[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25320-25330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2001

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that 
I presented yesterday pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Lowey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on 
     disagreeing with provisions in the Senate amendment which 
     denies the President's request for dedicated resources to 
     reduce class sizes in the early grades and for local school 
     construction and, instead, broadly expands the Title VI 
     Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use 
     of funds.


[[Page 25321]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

                              {time}  1230

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that we even have to debate the 
importance of these issues. Members from the other side of the aisle 
say that education is their number one priority. Then why has it been 
necessary for Members from this side of the aisle to fight to preserve 
our investment in class size reduction and finally begin our investment 
in local school construction?
  It has been 4 years since I conducted a survey of New York City 
schools and found that one in every four schools held classes in 
hallways, gymnasiums, bathrooms and janitors' closets. Two-thirds of 
these schools had substandard building features, such as roofs, walls 
and floors. I repeat, this was 4 years ago; and despite the outpouring 
of support from both sides of the aisle, Congress has not provided even 
one cent to alleviate overcrowding, and improve the physical condition 
of our schools. In fact, 2 days ago, when we considered the tax bill, 
we had the opportunity to include the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson school 
modernization bond proposal, and we did not.
  We in our local communities have an obligation to all children. We 
make the decisions locally and pay the taxes locally, but we as a 
Nation have an important role as well: to use Federal resources to 
encourage excellent programs, to jump start local investment, and to 
support national priorities.
  That is why I firmly believe that Congress must join with the 
President to support school modernization and smaller class sizes. We 
know that smaller class sizes means better learning for students and 
less disciplinary problems for teachers. By continuing our efforts to 
hire more teachers in the critical early grades, we can offer 2.9 
million more children the benefits of more personal instruction and 
will see the results in their academic performance.
  We need to fix the shameful state of too many American schools. 
School enrollment is skyrocketing. We will need at least 2,400 new 
public schools by the year 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments and 
to relieve overcrowding. Our modernization needs are no less pressing. 
High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a luxury; 
yet we still have Pokemon-generation kids in classrooms straight out of 
Charles Dickens with their asbestos-filled ceilings and coal stoves. It 
would be laughable, I say to my colleagues, if it was not so 
disgraceful.
  In fact, the National Education Association estimates that the unmet 
school modernization needs in American schools total over $300 billion; 
and that is on top of what school districts and States are already 
spending. This problem is just too big for local and State officials to 
handle alone.
  Simply stated, we need dedicated programs to help local schools 
reduce class size and modernize their buildings. These are national 
problems that demand a national response. The Federal Government has a 
responsibility, I say to my colleagues, to ensure that public education 
is more than a promise, and our students cannot learn when they are 
stacked on top of each other and the walls are literally crumbling 
around them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, I would say that we are not going to 
support this motion to instruct as we did the last one. Even 
considering the fact that we supported the last one, there was more 
political rhetoric that came from the other side than in most campaign 
meetings. So I suspect that is going to be the same this time because 
we are not going to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, there are major differences between the political 
parties. One of the big major differences is that one party believes 
that all of the power should be centralized in Washington, that whoever 
works in the bureaucracy here is smarter than anybody else in the 
country. That is not our party, Mr. Speaker. Not yours and not mine. 
That is their party.
  We believe that States and local communities and the people in those 
States and local communities have a right to make decisions for 
themselves. That is one of the major differences between the two 
parties.
  Now, when the Constitution was first written, and we have all 
applauded the Framers of the Constitution so many times, they 
originally created a Constitution that created a very powerful central 
government. They gave all of the power of the government to the Federal 
Government. But then they realized they had made a mistake and they 
created what? The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of 
Rights. The Bill of Rights that protected the people's rights as 
individuals, that protected the rights of the States as individual 
States of a union, and what we are trying to do is to maintain what the 
Framers intended with the Bill of Rights, and that is to protect the 
rights of the people in our communities to make decisions for 
themselves, except in those cases where the Federal Government is the 
only agency that is able to deal with things such as national defense, 
such as Social Security, such as Medicare, things of this nature.
  Education has become a large issue; and believe me, we support 
education. In fact, in this legislation that we are debating here and 
negotiating, my colleagues will find that we have provided more money 
in that bill than the President of the United States asked for.
  The major difference between us, and other speakers will go into this 
in more detail, but the major difference is who decides how the money 
is spent. Their side thinks that Washington should decide it all for 
people in my community, people in his community, people in others' 
communities; and we disagree with that. We believe that the needs are 
different in different parts of the country. We understand that there 
are some school districts where they need more schools and construction 
is important. We also understand that there are some places in the 
country where they need more teachers, or they need more special 
education, or they need more technology, some computers, some 
laboratories. We understand that the needs are different. They are not 
all alike in every community in this Nation. Our approach is to give 
those communities the opportunity to make the decisions on what they 
will do with the money that we will provide through the block grant.
  Mr. Speaker, for years and years in this country of ours, people 
opposed Federal aid to education, and the reason that I heard from my 
constituents and many of my colleagues heard from their constituents, 
is that they were not opposed to the Federal Government being 
interested in education, but they did not want the Federal strings that 
came from Washington. They did not want the strings that came with 
Federal aid. They preferred to go it on their own, which they do 95 
percent of the time anyway, with local and State funds.
  However, now we are talking about more involvement on the part of the 
Federal Government from the standpoint of centralized education from 
their side than from the standpoint of a block grant as far as we are 
concerned. We think we are on the right side, and that is the position 
that we have taken; and that is the position we are going to stand by, 
and that is the position we are going to support today by opposing this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman from Florida, my good friend, the chairman of the committee, 
to make it very clear that our position is that this Congress builds 
highways, bridges, and responds to emergencies.
  When I began with this issue in 1996, we had a $112 billion 
emergency. It is

