[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16905-16913]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, today we consider a very important 
education bill. It is important because the Republican majority made it 
important. It is important because it is all that we have. In a year 
when we expect to be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Assistance Act, we have been denied that opportunity, but 
pieces of the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act have 
been put forward. The Ed-Flex Act is a piece of it and now this piece 
on Teacher Empowerment Act, H.R. 1995, which was considered today. The 
consideration of this bill today, which was kind of rushed to the floor 
and it was hoped that they would get enough votes to send a message to 
the White House that it cannot be successfully vetoed, but, of course, 
they failed in that effort. The President has promised to veto this 
bill because at the heart of the bill is an attempt to derail the 
President's initiative on more teachers for the classroom, especially 
in grades 1 through 3, where there is a need for smaller class sizes.
  We did get a bill approved, an appropriation approved last year, 
which would permit the beginning of the process of hiring more teachers 
for the classroom. Virtually 100,000 teachers would be hired under this 
legislation; and 30,000, the process has started as of this month.
  So in order to derail that for some reason the Republican majority is 
against smaller class sizes and they want to take away that priority, 
take away the targeting and they came up with this Teacher Empowerment 
Act, which is not a bad idea. The thrust of the bill is to provide a 
special initiative for the training and professional

[[Page 16906]]

development of teachers, to improve the quality of teachers. By itself, 
that is a lofty goal and who could not subscribe to having better 
prepared teachers in our classroom?
  We want quality teachers; but for some reason to get quality 
teachers, the Republican majority chose to sacrifice the more teachers 
for the classroom. The act that is designed to lower the class sizes in 
the first three grades has to be sacrificed, put on the chopping block, 
in order to take care of meeting teachers' professional development 
needs and training needs.
  I think that for the Republican majority, it was more important to 
derail the initiative to have smaller class sizes than it is really to 
train teachers. The training of the teachers and the opportunities for 
professional development is secondary for them. They are pursuing an 
agenda, and this bill was a part of that agenda, to reach a point where 
all of the influence and direction from the Federal Government is wiped 
from the education sphere. They want to abolish the education role of 
the Federal Government and this, of course, takes them one step closer.
  If they can take the President's initiative on class sizes and get 
rid of that, it is one more step toward reducing the Federal 
Government's role in education. So that bill was on the floor today. 
The Republican majority had the greatest number of votes because they 
are the majority. They passed the bill, but the number of defections by 
Democrats was not as great as they expected and the President's threat 
to veto the bill certainly can hold.
  The bill can be vetoed until something more reasonable is done about 
the class size initiative of the President.
  There were a lot of good things in the Teacher Empowerment Act. By 
the way, it is called Teacher Empowerment Act; but all the teacher 
organizations, the National Education Association, the American 
Federation of Teachers, the Grade Schools Group, all of the various 
education groups opposed it because they saw it as a sabotage operation 
designed to wipe out the reduction of the classroom size initiative. 
Now, that bill was on the floor today.
  Tomorrow the major bill on the floor will be the tax cut bill, and I 
want to talk about the importance of dealing with the education 
initiative. The education investments should come before big spending 
tax cuts. Education investments should come before big spending tax 
cuts, and it is very important to note that during the whole discussion 
of the so-called Teacher Empowerment Act today, the one thing that the 
Republican majority refused to allow any discussion of was additional 
funding.
  No new money is involved in their initiative. They want to take the 
money that has already been appropriated for the class size reduction 
and the money that already exists in various other teacher training and 
professional development programs and use that in a different way, 
mainly throw it out there to the States, let the governors decide how 
they want to spend that money on education. That is the thrust of what 
the Republicans want to do.
  It takes us one step closer to their long-term objective and that is 
to block grant all funds available for education to the States. By 
block grant, I mean take away the Federal guidelines, take away the 
Federal priorities, take away the long-term Federal commitment to the 
poorest districts and the poorest schools out there.
  The Federal thrust in education, since 1965, since the first 
Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act, in the era of Lyndon 
Johnson, has been to focus on those areas of greatest need, to target 
the Federal money to help with the problem that the States were not 
able to deal with and chose not to deal with and that is provide a 
decent education for the poorest students in the poorest schools in the 
poorest districts.

                              {time}  2200

  So that initiative by the Federal Government is targeted by the 
Republicans. They want to take it away.
  Their long-term goal is to wipe out the Federal Government 
involvement in education. In 1995, my colleagues will recall, the Newt 
Gingrich program went head on in a direct attack on the Department of 
Education. They called for the abolishment of the Department of 
Education. They pursued that for a while.
  It turned out that the American people did not think that was a good 
idea. The voters did not think it was a good idea. They retreated, and 
now we have no more talk about abolishing the Department of Education.
  What we have is, instead of the direct assault, we have a great deal 
of warfare going on where they snip away at the powers, they attack at 
small beachheads that they establish, and they find every way to cut 
into the power of the Department of Education and into the Federal role 
in education.
  The Federal role in education, of course, is already limited. They 
make it appear that the Federal Government is responsible for all that 
is wrong in education. It is a very limited role already. Less than 8 
percent of the education funding in this country, that is including 
higher education funding, less than 8 percent of that is provided for 
by the Federal Government at this point.
  But that is what we had on the floor today, another assault on that 
small role, that less-than-8-percent role fiscally. If one got 8 
percent of the funds involved across the country, then I think that the 
influence of the Federal Government is probably no more, also, than 
about 8 percent.
  Control is vested in States and local education agencies for 
education already. But that is targeted. First, they wanted to get rid 
of it all together. Now they want to block grant it and turn it over to 
the governments. That is what was on the floor today.
  No item which talked about additional funding was received in an 
amicable spirit by the Republican majority. In fact, the only amendment 
that called for fresh funds, new money, new initiative with new money 
was the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). 
The gentlewoman wanted to offer grants, some help for sabbaticals for 
teachers.
  If one is talking about training, then in order to hold certain 
people into the career path, in order to make certain that they have an 
opportunity for growth, somewhere they ought to encourage and help to 
finance the sabbaticals which already are offered in many local 
education systems.
  It is an area that was not new, but the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
wanted to give more help and called for more money for that. That, of 
course, was voted down by a large margin and condemned by the chairman 
and the Republican majority. No new money is the credo of the 
leadership of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The Republican majority insists that we never discuss authorizing new 
funding. But tomorrow, we will be discussing on the floor an 
expenditure of $864 billion over a 10-year period for tax cuts. We 
cannot talk about money when we are talking about education. No new 
money. The government is broke.
  We cannot make investments in education, but we can have big spending 
tax cuts. That is obvious. It is a huge, monstrous piece of big 
spending, $864 billion, and there is no room anywhere for an investment 
in education.
  I think my colleagues have heard the previous speaker tonight and 
they heard the previous set of speakers from the Democratic side talk 
about this tax cut. While I am not prepared and do not intend to go 
into it with great deal, I associate myself with most of the remarks 
made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and his associates. 
Their plea was that we not go forward with this monstrous $864 billion 
tax cut, that we look at other kinds of things that ought to be 
considered at the same time.
  We cannot separate, in my opinion, the discussion of the tax cut, 
however, from the discussion of education. They did not do it. Neither 
the Democrats nor the Republicans that talked tonight really placed 
education on the table for discussion. Within the parameters of the 
conventional wisdom here

