[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25858-25868]
[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

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Holt 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 for 
     local school construction and, instead, broadly expands the 
     Title VI Education Block Grant with limited accountability in 
     the use of funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) each 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to speak today on why we are still in session in 
November and why we may have a lame duck session in front of us. In 
fact, I would like to speak about work not done. And I am not talking 
about the Patients' Bill of Rights or gun safety legislation or 
campaign finance reform or minimum wage legislation or workplace safety 
legislation or prescription medicine coverage under Medicare.
  Yes, that is some of the work that is not done. But in particular I 
would like to talk about overcrowding in our schools and the need to 
provide adequate classrooms for our students so that we may educate 
them for the 21st century.

                              {time}  1245

  I have visited nearly 100 schools in my district, and everywhere I go 
I hear from parents and teachers and administrators and students about 
the problems of overcrowding. It is no wonder. The number of school 
children is growing at a record pace. In the last 11 years, the student 
population of South Brunswick in my district has doubled from 3,500 to 
7,000 students. In Montgomery, total enrollment has more than doubled 
in the past 6 years from 1,500 students to more than 4,000 students.
  In some of my school districts, the number of children in 
kindergarten outnumbers the number of students in grade 12. One does 
not need higher mathematics to understand the implications of these 
numbers.
  Our classrooms are overcrowded. To alleviate this crowding, many of 
the schools in my district are installing trailers. Now, while trailers 
may be a temporary solution, they are ill-suited

[[Page 25859]]