[[Page 25322]]

now a $300 billion emergency. We believe that we can assist local 
governments by lowering their property taxes and responding to these 
emergencies, and then support the Rangel-Johnson bipartisan bill that 
will also help local governments, because they make the decisions, we 
help with the financing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), my good colleague and my friend on the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership in championing this issue over the years, the issue of 
school construction.
  Anyone who is a parent or anyone who has been a child, so that 
includes all of us, is familiar with the expression, the children are 
listening. Indeed, the children do listen. They hear us telling them 
that education is key to their personal fulfillment and their success 
in life, that they must apply themselves in school so that they can 
succeed; and yet we send these same children a different message when 
we send them to schools that are dilapidated, that are not even capable 
of being wired for the future and are very, very unconducive to study.
  What do children think if we say this is a value, it is very 
important that you get a good education and by the way, we are placing 
a very low value on it when it comes to the place in which we want you 
to study. We spend money, the taxpayers' money here on research that we 
all herald as important, and that research tells us that children do 
better in smaller classes and indeed, that they do better in smaller 
schools, Mr. Speaker.
  The distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 
documented the need very clearly, a growing need, more than doubled 
since 1996 for these improvements, these modernizations, or these 
replacements of these schools. How can the Republican majority ignore 
the scientific basis, which we fund and support and praise, about 
children needing smaller classes and doing much better in those 
circumstances, by not insisting that the funds that we put aside for 
school construction and modernization, for smaller classes, not be used 
for that purpose?
  So I commend the gentlewoman for her motion, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it, because, Mr. Speaker, the children are listening. Let us 
not send them a confused message.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Representative Lowey's Motion to 
Instruct the Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees to support the 
Democratic initiative on school construction. Unfortunately, the 
Republican leadership has continually refused to support vital funding 
to help local communities reduce class size at public schools.
  America's schools are teaching more students than ever before and 
generally, our schools work for most students. However, we can improve 
our public schools by focusing our efforts on underperforming schools 
and low-income areas with ongoing problems. We can overcome this 
significant problem--the infrastructure and facilities at our schools 
require modernization and investment.


                           what is the need?

  Today, school enrollments are higher than ever, with a record 53.2 
million children enrolled in our schools. By 2008, another million 
students will be in America's schools.
  By 2003, to meet rising student enrollments, America will need 
another 2,400 new schools.
  The average American public school is 42 years old. After 40 years, 
school buildings begin to deteriorate rapidly and repair costs soon 
exceed the costs to construct new schools.
  According to the GAO report ``School Facilities: The Condition of 
America's Schools'', one-third of all schools need extensive repairs or 
replacement.


            what would it cost to address these conditions?

  According to a 1996 GAO report, it would cost $112 billion to repair 
our schools. According to a 2000 National Education Association report, 
it would cost $322 billion to repair our schools.


                             would it help?

  Smaller class sizes are important because studies demonstrate that 
reduced class size leads to more individual attention and increased 
accountability.
  We know that this investment in school construction would benefit our 
schools, our teachers, and most importantly our children. I have heard 
personal stories about: teachers teaching in converted bathrooms; 
students eating lunch in shifts starting at 9:45 due to overcrowding; 
leaky roofs and exposed lead paint leading to health and safety 
hazards.
  These conditions are intolerable, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the 
Motion to Instruct and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
Motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we will attempt to stay within our 
time limits that we were assigned.
  I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), 
who is not only an educator in his own right, but is chairman of the 
committee responsible for authorizing educational issues.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, this is a very curious motion to instruct. 
In fact, it is the most curious motion to instruct I have seen in 26 
years.
  Why? Well, first of all, it was originally drafted and submitted to 
this body on September 19. That is right, September 19, 5 weeks ago. At 
that time we had not begun the negotiations with the White House or our 
friends in the minority party on what the final appropriations 
agreement would include or not include. At this point, to instruct the 
House and Senate conferees in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation 
bills on issues that have already been thoroughly discussed and 
tentatively agreed to, and in other instances totally agreed to, just 
does not make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is irrelevant given the status of our 
negotiations; and as such, I oppose the gentlewoman's motion, as should 
anyone who is working in good faith to successfully conclude work on 
the bill.
  I want to thank Members of both parties and the White House 
representatives for working tirelessly the last 9 days, including last 
Saturday and Sunday, day and night, to fashion an agreement in which 
Members from both parties can take pride. It is my hope that when our 
work is complete, we will continue funding to assist schools in their 
efforts to reduce class size with qualified teachers.
  As I tried to point out to the President when he came up with this 
idea, which was political more than anything else, 100,000 teachers for 
15,000 school districts and 1 million classrooms; and I said, if we do 
not have quality people to put in there, it will not matter. I do not 
care how we reduce the teacher-student ratio. And guess what? The first 
30 percent that were hired, the first 30 percent that were hired under 
this new program were not qualified.

                              {time}  1245

  Where did they go? They went to the same school districts that 
already had 30, 40, and 50 percent of unqualified teachers already 
where they needed the very best teachers.
  Again, I tried to point out unless we put the horse before the cart, 
that is what is going to happen.
  Last year we negotiated it, and I think it came out well, because 
what we said last year was that 25 percent of the money could be used 
to improve the quality of the teachers they presently have. Now, does 
not that make sense? Why would I hire someone who is not qualified, 
rather than train someone who is already in the system who shows great 
potential?
  We said 25 percent of the money can be used for that purpose, but we 
said if we have 10 percent or more of unqualified teachers, and at the 
time we were negotiating I was using a city not too far from 
Pennsylvania, where they had 50 percent unqualified teachers, we said 
you can use 100 percent of your money to improve the teachers that you 
presently have. That was agreed upon. That makes sense.
  I am pleased to say that we have been able to reach that same 
agreement this particular year, and all schools with a high priority of 
teachers that are not qualified will have the flexibility to use that 
100 percent to improve the existing teachers.
  Now, it has taken the administration to realize the fallacy of 
reducing class size by ignoring teacher quality all of this time. I am 
so pleased, as I told the negotiators as soon as we started, I am so 
glad that here for the last year and a half down Pennsylvania Avenue 
the