[[Page 16907]]

in Washington, and that sometimes includes the White House, when we 
talk about large amounts of money, they do not want to talk about 
education.
  It is a direct insult to the voters. We have poll after poll which 
shows that education ranks as one of the number one priorities over the 
last 5 years and recently moved to the very top. Before Social 
Security, before defense spending, before all of the other priorities 
which are usually considered, education ranked as number one. Why are 
the voters being ignored? I do not know. They can ask their 
Congressman.
  Why is it that, when my colleagues discuss education, they insist 
that they cannot discuss new money? Additional resources. Why is it 
that the American public repeatedly says, we would like to see more 
Federal assistance for education, but they are only answered with 
rhetoric about new kinds of changes in the reform programs, but none of 
those new changes have any resources behind them?
  With the acknowledgment of the existence of a huge budget surplus, 
and I do not want to get into an argument about how much the surplus is 
or what it is going to be over the next 10 years, I just know that it 
is foolish for us laymen who are not involved directly in the 
calculation process to sit still and watch our leaders talk about huge 
sums of money that they are going to negotiate on and we question 
whether it really exists.
  I have some friends who went to a meeting today to hear someone 
lecture about the fact that there really is no budget surplus, and we 
should stop discussing it.
  I heard that, in 1996, when we were on the eve of an election, and we 
had gone through 2 years of the Republican majority insisting, not only 
that there was no money for an increase in funding for education, but 
that education should be cut, and we had proposals in 1995 that 
education be cut by almost $4 billion, but, in 1996, something 
miraculous happened.
  Both parties agreed in the negotiations at the White House that there 
was additional money available somewhere, and instead of cutting 
education by $4 billion, because we were approaching an election where 
the polls showed that the public wanted more Federal assistance for 
education, and the party that stood in the way might suffer and might 
lose seats, suddenly there was agreement.
  The Republican majority agreed to an increase in education funding of 
$4 billion. Instead of a $4 billion cut, we got a $4 billion increase. 
They found the money somewhere.
  Now, I remember the argument at the time was that we would get the 
money from sales of the spectrum, the spectrum auctioning. The 
auctioning of the spectrum was going to create that money. It was not 
in hand. But since both parties of the negotiation agreed, it suddenly 
became a reality.
  The $4 billion that was appropriated, it has been spent. Since 1996, 
they have been spending the money. So I assume that whatever 
assumptions they made, they lived up to those assumptions one way or 
the other.
  I have not checked to see if we have auctioned off enough of the 
spectrum to add up to $4 billion, but when it came time to make the 
decision, the reality was what the two parties agreed upon.
  If both the White House and the Republican majority leaders are 
saying now that we have a huge surplus that could accommodate, over the 
next 10 years, an $864 billion Republican tax cut, and the President 
has said, well, he will entertain some kind of tax cut, not that much, 
I assume the surplus is real, and the tax cut possibilities are real, 
and they are going to go forward. It would be ridiculous for us to sit 
out the process and not get involved.
  Education ought to be put on the table so that it becomes a part of 
the discussion. The doors of opportunity are open for education to be 
discussed in terms of new resources and new appropriations. If the 
blind men who are in charge here insist that they do not see that as a 
possibility, some of us who are not in charge must sound the alarm. We 
must tell the American people, do not sit still and accept a big 
spending tax cut while there is no new investment in education.
  I hope that my party will rally behind me soon and that they will see 
the folly of allowing a huge amount of surplus over the next 10 years 
to get committed to something, and it is going to happen. There are 
going to be some commitments of that surplus over the next 10 years. We 
sit still, and we let education be left out.
  At this point, the forecast for education being included is quite 
dismal. We have a bill which has been set forth by the administration 
for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Assistance Act. In their reauthorization proposals, they do not propose 
any great increases in the funding for the ongoing programs. In fact, 
there is sort of an understanding that we are going to live within 
certain budget guidelines. There are ceilings that have been set. The 
budget caps, as they call them, will not be taken off.
  That may all be true in conventional wisdom, but if the surplus 
exists, it is folly to assume that they will not in the final analysis 
be negotiations of some part of the surplus being committed to 
programs.
  Certainly, it would be folly to sit still and not commit any part of 
the surplus to programs and let it all be used for big spending tax 
cuts.
  The forecast for education right now may be dismal; but if we put on 
our thinking caps, if we sound the alarm for the general public, the 
people who in, poll after poll, show that they think education is 
important, if we let common sense enter into this matter, then we can 
go forward beyond the Republican plot to have Ed-Flex and Teacher 
Empowerment and other kinds of block granting drain off the funds, and 
we would not make any progress in terms of new resources for education.
  There have been some dramatic changes now in the fiscal environment. 
Those people who said there was no money available 2 months ago cannot 
insist that there is no money available now in light of the facts that 
have been revealed.
  Even the budget agencies, the Congressional Budget Office, they all 
admit there is a surplus. There is an argument about how much of the 
surplus is from Social Security funds and ought to be reserved only for 
Social Security, the lock box theory. There is an argument that there 
are certain amounts of money available and will be available beyond the 
Social Security surplus and that that should be budgeted.
  Either way, either set of assumptions that are accepted, there is an 
acceptance of the fact there is going to be additional money available. 
Why not put education on the table? Why must we accept what the 
Republican majority has offered us on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and on the floor today?
  What they offered us today was a perverted Robin Hood operation. They 
were going to take only existing funds and scramble them and use them 
for other purposes instead of having any new funding. When they do 
that, what they are doing is taking money away from the traditionally 
targeted programs, which are designed to help the poorest students in 
our poorest schools, and redirect that money away from the poorest 
schools, stealing, pilfering from the poor to take care of other 
sectors, and making that the hallmark of their education reform 
program.
  Going to the public and saying this is our answer to their request or 
their demand for more Federal assistance. We give them the same money 
in new forms, and we hope that they will be fooled by it.
  But I hope that common sense will not allow us to be fooled, that we 
will insist that education appropriations be put on the table alongside 
any tax cut spending, alongside any spending for shoring up Social 
Security, alongside spending for health care. Probably there is going 
to be a package which contains all of those elements.
  Now, on May 26, I introduced a bill which deals with one aspect of 
education which I think is critical. In the light of the large amounts 
of money that were being made available in the surplus, now is the time 
to discuss it.

[[Page 16908]]

  Not all the problems of education will be solved by new construction 
and modernization of our schools, although that was on the agenda 
today. We did discuss the need for more technology in our schools and 
the need for teachers to be trained to utilize technology and how 
important that was. It, the modernization process, requires that we 
have money to repair the schools and take care of the old wiring and 
make certain that they can be wired. In some cases, some schools cannot 
be rewired.