for classroom use. Not only are they expensive to install and maintain, 
but their long, narrow floor plan creates an awkward learning 
environment.
  Moreover, in many cases they are not connected to the Internet; and 
of course, students get wet when it rains and they have to go to the 
main building. Many schools do not have a choice about whether or not 
to use trailers. With the cost of a new school at tens of millions of 
dollars, our property taxpayers can no longer afford to shoulder this 
financial burden alone. This is evident in the fact that a number of 
the school construction referenda in my district have had very close 
votes, some of them resulting in turning down the referendum and the 
inability of the school district to proceed with the construction.
  New Jersey communities, as in many other parts of the country, need 
assistance in building new classrooms and schools. A recent report 
issued by the National Education Association estimates that $322 
billion is needed to repair and modernize America's public schools and 
to construct new classrooms. Last month, the U.S. Department of 
Education issued its annual baby boom echo report that documents not 
only the record 53 million children in our Nation's schools today but 
projects explosive enrollment growth over the next 10 years. We cannot 
continue to delay on this issue. We should take care of this issue 
before we leave Washington.
  It is time we stopped talking about improving education and actually 
act on it. We have bipartisan legislation that the Republican 
leadership has refused to act on. The President's proposal, as 
introduced by Representative Johnson and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) would provide $25 billion in new tax credit bonds to help 
build and modernize 6,000 schools. This new type of bond would provide 
interest-free financing to help State and local governments pay for 
school construction and renovation. There would be no Federal 
involvement in the selection, in the design, in the implementation of 
school modernization projects. The only Federal role would be in 
providing tax-subsidized financing under the same procedures that are 
currently utilized for tax exempt bonds.
  In addition, the President has proposed $1.3 billion in loans and 
grants to fund 8,300 emergency renovation and repair projects in 
America's schools. This is for schools where there is a critical, 
immediate need such as dangerous electrical plumbing or asbestos 
problems.
  Now, this part of what I am talking about was in the agreement for 
the Labor-HHS, Education appropriations agreement that fell apart after 
the lobbyists for special interests forced the leadership to drop it 
over the issue of worker safety.
  Our schools should not be lost in the last-minute wrangling over 
these appropriations bills. Our schools must be made safe for our 
children. There is no logic in refusing to act on these important 
proposals. The Federal Government assists the States in other areas of 
local need. We give millions of dollars at the local level to help them 
build roads and bridges. We respond to emergencies.
  All of these are important areas of assistance but so are our 
children. We have a responsibility to ensure that our children are 
receiving the best education possible for all children and that our 
students are not falling over one another in crowded hallways and 
classrooms.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I have watched this debate taking 
place on the floor. This certainly is deja vu. This is about at least, 
I guess, the third time that we have had the exact same debate on the 
same issues. There are a couple of points that are very clear to me. 
One is that there are, I think, enormous problems with respect to 
school repairs, school construction across the United States of 
America. We have a growing population of school-age youth in our 
country, and I think we do need to address that. As a matter of fact, I 
think Republicans and Democrats agree on that. As a matter of fact, I 
think in terms of the dollars that are being allocated to this, there 
is agreement as well, particularly on the grant side of it, of the $1.3 
billion.
  The basic difference is how is that going to be done. Is it given to 
the local districts for flexibility, which is what the Republicans 
believe? Or should it be given directly from the Federal Government to 
wherever the schools are, which is what the Democrats believe?
  There is not that much disagreement.
  The other point is this: when we talk about that extent of money, we 
are talking about a very small percentage, less than one half of 1 
percent, I think about a third of 1 percent of the total needs which 
are out there, even by the most minimal standards. So I think it is 
somewhat unfair for any of us to stand here or for the President, for 
all that matters, to stand before the people of America and say that 
this is going to solve the problems of school construction.
  Hopefully, we can work something out eventually, and it is being 
worked on. It is in the language of the Labor-HHS Education bill that 
may come back before us; and when we do, we can help with the problem. 
But it is a fairly small contribution to the solution of the problem. I 
think it is something that we should do. The agreement is relatively 
sound. The disagreements are relatively minor, and we should go 
forward.
  I guess until that time we will play politics with it and continue 
ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am amused by this performance again today. I am amused 
because, of course, our constituents, if any of them are watching, I 
think in New Jersey they probably have already gone back from their 
lunch break and in Oregon they have not gone to their lunch break yet, 
so I do not know if anybody is watching; but if they are, they are very 
fortunate because they get to see the same play that was put on on the 
same stage Saturday afternoon. The only difference is, they replaced 
the leading ladies with the leading men. So that is the only difference 
today. Of course, the same thing is true today that was true on 
Saturday. We have settled this issue. We spent days and nights with the 
administration, Saturdays and Sundays, to settle this very issue.
  We have an agreement. They know on the other side that we have an 
agreement. We have an agreement on class size. They know that. So here 
we go through this same charade one more time. As I said, it is a 
replay of Saturday.
  Well, I always have to laugh when somebody mentions roads and 
bridges. Of course that is an interstate problem. That is also a 
dedicated tax problem. So it has nothing relevant to do with this; but 
again, time and time again, I have tried to tell, particularly center 
city representatives for 26 years, as a matter of fact, if they would 
just do something about their mandate, the special ed, can one imagine 
what local school districts would have been able to do with class size 
reduction? Can one imagine what local school districts could have done 
with preventative maintenance and remodeling? Well, of course, if we 
just look at the facts, we know. We know that Los Angeles, for 
instance, would get an additional $100 million every year. Multiply 
that by 25, and that sounds like pretty big money; New York City, $170 
million extra every year. That is big bucks. Even Newark would get $7 
million or $8 million, $9 million every year to do all the kind of 
things that they would do if they did not have to fund the Federal 
mandate.

[[Page 25860]]

