there is a
real need out there. If there was not a need out there, the States
would not have asked for this money.
Thirdly, this money is leveraged greatly. From the experience we had
in my own State of Iowa, $28 million over 3 years went out for school
construction and renovation.
That $28 million was leveraged by State and local governments to the
tune of $311 million, over a 10-to-1 leverage. It seems to me any time
we can spend a taxpayer's dollar and we can get a 10-to-1 leverage in
our local communities and States and we can do something of lasting
value, which is to
[[Page S11303]]
repair schools and build new schools so that our kids have the latest
technologies, that is a pretty good investment of taxpayers' money.
That is exactly what is happening. They are leveraging this money in a
big way.
Here is a chart; it is kind of busy. I will hold it up. This
indicates all of the renovation funding that went out this last year
for different States. I see that some of the States received more than
others based upon population and a few other factors. This would be the
kind of money that would be lost for school construction if, in fact,
the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire prevailed.
Lastly, everyone is talking about a stimulus package. We have
stimulated the economy. This is what Senator Landrieu was discussing.
We want to put people to work around this country. What job needs to be
done more than repairing and modernizing our schools? We get a lot of
bang for this buck. We get economic stimulus. We will put people to
work immediately. These jobs are ready to go. There are schools all
over this country that already have their plans in place, that have
requests in for modernizing, for fixing up their ceilings, meeting fire
and safety codes. This is something we can do right away. It stimulates
the economy. It puts people to work. We get better schools. We leverage
the money all over the country.
I don't see why we would want to pull the rug out from underneath
this right now. This money goes to the States and from the States to
the local school districts. I believe this is an important element for
us in the Federal Government. People say we haven't done it before,
that this is something new. Is that the reason we are here? Just to
continue to plow the same old ground over and over again?
I keep asking, where in the Constitution of the United States does it
say elementary and secondary education is to be funded only by property
taxes? It is nowhere in the Constitution. That is just the way it
sprung up because in the early days of our country we wanted to have a
free public education for everyone--for white males at that time but
for everyone later on. There was no taxing base. All they had was
property taxes and a few excise and tariff taxes. It was not until 1914
or 1917 that we had the income tax. So there were no other tax bases.
We grew up a system in this country based on property taxes.
That is all broken down. We provide Pell grants for kids to go to
college. Under elementary and secondary education, we provide teacher
training, funding for special education. We do all of this. Why
shouldn't we use the power in the Federal Government to help our State
and local schools repair and modernize, build new facilities for the
new century for our kids.
In every case where I have seen this work, the money has been
leveraged 6, 7, as much as 10 to 1 in those State and local
communities.
Especially with the economy going down, this is not the time to pull
the rug out from underneath school construction.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the
Senator from Mississippi.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New Hampshire for yielding time to me.
I will take just a minute or two and suggest that this amendment that
is offered by the Senator from New Hampshire has great merit because it
shifts funds into a program that has historically been grossly
underfunded. The title I program has about four different categories of
authorized funding in it. Over the last several years only two of those
programs have been funded by the Congress.
I am supporting an effort to increase the funding in the targeted
assistance so States such as mine, who have high concentrations of poor
students, will have a better chance of providing the quality of
education opportunity those students deserve and which is needed so
much by the poor students.
Sixty-five percent of the students in my State have been classified
by our State department of education as poor within the meaning of the
term in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that contains this
title I funding.
This program was begun in an effort not to supplant the State's
responsibilities but to emphasize the importance of reaching out to
those who had not been well served by the public education school
system, and those were the poor students. Most of those communities
have low tax bases, not much business activity, high rates of
unemployment. The funding that goes into education in most States comes
from real estate taxes and other taxes at the local level. States
provide some of the funds, but most of the money comes from local
property owners. The deck is stacked against those students who live in
those poor communities.
The Federal Government realized it had a responsibility to try to
help. We are not trying to take over the running of the schools in
title I. We don't want that.
Just as recently as this spring, I had hearings in my State and
meetings with the State board of education to talk about the title I
program and how we could better design it so it would provide the
needed financial resources to deal with these particular problems of
poor students.
Uniformly, I was told that losses in these funds or reductions in
these funds would be devastating for our school system in Mississippi.
So I am supporting the Gregg amendment because I think it tries to
emphasize the importance of title I and provides more funds for title
I. I will also cosponsor and vote for the Landrieu amendment. It is not
an either/or proposition for the Senate. That is what I am saying. We
can vote for both. I think we should.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for
making that very excellent point. This is not an either/or choice. We
can vote for the Landrieu-Cochran amendment, and we can vote for this
because essentially what this amendment does is take the construction
money and move it into the title I targeted formula. What the Landrieu
amendment does is restructure the new money for title I and reallocate
some of it to the targeted formula, some of it to the equity formula.
