[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18285-18290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          KEY PRINCIPLES AND KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I chair the positive education caucus in 
the Congress of the United States. This positive education caucus 
believes that it is easy to be critical but much more difficult to find 
solutions. That positive caucus is called the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce of the United States House of Representatives.
  So I am pleased to join several of my colleagues in reviewing two 
things with the American people and with all who are watching: first, 
the seven key Republican principles on education; and second, the key 
education accomplishments we have made over the last 5 years.
  Since we became a majority party in November of 1994, I have fought 
to include seven key principles in all education legislation that is 
passed through the Committee on Education and Workforce and the House.
  Now, why did we do that? Why did we come up with these seven 
principles? Well, I sat here for 20 years in the minority where I was 
told over and over again, and I watched it happen, that all we need to 
do is come up with one more program or another billion dollars or cover 
another 100,000 or half million children and we will solve all those 
problems. And for 20 years I watched one more program, one more billion 
dollars.
  Nothing happened positively in relationship to closing the 
achievement gap between those who are fortunate enough to have someone 
at home who is their first and most important teacher and those that 
are not.
  Well, these key seven principles are quality, better teaching, local 
control, accountability, dollars to the classroom, basic academics, 
parent involvement, and above all, responsibility. And so, we have said 
that in quality we seek quality effectiveness and results in all 
Federal education programs.
  No one paid much attention about the quality during those 20 years. 
No one really paid much attention to the studies that were done. 
Because the studies would have told them that we had some real problems 
with Head Start, we had some real problems with Title I. We could have 
corrected those early on, but we did not.
  So we seek quality, we seek better teaching. Nothing matters more in 
the classroom than having a competent, well-trained teacher who teaches 
the subject in which he or she was trained to instruct.
  Local control. House Republicans believe in cutting Federal education 
regulations and providing more flexibility to States and local school 
districts for, in exchange, accountability. As we deregulate Federal 
education programs and provide more flexibility, we want to ensure that 
Federal education programs produce real accountable results.
  In dollars to the classroom, we believe in spending more dollars 
directly in that classroom. Basic academics. We believe in emphasizing 
basic academics and proven education strategy, not just fads or self-
esteem approaches. And parental involvement and responsibility is 
extremely important.
  Those public charter schools that are working primarily are working 
because the parent is the enforcer. The parent agrees that they will 
enforce the homework regulation. The parent agrees that they will 
enforce the dress code. The parent agrees that they will enforce the 
discipline code.
  Well, what does that do? That attracts the best teachers and the best 
administrators and the best supervisors to that kind of setting. 
Because every good educator wants to be able to teach, and that is what 
happens when the parents are enforcing what is required in all of those 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) who 
was much involved in education before he came here.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, when I first came here to Congress 8 years 
ago, I made improving our public schools a top priority.
  When the Republicans came to power in 1974-1975, I knew that, under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), we 
would have quality, better teaching, local control, and accountability.
  I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made on all 
of these goals. The first step in improving our schools is to make sure 
that children enter the classroom ready to learn. This is especially 
true for children from disadvantaged families who often do not have the 
same family resources as middle-class children.
  Republicans have been leading the way over the past few years with 
Head Start. As this graph shows, funding for this program has been 
increased 106 percent in the past 5 years. That has really helped 
thousands of children throughout America. We can see right here in this 
Head Start funding increases under the Republican Congress when we 
start from $3 to $7 essentially. And it was quite a spread over a 
decade, and we can take great accomplishment in that.
  There is a lot more such as that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and in that increase 
we also insisted that quality was the name of the game.
  For the last two reauthorizations, we were finally able to say, hey, 
if they get new money, do something about improving the quality of the 
program.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, and I 
think that is happening throughout the country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it has.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, Head Start should do what its name says it 
does, give a real head start to children growing up in disadvantaged 
families.
  The Head Start amendments of 1998 ensure that local agencies are 
accountable for successfully preparing children to enter school and for 
making sure that they are ready to read. New education standards, 
teacher training measures, and quality standards have been included, as 
the chairman says. Head start now strikes the appropriate balance 
between quality and expansion.
  The increased funding for quality ensures that the program has the 
time and the means to develop the capacity to provide higher quality 
services, creating a better future for the children and the families 
that it serves.
  A major goal of Republican education policy has been to send more 
dollars to the classroom while maintaining local flexibility and 
accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that a motivated, qualified teacher is 
a key factor in student achievement. Unfortunately, some of our 
teachers are underqualified, overwhelmed, or simply burnt out. This is 
understandable given the challenges they face. As a former professor, I 
can certainly see those challenges.
  That is why I am so pleased with the Teacher Empowerment Act which 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has nursed through 
his committee and the floor. This act is designed to provide teachers 
with the resources that they need while maintaining local flexibility. 
Funds are included to reduce class size, but this does not come at the 
expense of teacher quality.
  This legislation provides $2 billion annually for teacher training, 
which focuses on the high need areas of science and mathematics. We are 
way behind in that. This will help tremendously. However, under this 
legislation, local school districts have more choice in the teacher 
training programs that they utilize, allowing them to meet the unique 
needs of their students much more effectively.
  Although Washington has an important obligation to the schoolchildren 
of this country, national programs administered from here are not a 
viable option.