  When I became chairman after all of those years of sitting there on 
the minority trying to encourage them along with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to do something about the unfunded special ed 
mandate, they were only up to 6 percent. I am happy to say at the end 
of this year we will probably be up to 15 percent and that is a long, 
long way.
  It is also interesting that this issue comes up again this particular 
year. Why is that interesting? Well, the former majority decided that 
in 1995 that they would pass the School Facilities Infrastructure 
Improvement Act. Now that is a big title. It sounds very interesting. 
That was passed in 1995, and the appropriators put $100 million in at 
that particular time. Guess what? Somebody brought about a recession to 
that effort. Now, who was that somebody? Somebody sent us a notice and 
they said, and I quote, ``The construction and renovation of school 
facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local 
governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers. We are opposed to 
the creation of a new Federal grant program for school construction. No 
funds are requested for this program in 1996. For the reason explained 
above, the administration opposes the creation of a new Federal grant 
program for school construction.''
  Is that not interesting in this same administration who is now 
seeking for something else?
  Let me again close by simply saying, I know there must be political 
purposes for this. There has to be some reason for it, but it has 
already been concluded. After lengthy negotiations, it has already been 
completed and agreed to by those of us who were negotiating and by the 
White House, as was and is the class size reduction legislation.
  So again it is just an exercise in futility. I do not know what it 
is, as a matter of fact; but obviously, as I said, not too many people 
in New Jersey and Oregon will be watching this debate, and that is 
unfortunate because they will not get to hear, if they did not hear it 
Saturday, the same repeat of what we did on Saturday.
  Mr. Speaker, negotiators have made substantial progress on the issue 
of school construction, and I am optimistic that we will soon be able 
to reach agreement on this issue.
  I have made it clear to the administration that state and local 
flexibility must be a component of federal funding for classroom 
modernization and renovation. I would like to see a substantial portion 
of the funding available for other pressing needs, such as activities 
related to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
  I am not doing this to be stubborn. School districts across America 
are clamoring for help with the additional costs of educating special 
needs children. When Congress passed the law requiring public schools 
to provide educational services to these children, we promised that the 
federal government would help with the increased costs.
  We promised to provide 40 percent of the national average per pupil 
expenditure. Here we are, 25 years later, and we are only at 13 
percent--significantly less than what we promised. And we've only 
reached that under the Republican Congress, because that 13 percent 
represents a doubling of what the federal government was providing when 
we became the Majority.
  The result of our failure to provide the promised funds is that 
school districts are using their own money to make up the shortfall. 
These are funds which could otherwise be used for school maintenance 
costs and other local needs. If the federal government were actually 
providing the 40 percent we promised, school districts across the 
country would receive significant funding:
  New York would receive an increase of more than $170 million;
  Los Angles would receive nearly $100 million more:
  Chicago would get an additional $76 million;
  Miami would receive an increase of $45 million; and
  Newark would receive an increase of $8 million.
  The primary responsibility for school construction should remain at 
the state and local levels. However, the federal government can provide 
assistance to help states and localities comply with federal laws that 
mandate school building modernization.
  The Administration has switched positions on whether the federal 
government has a role in school construction over time.
  The Congress under Democrat control appropriated $100 million for 
Fiscal Year 1995 for the School Facilities Infrastructure Improvement 
Act. But the President rescinded this, and subsequently, the program 
has received no funding.
  Following the rescission of funds for FY 1995, the President's FY 
1996 budget request did not include any money for the ``Education 
Infrastructure Act.'' In fact, Department of Education budget documents 
stated:

       The construction and renovation of school facilities has 
     traditionally been the responsibility of State and local 
     governments, financed primarily by local taxpayers; we are 
     opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant program for 
     school construction. . . . No funds are requested for this 
     program in 1996. For the reason explained above, the 
     Administration opposes the creation of a new Federal grant 
     program for school construction.

  Mr. Speaker, I again point out that this motion to instruct conferees 
is irrelevant given our current negotiations on the Labor/HHS/Education 
appropriation's legislation. As such, I oppose the gentleman's motion.

                    MEETING THE FEDERAL IDEA MANDATE
                            [Selected Cities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Additional
                                                            funds needed
              City                  Funds        If 40%        to meet
                                   received    mandate met   commitment
                                     \1\                      of States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York.......................  $41,435,700  $212,316,300  $170,880,600
Los Angeles....................   23,145,989   118,600,048    95,454,000
Chicago........................   18,438,243    94,477,557    76,039,400
Miami..........................   10,873,800    55,717,300    44,843,500
Philadelphia...................    7,501,863    38,439,546    30,937,600
Jacksonville...................    7,305,504    37,433,402    30,127,900
Houston........................    5,738,851    29,405,873    23,667,000
Dallas.........................    3,881,900    19,890,700    16,008,800
Washington, DC.................    3,047,500    15,615,500    12,568,000
St. Louis......................    2,032,800    10,416,100     8,383,300
Newark.........................    1,932,760     9,903,462     7,970,700
Pittsburgh.....................    1,514,077     7,758,131     6,244,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1995 data (most recent available).