As a practical matter, the two are not exclusive. You can support
both. If you are interested in getting more money into the title I
accounts and especially more money into the accounts that benefit low-
income kids under the targeted formula, then you should definitely vote
for this amendment which takes the money from the school construction
accounts.
Just to cite a couple examples: California, under present law, gets
$1.15 billion; under this proposal, they would get $1.5 billion. So
they pick up about $430 million out of this account which would be
going into the targeted formula.
Florida gets $400 million. Under this proposal, they get $558
million. That is $158 million going to the targeted formula.
The State of the presiding Senator from Georgia would get $250
million under present law; $330 million would go into the title I
formula.
Yes, it means there wouldn't be school construction money going into
those States, but what would be happening is that dollars would now be
flowing directly into the accounts which benefit low-income kids rather
than into a general account which, as the Senator from Iowa mentioned,
is basically where the States make the decision. It can go to a rich
district or a poor district. It can go to Safe and Drug Free Schools,
which we already fund under another account, or it can go to security,
which we fund under another account, which is duplicative. The purpose
of the Federal dollar should be to get the money to low-income kids.
That is why we need to fund these targeted formulas, especially in
areas where you have a large concentration of low-income children. That
is why this amendment makes a lot of sense.
I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments and reserve the
remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Gregg amendment.
[[Page S11304]]
This amendment would entirely eliminate the $925 million in this bill
that is intended to help school districts with critical construction
and renovation needs, and instead divert it to title I. I strongly
support both of these important programs. Title I serves our Nation's
most disadvantaged children and helps ensure that they have the same
educational opportunities as more affluent children. I am pleased that
the bill before us includes a nearly $1.5 billion increase in title I
for fiscal year 2002. I am committed to working to further increase
title I funding this year and in future years, as it is the cornerstone
of our Federal commitment to help low-income students succeed.
While I appreciate the goals of the Gregg amendment and agree that
title I must be one of our top priorities, I cannot support it at the
expense of legitimate and urgent school construction needs. In my home
State of Wisconsin, nearly 80 percent of schools were built before
1969. In a recent survey of 881 Wisconsin schools, the total statewide
cost of all repairs and renovations that are needed to put schools in
good overall condition was $1.55 billion. Clearly, we have a serious
need to address school construction and renovation.
Unfortunately, this amendment presents the Senate with a false and
unnecessary choice. I agree that we need to do more for low-income
children, and I intend to support the amendment to be offered by
Senator Landrieu that will put more money into title I and target it to
the lowest income students. But we cannot expect a child to learn in an
old, dilapidated, or unsafe school with no access to the tools and
technology that are so much a part of education today.
The Gregg amendment would force us to abandon one critical education
program for another, but I believe we can and must make both a
priority. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gregg amendment and to
support the Landrieu amendment later on, to ensure that the Federal
Government provides funding for both school construction and assistance
to low-income students. We can afford to do both.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are debating allocation of Federal
funds among quite a number of very worthwhile programs. When you talk
about basic State grants, concentration grants, an effort for targeted
assistance, they are all very meritorious. The difficulty our
subcommittee has in making an allocation is in trying to establish
priorities. We have $925 million allocated for school construction.
The Senator from New Hampshire has a laudable purpose. The Senator
from Mississippi articulates laudable goals. But we have done the best
we can in the appropriations process in making the allocations among
many priorities that we think to be appropriate. Title I has in excess
of $11 billion going to needy children, which is the largest
allocation. We have been debating the issue of school construction for
a long time. The former Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun,
brought this forward several years ago, as has Senator Harkin.
My conclusion is to support what the subcommittee report has and,
reluctantly, to oppose what the Senator from New Hampshire wants, and
what the Senator from Mississippi would like to have, because their
goals are laudable.
I think it is important, as the Senator from Iowa points out, that
there was leveraging of these funds. It is never easy to say where a
Federal responsibility ends and where a State responsibility begins.
Ideally, the funding perhaps should come from State and local
government, not the Federal Government at all.
We have been in the field, and we have added very substantial
dollars. There is now in excess of $41 billion. We added $6 billion
last year.
One of the difficulties with school construction is that the $925
million allocation is questionable, as to how far that will go on the
school needs of America. We had a very tough debate on this issue last
year when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton, a
Democrat, was in the White House. We ended up with an allocation for
school construction of $1.175 billion, but we put in language that if,
after due deliberation, the school boards on a local basis decided they
did not want the money for school construction, they could use it for
other educational needs--virtually a block grant. That language and
that approach has been maintained here.
I am not saying local boards are going to turn down school
construction money. But in the event that does happen, the school
districts will be able to make the allocations as they see fit on a
local basis.
Senator Harkin has been a strong advocate for school construction
beyond any cap. I was supportive of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun when
she advanced this idea several years ago to sort of give it a start.