[[Page 18286]]

  A better approach is to provide the funds necessary to meet the 
students' needs and to let State and local level school officials spend 
those funds in the way that works best for their particular students. 
This principle is reflected in the Ed Flex bill that became law last 
year, in brief, education flexibility.
  Too many things had been mandated by the Federal Government and they 
never kept their word on the money. Now they are. Under this 
legislation, local school districts are given increased flexibility in 
how they can spend Federal money.

                              {time}  1945

  It is those local school board members, principals, and teachers who 
know the unique strengths and needs of their students and their 
communities. They know that the most effective ways to use Federal 
funds is to do it at home and not in Washington. In exchange for this 
increased flexibility, school districts must demonstrate measurable 
academic achievement, and I think that is where we are all united in 
that.
  Another significant piece of legislation passed by this Congress is 
H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act, or known as the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. This Congress for the first time fully 
funded this law, which aids children in every town and city in our 
country. Under this law, States were required to provide a free and 
appropriate education to every child, including those with 
disabilities. The Federal Government committed to paying 40 percent of 
the cost of special education, but it never met the payment. The 
Federal Government has paid only about 13 percent instead of the 40 
percent of the cost of special education specified in the disabilities 
law.
  Special education is expensive. The Federal Government mandated that 
special students who have disabilities should be taught at local 
schools. Right now, school districts must pay for the mandate, already 
straining their local budget. For the first time, H.R. 4055 authorizes 
funding to reach the Federal Government's goal of 40 percent. Those 
funds will help States and local school districts. Receiving full 
Federal funding for special education would free up local funds to help 
all students. Once this funding discrepancy is cleared up, school 
districts could use 27 percent of the funds now going to special ed on 
hiring more teachers, buying new computers or repairing classrooms, 
things that benefit all students without harming special education.
  We passed this bill in June with overwhelming support. I am pleased 
with the broad bipartisan support that these pieces of legislation have 
received. We have demonstrated the ability to put aside partisan 
differences and work together to find common sense solutions to this 
country's educational challenges. Let us continue to do so. The future 
of our children and our Nation depend on it.
  I want to again praise the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
for the leadership he has provided once we were freed up from the 
bureaucracies of Washington and we put the focus on those local 
individuals that know a lot more about the education in their area than 
we do 3,000 miles away. He deserves great appreciation from the whole 
House for bringing all these pieces together and providing flexibility, 
quality, and accountability.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for his participation and 
recognize the gentleman from the committee from the great State of 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the chairman for his introduction of me tonight 
and I thank the Speaker for allowing me to take a few minutes to talk 
about what has been a true renaissance in the approach to education at 
the Federal level and due in large measure to the leadership of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the approach that he has 
taken.
  I want to address three specific areas of the reform and enhancement 
that has been done over the last 2 years by the House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and try and delineate specifically why 
accountability and why flexibility, more parental involvement are so 
important in the improvement of education and how the laws that have 
been enacted by this House in education will go a long way towards 
bringing about true improvement and in particular the closure of the 
gap between those that perform so well and those that underperform.
  Thirty years ago, the United States Congress decided to get in the 
business of assisting public education and entered that in what was 
known as the title I program to begin funding programs for our most 
disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, in 30 years, we have realized 
little or no improvement and, in fact, in some cases a decline. But 
during those 30 years, we have seen the Federal Government enter into 
many other programs in public education.
  So this year, the committee took a different approach. Why redo over 
and over again what for 30 years has not worked? Instead, let us do 
some new things. Number one, the straight A's bill. Under the 
leadership of the chairman, we passed in the House the straight A's 
bill which takes on this approach: instead of Washington being the CEO 
of your local school district, it ought to be the investor in your 
local school district. A CEO gives orders. An investor looks for 
results, which is the gentleman from Pennsylvania's approach to 
accountability. Under the straight A's bill, we allow a State to enter 
into a contract with the U.S. Department of Education. That contract is 
a 5-year agreement, and the premise of that contract is that State will 
lower the gap between the best students and the lowest-performing 
students.
  In return for that agreement, that State receives a great deal of 
flexibility in the use of Federal funds directed towards the area it 
believes is best to address the problems of its lowest performing 
students. The straight A's bill demands accountability, it demands a 
contract, and it demands a return on the investment which our taxpayers 
deserve to have. The straight A's bill, in my opinion, is the inception 
this year of what will spread across this country in terms of the 
Federal Government's involvement.
  A lot of people do not realize this about Federal involvement in 
public education. It is mountains of paperwork, but it is small 
molehills of money. I was chairman of the State board of education in 
Georgia before being elected to the Congress. Seven percent of 
Georgia's funds for public education come from the Federal Government. 
Ninety-three percent come from the State government and the local 
government. Yet more often than not, the paperwork comes from the 
Federal Government. In fact, I used to use an analogy. In Georgia, the 
average kindergarten kid is 36 inches tall when they enter kindergarten 
and that teacher fills out 42 inches of paperwork before that child 
leaves kindergarten. All to say, we spent the money the way Washington 
said we should.
  Instead, straight A's takes the approach, we want the accountability 
of results. We want to make an investment in our children's future. We 
trust the local boards, and we trust the State system to make the right 
decision in the use of those funds.
  Secondly, for just a minute in the spirit of flexibility, which was 
addressed so well by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), I want 
to talk about transferability. For those States that elect not to 
participate in straight A's, but would like the flexibility in Federal 
funds to make a meaningful difference, we approved the ability for 
Federal funds to be transferred in a way that was directed best by the 
local board of education towards the improvement of students.
  Transferability just simply takes this premise, and I will use my 
State of Georgia. In rural Georgia, in an area where many migrant 
workers speaking many different languages, their primary language other 
than English, enter and pass through the public schools and that is the 
major crisis in the achievement gap, does it not make sense for that 
local system to be able to move money to the speakers of

