[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 17209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        TEACHER EMPOWERMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 20, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1995) to 
     amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to 
     empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-
     quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize 
     the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes:

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1995, the 
Teacher Empowerment Act, and support the Martinez substitute.
  As I looked over the materials I had received regarding H.R. 1995, I 
found myself wondering how the Republican leadership could offer an 
education bill, a bill for teachers, that is not supported by educators 
themselves. Nor do parents, Boards of Education, or many others 
concerned about our education system support it. In fact, the American 
Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Council 
of Chief State School Officers, the National Parent Teachers 
Association, the National Association of State Boards of Education, 
Council of Great City Schools, the New York State Education Department, 
and the New York City Board of Education each oppose this bill. Does 
this seem right? How can the American public have faith that we are 
going to improve their schools when nearly all education groups oppose 
the proposed education bill?
  As a newly elected Member, I can tell you that parents in my 
congressional district are concerned. They want smaller classes. They 
want assurances that money isn't going to be taken from their low-
income school districts and transferred to districts with more 
resources. They don't want rhetoric. They want results.
  H.R. 1995 takes away the guarantee of smaller classes by rolling 
class size reduction funds into a block grant for professional 
development purposes and class size reduction. While class size 
reduction is a ``mandatory use'' under H.R. 1995, there is no 
commitment that serious funds will be used for that purpose.
  We should not reverse the process that was put into place last year 
when a bipartisan commitment was made to fund the first installment of 
a program aimed specifically at reducing class sizes. Instead, we 
should show our local school districts that we will be there with the 
followup funds so they can retain the teachers they are hiring this 
year and continue their class reduction efforts.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1995 severely undermines the original goal of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act--to provide assistance to the 
neediest students. This bill fails to direct sufficient resources to 
schools that need the most help: the highest poverty districts in each 
state and district.
  Overall, H.R. 1995 would divert resources away from districts, like 
many of those in New York City, that need the money the most. Altering 
the funding formula from 80 percent of the funds being allocated to 
high-poverty districts to having only 50 percent being allocated to 
districts, combined with the loss of class size reduction funds, would 
result in a $22 million loss for New York City's public schools. I am 
sure that this result will be mimicked in cities and towns across the 
country.
  I know my Republican colleagues will argue that a hold harmless 
provision has been added to the bill. However, that hold harmless is 
for the first year only. After that, there is no guarantee that funding 
for class size reduction will not be dramatically decreased.
  We must not abandon our commitment to class size reduction and to 
helping our neediest students. The Martinez substitute ensures that we 
honor our commitment to class size reduction. Additionally, the 
Martinez substitute does not alter the intent of the ESEA, to assist 
the neediest school districts. We should pass the Martinez substitute, 
and, if not, we should defeat H.R. 1995.

                          ____________________