Although you could allocate these funds in many different directions,
arguably with forceful positions, it is my stance that we have made an
appropriate allocation and this $925 million is appropriate. So I am
going to support the chairman and the subcommittee report, which we
have submitted.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself another 3 minutes.
I thank my colleague and the ranking member, Senator Specter, for his
support of this amendment. We have worked very closely together over
the years, and it was sort of a sign of Senator Specter that allowed
some of this money to go out to the States and if in fact they do not
need it for construction, they can use it for other purposes. So this
is a great help to those local school districts.
Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield for a moment.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we called those the ``Harkin hoops'' last
year. They have to survive the Harkin hoops. If not, they go to local.
Another comment is worth articulating, and that is, when we sit down
and go over these accounts, it is no surprise that Tom Harkin and Arlen
Specter have a lot of different views. We hammer them out, and we come
to accommodations.
This is a program that is very near and dear to Senator Harkin's
heart. Again, to repeat, which I don't like to do, I supported it with
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun many years ago. There are many
accommodations in this bill where Senator Harkin was not so
enthusiastic and I was more enthusiastic, so that when we come to the
time of presenting the arguments and the position on the floor, I am
going to stay with the agreements we reached in the subcommittee.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. We have had a good
working relationship. I think this is just another indication of how we
can reach bipartisan agreements in committees by working together.
Mr. President, I have a letter from Rebuild America's Schools. This
is a consortium of gripes including the National PTA, National
Education Association, National School Boards Association, National
Rural Education Association, and a number of others. This letter is
dated October 30, 2001. It says:
Rebuild America's School writes in strong support of the
$925 million for the Emergency School Repair Program included
in the Senate version of H.R. 3061.
They go on to say:
The resources provided under last year's legislation
combined with the funds included in the FY02 Senate
appropriations bill will help fix leaky roofs and repair
faulty plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. These
resources will also enable districts to address other
dangerous health and safety concerns in their schools, such
as the presence of lead paint and asbestos in the classroom.
The importance of an FY02 school repair program gains even
more relevance in the face of revenue shortfalls resulting
from the recent downturn in our Nation's economy. These
expected losses might force State and local governments to
cut or roll back education spending, particularly in the area
of capital projects. In addition to providing much-needed
fiscal relief to States and local school districts, funds for
emergency school repairs will help to create construction
jobs on the local level as each billion dollars invested in
school construction is estimated to generate approximately
24,000 jobs. Also, these expenditures will have a multiplier
effect on local economies by benefiting all of the
construction-related industries that provide material and
other types of support for infrastructure projects.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S11305]]
Rebuild America's Schools,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: Rebuild America's Schools (RAS) writes
in strong support of the $925 million for the Emergency
School Repair Program included in the Senate version of HR
3061, the FY 02 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations
bill. RAS is a coalition of national organizations and school
districts from across the nation working to increase federal
support to assist local communities to build, renovate and
modernize school facilities. We strongly oppose any amendment
that may be offered that would cut or eliminate funding for
this critical program.
This appropriation addresses the rapidly growing need to
improve our nation's school buildings at a time when
communities across the country are struggling to renovate and
repair aged school facilities. Students in virtually every
state are attending classes in overcrowded buildings with
leaky roofs, crumbling ceilings and outdated ventilation and
heating systems. In fact, according to the American Institute
of Architects, one in every three public schools in America
needs major repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers
recently reported that school facilities are in worse
condition than any other part of our nation's infrastructure.
In addition, a June 2000 study report by the National Center
for Education Statistics reported that 11 million students--
one in every four--attended schools in less than adequate
condition, and 3.5 million of these students in school
buildings in poor condition.
HR 3061 builds on legislation passed in the 106th Congress
that provided $1.2 billion in grants to high-need school
districts to pay the cost of urgent repairs and renovations.
As of the beginning of the 2001 school year, 42 states and 2
outlying areas had submitted applications for their funding
grants under this program. The resources provided under last
year's legislation combined with the funds included in the FY
02 Senate appropriations bill will help to fix leaky roofs
and repair faulty plumbing, heating, and electrical systems.
These resources will also enable districts to address other
dangerous health and safety concerns in their schools, such
as the presence of lead paint and asbestos in the classroom.