[[Page 18287]]

other languages to bring about better literacy of those immigrants so 
as to address the ability of them to improve their achievement compared 
to those who speak English as their primary language?
  And is it not in the metropolitan Atlanta area where you have a 
disparity of affluent and inner city systems for their needs to be 
markedly different and for the money to be transferred in such a way to 
address the need of the specific constituency in that school system?
  But being the responsible leader that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is, he also remembered that the way the Federal Government and the 
reason it entered public education was for title I and for our most 
disadvantaged kids. So the one restriction in transferability was, you 
could not transfer any money out of title I, but you could transfer 
Federal money into title I. When you take a school or a school system 
that in some cases can approach three-quarters free and reduced lunch, 
three-quarters level of poverty students, then it may be that every 
other dollar in Federal money designed for other programs that comes 
should be transferred into title I to even further enhance the Federal 
Government's investment in schools.
  Flexibility and transferability are absolutely essential. Many times 
in Georgia when we approved the State budget, when it came to the 
Federal portion, we could not approve a single change of a comma, a 
semicolon or even the tense of a sentence all because the Federal 
Government with the money sent the regulations and the rules and the 
restrictions on its use to the extent that in some cases you turned it 
down because you could not use it where you really needed it.
  Lastly for just a second, I want to talk about technology. There is a 
graph which I would like for the staff to put up so the people of this 
country can see. You hear a lot of times that Republicans do not make 
an investment in education. You hear a lot of times that our interest 
is not in education. The gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership has 
demonstrated that that is not true. But if you look at that graph, that 
shows the investment in technology made by the Congress of the United 
States and its increase from 1993 to the fiscal year 2001 budget. It is 
a 1,761 percent increase in Federal funding in 8 years, an increase in 
what I believe will be the solution to some of America's greatest 
problems in the delivery of quality public education.
  First of all, under the chairman's leadership, we decided that it is 
wrong to say the Federal Department of Education controls 40 percent of 
the technology money and directs it when it is going to be used at the 
local level. So we said, 95 percent goes to the local level. The U.S. 
Department of Education controls 5. Secondly, we had a myriad of 
technology programs all designed for a narrow focus on technology, all 
well intended but just enough money to start something, not enough 
money to finish it. So we rolled all those programs into one $760 
million grant program, a competitive grant program to develop the best 
practices for the delivery of education through the use of technology, 
the Internet, and the World Wide Web.
  By way of example, this past June I attended the National Education 
Computing Conference in Atlanta where public schools from around the 
country that have received technology grants in Federal programs are 
beginning to demonstrate how technology can be used to solve what we 
believe to be the insoluble. Just two quick examples. First, it is 
difficult in rural America to get advanced placement teachers for our 
brightest children but by use of the Internet and the World Wide Web, 
the increases in broad-band delivery and the merger of audio, 
telephony, and digital all to the school, we can now take the Nation's 
best AP teachers and get them in the Nation's poorest most rural 
systems via the Internet and its use to bring advanced placement 
education to any American child regardless of the resources of their 
system.
  The Institute for a Sustainable Future in Massachusetts had a grant 
that was awarded to a Cobb County school system, my home, where they 
have embedded in the curriculum K-12 many basic principles in terms of 
sustaining our future economically and environmentally and real-life 
practices through the use of technology to demonstrate those models to 
teachers throughout that school system. What we will do with this $760 
million over the next few years is find the best practices that work in 
classrooms, distribute them around the country and use the modern 
marvel, the Internet, to break through barriers we thought were 
insoluble.
  In essence, I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying really three things. My 
dad always wanted me to make straight A's, and I think I did one year 
in third grade; and that was about the only year I made straight A's. 
But my dad always gave me the flexibility to try harder, and I did the 
best I could, and he challenged me. He challenged me to do my best. 
Through the gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership, we are now for 
the first time in 30 years allowing local school systems to do their 
best. We are trusting them to say, if you will sign a contract that 
says you will lower the gap and close the gap, then we will give you 
the flexibility to use the money to do that intended purpose. A rising 
tide lifts all boats, and we owe it to every child in America 
regardless of their circumstance, regardless of their poverty, to be 
uplifted, and flexibility does that. Transferability allows us to 
direct funds and target them in an area that has a specific need. Never 
to the expense of title I, but even to its enhancement should the local 
system decide to do that.
  Finally, there is no one in this country that knows more than those 
of us here in this Congress how technology has revolutionized the 
production of the American worker and expanded our great recovery 
economically in this country. It will do the same in public education. 
And because of your leadership and because this Republican Congress 
made a 1,761 percent increased investment over 8 years in the use of 
technology, then our children will be better off, our school systems 
will have more flexibility, more responsibility and more 
accountability, and our children will be better educated.
  The last 2 years for me, my first 2 years in Congress, have been very 
rewarding because what I came from with frustration, and that was 
public education that was constrained by Federal bureaucracy, has now 
been unleashed through your leadership to respond as it thought it was 
intending to 30 years ago; and the end result is going to be improved 
achievement, closing of the gap between our best and our poorest 
students, and a renaissance in public education in the United States of 
America. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak tonight.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) for his participation. The President gave a long list when he 
spoke to us here in this very Chamber, many things that we agreed with. 
We, however, did not agree with his approach, because it was a one-
size-fits-all Washington, D.C. approach.
  And so we said we are going to stick to our seven principles, because 
we want to make sure that no child is left behind, and so as I 
indicated, and as my colleagues have indicated, we have had many 
successes. We have a long way to go. If my colleagues look on the next 
chart that we have, my colleagues will see some of those successes that 
were mentioned and some others that were not: Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, Amendments of 1997, Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, Full Funding Resolution, Full Funding Act, 
Reading Excellence Act, Charter School Expansion Act in 1998, Head 
Start Amendments of 1998, Prohibiting New Federal Tests.
  As I indicated, the President over and over again, it is a great 
idea, but, first of all, we have to determine what the new higher 
standards are. Then after we know what they are, we have to determine 
whether the teachers are equipped to teach to the new higher standards. 
After the teacher is equipped to teach the new higher