                              {time}  2215

  They are going to have to build new schools. So construction and 
modernization ought to be a part of this agenda.
  It was totally ruled out before because of the budget caps. And if we 
take the ongoing budget as it is, common sense and conventional wisdom 
says there is just no money. But if we accept the fact that there is 
going to be a surplus, and we talk about large amounts of money, like 
$864 billion for a tax cut, then we can also talk about taking this 
opportunity to plan to spend over the next 10 years, or 5 or 10 years, 
money that is necessary to provide adequate schools, safe schools, 
schools where there are no health hazards, as well as schools that can 
be modernized to the point where they can make use of modern 
technology.
  Schools can take advantage of the fact that we have an E-rate, which 
provides a reduced rate for people who make use of technology on an 
ongoing basis. The on-line services, the telephone services, 90 percent 
of that in the poorest of schools would be paid through this E-rate 
fund provided by the Federal Communications Commission. A lot of things 
are happening that we need to catch up with by providing more funds for 
construction and for modernization.
  Now, on May 26 I called on my colleagues to join me in the 
cosponsorship of H.R. 1820, which is an amendment to the Elementary and 
Secondary Assistance Act. And this amendment would be germane 
certainly, because there is already a provision, Title 12, under the 
Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act, which calls for money for 
repairs and construction. So we can add, if we ever get around to 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act, we can 
certainly add that to the package. Or if we do not get around to 
reauthorizing the entire act, it is in the law. It is the law right 
now. We can amend it to provide for this injection of necessary funding 
for school construction.
  I am just going to read from my own letter to my colleagues, and I 
have a big heading on top which says that, ``In the Year 2000 We Launch 
the March Towards a New Cybercivilization. We are spending $218 billion 
on highways and roads in 6 years. Let us invest half this amount, $110 
billion, in 5 years, to build, repair and modernize schools.''
  Let me repeat that. ``In the Year 2000 We Launch the March Toward a 
New Cybercivilization.'' A cybercivilization, meaning the digital world 
is taking over. The computers are taking over. They are everywhere, 
infused in our life, and they are probably going to have a greater 
influence and a greater presence in our lives as we move on.
  Recently, there was a lot of discussion of the fact that one 
individual now, his net worth is $100 billion. This tops all the 
millionaires and billionaires throughout American history. The name of 
that individual is Bill Gates. Now, Bill Gates is worth, they say, at 
least $100 billion, and his company is worth far more. Now, Bill Gates 
does not own any gold mines, he does not own any oil wells, he does not 
own any uranium mines. All the kinds of things that used to make people 
rich are not associated at all with Bill Gates.
  What does Bill Gates have that allows him to accumulate $100 billion 
as an individual and a company worth far more than that, Microsoft? 
Well, Bill Gates is where he is and has the kind of gigantic assets 
that he has through the application of brainpower. It is all about the 
brains that were used to develop the software in harmony with the 
computers and then to capitalize on the Internet.
  He has been accused of some unscrupulous actions and so forth, but 
that is irrelevant in terms of the basic thrust of what happened here. 
What happened here is that brainpower, marshaled repeatedly, directed, 
concentrated on certain objectives produced results. And the same thing 
is happening over and over again in numerous high-tech companies. We 
are ahead of the rest of the world because we did not have any central 
committees making rules which said that we can only focus our 
brainpower on natural resources. We are only going to concentrate on 
mining and oil wells and so forth.
  People who had the know-how to launch the cyberrevolution went ahead 
and launched it, very young people who are in charge. The guys who used 
to be called nerds, or probably similar people are still called nerds 
in high school and college, the nerds triumphed with brainpower. It is 
all about very educated people concentrating their resources and being 
able to generate wealth. So there is a direct association between 
brainpower and wealth.
  We are definitely moving into a cybercivilization, and it is 
ridiculous for us not to recognize that and to shape our public policy 
in a way which accommodates the fact that we are moving into a 
cybercivilization. There are some nations, like India, who recognize 
this. And public policy has produced in India large amounts of people, 
personnel, who are in the computer programming arena, who are in 
various stages as computer programmers and document technologists. Out 
of proportion to other similarly situated nations, India is producing 
people in the area of information technology with information 
technology expertise.
  But let me just get back to the appeal to my colleagues that I sent 
out on May 26. ``In the year 2000 we launch the march toward a new 
cybercivilization. We are spending $218 billion on highways and roads 
in 6 years. Let us invest half this amount, $110 billion, in 5 years to 
build, repair and modernize schools. Please join me as a cosponsor for 
H.R. 1820, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act 
which mandates a worthy Federal investment in education for the 
children of America.
  ``Public opinion polls consistently show that our voters consider 
Federal aid to education as the Nation's number one priority. We must 
now move beyond paltry pilot projects in our response to this long-term 
public outcry. H.R. 1820 commits the Federal Government to make the 
contribution most suitable to its role.
  ``Through direct appropriations we must make capital investments in 
school infrastructures, offer leadership in the building of schools, 
and then leave the details of the day-to-day operations to local and 
State authorities.''
  I have no problem with local and State authorities being in charge of 
the implementation, but the resources need to come from the Federal 
Government because most States and local governments cannot commit the 
kind of resources necessary to modernize our school systems the way 
they should be.
  ``H.R. 1820 proposes to help all schools by authorizing, on the basis 
of school-aged children, a per capita distribution of the allocations 
for the purposes of modernization. Security, by the way, should be 
added, repair, technology and renovations, as well as new school 
construction.
  ``H.R. 1820 deserves national priority consideration for the 
following reasons: One, the best protection for Social Security is an 
educated workforce, able to qualify for high-tech jobs and steadily pay 
dollars into the Social Security Trust Fund.
  ``Two, the effective performance of our military in action, utilizing 
high-tech weaponry, requires an educated pool of recruits.
  ``Three, the U.S. economy will continue to be the pace setter for the 
globe only if we maintain a steady flow of qualified brainpower and 
updated know-how at all performance levels, theoretical, scientific, 
technical and mechanical.
  ``Invest in education and all other national goals become 
reachable.''
  Invest in education and all other national goals become reachable. 
Invest

[[Page 16909]]