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), one of the leading men 
in this debate on school construction and classroom construction, who 
will explain why this has not yet been settled and why it is necessary 
for us to bring this up yet again today.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Holt 
motion. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for his 
leadership on this important issue because my friend, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), has not only been a Member representing his 
people but he has only been here about 2 years and he has already made 
a tremendous difference for his district and for this country on the 
issue of children.
  Let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), who said he was amused, I want everybody to understand that 
I am not amused. I do not get amused one little bit when we are talking 
about issues that affect children. I was the State superintendent of my 
school system in North Carolina for 8 years, an office to which the 
people elected me twice. I do not get amused when we are talking about 
the needs of children. I know we talk about rhetoric, and is this a 
political issue? Darn right, it is a political issue. Everything we do 
in this body is about politics. But this is the kind of politics we 
ought to be dealing with for the children of this country, because they 
cannot vote; they cannot sit in this body. If we cannot do it, then who 
does it?
  Yes, I recognize only 7 percent of the money comes through the 
Federal Government, but there are places in this country where they are 
hurting, and they have great needs today, and we have a responsibility. 
Yes, we do provide money for roads; and, yes, we do provide money for 
prisons and a number of other things. And to say it is interstate 
money, the answer is, yes, it is dedicated; but there was a time when 
there was no money dedicated and there were those that said we ought 
not to be putting it in. I happen to read history, and I remember that. 
We can do it for our children, too, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just share a couple of quick statistics before my time runs 
out. In my home district, there are a number of areas, and I am in a 
district where we have spent a lot of money and we

[[Page 25861]]

have raised taxes to build schools. We have 55 trailers in the small 
county of Franklin that is struggling now to meet their needs; 16 in 
Granville; 41 in my home county of Harnett; 98 in Lee; 40 in Nash 
County; 162 in Sampson; 76 in Wilson; a total of 530 in our capital 
county, and they are working hard.