[[Page 18288]]

standards, then we test the teacher to see whether they are equipped. 
Then she or he teaches for a year, then we test the child.
  Prior to that, of course, I am afraid what we do is primarily is tell 
50 percent of the children one more time I am not doing very well.
  Dollars to the Classroom Act, believing that that is where the money 
can best be used. Education Flexibility Partnership Act. I fought and 
fought and fought for that as I sat in the minority, and finally I got 
a bone thrown to me. I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 
probably helped me more than anybody else, and they said well, we will 
give you six States; that is a little trial here. It looked like maybe 
there was some value to that, so then the next time we said we will 
give you 12 States.
  We can thank Texas and we can thank Maryland and a few other States, 
but particularly those two, and particularly Texas, because they said 
okay, we will take the responsibility to prove to you that we can 
improve the academic achievement of all of our students, if you give us 
an opportunity to commingle funds.
  As you know, even though the funds may have been worthless, may have 
been so small with so many programs, if they ever commingled one penny, 
the auditor was there, they did not care whether there was a quality 
program, whether it was working or not, the only thing they wanted to 
make sure is you did not commingle any pennies. And we said, well, why 
not all 50 States?
  In Texas, at the present time, of course, they can show that their 
Hispanic and their black population is achieving at a greater level 
overall on their tests than the overall average of all of the students, 
because they took seriously that challenge that we gave them: we will 
give you the flexibility, you have to accept the accountability, and 
you have to show that every child can improve academically.
  We improved the Vocational Technical Educational Act by making sure 
we are in the 21st century, a very, very difficult century; and I 
sympathize with Voc Ed teachers because I always say when they go to 
bed at midnight they think they have a great lesson planned, and when 
they woke up the next morning, technology increased so dramatically 
that they are back in the Dark Ages again. And they have to plan all 
over again. It is not easy. I do understand that.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act is mentioned, we want quality teachers. 
We want to give them the opportunity to be quality teachers. If they 
cannot get the kind of in-service that they need that is being 
supplied, they can go out on their own with vouchers and get that kind 
of improvement that they need to make sure that they are up to snuff 
and up to the 21st century in their teaching.
  Student Results Act, again, saying that we want to see results, and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) I see I touched a nerve 
somewhere.
  Mr. HORN. The gentleman has touched a nerve, because this is 
wonderful; and this means better prepared students for colleges. And we 
have a governor who is really committed to college. Governor Bush, who 
is running for the Presidency, said every child has a chance to go to 
college and make it; and I agree with him completely, having been a 
university president for 18 years.
  And what the gentleman's committee and what this Congress have done 
has been to get a Pell grant up further than it ever has been for 
students in need, money called the Pell grant, and college work study 
and all of the loans and so forth, but looking at the ones for the 
grants, any student can go to college and get a degree. And we thank 
the gentleman for that.
  Mr. GOODLING. As I indicated, there is nothing that substitutes for a 
quality teacher in a classroom. My first 4 years in a one-room school, 
thank God for Ms. Yost, because she was an outstanding teacher and she 
taught all subjects, and she did all of the other work that goes into 
running a one-room school and she was just outstanding, but there is no 
substitute for that quality teacher.