in education and we have a great possibility, a greater possibility. I 
do not think Social Security is about to go bankrupt. There are a lot 
of scare tactics applied to discussions of where Social Security funds 
are now and where they will be 50 years from now. But one way to assure 
that Social Security funding will be there is to have a workforce out 
there paying into the Social Security fund. Whatever else we do, and I 
do not rule out having general appropriations for Social Security, but 
whatever else we do, we should keep the payment of funds into the 
Social Security treasury from working people, people who are working.
  And if we do not have people who can qualify for the jobs that are 
going to be available 20, 30, 40 years from now, if we do not have 
people that have the know-how to do the high-tech jobs, the likelihood 
is that we are going to contract out a lot of our work to other 
countries that do have the population and the workforce with the know-
how, and they are going to pay money into their Social Security fund, 
and we will have our Social Security fund deprived of the payment by 
workers into the fund. That is the first source.
  So the best protection for Social Security is an educated workforce. 
We ought to have a discussion of education on the table when we 
consider what to do with the huge surplus that is anticipated over the 
next 10 years. Instead of being a projected $864 billion in tax 
expenditures, we should say some portion of that money should go for 
education.
  In this particular piece of legislation, the bill I have introduced, 
I only want $110 billion out of the total that is projected. Even if we 
have to take the $110 billion away from the tax expenditures, that is 
$110 billion from $864 billion. The parameters for the discussion have 
been set by the majority party. They have said we can talk big money, 
we can talk in billions, we can talk $864 billion, so let us use that 
as a reference point and say why spend on tax cuts the full $864 
billion? Let us negotiate at least $110 billion over a 5-year period to 
build schools and to modernize schools. Invest in education.
  There may be additional money we will want to invest in whole school 
reform, which, despite the fact that the authorizing Committee on 
Education and the Workforce did not come up with the program for whole 
school reform, we get high praise for some of the whole school reform 
efforts that are going forward. There are many other places where we 
may need some investment in education, but a large capital expenditure 
is needed for school construction and modernization.
  And a capital expenditure of this kind is only a one-time 
expenditure. It is not something we would saddle the budget with 
forever. It would not be ongoing. We would take care of the problem, we 
would invest in building schools, and then we will have a result from 
that investment, a return on that investment later on.
  I think any businessman, if he had a surplus and there was clearly 
identified needs in the area of capital investments, would make those 
investments in order to be able to realize that return in the future.
  The General Accounting Office told us in 1995 that we needed $112 
billion at that time. That was 4 years ago. We needed $112 billion just 
to keep the infrastructure at a level which would accommodate the 
amount of schoolchildren attending school at that time. We now have 
many more children attending school. I think we have close to 53 
million children out there in schools, and what I have just projected, 
an expenditure of $110 billion over a 5-year period, would be only an 
expenditure of $416 per year per school-aged child. An expenditure of 
$416 per child per year over a 5-year period.
  So we are talking about a relatively small amount of money to invest 
in education and guaranty the workforce that we need for tomorrow. And 
that is an appeal I made to my colleagues on May 26 to cosponsor. And I 
recently developed another appeal in light of the changed 
circumstances; that we now know that there definitely is additional 
money available. I projected it before and I said we should get ready 
for it and we should put on the table a reasonable package which 
includes school construction.

                              {time}  2230

  I am all for the President's call for an expenditure of a part of the 
surplus on Medicare. I am all for his call of an expenditure of the 
bulk of the surplus on shoring up Social Security. I am not against 
that, but I think it is a great mistake, a great blunder by both 
Democrats and Republicans not to put education on the table and make it 
part of the package. But circumstances recently have changed so 
favorably until I do not see how we can ignore the great window of 
opportunity that is now open.
  So I prepared another letter which I have not sent out yet, I will 
send it out tomorrow, I start with the following heading. ``Democrats 
must respond to the overwhelming change in the fiscal surplus 
negotiating environment.'' I repeat. ``Democrats must respond to the 
overwhelming change in the fiscal surplus negotiating environment.''
  ``Republicans have now ratcheted up their demands for a mega-billion-
dollar tax cut. The Democratic President has now indicated that he will 
entertain a tax cut at some level.'' So it is definitely on the table.
  ``Missing from the end game negotiating table is a Democratic 
scenario for school construction and modernization.'' At this moment, 
that is not on the table. None of the speakers tonight have talked 
about education being part of the mix. I heard discussions of defense, 
additional expenditures for defense that ought to come out of the 
surplus and a few other items, but no one talked about education 
although education if you want to consider the national security of the 
country as being important, the first item you ought to look at is the 
quality of our education, including such practical and immediate 
problems as the workforce required by the military. The military 
requires recruits that are highly educated, people who must have had 
enough prerequisite education in order to be able to go into the 
military and learn how to deal with a high-tech military, high-tech 
equipment, procedures, et cetera. You need well-trained people in the 
military as much as you need them in the area of information 
technology.
  So the first step toward shoring up our military should not be new 
expenditures for equipment like aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers and 
smart bombs but to make certain that the people who guide those smart 
bombs and who prepare the maps and the intelligence before you drop the 
bombs do not make a mistake of the kind we made with the Chinese 
embassy in Yugoslavia. Or you have people who are smart enough with 
their high-tech equipment not to be fooled the way we were fooled with 
the Yugoslav dummy equipment, wooden weapons and all kinds of things 
that made us believe that we were bombing their military into 
ineffectiveness when actually we were hitting very little of their 
military equipment. I do not know why we fell for that trick because we 
pulled that on Hitler when we were projecting openly exposing equipment 
in the south of France to make it appear that we were going to launch 
an invasion of the mainland of Europe from the south, toward the south 
of France, instead of at Normandy, and the Germans fell for that and we 
are proud of the fact that we pulled that off. Why we would let 
Yugoslavia pull the same kind of trick on us with respect to equipment 
that we thought we were bombing, I do not know, but it points up the 
need to have better training and a better educated military, set of 
military personnel from the bottom to the top.
  Let me continue. As I said before, ``Missing from the end game 
negotiating table is a Democratic scenario for school construction and 
modernization. H.R. 1820, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Assistance Act, authorizes a direct appropriation which is 
only one-half the amount authorized and appropriated for 
transportation. Not $218 billion but $110 billion, or $416 per child 
per year for 5 years. All of the Democratic proposals for school reform 
and education are worthy, but nothing proposed is equal to the number 
one priority ranking that the voters have assigned to

[[Page 16910]]