[[Page 25323]]

word is quality, quality, quality, quality, because people on the 
committee, of which I chair, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce are tired of hearing that word, too, I am sure.
  That is the most important part about class-size reduction, having a 
quality teacher, the most important element as to whether a child 
succeeds or not is that classroom teacher next to the parent.
  We have made some progress on the issue of school construction. As I 
said, we have met for 9 straight days and nights. I made it clear to 
the administration that State and local flexibility must be a component 
of Federal funding for classroom modernization and renovation. It is 
important to see a significant portion of the funding available for 
other pressing needs.
  Again, who knows better? We or the local district? I believe it is 
the local district. Again, I go back and point out that had we stepped 
up to the plate with the 40 percent that we said would come with 
special ed, 40 percent of the per pupil cost throughout this country 
that we would send, Los Angeles alone would have received more than $90 
million extra every year.
  Multiple that by 25, that sounds like a good bit of maintenance money 
to me to prevent schools from crumbling. New York City would have 
gotten $160 million extra every year. But we never meet those needs, we 
just say we will go on and create something new, some other mandate, 
and forget about what it was we promised to these very people.
  What happened? They had to use their money. They had to use State 
money, and they had to use local money to meet our mandate. So they 
could not do the kinds of things they needed to do in school 
maintenance. The primary responsibility for construction, certainly, 
remains at the local level.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out again that this motion to instruct conferees 
at this particular time is irrelevant and it certainly is not 
constructive when we had the kind of negotiations that are going on at 
the present time that I hope will be completed in the very near future.
  Let the conferees do their job. They are making real headway.
  Let me point out one other thing. I think it is very important. 
Education technology, they have already indicated they will provide $2 
million more than the President asked for.
  Education for the disadvantaged they have said, you will get $50 
million more than the President asked for.
  Impact aid, you will get $258 million more than the President asked 
for.
  Special ed, you will get $1 billion more than the President asked 
for.
  Education for homeless children, you will get $2.3 million more than 
the President asked for.
  Rehabilitation services, you will get $20 million more than the 
President asked for.
  Vocational and adult education, you will get $5 million more than the 
President asked for.
  Student financial aid, you will get $300 million more than the 
President asked for.
  Historically black colleges, you will get $60 million more than the 
President asked for.
  The Hispanic-serving institutions, you get $6 million more than the 
President asked for.
  TRIO, so important in higher ed, you will get $35 million more than 
the President asked for.
  Higher Ed, you will get $20 million more than the President asked 
for.
  Department of Education, $600 million.
  In a bipartisan fashion, I believe they have done a good job, and I 
believe they are continuing to do that. I certainly do not believe my 
colleagues should interfere at this particular time and try to instruct 
conferees, who in a bipartisan fashion with the help of the White House 
are doing a pretty fine job in bringing this to a final positive goal 
that both sides will be very pleased with.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that the 
use of personal electronic communication devices are prohibited on the 
Floor of the House. Members are to disable wireless telephones before 
entering the Chamber.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), my friend, who has served so well in 
education, that I would hope that the leadership would fund the teacher 
quality initiative, because I know of our mutual interest in training 
our teachers.
  I would like to acknowledge to the group that the President's 
reduction in class-size initiative has reduced the average size of a 
class by five, which has made a real difference in teaching young 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), my good friend.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what kind of message do we send our 
children when their community and when this Nation boasts new, elegant 
shopping malls and new expensive sports stadiums while our kids are 
forced to learn in overcrowded, crumbling schools?
  I support the Lowey motion to instruct because we cannot expect our 
children to get a first-rate education in second-rate and third-rate 
school buildings.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent GAO study found that 60 percent of our Nation's 
schools need at least one major repair or they need replacement. It is 
time to show our children that their school is equally as important as 
a new mall or a new stadium. It is time to show our children that they 
are important.
  We must vote for the Lowey motion. It is a vote that makes our 
children, 25 percent of our population but 100 percent of our future, 
our highest priority.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished leader in education, a member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my colleague, for bringing 
this issue.
  I live on Long Island, and everybody thinks everyone on Long Island 
is rich. Let me tell my colleagues all of my schools are over 50 years 
old. A lot of my schools have boilers that are over 100 years old. What 
does that have to do with it?
  We are sending a message to our children that we do not care about 
them to modernize our schools. I bring it as a health care issue. I 
have high rates of asthma among my young children because of the 
conditions of our schools. We here in Congress have to make a full 
commitment all the way around.
  We have to make sure our schools are the best schools for our 
children to be in. I have been in schools where they are teaching our 
children with disabilities out in the hallway.
  I can tell my colleagues personally, if you have learning 
disabilities, you have to have a quiet setting, not somewhere where you 
are hearing everything out in the background. People with hearing 
problems are being taught in hallways and closets. The bathrooms, I am 
telling my colleagues, it is horrible.
  This is what we are supposed to be doing. This is the money that we 
should be giving to our children. Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone will 
vote for this motion. We have to take education seriously.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez), my colleague who is a distinguished leader on 
education.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Lowey 
motion to instruct. School construction is an issue with broad 
bipartisan support.
  This week, we had the opportunity to pass the President's school 
construction bill. It would reduce class sizes in early grades, hire 
20,000 new teachers, raise student achievement and make urgent safety 
and help repairs in 5,000 schools in low-income areas. Instead, 
Republicans did their own version, a watered-down version, that 
postponed any school construction for up to 4