                              {time}  1300

  Yes, this is an issue we ought to deal with; and yes, this Congress 
ought to act. I ran for this office 4 years ago because I was tired of 
the Republican leadership in this Congress at that time who wanted to 
close down the Department of Education, close school lunch programs. It 
was cynical against education. We have changed our rhetoric, yes; we 
have changed it, but there is still a deep resistance to helping public 
education. We should come together. We should not be here arguing about 
these issues. Children are not Democrats nor Republicans. They are 
children. And we can help. We have the resources to do it. Now is the 
time to act. We do not need to put it off until next year. We should 
not put it off until next year because if we put it off until next 
year, there are going to be children in cramped quarters; and we will 
not be able to reduce the class sizes the way we ought to to teach them 
properly, and I am here to tell my colleagues that children know the 
difference between a quality facility and a poor one.
  How do we tell a child that quality education is important, and we 
then send them to a run-down school? They know better. No, it is not 
our total responsibility, but we can sure help. We can provide the 
leadership and show the way, and I think this Congress ought to do it. 
I am willing to do my part, and I ask all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to do the same.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of Delaware and now standing 
Congressman, for yielding me this time.
  I too share the same passion the gentleman from North Carolina does 
about education. He was an elected superintendent; I was a State board 
chairman in neighboring States in the South. I respect the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and his comments about helping public 
schools, and I am sure the comments that are to come. I am not amused 
in one way, but I share amusement in another way with the chairman, 
because we are repeating a debate we did Saturday afternoon.
  But just for the sake of facts, I want to take the comments we have 
heard from the other side so far and place them in perspective.
  First of all, the conferees have agreed on $1.3 billion. The 
disagreement is over whether it is done one way or another way, and I 
will get into that in a minute. On Saturday when we had the debate, 
everyone agreed the unfunded school construction in the United States 
of America is $303 billion. The public should listen to this, that if 
we do $1.3 billion a year, then in 300 years we would have solved the 
problem. Well, that is not going to happen and that is ridiculous. As 
the gentleman from North Carolina said, we cannot do it all, but we can 
help, and therein is why everybody needs to understand the basic 
agreement that exists between the parties today is to do exactly that. 
Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion, in which school systems can make the 
decision as to where best within certain parameters the Federal 
Government can help. Maybe it is asbestos removal, maybe it is ADA 
improvements, maybe it is the satisfaction of any number of Federal 
mandates.
  But we must be clear. We cannot mislead the American people to 
believe that there is enough money in Washington to build the schools 
needed in the United States of America. The unfunded need in American 
schools today exceeds the budget surplus projected for the next year. 
So should we spend it all and not save Social Security and not save 
Medicare which are our responsibilities? No. Although I would love to 
do anything I could to relieve the property tax in my home district, 
the fact of the matter is that the United States of America, the 
dedicated tax for public education is the property tax in our local 
areas, because people get to vote on it. Therefore, they can have 
schools that are accountable. Therefore, they can spend the money 
wisely. If there was a pot in Washington and the belief that we would 
build all of their schools, New Jersey would never pass a new bond 
referendum to build schools; and we would have failed on a false 
promise, because we do not have the money.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member of this House, and I love 
children; and I support public education with all of my heart. But I do 
not believe, and we are on the momentary cusp of settling what is 
already settled in making a $1.3 billion contribution to local schools, 
Democrats and Republicans alike. We should not leave Washington or 
leave this House with the misperception that there is enough money for 
us to build the schools that are needed in America, that Congress can 
reduce local property taxes for schools. If we do that, we have offered 
false hope and false promise.
  Instead, what we should say is we are willing to do our part on that 
which we have mandated; we are willing to give local schools 
flexibility, and we have joined together in a bipartisan effort to do 
that. But to leave any other false promise out there is wrong for 
children, it is wrong for America, and it is wrong for public 
education.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my colleague, a freshman Member 
of Congress and an outstanding member of our freshman class, who will 
explain that indeed, $1.3 billion is not enough, but why we should do 
it and we must do it now.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time to speak on an issue of grave importance to my 
constituency. I say that because I represent a district that has the 
most overcrowded school district in the City of New York, School 
District 24, which right now is operating at 119 percent. In the year 
2007, I will have three of the most overcrowded school districts, three 
of the top five in New York City, School Districts 24, 30, and 11, 
which will be operating, right now are operating at 119 percent, 109 
and 107 respectively. In my district in the year 2007, every school 
district in my district will be operating at or above capacity. If that 
is not an emergency, I do not know what is.
  I have a very diverse district, a district made up of many different 
cultures and ethnic groups. But what really, I think, New York is known 
for, really a melting pot, if there was ever such a thing as a melting 
pot, my district is it. But my children and our schools are at a severe 
disadvantage.
  Mr. Speaker, the average school age in my district is 55 years of 
age. One out of every school in New York City is over 75 years of age. 
We still have schools in my district that are being heated by coal, 
heated by coal in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the Rangel-Johnson bill, sending $25 billion 
around this country to construct and modernize schools. The $1.3 
billion is not enough, but if we have the $1.3 billion, where is it? We 
have not voted on this floor yet.
  Maybe I will agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Maybe this 
is a waste of time. Maybe this is all a song and dance. Maybe we have 
been through this 100 times before. But it seems as though everything 
we have done here lately has been a song and dance. Committees come 
together and bipartisanly agree on budget bills, and then the 
leadership of the House determines that the bill is no good, we have to 
go back to the drawing board again. So it seems as though song and 
dance is the name of the game here lately.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think $1.3 billion is enough; but it is 
something, it is a start, but I would like to see it on the floor. I 
would like to see the $1.3 billion brought to the floor and acted on.