education. A construction and modernization initiative of this kind 
fills the vacuum.''
  This kind of initiative is a response worthy of what the voters have 
demanded. In poll after poll, you have said education should get more 
assistance from the Federal Government. You do not want to hear an 
answer that we are going to have a Teacher Empowerment Act which takes 
old funds away from poor schools and redirects them, spreading them out 
over the whole country to train teachers better but no new funds are 
going to be allocated. You do not want to hear that kind of response to 
an overwhelming demand that the Federal Government play a greater role 
in providing assistance to education.
  Here is a response worthy of it. Lay these responses alongside of the 
$218 billion that we approved for highway and transportation last year, 
$218 billion over a 6-year period. That is about 50 some billion 
dollars a year for the next 6 years. We approved that. The 
authorization committee came forward with it. It was not the 
Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee was driven by 
the energy of the authorizing committee. Today we had the authorizing 
committee, Education and the Workforce, refusing to even ask for 
additional funding and take to the Appropriations Committee the 
priorities that have been set by the American people.
  So we are asking for a worthy response, $110 billion over 5 years. 
Lay that aside the highway and transportation bill of $218 billion over 
6 years and then lay that aside of the new request from the Republican 
majority for $864 billion over 10 years. If you get dizzy considering 
billions of dollars, I can understand but at least let us look at the 
comparisons and understand the framework in which we are operating.
  I have had people say to me, ``When you talk about $22 billion a year 
for school construction over a 5-year period which all adds up to $110 
billion over 5 years, that is mind-boggling.'' It may be mind-boggling, 
but we live in a mind-boggling era and we are a country of more than 
250 million people. There are more than 16,000 school districts out 
there, and there are 53 million children out there. When you look at 
the number of children and you look at the amount spent per child, we 
are talking about $416 per child per year. Maybe that can help you 
understand the mind-boggling figure of $22 billion per year over a 5-
year period which adds up to $110 billion. And then lay the $110 
billion alongside $218 billion for highways, lay that alongside $864 
billion for a tax cut, and you are able to comprehend maybe what is 
going on in Washington.
  Do you want to stand by and let your government leaders make the 
blunder of a tax cut expenditure of $864 billion while schools receive 
zero from a surplus that does exist, or we assume exists? Democrats 
risk also being upstaged on this because I do not think the majority 
party is as dumb as some people consider it to be and I do not think 
this whole process is going to go forward without the majority party 
waking up to the fact that the people out there are still demanding 
that the Federal Government do more for education.
  Between now and the next election in the year 2000, I expect some 
movement on the part of the majority party, and I hope the Democrats 
are not going to be victimized by an October surprise like the one we 
had in October of 1996 when the Republicans agreed to an increase in 
education funding of $4 billion. After the Republicans had gone for a 
period from 1994 to the fall of 1996 calling for the abolishment of the 
Department of Education, wanting to cut school lunches, they attacked 
education vigorously, they cut Head Start, they cut title I, they went 
into 1995 and shut down the government because the President would not 
agree to those kinds of cuts, after all that had happened, in the fall 
of 1996 they decided to appropriate $4 billion more for education and 
they went out and told the public, ``We are the party which supports 
education.'' And they had enough people to believe that to win back the 
majority. I am convinced that that was a major item, a major part of 
their winning in 1996.
  ``Democratic refusal to support a meaningful dollar investment in 
school construction and modernization could weaken our ties to our 
labor allies and leave open an opportunity for Republicans to capture 
more labor union support.''
  I have talked before about the way we treat the working people in 
this country. People look at requests for new money for education, for 
items like school construction or items like whole school reform or any 
items related to education, they look at it and say, ``Well, that's for 
minorities, that's for people in the inner cities,'' but most of the 
working families in this country cannot afford to send their children 
to private schools. So we are talking about the public school system. 
And a refusal to direct funding into school building repair and 
modernization is an abandonment of the public school system and working 
families are out there who are going to suffer as a result.
  ``We cannot emphasize too much the fact that the fiscal negotiating 
environment has undergone a rapid, almost revolutionary sea-change 
since the announcement of the long-term multi-trillion dollar surplus. 
To adapt to this change and at the same time respond to the number one 
priority of the voters, we urge you to review your position on H.R. 
1820 and sign up for cosponsorship now.''
  I am trying to get this new letter out. I have some sponsors that we 
did not have before. The minority whip the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) now is a cosponsor of this bill. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) on the Appropriations Committee is a cosponsor. 
We hope that we can have new momentum that will be generated among 
those skeptical Democrats who did not want to be associated with an 
appropriation figure which seemed unreal. It is not unreal anymore. I 
hope I do not have to repeat why it is not unreal. I think that every 
one of my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, can see that $110 billion 
alongside $864 billion is not an unreal projection of what should be 
available for school construction.
  Now, one final specific item about this particular bill, H.R. 1820. 
We propose to appropriate the money on the basis of the number of 
school aged children in each State. This is a bill that would not be 
targeted, means-tested and that the utilization of it would have great 
flexibility for security purposes, for repair, for modernization, for 
technology, for construction, for renovation. There would be great 
flexibility and it would be appropriated according to the number of 
school aged children. If you look at it in terms of the blanket call 
for $110 billion, it may seem kind of irrelevant to you, but let us 
look at what each State will get if you take the number of school aged 
children projected for that State for this year and you apply that to 
the formula.
  Alabama would receive $341 million for school construction per year. 
This is the first year. Each year for 5 years, Alabama would receive 
$340 million. California would receive $2.7 billion a year for 5 years. 
Florida would receive $1.1 billion. Hawaii, $92 million. Iowa, $233 
million. It would be money which is real enough to deal with the 
problem that the General Accounting Office has cited. We are talking 
about expenditures which would make a big difference in terms of school 
construction and school modernization and repair, et cetera. We are 
talking about an investment in education which would be a capital 
investment, the value over 30, 40, 50 years, versus the $864 billion 
projected for a tax cut expenditure over a 10-year period.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record these two items, my Dear 
Colleague letter of May 26, 1999, and my Dear Colleague letter of July 
14, 1999 in their entirety:

In the Year 2000 We Launch the March Toward a New Cybercivilization--We 
  Are Spending 218 Billion Dollars on Highways and Roads in Six Years


 let us invest half this amount--110 billion--in five years to build, 
                      repair and modernize schools

       Dear Colleague: Please join me as a co-sponsor for H.R. 
     1820, an amendment to the

[[Page 16911]]

     Elementary and Secondary Assistance Act which mandates a 
     worthy federal investment in education for the children of 
     America. Pubic opinion polls consistently show that our 
     voters consider Federal Aid to Education as the nation's 
     number one priority. We must now move beyond paltry pilot 
     projects in our response to this long-term public outcry.
       H.R. 1820 commits the Federal government to make the 
     contribution most suitable to its role. Through direct 
     appropriations we must make capital investments in the school 
     infrastructures. Offer leadership in the building of schools 
     and then leave the details of the day to day operations to 
     local and state authorities.
       H.R. 1820 proposes to help all schools by authorizing a per 
     capita (on the basis of school age children) distribution of 
     the allocations for the purposes of modernization, security, 
     repair, technology and renovations as well as new school 
     construction.
       H.R. 1820 deserves national priority consideration for the 
     following reasons:
       The best protection for Social Security is an educated work 
     force able to qualify for hi-tech jobs and steadily pay 
     dollars into the Social Security Trust Fund.
       The effective performance of our military in action 
     utilizing hi-tech weaponry requires an educated pool of 
     recruits.
       The U.S. economy will continue to be the pace setter for 
     the globe only if we maintain a steady flow of qualified 
     brainpower and updated know-how at all performance levels--
     theoretical, scientific, technical and mechanical.
       Invest in education and all other national goals become 
     reachable.

     SEC. 12001. FINDINGS.