The importance of an FY 02 school repair program gains even
more relevance in the face of revenue shortfalls resulting
from the recent downturn in our nation's economy. These
expected losses might force state and local governments to
cut or rollback education spending, particularly in the area
of capital projects. In addition to providing much needed
fiscal relief to states and local school districts, funds for
emergency school repairs will help to create construction
jobs on the local level as each billion dollars invested in
school construction is estimated to generate approximately
24,000 jobs. Also, these expenditures will have a multiplier
effect on local economies by benefiting all of the
construction-related industries that provide material and
other types of support for infrastructure projects
Rebuild America's Schools and its membership supports
inclusion of a $925 million Emergency School Repair program
in HR 3061, and provisions that continue to ensure that the
urgent repair needs of our high poverty, rural and Indian
schools are all addressed. In addition to these funds in this
education appropriations bill, we support providing a larger
amount of assistance for school repairs as part of the
economic stimulus bill. We believe extending this initiative
will go a long way in helping communities across America fix
crumbling, unsafe, and unhealthy schools, and ultimately help
to create the learning environments our children will need to
succeed in the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Canavan,
Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I keep hearing this argument that
this money can go to rich as well as poor districts. The Senator from
New Hampshire says take this money and put it all into poor districts.
I find that an odd position for my friend to take since he is a very
strong supporter of States rights. This money goes to the States. If
the State government in New Hampshire wants to put that money into the
richest school districts, I assume they can do that. I don't think
State governments would do that.
Our experience from the last year is that States take this money and
focus it on those very districts where they have a low tax base because
they have poor housing in low-income areas. That is where they focus
the attention for school construction, not in rich areas. So I assume
the Senator is saying he doesn't trust the State governments to do
this. Well, I think they will do this. They will focus it on the poor
districts.
Lastly, I wish to make this point, and I think my friend knows this.
In the conference that we are now in on the education bill, the
reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, there is a
provision the Senate adopted unanimously that provides for the full
funding, 40 percent funding that the Federal Government should be doing
for special education. That is supported strongly on the Senate side.
The House is sort of wavering on that, but they may actually come
across in support. If that is the case, that will free up a lot of
money which we can then use to help our title I schools. I am making
the argument in conference right now that if the House will help us to
provide the mandatory funding for special education, that will free up
a lot of money which we can then put into title I programs. We should
not sacrifice school construction for that. As I said before, it does
not make much sense to put a lot of money in to sending poor kids to
poor schools. Let us help both. Let us help title I, and let us help
rebuild our schools.
Mr. President, there is an article that appears in Education Week
about Federal funding for school renovation. The title of it is ``Iowa
Is Laboratory For Federal Role In Building Schools.'' They went out and
looked at a number of schools that received some of the Federal funds
for innovation and rebuilding.
I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Education Week, Oct. 24, 2001]
Iowa Is Laboratory for Federal Role in Building Schools
(By Joetta L. Sack)
The teachers at Decatur City Elementary School had become
accustomed to the eccentricities of their 1915-era building.
Despite its sloping concrete floors, its basement room used
as both a gym and a cafeteria, and its out-of-the-way
location, some admit they'd even grown fond of this little
block-shaped, brick schoolhouse.
Sentimentality aside, leaders of the Central Decatur
schools here on southern Iowa's rolling plains knew the
structure was impractical and potentially dangerous. So they
raised, local funds to add a wing to the district's secondary
school, making room for the elementary school's staff and 115
pupils.
To help the cause, the district received a $500,000 federal
grant through a program earmarked for Iowa districts that was
created in 1997 at the behest of the state's Democratic U.S.
senator, Tom Harkin.
While Washington lawmakers were debating whether the
federal government should wade into school construction aid,
the veteran senator used his considerable influence to set up
a ``demonstration project'' in his Midwestern state. Now in
its fourth year, the program has channeled, $37 million to
the state, and the 750-student Central Decatur district and
other Iowa school systems are seeing the rewards.
The program could be construed as pork, yet another example
of a powerful lawmaker feathering his political nest by
bringing home the maximum number of federal tax dollars. Iowa
after all, does not qualify as the state most in need of
school construction help, according to recent data.
But Sen. Harkin, who chairs the subcommittee on education,
labor, and health of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
speaks proudly of the program a success. And with Congress at
odds over whether to continue a much larger school renovation
program begun in the just-ended 2001 fiscal year, the senator
contends that the Iowa program is proof that money for school
buildings should remain in the federal government's
portfolio.
Nobody questions the need for school repairs and
renovations nationwide, estimates range from $112 billion to
$250 billion or more to bring all school facilities to basic
levels, and nearly every district has seen problems with
overcrowding or decaying buildings. Mr. Harkin's program in
Iowa gives grants for emergency repairs or new construction.
``The most pressing needs are the schools that need to be
brought up to fire and safety codes,'' Sen. Harkin said last
week. ``And then, we just have a lot of old schools in
Iowa, like a lot of states do, that need to be rebuilt or
totally refurbished.''
In the final days of last year's appropriations process,
the senator--then the ranking minority member on the
subcommittee he now chairs--helped win approval of the
national program, which is based on his Iowa experiment. The
fiscal 2001 budget included $1.2 billion for emergency
repairs.