  We have the Academic Achievement for All Act, the Education Savings 
Accounts to make sure that parents are in a position to help the child 
go on to some form of higher education. We have the Impact Aid 
Reauthorization Act, and in some districts that is extremely important 
because they are impacted by Federal installations in that particular 
area who have children who come to their public schools without, of 
course, the people paying taxes for that purpose.
  Literacy Involves Families Together Act is, of course, one that I 
hold near and dear. It took us so long to understand it. If you do not 
deal with the entire family, you cannot break the cycle. I do not know 
how it took us so long to understand that. And, of course, that is what 
we were doing in Head Start, we were just dealing with the child. Well, 
of course, somebody, some adult in that family has to be the child's 
first and most important teacher; and, of course, that is the whole 
idea of our Literacy Involves Families Together Act, to make sure that 
we are giving the parent the tools that they need and at the same time 
helping the child become reading for school.
  I am very proud of the Child Nutrition Act. We made real changes that 
I think gives youngsters an opportunity who do not have that 
opportunity to have a balanced meal, because it is pretty difficult to 
sit there and try to listen to what the professor is saying about 
mathematics or Latin or English or whatever on a very empty rumbling 
stomach.
  And I see another colleague from the committee, who another college 
professor who knows a little bit about math and science, much more than 
I do, as a matter of fact, the gentleman from Michigan, (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding to me, and I saw the gentleman on C-SPAN and rushed 
straight down here because I think this is one of the more important, 
if not the most important, discussion we will have in Special Orders 
this week or, perhaps, this month.
  First of all, I want to commend the gentleman for what you have done. 
When we look at that list, it is the gentleman's initiative that 
developed it and carried it as far as it has come. And there are some 
outstanding things on there, and I will comment on a few of those later 
on.
  It is also with some regret that I looked at the list and realized 
that most of this should be passed into law; a good deal is, but not 
all of it. And the part that is not passed into law is primarily 
because of game playing or threatened game playing by the minorities to 
attach meaningless or killer amendments or other strange amendments to 
this in both the House and the Senate, and that has prevented further 
action on it.
  My experience, as the gentleman mentioned a moment ago, is in 
science; I received a doctorate in nuclear physics. I have taught for 
22 years at the college and university level, but during that time I 
became heavily involved with elementary school science and to a certain 
extent the secondarily school science, including teaching some summer 
institutes sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
  I would just like to make a few comments on some of the issues. First 
of all, the nonscience areas, when the report ``A Nation At Risk'' 
first came out over a decade and a half ago, I was struck by one thing. 
A Nation At Risk they talked about everything that was going wrong and 
what should be done; and in my mind they left out the most important 
factor and that was the parents. Because in my experience and in 
working in schools at all levels, the most important single factor in 
the success of the student is an interested and involved parent. And if 
you do not have that, you have got a long ways to go to resolve it.
  And one thing I especially appreciate about the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, about the list there, is the bill that we just passed in 
the House last week, which the gentleman has fought arduously for for 
some time, the Literacy Involves Family Together Act, or LIFT Act. I 
think that is extremely