       (1) There are 52,700,000 students in 88,223 elementary and 
     secondary schools across the United States. The current 
     Federal expenditure for education infrastructure is 
     $12,000,000. The Federal expenditure per enrolled student for 
     education infrastructure is 23 cents. An appropriation of 
     $22,000,000,000 would result in a Federal expenditure for 
     education infrastructure of $417 per student per fiscal year.
       (2) The General Accounting Office in 1995 reported that the 
     Nation's elementary and secondary schools need approximately 
     $112,000,000 to repair or upgrade facilities. Increased 
     enrollments and continued building decay has raised this need 
     to an estimated $200,000,000,000. Local education agencies, 
     particularly those in central cities or those with high 
     minority populations, cannot obtain adequate financial 
     resources to complete necessary repairs or construction. 
     These local education agencies face an annual struggle to 
     meet their operating budgets.
       (3) According to a 1991 survey conducted by the American 
     Association of School Administrators, 74 percent of all 
     public school buildings need to be replaced. Almost one-third 
     of such buildings were built prior to World War II.
       (4) The majority of the schools in unsatisfactory condition 
     are concentrated in central cities and serve large 
     populations of poor or minority students.
       (5) In the large cities of America, numerous schools still 
     have polluting coal burning furnaces. Decaying buildings 
     threaten the health, safety, and learning opportunities of 
     students. A growing body of research has linked student 
     achievement and behavior to the physical building conditions 
     and overcrowding. Asthma and other respiratory illnesses 
     exist in above average rates in areas of coal burning 
     pollution.
       (6) According to a study conducted by the General 
     Accounting Office in 1995, most schools are unprepared in 
     critical areas for the 21st century. Most schools do not 
     fully use modern technology and lack access to the 
     information superhighway. Schools in central cities and 
     schools with minority populations above 50 percent are more 
     likely to fall short of adequate technology elements and have 
     a greater number of unsatisfactory environmental conditions 
     than other schools.
       (7) School facilities such as libraries and science 
     laboratories are inadequate in old buildings and have 
     outdated equipment. Frequently, in overcrowded schools, these 
     same facilities are utilized as classrooms for an expanding 
     school population.
       (8) Overcrowded classrooms have a dire impact on learning. 
     Students in overcrowded schools score lower on both 
     mathematics and reading exams than do studetns in schools 
     with adequate space. In addition, overcrowding in schools 
     negatively affects both classroom activities and 
     instructional techniques. Overcrowding also disrupts normal 
     operating procedures, such as lunch periods beginning as 
     early as 10 a.m. and extending into the afternoon; teachers 
     being unable to use a single room for an entire day; too few 
     lockers for students, and jammed hallways and restrooms which 
     encourage disorder and rowdy behavior.
       (9) School modernization for information technology is an 
     absolute necessity for education for a coming 
     CyberCivilization. The General Accounting Office has reported 
     that many schools are not using modern technology and many 
     students do not have access to facilities that can support 
     education into the 21st century. It is imperative that we now 
     view computer literacy as basic as reading, writing, and 
     arithmetic.
       (10) Both the national economy and national security 
     require an investment in school construction. Students 
     educated in modern safe, and well-equipped schools will 
     contribute to the continued strength of the American economy 
     and will ensure that our Armed Forces are the best trained 
     and best prepared in the world. The shortage of qualified 
     information technology workers continues to escalate and 
     presently many foreign workers are being recruited to staff 
     jobs in America. Military manpower shortages of personnel 
     capable of operating high tech equipment are already acute in 
     the Navy and increasing in other branches of the Armed 
     Forces.

     SEC. 12003. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF GRANTS.

       (a) Authority and Conditions for Grants.--
       (1) In general.--To assist in the construction, 
     reconstruction, renovation, or modernization for information 
     technology of elementary and secondary schools, the Secretary 
     shall make grants of funds to State educational agencies for 
     the construction, reconstruction, or renovation, or for 
     modernization for information technology, of such schools.
       (2) Formula for allocation.--From the amount appropriated 
     under section 12006 for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     allocate to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to 
     such appropriated amount as the number of school-age children 
     in such State bears to the total number of school-age 
     children in all the States. The Secretary shall determine the 
     number of school-age children on the basis of the most recent 
     satisfactory data available to the Secretary.

     SEC. 12006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title, $22,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and a sum no less 
     than this amount for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Major R. Owens,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


Democrats Must Respond to the Overwhelming Change in the Fiscal Surplus 
                        Negotiating Environment

       Republicans Have Now Racheted Up Their Demand For A Mega-
     Billion Dollar Tax Cut.
       The Democratic President Has Now Indicated That He Will 
     Entertain A Tax Cut At Some Level.


 missing from the end-game negotiating table is a democratic scenario 
               for school construction and modernization

       H.R. 1820, An Amendment To The Elementary And Secondary 
     Education Assistance Act Authorizes A Direct Appropriation 
     Which Is Only One Half The Amount Authorized And Appropriated 
     For Transportation--Not 218 Billion Dollars, But 110 Dollars 
     Or 416 Dollars Per Child Per Year For Five Years.
       All Of The Democratic Proposals For School Reform And 
     Education Are Worthy But Nothing Proposed Is Equal To The 
     Number One Priority Ranking That The Voters Have Assigned To 
     Education--A Construction And Modernization Initiative Fills 
     This Vacuum.
       Democrats Risk Being Upstaged By A Republican ``October 
     Surprise'' On School Construction and Modernization.
       Democratic Refusal To Support A Meaningful Dollar 
     Investment In School Construction And Modernization Could 
     Weaken Our Ties To Our Labor Allies And Leave Open An 
     Opportunity For Republicans To Capture More Labor Union 
     Support.
       We cannot emphasize too much the fact that the ``fiscal 
     negotiating environment'' has undergone a rapid, almost 
     revolutionary sea-change since the announcement of the long-
     term multi-trillion dollar surplus. To adapt to this change 
     and at the same time respond to the number one priority of 
     the voters, we urge you to review your position on H.R. 1820 
     and sign up for co-sponsorship now.
       Enclosed is a copy of the original ``Dear Colleague'' 
     letter along with additional information indicating the 
     amount of funding your State would receive through a simple 
     formula based on the number of school aged children residing 
     in each state.
       To Co-Sponsor H.R. 1820 please call Sudafi Henry or Beverly 
     Gallimore at 225-6231.
           Yours For Education Excellence,
     Major R. Owens,
       Member of Congress.
     Nancy Pelosi,
       Member of Congress.

  I would like also to enter into the Record the School Construction 
Funding by State, the formula here which describes the amount of money 
that each State would receive out of an appropriation of $110 billion 
over a 5-year period.

            SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING BY STATE (H.R. 1820)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total Number of
                                           School Age    Funds estimated
                 State                   Children (ages   (In millions)
                                           5-17) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................          789,333     $341,126,043
Alaska................................          142,903       61,758,389

[[Page 16912]]