Now, Congress must decide whether to continue the national
program and the Iowa grants. As the fiscal 2002
appropriations bills make their way through the process this
year the version passed by the now-Democratic-controlled
Senate appropriations committee includes continuation of the
funding at about 80 percent of the 2001 level, while the
House version eliminates it.
President Bush favors eliminating the school renovation
funds.
``School construction is an area where the federal
government does not have a meaningful role, and never did,''
said Lindsey
[[Page S11306]]
Kozberg, a spokeswoman for Secretary of Education Rod Paige.
The administration has, however, proposed a new facilities
program for charter schools and wants to drastically increase
construction funding for schools under the impact-aid
program. Impact aid sends federal grants to school districts
whose property-tax bases are directly affected by the
presence of nontaxable federal facilities, such as military
bases.
Appropriators won't decide whether to continue the Iowa
program until the two bills reach a House-Senate conference
committee. But a Senate Democratic aide said that Sen.
Harkin, because of his seniority and influence, is always
granted a pot of money to spend as he chooses, and the
program likely will continue.
``If he wants it, he'll get it,'' the aide said.
tending to constituents
Mr. Harkin, who has named the school construction program
the ``Harkin grants,'' often hosts back-home events on
concerns such as education, health care, and agriculture.
``The image we see here is that he's involved in education
a lot,'' said Joseph S. Drips, the superintendent of the
4,700-student Southeast Polk district in the Des Moines
suburbs, which also received a Harkin grant.
A report released last year by the National Education
Association, a strong proponent of federal aid for school
construction, ranked Iowa 25th among the states in school
modernization needs, with a total estimate of $3.9 billion
for infrastructure and technology needs.
Iowa has seen an economic downturn and declining population
in recent years, which have squeezed its budget. And the
state has seen its center of gravity shift from farms to more
urban areas, meaning that some urban districts are facing
unprecedented growth while some rural districts struggle
to stay open.
``The needs generally run across the board,'' said Marcus
J. Haack, the associate executive director of School
Administrators of Iowa. While the money from the Harkin
grants has helped, his group advocates a more comprehensive
over-haul of school finance.
Now nearing the end of his third term in the Senate, Mr.
Harkin has become a fixture as one of the Democrats' more
liberal members. But he represents a state almost evenly
divided between Democrats and Republicans--Al Gore took the
state in the presidential race last year by just 4,144 vote.
Mr. Harkin won his last election in 1996, with only 52
percent of the vote.
Programs such as the school construction grants could be
his lifeline to elected office, said Jack Jennings, the
director's of the Center on Education Policy, a research and
advocacy organization in Washington. Although some Iowa
voters have qualms about his views, they are pleased the
Senator brings so much money back to the state, Mr. Jennings
said.
``What he has done is balance his liberalism with great
attention to constituent needs,'' said Mr. Jennings, who is a
former aide to House Democrats.
But Sen. Harkin also has consistently pushed for a
nationwide school construction program. He first proposed a
plan during his unsuccessful 1992 presidential campaign, and
since then, has joined other Democrats--and a few
Republicans--who have proposed various approaches.
While the issue has gained momentum in recent years, with
hundreds of educators lobbying for such a plan, there is
still plenty of opposition in Washington. Most conservatives
say that school construction should remain a state and local
responsibility.
Some legislators argue that if the federal government steps
up its funding, state and local governments will just set
aside less for school construction, and nothing additional
will get built. Furthermore, bureaucratic red tape and laws
requiring that federally financed construction projects pay
union-level wages could drive up total costs, critics say.
matching funds
Hoping to quell some of those concerns, Sen. Harkin
designed his program to require local districts to bring
money to the table for new construction projects.
The competitive grants require communities to prove they
can pay for 75 percent of a project, thus keeping most of the
obligation local. Districts can receive up to $500,000 for
school construction projects. Another portion of funds is
reserved for the most urgent fire-safety repairs, and
districts can apply for up to $250,000 without a match.
Under the national program the $1.2 billion was given to
states with instructions to distribute it to poor
districts that could show the greatest need for repairs.
Sen. Harkin and other Democrats argue that by requiring
districts to provide the bulk of the money, school
construction and renovation remain local and state
obligations.
According to the senator, the initial $28 million dispensed
in the Iowa program's first three years leveraged $311
million in local funding for repairs and new construction.
And although those funds might have been raised without an
incentive, he believes the Harkin grants made the difference
in persuading some communities to go forth with a project.
``It's proven that a little bit of money can go a long
way.'' Mr. Harkin said. ``When you can get one federal dollar
to leverage $10 in state and local funds, that's a pretty
good use of federal money.''
Some left Behind
Many Iowa districts are still using the traditional three-
story red-brick buildings like Decatur City Elementary School
that were constructed in nearly every small town in the state
at the beginning of the last century. The Southeast Polk
district will soon use its $500,000 Harkin grant to replace
one of those buildings that engineers unexpectedly deemed to
be unsound.