[[Page 18289]]

important, because it is not only trying to instill literacy in 
children, but it is saying if the parents are illiterate, the children 
are not likely to learn how to read; and, therefore, we have to teach 
the parents how to read and become literate if we want the children to 
become literate.
  I think that is a very important act. I hope it gets enacted and 
takes effect, because I think this is a real step towards improving 
literacy in this country. I have worked on literacy projects in my home 
district with adults, but the ideal is to have the children and the 
adults working together, and that is precisely what this act does, and 
I commend the gentleman for it.
  We have, as I said, many successes as the Republican Party, but let 
me comment on what is needed beyond an interested and involved parent, 
that is the most important. But the second and very, very close to it 
is a competent teacher. I think the teachers in this Nation have had 
unfair criticism. Everyone blames the teachers for the failings of the 
schools; and in my book, that is not the place to start.
  In my working with the schools, most of the teachers are very 
dedicated, very anxious to do a good job; but they are hampered by lack 
of money in some cases, lack of facilities in other cases, lack of 
support from administrators aboard and other cases, and above all, 
frequently a lack of training. As the gentleman mentioned earlier, 
frequently teachers are trained to teach well, but times have changed 
and they need more training. They need professional development.
  I am pleased that the Federal Government has been able to help in 
that score by providing some funds for professional development, but 
much more needs to be done; and I think the schools have to step up to 
bat on that one too and provide more funding for professional 
development, either through summers or through in-service.
  Secondly, in terms of training, we need better training in the 
colleges and universities. I think the biggest problem there in terms 
of my experience has been the fact that the academic departments which 
teach the academic subjects do not communicate well with the schools of 
education and vice versa. Not only that, much to my regret when I was 
at both Berkeley and at Calvin College, there was a considerable amount 
of disdain of the academicians of the school of education professors 
and vice versa; and with that atmosphere, it was impossible to develop 
good cooperation.
  I am pleased to see that being changed. For example, Arizona State 
University has done a tremendous job in the physics department to break 
down that barrier, and they have a superb program going. Just last week 
I met with a professor from the University of Washington, he has done 
the same with high school teachers and is training high school teachers 
working with educators on that. So the barriers are breaking down, but 
they have to break down much faster if we are going to meet the needs 
of our Nation.
  I hope that we can do all we can to help improve the initial training 
of teachers and also improve the professional development of teachers. 
In my experience, as I say, teachers are eager to do a good job. They 
are eager to be properly trained, and they are very frustrated if they 
do not get the support of their board, of their administration, and, in 
fact, of their Nation from the work that we do here.
  My final comments are about science and math education, which I have 
spent a lot of time in during my professional career and also here in 
the Congress. Most people do not realize that the economy of this 
Nation and, particularly the economic growth of this wonderful boom we 
are having now, is primarily due to advancement in science and 
technology; Alan Greenspan will be the first one to say that.
  The estimates are that at least a third of our economic development 
now comes from information technology developments, and very likely 
another third of the economic growth comes from other developments in 
science and technology. Yet we are not producing students out of our 
schools who can take advantage of that. That is where the jobs are, but 
we are not graduating students in enough science, math, technology, and 
engineering to take advantage of it.
  I visited Silicon Valley a few months ago. In that area alone, they 
have 100,000 job openings for scientific, engineering, technical 
people, unfilled jobs because they literally cannot find the people to 
take the jobs.
  We have every year before the Congress requests to grant H1-B visas, 
to grant visas to foreigners to come in and work as scientists, 
engineers, technologists, mathematicians, computer specialists; and we 
this current year are allowing 155,000 of them to come in as immigrants 
because we are not producing enough. The request for next year is 
350,000; we may grant 200,000.
  Another indication of trouble in this Nation, if you go to graduate 
schools of science and engineering, over half of the graduate students 
are from other countries. Our students are not competing; they cannot 
compete with the students from other nations.