 
Arizona...............................          895,218      386,886,363
Arkansas..............................          478,837      206,938,986
California............................        6,347,098    2,743,025,343
Colorada..............................          761,718      329,191,668
Connecticut...........................          579,428      250,411,399
Delaware..............................          129,860       56,121,596
District of Columbia..................           72,431       31,302,505
Florida...............................        2,586,883    1,117,973,226
Georgia...............................        1,454,483      628,583,918
Hawaii................................          214,232       92,584,643
Idaho.................................          259,691      112,230,659
Illinois..............................        2,296,551      992,500,445
Indiana...............................        1,106,627      478,250,990
Iowa..................................          539,958      233,353,649
Kansas................................          515,347      222,717,512
Kentucky..............................          724,726      313,204,835
Louisiana.............................          878,063      379,472,486
Maine.................................          224,438       96,995,370
Maryland..............................          943,128      407,591,627
Massachusetts.........................        1,064,414      460,007,798
Michigan..............................        1,894,530      818,759,030
Minnesota.............................          942,066      407,132,663
Mississippi...........................          554,803      239,769,213
Missouri..............................        1,042,745      450,643,106
Montana...............................          171,598       74,159,507
Nebraska..............................          330,989      143,043,516
Nevada................................          331,047      143,068,582
New Hampshire.........................          225,490       97,450,013
New Jersey............................        1,443,241      623,725,462
New Mexico............................          371,207      160,424,529
New York..............................        3,249,139    1,404,180,402
North Carolina........................        1,392,729      601,895,692
North Dakota..........................          122,404       52,899,337
Ohio..................................        2,101,841      908,352,624
Oklahoma..............................          651,067      281,371,625
Oregon................................          608,229      262,858,327
Pennsylvania..........................        2,140,017      924,851,146
Rhode Island..........................          175,805       75,977,646
South Carolina........................          706,248      305,219,198
South Dakota..........................          150,843       65,189,819
Tennessee.............................          969,365      418,930,472
Texas.................................        4,013,816    1,734,650,861
Utah..................................          497,578      215,038,284
Vermont...............................          108,620       46,942,305
Virginia..............................        1,197,604      517,568,520
Washington............................        1,085,679      469,197,893
West Virginia.........................          305,065      131,839,941
Wisconsin.............................        1,018,146      440,012,157
Wyoming...............................           98,643       42,630,545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figures obtained from U.S. Census Bureau. Current as of July 1,
  1998.

  I know that there are still those out there who say, ``I would rather 
have the tax cut.'' Who is it that when you are asked a question 
``Would you rather have a tax cut than to have new government 
programs'' will not answer the question, ``Yes, I'd like a tax cut''? 
There are a lot of people out there who feel that the proposal that has 
been made by the Republican majority affects me and impacts on me and I 
will have some piece of that. The Republican majority has said they are 
going to have an across-the-board 10 percent cut in taxes. That will 
add up to a large amount of money for people who are making large 
salaries. If their incomes are very high, they will have a large 
dividend from that, because what the Republican majority is saying is 
they are going to have a 10 percent across-the-board cut on the tax 
rates. The tax rates. So that people who are paying the highest tax 
rates get the greatest benefits from that 10 percent across-the-board 
cut.
  People down lower who think that they are going to realize a lot from 
their tax cut do not understand that this tax cut is not for the 
average person making $50,000, $30,000. It is not for you. If they 
wanted a tax cut for you, and I think you ought to understand this 
before you support what looks like a good idea and looks like it might 
deliver some benefits to you, you might take a look at what the 
Republican majority could have done if they wanted to deliver tax 
relief or a tax cut to the little guy and to the average family.

                              {time}  2245

  They could have a 10 percent cut on taxable income; that would be 
real. You could realize that at any level. As my colleagues know, I 
propose, just as an example, and I proposed several tax bills this 
year, as my colleagues know, I have a former tax expert on my staff who 
constantly updates me on what is going on and what some possibilities 
are.
  You know, people who are on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, as I am, are not supposed to deal with tax matters. They 
want to compartmentalize this, but I think the people who elected me to 
come to Congress to do a job across the board, you cannot separate 
these things.
  If you oversimplify and you separate tax policies from education 
policies, you are going to end up being swindled because people who are 
promoting tax policies are going to continue, as they do now, to 
pretend that ways and means and taxes has nothing to do with education. 
But once they give all the money away, the argument is going to be made 
that they have no more money for education; and for that reason we have 
to all be involved across the board in all facets of what goes on here 
in this Congress, and certainly all of us need to be involved with tax 
matters and appropriation matters.
  My bill, the one I am dropping in today, calls for a 3 percent cut of 
taxable income across the board. Now what does that mean? That means 
that if you make $30,000 a year, I mean, if you have an income and 
after all the deductions and adjustments are made your taxable income 
is $30,000, you would get a $900 tax cut. The same guy who is making a 
million dollars on his first $30,000 of taxable income will get a $900 
tax cut too. There would not be the unevenness that you have here where 
the rate across the board reduction, 10 percent reduction in the rate, 
gives advantage to those on the top. Everybody would benefit equally in 
terms of a cut in the taxable income. The people at the bottom would 
get the same advantage as the people at the very top.
  And a staff member of mine prepared a chart for me. I was going to 
read off what it looks like from the top to the bottom, and I misplaced 
the chart and did not bring it with me. But the thrust of the matter is 
that a 3 percent tax cut yields a certain amount of money, 3 percent 
from the taxable income yields a finite amount of money. For $30,000 
you are talking about a $900 cut, and the first $30,000 that a 
millionaire makes, he get a $900 tax cut, the next $30,000, he get 
another $900 tax cut and so forth. Everybody would be getting the same 
amount cut as the Republican majority now proposes it. It is a cut in 
the rate, which means that the people with the highest rates will get 
the greatest benefits for the tax cut.
  There is another item that I wish would get some consideration. The 
Republican majority is moving so fast with the tax cut that it will be 
on the table tomorrow. I had hoped that some considerations I had 
raised earlier in the Progressive Caucus and with other circles would 
be put on the table as we prepared an alternative to the Republican tax 
cut. I understand in the Democratic Caucus tomorrow we may be 
considering some kind of alternative. It is a pity we waited so late to 
prepare an alternative, but at least I like to take a look at that 
alternative.
  Part of what should be in that alternative is some relief, some tax 
relief for the people on the bottom who have paid the highest increase 
in taxes over the last 10 to 20 years. The payroll taxes have gone up, 
and in an article by David Rosenbaum in the New York Times on July 19, 
yesterday, Mr. Rosenbaum talks about the fact that polls on tax cuts 
find that the voters are kind of mixed up, and the edge seems to go to 
voters who feel that programs are more important than tax cuts. People 
worry more about programs and high taxes. But in his conclusion of the 
article Mr. Rosenbaum points out something which I have tried to get my 
colleagues to understand but failed, and that is, and I will quote from 
the latter part of the article:
  ``In a Gallup poll, 69 percent of the Republicans said a candidate's 
position on the amount Americans pay in Federal taxes was an important 
factor in how they voted, but fewer than half the Democrats and 
Independents gave that response; and not surprising, the more money 
people make and thus the more they pay in taxes, the more they favor 
tax cuts. Gallop found that 62 percent of those with annual incomes 
above $75,000 regarded taxes as a high or top priority in deciding whom 
to vote for.''
  And this is the paragraph that I want to stress:
  ``One reason the public may generally be skeptical about tax cuts is 
that most people pay more in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes 
than they pay in income taxes, and no one nowadays is talking about 
reducing payroll taxes.''
  I think the Democratic party, my colleagues, my leadership, is 
missing an opportunity that is not gone completely. If we are going to 
have a tax cut, an alternative to the Republican $864 billion tax 
spending bill, then let us consider this paragraph.
  One reason the public may generally be skeptical about tax cuts is 
that