``The final report was, `get out as soon as you can,' ''
said Mr. Drips, the superintendent.
A new building did not figure into the district's carefully
crafted 10-year building plan, but Mr. Drips and school board
members realized it would be more economical to build a new
facility than try to renovate the old building.
Formerly a rural community, Southeast Polk is now seeing
its cornfields become middle-class subdivisions, and its
enrollment has increased by about 125 students annually in
recent years. To help manage that growth, the district's
residents passed a 1-cent local sales tax that generates
about $4 million a year.
Without that revenue, the district would not have been able
to meet the grants match requirement. That requirement
sometimes leaves behind the neediest schools if they are
unable to raise funds locally, Mr. Drips said.
Sen. Harkin, though, said the local matching requirement
was key to retaining local control, and that cash-poor
districts could still apply for the emergency grants.
Meanwhile, he said, Iowa districts can count on the federal
aid for the near future--and he's going to fight to continue
the national program as well.
``It has been such a resounding success on Iowa, and our
needs are so great that I intend to keep it,'' he said.
``After 10 years of beating on this, I'm finally getting
people to realize that there is a federal role and we can do
this while retaining local control''.
Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I
have remaining, Mr. President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Wyoming.
The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment,
and I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment is the solution to the
problem presented in the underlying bill. With all respect to the bill
managers, I believe the bill tries to meet new needs before addressing
current obligations.
The bill appropriates $925 million in new funding for school
construction which has never been embraced in the light of open debate
because policymakers, year in and year out, have recognized the danger
of creating new questionable obligations in the face of our existing
appropriate obligation to low-income and disadvantaged children.
We already said we are going to do that. We are not doing it
adequately, but now we say: Oh, I have this great idea for an economic
stimulus; let's jump in on this and build some schools. It is not just
the construction industry having a little bit of a problem. In fact,
the construction industry is not hit as hard as other industries.
The Gregg amendment reflects the pure policy we all espouse. His
amendment would redirect $925 million into the title I Targeted
Assistance Grant Program. That program disburses money based on a pure
poverty formula. Again, that is what we all say our policy does. The
underlying bill creates a new program with almost $1 billion in new
spending.
The greater concern which I have raised many times is that this bill
would violate the prevailing wisdom that school construction is a State
and local funding obligation.
My policy concerns go even further. I offered an amendment to the
ESEA bill when it was considered by the Senate earlier this year which
addressed my concerns about providing any Federal assistance in the
absence of maximized State and local effort and without the strictest
eligibility requirements based on poverty.
We somehow, to do the school construction, are going to have to get
together and talk about that, but that is where it gets difficult. I
can relate to some of my previous experience. The Wyoming Constitution
requires an equal education for all kids. That is very tough to define
and very tough to do.
[[Page S11307]]
One of the equal education issues determined by our supreme court is
equal buildings. What is an equal building? We have one school district
that has about 800 students with a declining enrollment for a number of
years. For a high school, we can determine 8 or 9 years in advance what
the population is going to be based on the other schools that are below
it--that it is going to be a continuing declining population. There is
a requirement that the State build a new school for them. They want the
school to be for 1,200 students. There is no justification for 1,200.
We are talking about maintenance, too. The State constitution in
Wyoming, interpreted by our supreme court, says there has to be
equality when you tell people you are going to build school buildings
or suggest perhaps if they do not do maintenance, they will get a new
school building sooner.
What is the result of this? The State is having to take over school
construction. We are probably the ultimate State in the belief of local
control, and we are having to go the other way. We are going to have a
State organization now that will determine building maintenance. That
is a pretty basic school board job. But if you are going to build the
building, you have to have some control over the maintenance. If you
are going to build the building, you also have to have some minimum
requirements and maximum requirements. That has never been the case.
Before, communities were able to build the kind of building they wanted
to build or not build a building at all. That is not going to happen
anymore.
Those are issues we have not addressed at the Federal level. I can
tell my colleagues that with the difficulty the State of Wyoming is
having, it is new ground we do not want to cover without a very basic
discussion.
``Equal school buildings'' is very hard to define, and I can tell my
colleagues they are going to be even tougher to fund because an equal
school building is going to have absolutely everything, and that means
the finest football field, the finest swimming pool, and the finest
gymnasium. In a lot of communities, that creates some controversy as to
whether that is the epitome of education or whether it ought to be the
finest chemistry classroom or the finest math facility.