                              {time}  2015

  They are not getting the grounding in math and science that they 
need. Another indication, the TIMMS Study and other studies comparing 
us to other developed countries, the United States is either at the 
bottom or near the bottom in every ranking of our high school graduates 
compared to those from other developed countries. We need to improve, 
and I think it is very, very important that we improve science and math 
education in our schools.
  Now this should not be at the expense of other subjects. I know that 
the chairman of the committee has spent a lot of time on improving 
reading in this Nation. That is absolutely essential. One has to be 
able to read. That is number one. But these days one has to be able to 
understand science and math as well. So it is reading, writing, 
arithmetic, the three R's, but do not forget that S on there, and that 
is science.
  The three Rs include science.
  Mr. GOODLING. Three Rs and an S.
  Mr. EHLERS. So we have some initiatives before the Congress on this 
issue. I have sponsored three bills. There are similar bills in the 
Senate, and they are being worked on. There may or may not be enough 
time this year to get them through, but I hope we can continue to 
pursue that because it is badly needed. If I had my druthers, I would 
start at pre-school; but I am willing to start at least in first grade 
or kindergarten. An interesting result of doing it properly, and that 
relates to the chairman's emphasis on reading. If science is taught 
early and properly, it improves success with reading, because the 
learning of science and mathematics develops parts of the brain that 
otherwise lie fallow, and those parts of the brain are very important 
in developing the visual skills that are necessary to develop good 
reading skills.
  So it all goes together: Science, math, reading, that is what we need 
in the elementary schools. We have to develop programs that will do 
that. We have to develop teachers who will teach that well; and I hope 
with that we will be ready for the revolution in the next century, in 
fact the next decade, of where the jobs are actually going to be and we 
will produce Americans who will have those jobs and not have to import 
individuals from foreign nations to take those jobs.
  Mr. GOODLING. When we had the literacy bill on the floor, I made the 
statement that we have pretty close to 100 million people who are 
performing either on the first or second level of literacy. The first 
level gets them nowhere in the 21st century. The second level, it will 
be very, very difficult, and that is why it is so important. It was so 
sad that we lost as many years as we lost, Head Start, well meaning all 
of those programs, well meaning but no one was out there to make sure 
there was quality, so we ended up many times with people who were 
heading the programs who really needed the programs themselves, and 
that is a tragedy.
  In one largest school district in this country, 55 percent of all 
their Title I money was used to hire teachers aides. One says, that may 
not be bad if they

[[Page 18290]]