[[Page 25324]]

years and did little for our needed schools.
  I want to remind my colleagues, it is one thing to play games with 
sham legislation here in Congress. It is another thing to send a child 
to school in the boiler room or a broom closet or the hallway of a 
broken-down school, like we in New York and too many any other 
communities Nationwide. Too often, those affected are at-risk children 
living in minority neighborhoods.
  This is not the way to treat our most precious resource, the young 
people who will follow in our footsteps in this great institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I support and I urge my colleagues to support this 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work and I associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our 
education chairman.
  I have the greatest respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) and for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and I want 
to take two comments they made and try and bring this to fact and 
reality.
  First of all, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said that 
the children of America are listening. Well, I doubt if many of them 
are right now, but I hope they all are and I hope their parents are as 
well because Mrs. Lowey made one statement of fact that is absolutely 
correct and then bundled around it the delusions that many are trying 
to portray on this floor as a lack of commitment on one side or the 
other to education when, in fact, I would submit to my colleagues that 
both sides are committed to it.
  The gentlewoman's fact that was correct was that there is an unfunded 
need in America of $303 billion for classroom construction; that is 
absolutely the exact number published in the report she cited. What she 
did not tell my colleagues is that the President's proposal to solve 
that is $1.3 million in the appropriations act, which is three-tenths 
of 1 percent and would take 35 years of annual appropriations just to 
meet today's need, if there was no other need in the future.
  The fact of the matter is, our difference is let us do something that 
is meaningful and within our scope. Let us not try and lead an illusion 
that we are going to fix every stairwell or replace every school. The 
negotiators right now have said, let us agree on school construction, 
let us agree on it to do those Federally mandated things, such as IDEA, 
asbestos removal, health safety and welfare of our children. That is 
what they are negotiating right there.
  We are not talking about building and replacing every school in 
America. We are talking about an illusion in this motion that we would 
do that when we cannot.
  The reason I say illusion is because the distinguished lady from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) said this would give property tax relief to her 
constituents. Property taxes are what schools are built upon in the 
local level. If we ever pass the false hope that we can build the 
schools America needs, the demand of which is greater than our surplus 
today, then there would never be a local bond issue passed, and 
American education would be a travesty.
  Second, on school size and classroom size. Last year, the Republicans 
and the Democrats agreed on classroom size reduction. It is in the 
budget now. It just simply says that we must also have trained teachers 
in the classroom, not just teachers in the classroom.
  On this Wednesday, Secretary Riley and our committee and many Members 
on the floor on the other side heard it. When asked the question, are 
there 100,000 trained and certified unemployed teachers to be hired; 
well, no, there are not. There are many that need training to be 
brought up to date, which is why last year's agreement was to be able 
to use the funds to hire new teachers or to train teachers that exist 
at the local level who are not certified.

                              {time}  1300

  We are on the cusp, the negotiators are right now. We are on the cusp 
right now. We agreed basically on classroom size reduction that was 
done last year and redone this year. We are now about to agree on what 
is meaningful in construction but also doable in construction.
  If the children are listening and the parents are listening, 
Democrats and Republicans are this close to making a real solution and 
a meaningful contribution to education.
  But this motion portends that we can do what they know we cannot, 
that we would make a false promise to the American people; and that 
would be wrong for us to do in a motion, just as well as it would be 
wrong for us lead people to believe we could do it in a budget.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that 
remarks in the House are to be directed to the Chair, and not to other 
persons outside the Chamber.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson). We are talking about an emergency $1.3 billion 
to respond to the emergency that is out there because this Congress has 
not acted in spite of the crumbling schools. Then we would like to pass 
the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson bill that would provide tax relief for 
the local government, which is a tax bill that would provide for the 
tax on the bonds that will be issued by the local government.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the remarks made initially by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Both 
spoke very rationally. They spoke to the point. I wish we could have 
more of that kind of debate.
  But there is a difference, I tell the gentleman from Georgia, and it 
is a significant difference. It is a substantive difference. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), when he made his presentation, said 
that the difference between us is that we want Washington to decide and 
they want the LEAs to decide, the local education agencies to decide. 
Because it is their proposition, effectively, that the money that they 
have included in is not targeted for school construction, indeed, not 
targeted, per se, for teachers, but is a revenue-sharing program. That 
is essentially the flexibility. I am sorry that you grimace.
  But the fact of the matter is the rhetoric on their side has 
continually been that the locals can decide. Some people may need 
classrooms. Some may need additional teachers. But some may need 
computers. Some may need recreational facilities. They will have the 
flexibility.
  Now, I suggest to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) that he is 
correct that this amendment will not solve the classroom shortage in 
America. No amendment could do that. No bill in one year could do that.
  What this amendment, however, seeks to say, I tell the gentleman, is 
that we at the Federal level have identified two very significant 
critical problems. One, we do not have sufficient classrooms in America 
to house the swelling number of students in America. Two, we do not 
have sufficient teachers, quality teachers to teach those children.
  There are other problems in America. But as we do on so many of the 
educational programs that my colleagues referenced and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in particular referenced, we say there 
is a problem here. We are going to put some dollars. LEA, if one wants 
to solve the problem here, are the dollars to do it.
  That is the difference between us. We do not want to turn this $1.5 
billion into simply a grab bag. It is for emergencies that exist in 
school construction and safety.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is exactly correct. The