[[Page 25862]]


  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again remind Members that 
for instance, as I said, New York City would get an additional 
$170,880,600, if I would have gotten some help, other than from the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to get that 40 percent back 
there. Again, I repeat, we have agreed, through bipartisan negotiations 
with the White House, we have agreed on the $1.3; we have agreed how it 
should be spent and how it should be distributed. That has all been 
done. If we can wrap up ergonomics, it is all over.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to put all of this in perspective. 
First, this is the fourth time that we have argued almost the exact 
same language on this floor. It is one of these situations in which it 
has all been said; but not everybody has said it, except that everyone 
is saying it more than one time at this point now as well. That is 
fine. I think it is a very important discussion. I do not mind that 
particularly, except that we are sort of plowing ground that has 
already been plowed.
  There are certain basic facts that need to be pointed out, and I 
pointed out some of those at the beginning; but I just want to 
reiterate these facts. One is that the amount of money that we are 
talking about in this particular motion to instruct conferees is the 
grand total of $1.3 billion, a very large sum of public money that we 
have in the Federal Government to expend on this problem. But in 
conjunction with how much it would take in order to solve all of the 
problems of school repairs and construction, which is a minimum $300 
billion today, and I have seen estimates as high as $500 billion, $1.3 
billion is not very much. At the most, it is a little more than one-
third of 1 percent, and if the numbers are higher than we think it is 
at $300 billion, it drops substantially below that. So we are talking 
about a fairly small contribution to the solution in this, setting 
aside of course the Rangel-Johnson thing which, hopefully, also will be 
resolved at some point.
  Now, we in the Federal Government only put in about 6 or 7 percent of 
all of the dollars that go into public education in this country, and 
most of the money which we put in goes to specific areas that we have 
carved out, such as educating or helping to educate children with 
disabilities, for example, or individuals who are from poorer 
backgrounds and need additional help in a program called Title 1. That 
is what we do. We have not in the past really done a lot with respect 
to construction. But I think we agree, certainly we as Republicans 
agree, we have put it in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill the 
same amount that we are talking about here today, so there is agreement 
on that.
  A couple of other facts, for whatever they are worth. In the last 5 
years, under the tutelage of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) in the Committee 
on Appropriations, the contribution to education by the Federal 
Government in the budget has been 8.2 percent, on average. In the 5 
years before that which was under the control of the Democrats, it was 
6 percent per year, not the 8.2 percent it is now. In this year's 
appropriation bill, which is a key appropriation bill that we are all 
waiting for around here and the reason that we debate this every 
afternoon, this particular issue, because it is not done, the increase 
for this year is 20 percent, which is a recognition I think that 
everyone is becoming more in tune to the fact that this is the number 
one issue as far as the country is concerned, a grand total for K 
through 12 of about $45 billion, a substantial donation to local and 
State governments.
  So we are not talking about any differences in dollars, and we are 
not talking about the ability to fix up all of the problems of all of 
the schools of all of us who are going to stand up and say our schools 
have problems. That is a recognized fact. We have many good educators 
here, starting with the chairman, who was a superintendent, and two 
gentlemen here have spoken, North Carolina and Georgia, who were the 
heads of education in their States. I was a governor of my State and I 
saw the same thing. I went into every single school in my district as 
well, but I also fought to get some referenda passed and did other 
things, because I think we have to do it on a local basis.
  There are slight differences, not in dollars, but in how the money 
would be used. In the appropriation bill which we are discussing now, 
before we get to the motion to instruct conferees, we as Republicans 
have said, let us give flexibility with respect to this money in terms 
of what they are going to be able to do with it. Let the local and the 
State people be able to make the decision. And within the Democrat 
proposal that is in the motion to instruct conferees, I would describe 
it, and some may disagree with this, but I would describe it as being 
more rigid in terms of how that money would be used without as much 
flexibility.
  There are schools in this country, and I just was to two of them in 
the last few months in Delaware, two brand-new schools. They do not 
need construction money or repair money, they do not even need to 
reduce class size, but they would like to prepare their teachers better 
if they could, so perhaps they would like to use the money otherwise. 
My own view point of that is if we could put money in title VI, which 
is the flexibility of a block grant, we should do that as often as we 
can here in Washington, because I think it gives our local districts 
the flexibility in turn to be able to make the decisions to help with 
the education there.
  So that is a difference perhaps in philosophy, but I am afraid that 
what we are talking about here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives is unfortunately the politics of all of this; and to 
me, there is not a lot of difference between the politics of it; It is 
just a slight philosophical difference, as we have here. I hope it gets 
worked out. I hope it gets worked out in the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriation bill and maybe eventually in this tax bill as far as the 
Rangel-Johnson proposal is concerned.