We have not had that basic discussion here. We have not been forced
to have that basic discussion because we have not gotten into this
area. We are starting to get into that area, and we better have that
discussion before we find out that we have bitten off a bigger spending
bill than this country would ever be able to afford and freed up local
governments to again let us buy their votes with their dollars.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time. I
ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the other side have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The other side has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 4 minutes--and if he needs more time, I will give
him more--I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first, I agree with the goal of dramatically expanding
and making the best use of title I money. The Cochran-Landrieu
amendment, about which we will hear more later, goes much more in that
direction. By the way, I support that goal because I believe with all
the mandates that are coming out of Washington, DC, right now--test
every child, every grade, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8--we better make sure we
get the resources to the school districts so they have a chance to do
the job.
I reject this tradeoff. I cannot believe we are arguing that
rebuilding crumbling schools and making sure they are inviting places
is somehow unimportant. I do not believe we are talking so much about
brand new swimming pools and brand new gyms. We are talking about many
school buildings all across the country that are dilapidated. We are
talking about children who know that if they want to see something
great, they can go to a shopping mall or they can go to a brand new
sports arena or they can go to the latest fanciest movie theater, but
about the worst place they can go is their own rundown schools.
When our children go to these schools and they are so decrepit and
run down, the heating does not work or the air conditioning does not
work or the toilets do not work, we are telling our children we do not
value them.
I refuse to accept this tradeoff which pits helping children with
title I program funding versus whether or not we are now going to
abandon a Federal program which has provided some funding for our
schools for school repair.
By the way, in every State, there is a huge backlog of repair work. I
thank Senator Harkin for his leadership in talking about the importance
of school renovation.
My second point is one of the ways we can get more money for title I
and distribute that money in the most efficacious manner is to take the
IDEA program for children with special needs and make it mandatory.
That is the language we now have. That is what we are fighting to keep
in conference committee. We should be getting support from every
Senator and the administration.
As a former Governor, the Presiding Officer knows how strongly our
States feel about giving the States the funding the Federal Government
promised them for children with special needs. Then we can do a much
better job for all the children.
That is the direction in which to go. Then finally, actually this
whole debate is a little bit of a fantasy debate in that I do not think
we are recognizing we are in a recession. These are hard economic
times, and right now what is going on is our States are having to cut
teachers, cut teacher assistance; they are having to cut counselors. If
anything, we should get serious about an economic recovery plan.
I argue we need an additional $3 billion to go for school
construction, for renovation of schools. It is win, win, win. You do
not eliminate this program during a recession. A, the schools are more
inviting for the children; B, you are creating jobs; C, you are
contributing to the community; D, you are doing something about the
recession, and you are getting money in the economy, which is all about
what we have to do for economic recovery.
I think the amendment of my friend from New Hampshire goes precisely
in all the wrong directions. I hope Senators will vote no.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire has
8\1/2\ minutes. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute.
Mr. GREGG. I do not think it is the wrong direction when one is
trying to help low-income kids be more competitive in a school
environment where they have been left behind.
The goal of the Federal Government has been stated. Our goal as the
Federal Government under title I is to help low-income kids. The
problem is we have not adequately funded the formulas to accomplish
that. In fact, we have not even funded the targeted formula which was
passed in 1996.
We funded a formula that was a pre-1996 formula or a 1994 formula,
which has been nothing more than a hold harmless for a bunch of States
which may or may not help the targeted populations in need.
Now we create this new program, $925 million of new money being spent
on a capital program for construction of facilities which can go to any
school. As the Senator from Iowa said, it can go to the richest school
districts. It can go to any schools. It does not go to the low-income
children. It does not go to the school districts with low-income
children. It can go anywhere in the school system. It can go for
swimming pools. It can go for squash courts. It can go for whatever the
school system decides to build.
That is not our responsibility as a Federal legislature. We have been
very
[[Page S11308]]
specific as to what our responsibility as a Federal legislature is. We
have said our responsibility as a Federal legislature is to, one, take
care of special needs kids or be a participant in that exercise and,
two, take care of kids or try to help kids from low-income backgrounds
be competitive with their peers. That is what the Federal policy is.
In fact, we have rejected as Federal policy in the last two
Congresses the need to have a construction program. What are we
funding? We are funding a construction program at the expense of low-
income children who would get money under this targeted proposal.
Let us talk about a few States. Under this proposal, Connecticut
would go from $83 million targeted on low-income kids to $111 million
targeted on low-income kids. Delaware would go from $22 million
targeted on low-income kids to $28 million targeted on low-income kids.
Hawaii would go from $25 million targeted on low-income kids to $35
million targeted on low-income kids. Illinois would go from $357
million targeted on low-income kids to $477 million targeted on low-
income kids. Michigan would go from $349 million targeted on low-income
kids to $445 million targeted on low-income kids, under the proposal I
am suggesting. New Jersey would go from $209 million targeted on low-
income kids to $272 million targeted on low-income kids. New York would
go from $822 million targeted on low-income kids to $1.15 billion
targeted on low-income kids. Washington State would go from $118
million targeted on low-income kids to $149 million targeted on low-
income kids. Wisconsin would go from $129 million targeted on low-
income kids to $160 million targeted on low-income kids, money which
would go directly into the school systems which are trying to serve the
low-income child. That is our purpose.