[[Page 25325]]

gentleman ignored the tax component of this, which spends $5 billion or 
$6 billion to leverage five times that or 500 percent times that, five 
times that to $25 billion in bonds that can be issued by local 
governments.
  Now, who decides to hire the teachers? The local government. Who 
decides whether to build the schools? The local government. The Federal 
Government does not make that selection, nor does it demand that the 
local governments do that.
  To that extent, I suggest to my colleagues that, when they represent 
that we want government at the Federal level to decide, that is a 
misrepresentation and not useful for this debate. The issue really is 
whether or not we have a targeted sum or we have a general sum. The 
general sum clearly, I tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
will not solve the school construction problem or the teacher problem.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 
helping me make the case that I set out to make a few minutes ago, 
partially helping make that case I would say.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) for his support for quality public education in the 
United States of America.
  As I was sitting here, Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate and 
hearing the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce speaking, it occurred to me 
that he has worked an entire lifetime for education in the United 
States of America. This may be one of the last speeches that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) will be able to make on 
the floor of the House with regard to education.
  I salute him for an entire career devoted to quality public 
education, flexibility at the local level, and the absence of Federal 
mandates. That is really the difference in philosophy that we are 
talking about here on the floor of this House on this Saturday 
afternoon.
  I have two children in public schools in Mississippi. I support 
public education. I have a record of supporting public education, not 
only in this Congress, but also when I was a State legislator. We all 
support quality public education, and there is not a Member within the 
sound of my voice this afternoon in the House of Representatives or in 
the other body that does not support better school facilities and 
better school construction. We would all like to have better school 
buildings all across the United States of America.
  The question is, how can we as a Nation get the job done. This points 
out the difference in philosophy. Regardless of what the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the previous speaker, said, there is a strong 
difference in the way we would approach this bill.
  Now, my friends on the Democratic side see a need somewhere in the 
United States of America, and they immediately see a Washington, DC 
Federal solution to the problem. We on the other hand, particularly 
when it comes to education, when we see an education problem, we try to 
find out how best to solve that problem at the local level and how to 
provide the flexibility and authority to local governments to solve 
those problems.
  Now, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) pointed out, and as 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) pointed out, there are over 
$300 billion in school construction needs right now. Those needs, 
undoubtedly, will go up. She terms them an emergency. The President's 
proposal would fund only a very, very small percentage of those 
problems.
  But what if we start out this year at $1.5 billion, Mr. Speaker? What 
will that program look like with all the Federal bureaucracy and all of 
the regulations that it will entail, what will it look like in 5 years? 
I say we can expect a Federal program of about $15 billion in 5 years. 
A few years later, we might have a program of $150 billion. That is the 
way it always works.
  I implore my colleagues to vote against this motion today. If there 
is any notion left of local control over school construction decisions, 
we will oppose this motion. Let us provide more flexibility for 
education at the local level.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), someone who really knows 
about this issue because he was the former superintendent of schools in 
North Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as I listen to the 
debate today, this is the same debate that I heard over 4 years ago 
when I decided to run for this body, because I was so disgusted as a 
State superintendent at a Republican leadership that was going to 
abolish the Department of Education, reduce school lunches, and the 
list is long. That would have directly impacted in the most negative of 
ways the children of this country.
  Now we are saying we do not really need to put in school 
construction. We will do this; we will do that. Let me explain to my 
colleagues very quickly, if I may, because the Republican leadership's 
tactic, in my opinion, may have changed. But their cynical game is the 
same. Back then, the revolutionaries wanted to do all the things I have 
talked about.
  Today they continue to play politics by blocking what I think is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation to build schools. Bottom line, $25 
billion will build schools. Local units will determine where it is. All 
we do is pay the interest.
  Let me tell my colleagues what one of the House leadership Members 
said yesterday. We are winning the education debate. That is not my 
words. They are published in today's Record.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this loud and clear. Our children are too 
important to fall victim to partisan politics. Bottom line, the quality 
of education that we provide our children today will literally 
determine the future of the kind of Nation that we are going to have in 
the 21st century. This is not a game.
  Despite the cynical politics the Republican leadership is talking 
about, this is about our children. The stakes are high. I say let us 
pass it. I support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lowey motion. It is long 
past time for this Congress to do the right thing on school 
construction. Four years ago, I sought this office because I was sick 
and tired of watching Republican politicians in Washington playing 
politics with our children's future. The Republican leadership's 
tactics may have changed, but their cynical game is still the same. 
Back then, the Republican revolutionaries were trying to cut school 
lunches, slash student loans and shut down the entire Education 
Department. Today, they continue to play politics by blocking our 
bipartisan school construction bill because their goal is partisan 
politics. The House Republican Leader yesterday said, ``we are winning 
the education debate.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this loud and clear: our children are too 
important to fall victim to partisan politics. The quality of the 
education we provide our children today will literally determine the 
kind of nation we will become in the 21st century. This is not a game, 
despite the cynical politics of the Republican leaders. This is about 
what kind of future our children are going to have in this country. The 
stakes could not be higher. Right now, we have a crisis in this 
country. Throughout America children are stuffed into overcrowded 
classrooms, trapped in run-down schools and stuck in makeshift 
trailers. We in this Congress have an opportunity and a responsibility 
about this crisis by passing meaningful school construction legislation 
for our children. I call on the Republican leadership to call off their 
partisan tactics and pass the bipartisan school construction bill--now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say we are not 
talking about construction, we are talking about maintenance and 
renovation. It would really be a joke if we were talking about 
construction at $1.3 billion.

[[Page 25326]]