                              {time}  1315

  But the bottom line is that we are arguing about something which 
hopefully would be helpful but cannot go as far as some people would 
like in terms of what we would do with respect to our schools.
  Also, I do not think the Federal government could afford to get into 
$300 or $400 billion dollars. I think it is very wrong for us to stand 
up and suggest that we are going to solve the problems of the schools. 
Where there are trailers now, there are probably going to be trailers 
later. Unfortunately, when there are schools not in good repair, maybe 
they will still stay not in good repair. But I think we can help in 
some way so maybe we can move in that direction.
  That is where we are. It is a relatively minor circumstance we are 
dealing with here, but it is a major problem out there in terms of what 
has to be done.
  What I really hope is this, that we do pass something. I do not 
really care if Republicans or Democrats get credit for it. I hope we 
pass something. I hope we can use that as the initiation or the 
instigation of additional local and State money being put into schools 
to fix up schools for our children, because I think we all agree that 
educating our children is as important as anything we can do in this 
country. Obviously, we need good facilities if we are going to do that.
  I just wanted to make those basic points as we go through and 
continue with this argument.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who will explain why 
it is necessary for us to plow this field again, if I may use a rural 
metaphor for a gentlewoman from an urban district, because we do not 
yet have it. There may be an agreement, as the gentleman from the other 
side said, but show us the vote.

[[Page 25863]]