As we pass the new ESEA bill, we are going to make it even more
effective in the way these dollars are used to benefit that low-income
child. So it makes no sense to me to create this new program which is
in the area where the States and communities have traditionally had the
responsibility, which is the area of construction of their facilities,
a new program which gives a carte blanche so the money can flow to
whatever district wants to get it. The district can be a high-end
district or it can be a low-end district that happens to spend it on
something that does not impact the low-income kids, instead of putting
it into the program which we as the Federal Government have said we
want to fund.
There is a role for block grants in our Federal system, but the
Federal Government has also said that in the education area there are
certain areas which we are going to carve out and in which we are going
to try to exercise our assistance. We only put 6 percent of the dollars
into the local school systems. What we have said is those 6 percent of
dollars are going to be focused; they are not going to be spread all
over the map.
The construction dollars spread it all over the map, whereas this
amendment puts it into a formula which is extremely focused. It is
directed right at the low-income child who today, unfortunately, has
been left behind. That low-income child today simply is not getting a
fair and competitive education. We are going to try to fix that under
the new ESEA bill. In the same process, we need to give the dollars to
support the new initiatives. That is what this amendment does.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand I have about a minute remaining. I respond
to my friend from New Hampshire, there is a chart that is being passed
out that has fiscal year 2001, and it has Landrieu, then it has Gregg,
and it looks as if the Gregg amendment gives a lot more to each of
these States the Senator from New Hampshire just mentioned--Connecticut
and a few others--but you have to add to the Landrieu column the school
construction money, which the Senator from New Hampshire does not do.
So if we add that up, we will get----
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. HARKIN. Sure. If I made a mistake, I will be glad to yield.
Mr. GREGG. That speaks to title I.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. This is the title I dollars. School construction is not a
title I program.
Mr. HARKIN. No. I am saying the amendment funding, the Senator is
talking about a funding comparison total. It does not say title I. It
says funding comparison. I am saying, under the Landrieu column, all of
the money would have to be added that is in the amendment that would go
to schools or to States for school construction to get a better
comparison. That is all I am saying.
Lastly, I say why send poor kids to poor schools? Let us help the
poor kids, but let us rebuild our schools, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from Iowa
has expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Iowa, of course, raises a valid point,
which is the money is still going back to the States if it goes back to
school construction.
The point, however, which is the whole essence of this argument or
debate--``argument'' is the wrong term. The essence of this debate is
that the dollars under the title I program, especially the new formula
which targets those dollars, is used on low-income kids and actually
goes to the kids in low-income schools.
The school construction money is outside title I. It is not an
authorized program. It does not even exist as a Federal program. It
just exists as an expenditure under the appropriating process, and it
does not flow at all under the title I process.
The goal of title I is to benefit the low-income child. School
construction money does not benefit the low-income child. There is no
structure to do that. It is money that is spent by the States however
they want to spend it on construction. It makes much more sense to take
this money and move it into the title I account into the new targeted
formula so we end up with a child who comes from a low-income
background actually benefiting from these dollars. That is the purpose
of this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending
amendment was set aside and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu,
is to be recognized to offer an amendment on which there will be 60
minutes of debate equally divided
Amendment No. 2058
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the ranking member
for their fine work on this appropriations bill that is so important to
our schools, to our health care infrastructure throughout the Nation at
this important time, as well as to our labor community and the work
they have done.
I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Ensign proposes an
amendment numbered 2058.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment reads as follows:
Amendment No. 2058
(Purpose: To redistribute certain funds under title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
On page 55, line 6, strike ``$8,568,000,000'' and insert
``$7,172,690,000''.
On page 55, line 11, strike ``$1,632,000,000'' and insert
``$1,365,031,000''.
On page 55, line 12, after ``section 1124A:'' insert the
following: ``Provided further, That
[[Page S11309]]
$1,000,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants under
section 1125: Provided further, That $649,979,000 shall be
available for education finance incentive grants under
section 1125A:''.
On page 55, strike line 15 and all that follows ``H.R. 1''
on page 55, line 22, and insert ``95 percent of the amount
each State and local educational agency received under this
authority for fiscal year 2001''.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have been asked to yield a few minutes
before I get into the essence of this amendment. I am happy to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for
yielding, at least before she starts her presentation, to my colleague
from Pennsylvania for a resolution.
Mr. REID. If I could ask the two Senators from Pennsylvania a
question, I understand how important this resolution is, but do you
have an idea how long it will take? We have to get the votes out of the
way before 1 o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER. If I might respond, I think we can dispense with it in
the course of 6 or 7 minutes.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the two Senators each have 4
minutes to speak on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
____________________