  I also want to compliment North Carolina in the last 4 years. In the 
last 4 years, North Carolina has made dramatic steps forward in their 
public education system. In the last 4 years, they did not come to 
Washington and ask them to do it for them or tell them how to do it 
either.
  But I would hope that we start thinking more in terms of quality and 
not quantity. I would hope we would start thinking in terms of results 
and not process.
  My colleagues talk about flexibility and the whole idea of pupil-
teacher ratio. Let me give my colleagues one example how something that 
looked good went awry. In the very next school district to my school 
district, they got two teachers federally financed. Their ability to 
finance their own system is much greater than the one that I live in, 
which I pay $4,000 school tax. So I do not mind paying my income tax to 
help the city of York. But it does not make sense that I am buying two 
teachers when I am already paying in my own district far more school 
tax then they are paying in the district where they are more affluent.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) use her time. I think she has considerably 
more time left than I do.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), our gracious chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Johnson-
Rangel bill. It is a bipartisan bill that provides a tax credit to deal 
with the school districts we have been discussing this morning and the 
school construction problem. It is a bill that preserves local control 
to school districts to decide how to spend the money.
  Now, we all say we are for aid with school construction, with money 
which is the subject of the motion to instruct, and the tax credit. But 
we need to get serious about this because the devil is now in the 
details.
  What I want to highlight to my colleagues is the fear I have that, in 
the final appropriations bill, there either will be nothing on school 
construction for tax credits, or there will be the language that we 
voted on the other day, which I find extremely unacceptable because it 
does two things that I think insult the intelligence of anyone that 
supports school construction aid.
  The first thing is the arbitrage issue, which says to a school 
district that, if they borrow money to build schools and they hold that 
money for 3 or 4 years, they get a benefit in a tax credit. No school 
district is going to borrow money to build schools and let it sit there 
3 or 4 years.
  The second is, we have created a brand-new program called Private 
Activity Bonds for School Districts. In my district, building schools 
is a public responsibility, not a private activity. We need to do it 
the right way through the Johnson-Rangel bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) to instruct conferees on dedicated funding 
for class size reduction and school renovation.
  The school classroom size reduction program is helping the schools in 
my home State of New Mexico. Of the $9.6 million that was awarded to 
New Mexico school districts, 87 percent was used to hire an additional 
230 teachers, 9 percent for professional development, 2 percent for 
administration, and 2 percent for recruiting and training of teachers.
  These are dollars that are targeted and managed at the local level. 
This is not about Washington versus local control. This program 
supports local school districts to hire teachers. The locals do the 
hiring.

                              {time}  1315

  The locals do the hiring. We are for the locals and for local control 
and local control management of our schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion of the gentlelady 
from New York to instruct conferees on dedicated funding for Class Size 
Reduction and School Renovation.
  The Classroom Size Reduction Program is helping the schools in my 
home state of New Mexico.
  The amount awarded to my state for the 1999-2000 school year was $9.6 
million.
  Depending on the amount of funds received by the school district, 
funds could be used to recruit, hire, and train certified teachers and 
be used for professional development.
  Of the $9.6 million that was awarded to New Mexico school districts, 
87 percent was used to hire an additional 230 teachers, 9 percent for 
professional development, 2 percent for administration, and 2 percent 
for recruiting and training of teachers. These are dollars targeted and 
managed at the local level.
  As you can see Mr. Speaker the Class Size Reduction program has had a 
huge amount of success in my state and district--as I'm sure it has in 
my fellow colleagues' states and districts.
  In the area of School Construction in my State: 69% of schools report 
at least one inadequate building feature (e.g., roof, plumbing, 
electrical, etc.) 75% of schools report at least one unsatisfactory 
environmental factor (e.g., air quality, heating, lighting, etc.)
  Enrollment in New Mexico increased 12.3% over the last decade. And 
current estimates indicate that my state faces a $1.8 billion cost for 
school modernization, including $1.4 billion for infrastructure and 
$340 million for technology needs.
  By supporting the President's request for $1.3 billion for grants and 
loans for emergency renovations--Schools in New Mexico and across the 
country would be able to compete for funds allocated to the state to 
assist them in their school construction needs.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education we need not think of the 
politics which divides this chamber and polarizes our work. When we 
talk about education we need to think about our teachers who teach in 
over crowded classrooms.
  We need to think about our students who are being taught in crumbling 
classrooms and schools.
  We need to think about these current problems--And we need to act 
now, and act today by supporting the President's education agenda and 
supporting our nation's teachers and students. Our students and their 
families, and our country cannot afford anything less.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a town of 
20,000 people, the middle school was closed because walls were 
literally crumbling, threatening the safety of students. Now the middle 
school students are crammed into the town's overcrowded high school 
which has leaking roofs.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the majority passed a bill that assigned 
$2.5 billion over 5 years for school construction bonds to build and 
repair schools. In the very same bill they assigned $18 billion, seven 
times as much, in business tax cuts over the same 5 years. Those 
business tax cuts included increasing the business tax deduction for 
meals from 50 to 70 percent and repealing several taxes on producers 
and marketers of alcoholic beverages. Remember, the three-martini 
lunches? That is a very clear picture of wrong priorities.
  This is October 28. We are 4 weeks into the fiscal year, CR number 
eight, and our work is not done. This is the longest session in the 
history of the Nation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a leader on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
New York, for yielding me this time. I also want to commend the 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who I have 
served with for the last several years, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling).
  I rise in support of a partnership between the Federal level and our 
local communities to help on reducing class size, to help with 
discipline in the classroom, to help with parental involvement, to help 
with quality teachers.

[[Page 25327]]