are well educated. Fifty percent of them did not even have a GED, did 
not have a high school diploma, did not even have a GED; but worse than 
that they were teaching and they were teaching unsupervised. So we can 
see how those children who needed the very best teacher, a 
disadvantaged child, did not have a chance because, of course, as I 
indicated, there were close to 100 million, 40 to 44 million 
demonstrate the lowest basic literacy skills, and 50 million adults 
have skills on the next higher level. As the gentleman mentioned, we 
are going to bring in probably another 200,000 a year for the next 3 
years from some other country to fill our $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 
jobs. What happens to all of these people? So that is why we said we 
are going to adopt these seven principles. We are going to make very, 
very sure that we are just not going to have another program and 
another program and another billion dollars thrown at the program. We 
are going to make sure that there are quality programs.
  Now someone will say well, this is not our job on the Federal level. 
Functional illiteracy and illiteracy surely is. We cannot survive. We 
cannot survive as a leading nation if, as a matter of fact, we cannot 
do something about this. That is why I said from the beginning we not 
only can be critical but we have to come up and see whether as a matter 
of fact we cannot find some solutions to the problem.
  So I just want to repeat again what those seven principles are that 
have been driving our committee since the Republicans have taken over, 
and those principles are quality.
  When we unveiled my portrait recently, I told them that when Chairman 
Perkins was here, he had a whistle in his speech. Now when we are 
marking up legislation in that room and the wind blows, those windows 
just whistle. We always say that is the old man either happy or unhappy 
with what we are doing, and I said I hope that as a matter of fact my 
lips move on that portrait every time they are marking up legislation 
and the lips say quality, not quantity; results, not process. My 
colleagues have heard that over and over and over again, and I just 
hope those lips will say it. Maybe somebody can put a tape or something 
there behind the picture and do it.
  But, again, we believe that if we are really going to make a 
difference these are the seven key principles, quality, better 
teaching, local control, accountability, dollars to the classroom, 
basic academics and parental involvement and, as I said, 
responsibility.
  Again, I want to repeat, in a public charter school that is 
successful, that last word on here is the key, parental responsibility. 
If we go two blocks from the Capitol, we will see that it is the parent 
who gets the child there; it is the parent who takes the child home; it 
is the parent who enforces the discipline code; it is the parent who 
enforces the dress code; it is the parent who enforces the homework 
code; it is that parent assuming the responsibility. They want their 
children to succeed and they are willing to make those sacrifices and 
so there is a waiting list a mile long. As I said earlier, who is 
attracted to a setting like that? The very best teacher, the very best 
administrator. We have to get in center city America and real rural 
America the very best teachers. That is where they are needed. That is 
where those role models are needed or we cannot turn this around.
  So hopefully with these seven key principles as our guiding light and 
our guiding force, we can turn things around and not talk about one 
more program or one more billion dollars or one more this or one more 
that. Quality, quality, quality; results not process.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up with a postscript 
to that very fine statement. During the recent presidential campaign, I 
have become very annoyed reading in the papers time after time that 
George Bush has latched on to education; that it has never been a 
Republican issue, it is always a Democratic issue; he has latched on to 
it in trying to win. That is just utter nonsense.
  Look at the gentleman's record here in the Congress and what he has 
accomplished in his career here, and look at what the committee has 
done the last few years with the Republicans in charge of it. It has 
done so much better when we look at the funding and recognize that the 
Republicans have provided more funding from the Federal Government than 
the Democrats have during the time we have been in charge here. If we 
want to find out who is really for education and who has really done a 
better job and not just thrown money at it but required things such as 
accountability and quality, if we look at who has really contributed to 
the improvement of education in this country it is the Republicans. I 
hope the news media wakes up to that and stops saying George Bush is 
just doing this to win the election. That is the nonsense.
  Look at what he did in Texas. The Democrats ran that State for many 
years; and George Bush came along. In the short time that he has been 
there, he has raised the scores, especially of minority students, more 
than they have been raised in many years under Democratic control. So I 
just wanted to add that.
  I hate to be that partisan about it but that is the facts and we have 
to set the news media straight on it. We have to set the record 
straight, make sure people understand we are committed to education. We 
are committed to doing it right, but we are going to do it right. We 
are going to be accountable. We are going to have quality. We are going 
to have results. We are not just going to hand out money and say, here, 
do what you like.
  Mr. GOODLING. Well, I latched on to GW; he did not latch on to me. 
And I latched on to him primarily because of his ability to lead a 
Democrat house and a Democrat senate in the State of Texas to bring 
about the best education reform probably anywhere. I was just reading 
over the weekend that Oklahoma is crying the blues because they lost 
teacher after teacher, Kansas did and several other States, because 
they are going where there are higher salaries and where there is a 
better opportunity, and, of course, one of the places they were going 
was Texas because with his leadership and his house and his senate they 
raised those teacher salaries but demanded excellence and quality at 
the same time.
  So, again, here are seven key principles. We think that they have 
been the important principles to move us ahead and to make sure that no 
child is left behind.

                          ____________________