[[Page 16913]]

most people pay more in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes than 
they pay in income taxes, and no one nowadays is talking about reducing 
payroll taxes.
  Why do we not talk about reducing payroll taxes? Into this tax 
package that is into this surplus spending package and the tax 
reduction part of it let us not only put education as one of the vital 
items that must be considered in the negotiations, let us also put the 
high payroll taxes into that mix and into that discussion. Let us 
reduce payroll taxes.
  The final paragraph of Mr. Rosenbaum's article concludes:
  ``In 1997 a couple with $50,000 in income from wages paid $7,650 in 
payroll taxes.'' Let me repeat. ``In 1997 a couple with $50,000 in 
income from wages paid $7,650 in payroll taxes, but assuming one child 
and itemized deductions of $10,000, the couple paid only $4,800 in 
income taxes.'' They are paying almost twice as much in payroll taxes 
as they pay in income taxes.
  If you want a tax cut and if you are one of those people who say, 
well, I know we need money for education and we should have money for 
school construction, but I want a tax cut, and I insist that we have a 
tax cut; well, let us have a tax cut, but let us have a tax cut for the 
people who are on the bottom and who need it most. Let us have a tax 
cut for the people who have the highest increases in their taxes, and 
that is the people on the bottom, the payroll taxes. The Medicare and 
the Social Security taxes combined have represented the biggest 
increase in taxes of all over the last 10 to 20 years, and we need to 
give relief for those people.
  So in conclusion what I am saying is that we cannot separate those 
two matters, and I do want to introduce this article, Mr. Speaker. I 
include an item by David Rosenbaum, a New York Times, July 19, 1999, in 
the Record:

                [From the New York Times, July 19, 1999]

             Polls on Tax Cuts Find Voters' Messages Mixed

                        (By David E. Rosenbaum)

       Washington, July 18--Nearly two-thirds of Americans think 
     their taxes are too high. But few of them worry much about 
     it, and most people would rather have the Government spend 
     money on popular programs than cut taxes.
       These somewhat contradictory findings from a review of 
     public opinion polls help explain why Republicans and 
     Democrats have such different views on tax cuts. Each side 
     can find something in the polls to justify its position.
       Republicans in Congress expect to approve large tax cuts 
     this summer. Among the steps Republicans are considering are 
     reduced income-tax rates, a lower capital gains tax, 
     abolition of the tax on inheritances, new tax breaks for 
     retirement savings and more favorable tax treatment of 
     married couples.
       These measures are opposed by most Democrats in Congress, 
     and President Clinton has promised to veto them. The 
     President favors a much smaller tax cut focused largely on 
     retirement savings. The President and the Democratic 
     lawmakers also favor spending more on health and education 
     programs.
       In a Gallup poll this spring, 65 percent of those 
     questioned said their taxes were too high. Over the last 30 
     years, through good economic times and bad, this figure has 
     not changed a great deal.
       On the other hand, when CBS News asked people in a poll 
     last week what they thought was ``the single most important 
     problem for the Government--the President and Congress--to 
     address in the coming year,'' only 5 percent named taxes, 
     putting the issue behind health care, Social Security, the 
     national debt, education and Medicare and Medicaid.
       In a similar vein, when Gallup asked people in March 
     whether they favored a tax cut or ``increased spending on 
     other Government programs,'' three-quarters opted for the tax 
     cut. But on an alternative question, when people were asked 
     whether they preferred a tax cut or more spending to ``fund 
     new retirement savings accounts, as well as increased 
     spending on education, defense, Medicare and other 
     programs,'' three of every five respondents favored financing 
     of the specified programs.
       The idea of cutting taxes ``has only moderate priority when 
     you test it against spending,'' said Andrew Kohut, director 
     of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling operation. 
     ``The reason is not that people don't think their taxes are 
     too high, because they do, but they think tax breaks won't 
     benefit them and the country as much as the spending, and 
     they think that when taxes are cut, the rich guys are the 
     ones who are going to make out.''
       Indeed, a poll by Gallup, CNN and USA Today in April found 
     that 66 percent of the public believes ``upper-income 
     people'' already pay too little in taxes.
       When they debate tax policy, Republicans and Democrats rely 
     on the polling results that bolster their separate doctrines.
       Asked in an interview last week why polls showed little 
     clamor for tax cuts among voters, Representative Bill Archer 
     of Texas, the Republican who is chairman of the Ways and 
     Means Committee, replied: ``We know from long-term polling 
     data, over a long period of time, that people believe they 
     are overtaxed. People do not say we are taxed too little. 
     They say Government spends too much and that we are taxed too 
     much.''
       But in the Ways and Means Committee debate on tax 
     legislation last week, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of 
     California, insisted that people understood the Republican 
     bill would benefit mainly the rich. The Republicans ``would 
     rather help multimillionaires and special interests rather 
     than enable seniors to obtain affordable prescription 
     drugs,'' Mr. Stark declared.
       Paradoxically, when the Pew Research Center asked voters 
     last month whether they thought Republicans or Democrats 
     would do ``a better job'' on taxes, the outcome was a dead 
     heat: 38 percent said Republicans and 38 percent said 
     Democrats.
       One reason tax cuts are so important to Republicans is that 
     this is a matter on which two main strands of the party, 
     business interests and religious conservatives, agree.
       Another reason is that many issues that used to be central 
     to Republican dogma, like anti-communism, are not relevant 
     today. And many others, like welfare, crime and balanced 
     budgets, have been co-opted by President Clinton.
       Among voters, tax cuts are a significantly higher priority 
     for Republicans that for Democrats and independents.
       In a Gallup poll, 69 percent of Republicans said a 
     candidate's position on the ``amount Americans pay in Federal 
     taxes'' was an important factor in how they voted, but fewer 
     than half of Democrats and independents gave that response.
       And not surprising, the more money people make and thus the 
     more they pay in taxes, the more they favor tax cuts. Gallup 
     found that 62 percent of those with annual incomes above 
     $75,000 regarded taxes as a high or top priority in deciding 
     whom to vote for.
       One reason the public may generally be skeptical about tax 
     cuts is that most people pay more in Social Security and 
     Medicare payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes, and no 
     one nowadays is talking about reducing payroll taxes.
       In 1997, a couple with $50,000 in income from wages, paid 
     $7,650 in payroll taxes. Their employers paid another $7,650 
     as their share. But assuming one child and itemized 
     deductions of $10,000, the couple paid $4,800 in income 
     taxes.

  And in conclusion I want to say that what I am trying to say here is 
important. We cannot separate education from tax policy. Education 
policy, education programs, tax policy, we must discuss them all in one 
package. We must understand that there is going to be an end game 
negotiation process. Probably the first part of that process will take 
place this fall, but the final process that must take place will be in 
the fall of the year 2000, just before the election.
  Just as we had a final set of decisions in 1996 that were 
revolutionary in terms of education funding, I expect that we will have 
a set of decisions in the fall of 2000 as a result of the end game 
negotiations between the majority Republicans and the White House which 
will conclude by dispensing a package which includes some kind of tax 
cut. There are also going to be increases for health care, increases 
for defense, and we want education also to be in that package. We need 
funding for education, school construction, repair, renovation and 
technology.

                          ____________________