  Something that I have worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis) on and with several Democrats and Republicans is to try to move 
and transition to teaching people with math and science and 
technological experience from mid-career positions into the classroom. 
That transition to teaching, to provide those people with expertise 
from Main Street into the classrooms, will help us in our local 
communities decide what to do about the challenges of educating all of 
our children. It is local accountability, it is local flexibility, but 
it is putting emphasis on quality teaching. I hope that this Congress 
will act in a bipartisan way on that.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for this initiative; and, frankly, I think the Baltimore Sun 
is right, this is a Republican gridlock. Because any parent in America 
who can say to me that they have not seen crumbling school buildings or 
overcrowded school buildings are probably not looking at the Nation's 
schools in the last 10 to 15 years.
  What we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a crisis, 
similar to the Marshall Plan after World War II. We need to confront 
schools on a national level to rebuild them. What we are trying to say 
is that this budget and appropriation bills that have been put forward 
by the Republicans do not address the crisis and the emergency.
  This is not a game. This is a serious effort to ensure that we leave 
here with local communities having tax credits and incentives to put 
the money directly on rebuilding the schools. It is plain and simple. 
That is why we are here on Saturday. That is why we will be here on 
Sunday. And that is why we will be here throughout the time, because we 
need to do the right thing.
  I want to see children in safe, secure, well-heated and proper 
schools. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing together.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I have heard all my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, tout some of the successes of the committee. I serve on that 
committee and am glad to serve under his leadership, but I might add 
that some of the successes that we tout we have not seen them signed 
into law. I think the chairman would admit that he has had difficulty 
with some of these even on his side.
  I heard the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) talk about how close 
we are and how sad it is that we cannot close that gap. He mentions 
that we are perhaps promoting something false on this side. There is 
nothing false about kids learning in closets, there is nothing false 
about children learning in bathrooms, there is nothing false about 
children learning in trailers connected to their schools.
  If we can find $.25 trillion a year to help build roads and highways 
and bridges; if we can find Federal dollars to build prisons, then we 
ought to be able to find some dollars to build schools for children. 
The only quota that my friends on the other side of the aisle support, 
and I have many friends on that side of the aisle and do not mean to 
cast aspersions, is the quota to raise the number of foreign workers we 
allow into our nation to hold down jobs which we cannot produce enough 
people in our country to do that.
  Let us pass this motion and do right by our children. I look forward 
to working with both chairmen to get this done.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, to advise my dear friend from New York that I will be yielding 
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) in just a minute, and then 
I will reserve the balance of my time so I can have a closing statement 
prior to the time the gentlewoman makes her statement.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
thank the chairman and to advise him that I believe I have two more 
brief speeches.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), but I just wanted the gentlewoman to know 
in advance what my plan was.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I have listened with great interest and with, sadly, some misgivings 
to the tone of this debate. Let me start with a point of agreement. My 
friend from North Carolina and my neighbor from New Mexico said this is 
not a game. They are exactly right. How sad it is, then, that such 
partisan invective is brought into this debate.
  As the father of two children in the Cave Creek Unified School 
District in Arizona, I have a firsthand knowledge of the challenges 
teachers face in the classroom, of the special challenges of growth in 
that school district, of the bond issue that will be on the ballot in a 
few short days. I heard the litany of challenges outlined on this side. 
I would not take issue with the reality of the need that is there. But 
I am compelled to point out the fact to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
that just 2 days ago we empowered local districts with over $16 billion 
to deal with a variety of projects.
  My friend from Pennsylvania, under his leadership, we have moved for 
the full Federal component of funding for children with special needs, 
a promise made nearly a quarter century ago that was left unfulfilled.
  There reaches a point, my colleagues, when we must put people before 
politics. Join with us in the broad goals of empowering local 
districts, parents in the homes, teachers in the classroom, leaders in 
the communities, and give them the latitude they need.
  Sadly, I must ask my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct and 
deal with the reality and come together in an agreement that is good 
for every child in this country.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago, in the City of 
Cleveland, at a high school called East High School, the roof fell in. 
I called the Department of Education and said, ``Is there emergency 
money at the Federal level to assist my public school in a situation 
like this?'' Sadly, it was reported that there was none.
  In Ohio, the Supreme Court has determined that the way in which 
schools are funded throughout Ohio is unconstitutional. It is done by 
way of property tax. So that means that in one city in Ohio $2,000 is 
spent on education per capita, but in another city in Ohio $15,000 is 
spent on each child per capita.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct because our 
schools need funding and assistance.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to rise in support of this very important motion to instruct. 
Over the last year, I have taken the opportunity to visit every school 
in my district, and I have seen students trying to learn in hallways, 
in bathrooms, in closets, and cafeterias. It is time to do something to 
help our local school districts.
  This is not about the Federal Government stepping in and telling 
local school districts what to do, it is about working in partnership 
with our school districts all over the country, whether they be in 
rural or urban or suburban or fast-growing districts.
  I urge this body to support the motion to instruct. There is nothing 
more important we can do for our future and for our children.
  I rise today in support of the School Construction Motion to Instruct 
Conferees, because I believe the last days of this Congress present us 
with a clear choice. We can help

[[Page 25328]]

communities hire 100,000 new teachers, reduce class size, and modernize 
schools or we can pass block grants that don't ensure that a single new 
teacher will be hired or a single classroom built.
  My district, the Second Congressional District of Colorado, is a 
microcosm of the American West. It is urban, suburban and rural, high 
growth and unspoiled mountain communities. For all of my districts 
diversity of terrain and community size, it is a district of crumbling 
schools.
  Since coming to Congress last year, I have traveled to every high 
school in my district. I can tell you there are far too many kids 
crammed in classrooms of 30 or more and far too many students trying to 
work in modular or temporary spaces like trailers. One High School I 
visited (one of the newer schools) is already surpassing its growth 
projections. High Schools built in the 1970s and designed for 
graduating classes of 200-300 students, now face numbers that are two 
and three times that.
  I am not happy to be here on a Saturday morning, nearly a month into 
the fiscal year, to encourage the Majority to make good on their stated 
goal of improving education. I would rather be at home with my family, 
among my constituents, but I am here because a firm commitment to 
school modernization and construction is needed nationwide. With this 
vote we can send a message to the Majority that it is time to target 
funds to build much needed new schools and to rebuild our crumbling 
schools.
  While time is running short, I believe there is still time to do 
right by our nation's children.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my 
good friend, for yielding me this time. We represent similar areas in 
New York, Bronx County, Westchester County; and we know there are 
problems with schools in those counties.
  We need to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to get our schools' 
classes down in size so there are no more than 18 students per class. 
We will need to build new schools, hire 100,000 teachers and fix and 
repair crumbling school buildings.
  I am the father of three children. I am a former teacher; my wife is 
a former teacher, I was a guidance counselor. There is nothing more 
important to the future of this Nation than to get our class sizes 
down. Any parent knows that the less children there are in a classroom 
the more the children can learn and get personalized attention.
  So I support this instruction for conferees. I think we should move 
in a bipartisan fashion to fund our schools, and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this.
  Again, we need 100,000 teachers, we need to build new schools, and 
fix and repair crumbling school buildings.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One point I would like to make to the gentlewoman 
that said there was no money for her schools is that the Department of 
Education's books have been unauditable. In one year, one year, they 
have over $100 million of student loans they cannot even account for. 
All of the agencies need to be digitalized so that they can at least 
track the funds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman from New York for bringing up this issue because this is a 
good debate. We need to be discussing this issue.
  I heard some things on that side that I agreed with. In fact, I heard 
one of my colleagues on the other side say that this should be a 
partnership. Mr. Speaker, I agree, this should be a partnership. That 
is where both partners have equal enjoyment of the authority and the 
jurisdiction. But under the motion to instruct, I just have the feeling 
and I am really convinced that this would be a one-sided partnership 
with the Federal Government being by far the most senior partner.
  Now, that really disturbs me, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) just made the case that the Department of Education could 
not account for $100 million worth of student loans last year and could 
not audit their accounts. Now, I do not think I want that educational 
department running the school districts in Pinellas County, Florida, 
where I have the privilege of representing the teachers and the 
students and the parents. But we will soon vote on this issue, and we 
are going to decide whether or not we want the Federal Government and 
Federal aid with all kinds of strings on it to our local systems.
  But I want to make this as a closing argument. We believe strongly in 
education, and the money that we have already agreed to provide is in 
excess of what the President requested.

                              {time}  1330

  Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. The money that we are agreeing to 
provide as we speak today is in excess of what the President of the 
United States asked for. As we negotiate the final agreement on this 
appropriations bill, I am convinced that that number will be even 
higher. So we are not arguing about the dollars. What we are arguing 
about is who controls the dollars. Our position is that the dollars 
should be controlled by the people in the school districts, where they 
know what their needs are far better than the Department of Education 
or some other bureaucracy here in Washington, DC.
  And then I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. I have spent a lot of my 
time in the Congress, my assignment being national defense, national 
security, intelligence, and I am proud of the fact that we have a 
tremendous military capability. We have the best kids serving in our 
uniforms. They are all not kids but the vast majority of them are. I 
have visited with almost every one of the sailors aboard the U.S.S. 
Cole who were injured. I visited with them as they came home, I visited 
with them in the hospital, I even visited with some of them in their 
ambulances. They are kids. But they provide a strong national defense.
  We do not have the largest Army by a long shot. There are five or six 
other countries with a much larger army than we have. In Desert Storm 
we had 18 divisions. Today we only have 10. That is a tremendous 
downsizing which I do not agree with. But we have a technological 
advantage. We have created superior technology, superior weapons 
systems, and we have smart young people who are able to handle these 
defense systems. That is important, because without a strong national 
security, most of these other things we argue about would not even be 
arguable. In fact, without a strong national security, this Congress 
probably would not even be here; we would not exist. Some dictator 
would be running this country.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, that without a good, strong, effective 
educational system, we could not develop the technology that we have 
developed, that is super, that is better than any other in the world. 
There are still others out there that have nuclear weapons and have all 
kinds of threats they could pose to the United States. But we have the 
great technology, and we have the young men and women who are able to 
handle, to manage, to administer that technology. If we do not maintain 
and continue to improve our educational systems, the ability to defend 
this country deteriorates as we allow our educational systems to 
deteriorate.
  We believe in a strong education. We are determined to provide for a 
strong and effective education. But we understand that when we are 
dealing with K-12 and local educational communities and local schools 
and local teachers, that the decisions on whether they need new schools 
or whether they need more new teachers or whether they need special 
education, whether they need more books, whether they need computers, 
those needs should be determined in the school district, by the people 
who know what their needs are, not by the Department of Education in 
Washington, D.C. who cannot even account for $100 million worth of 
student loans this last year.
  I hope we reject this motion to instruct the conferees. Let the 
conferees continue on the track that we are on now, which is providing 
more money for education but guaranteeing that

[[Page 25329]]

local people, local teachers, local taxpayers, local parents will have 
control over how that money is spent.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go unanswered the comments of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the chairman about the Department 
of Education, who, when they had some difficulty in one of their 
audits, responded more quickly than any other agency I can remember in 
righting that ship.
  It is amazing for people that do not want to get partisan, they 
neglect to note the fact that the Department of Defense financial 
statements for 1998 were less timely than ever and a record $1.7 
trillion of unsupported adjustments were identified by auditors. The 
same was true roughly in the following year. They do not ask for the 
Department of Defense to be closed down, but both the Texas platform of 
the Republican Party and this party on the other side of the aisle is 
in favor of closing the Department of Education. They should be ashamed 
of raising an issue like that.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My good friend and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
been doing a lot of talking during this campaign about education. We 
hear about how important education is. Yet they want to close down the 
Department of Education. I want to make it very clear. I have visited 
schools all over this country. I have seen young people who have to 
work in the shiny corporations because they do not have computers at 
their desk. There are wires hanging out of windows. Vandals will cut 
them at night. There are youngsters who have to run from one side of 
the building to the other side of the building because it is raining. 
The schools are crumbling.
  In 1996, the problem was $112 billion. Now it is $300 billion. If we 
can build roads, bridges, highways, prisons, then while we are 
assisting our local governments, we can provide the emergency aid to 
rebuild our schools. Our children deserve no less.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair reminds all persons in 
the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 150, 
nays 159, not voting 123, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 573]

                               YEAS--150

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NAYS--159

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                            NOT VOTING--123

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Visclosky
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wynn

                              {time}  1356

  Messrs. DeMINT, GILCHREST and GEKAS changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.

[[Page 25330]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________