  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from New Jersey, for yielding time to me and for the opportunity to 
address this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish, as the gentleman is seated there, that he would 
tell me how much money is allocated for Ohio schools in the proposal 
that he says is about to come to the floor. I will walk over and get 
that information from the gentleman when we get done.
  But I was a prosecutor and I was a judge. I saw what poor education 
can do for children. I saw more money allocated to build prisons in 
Ohio and across this country than to build schools.
  If we are serious about school construction, why do we not take that 
$4 billion that we gave the Defense Department that they did not need 
and build some more schools in this country? Overcrowding, aging, is a 
significant issue for schools in our country.
  I have a specific example. In the city of Cleveland, just less than a 
month ago a high school roof fell in on the public school. To fix that 
roof, it cost $2 million. We need money in our systems to fix schools, 
modernize all these aging buildings where we are sending our children.
  We work on modernizing our cars for emissions standards. We deal with 
issues of smoke detectors, checking toys for children, all kinds of 
other things. We know our schools are in a hazardous condition. We have 
children who are suffering from asthma from problems within those 
schools. We need to fix it.
  Right now we are in one of the best economic times we have ever been 
in, and our children ought to reap the benefit. They should not have to 
wait until they are adults and seniors to reap the benefit, they should 
reap it now, because we will reap the benefit. Having smart children 
who grow into smart adults who grow into smart grandparents will make a 
difference in our country.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, let us get the money on the table. Fund our 
schools, stop funding prisons. Fund our schools, stop funding the 
defense at the level it is.
  I want to support the defense and I want the military to be ready, 
but give me that $4 billion and put it in public schools.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for his leadership in presenting this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest as our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), was talking 
about what is in this bill.
  Indeed, there are many good things in it for education. That is why 
the Democratic negotiators, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) leading our side, on the House side, were willing to agree to the 
compromise bill.
  In recognizing all of the good provisions for education that are in 
the bill, it makes one wonder why the Republican leadership would pull 
the rug from under its own negotiators, make their words worthless in 
reaching an agreement, when so many good provisions are in there for 
education.
  Of course, the reason is that they were beholden to the extreme 
elements in the business community who would not accept a compromise on 
workplace safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I have five children, four grandchildren. I am glad we 
want smart grandparents, too. We have an expression: The children can 
hear us.
  Children are very smart. We tell children that their education is 
very important to their self-fulfillment, to their ability to earn a 
living, and also to the competitiveness of our great country.
  Yet, we send children another message when we say to them, now, you 
go to school in a place that is dilapidated, that is leaking, that is 
not wired for the future. When we say that to kids, they see the 
hypocrisy of it, the inconsistency of it.
  The strongest message we can send children about the value of 
education is to send them to a place that is appropriate for them where 
children can learn, where teachers can teach, and where parents can 
participate.
  So it is really quite sad that when this compromise was reached, the 
leadership did not respect the word of its own negotiators on the 
Republican side. That is what has made the motion to recommit by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) so necessary. If it is not going 
to be a compromise, we want the original provisions that the Democrats 
had been advocating for smaller classes and more modern schools for our 
children.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me just make very clear with respect 
to what we have just heard that the whole reason that the deal fell 
apart with respect to the labor-HHS-education bill had nothing to do 
with the education dollars.
  Let me make it also clear again what I have said about three times 
already today, but it does not seem to sink in. That is that the amount 
of money that is in this legislation, the $1.3 billion, is the exact 
same amount that is being talked about on the other side of the aisle.
  Let me make it finally very clear, to the gentlewoman from Ohio as 
well as others, that the increase in education funding in the 
appropriation bill that funds K through 12 education this year is 20 
percent, 20 percent, which is probably the highest percentage increase 
education has ever received in the United States of America.
  That has been a combination of Republicans and Democrats. I am not 
saying Republicans deserve sole credit for that.
  Let me just repeat, finally, over the last 5 years that increase has 
been 8.2 percent. The school construction program was never discussed 
before, but it is actually in the Republican labor-HHS-education bill. 
There is no ignoring education on this side of the aisle in any way 
whatsoever.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a champion for 
education and adequate school facilities.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), for his leadership in offering 
this motion, a motion that recognizes that the Nation's competitive 
future in a global marketplace depends on how well this and the next 
generation are educated. Since the Nation's competitive future is at 
stake, there is clearly a Federal role to play, and a defined Federal 
role.
  We Democrats are not as pessimistic as the view that many of our 
Republican colleagues have expressed here. No, this may not be all of 
the money necessary to rebuild all of our schools, but it is a 
beginning to use as a leverage for States, municipalities, school 
districts to join in that effort and to stimulate local resources in 
that regard.
  Since we are talking in terms of our competitive future at stake in 
terms of education, it is appropriate that the Federal government say, 
``We want these monies used for these purposes in order to stimulate 
schools and municipalities to follow in that effort.'' If we leave it 
wide open to discretion, they may not very well use it for school 
construction.
  Across the country we tell children education is a value, and then we 
send them to schools that speak of a totally different value, like the 
South Street School in my district, a school built 115 years ago as a 
factory, a school that today is a school, a school that has no 
hallways. One walks up a flight of stairs, goes into one classroom off 
the landing on one side, the other on the other side. There are no 
technology connections to the future, no blackboards we can read. There 
are temporary units, 20 years ago they were temporary, still being used 
today. How do we educate a child under that set of circumstances?
  What the gentleman from New Jersey is trying to say is since the 
Nation's

[[Page 25864]]

competitive future is at stake by how well educated these kids are, we 
need to be able to have a defined Federal purpose.
  Lastly, I keep hearing we have an agreement. We keep having Members 
say, ``We do not agree on Davis-Bacon, we do not agree on 
flexibility.'' That is not an agreement.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion 
offered by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The fact is that our economy has changed and education may have 
changed, but the connection between education and success and 
opportunity for the future has never changed. It is stronger now than 
ever. We need to provide our youngsters with that competitive advantage 
that my colleague just talked about, and we do that through education.
  Mr. Speaker, after years of waiting, we came to a bipartisan 
agreement, bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats agreed that we would 
deal with the needs of America's schools in the education spending 
bill.
  We did it. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), two leaders that I have a great deal of 
respect for, sat down in good faith. They hammered out a bipartisan 
bill.
  It would have made one of the greatest investments in public 
education in a generation. Congress would have passed that bill with 
bipartisan support and the President would have signed it.
  But let us take a look at what happened instead. I quote today's 
Washington Post:
  ``Fierce lobbying by powerful corporate groups with considerable sway 
among the GOP leadership helped kill a deal sealed with Republican 
negotiators early Monday, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Association of Manufacturers. Business leaders have also 
bankrolled political ads over the issue that they disagreed on.''
  That is what happened. We worked to get this agreement, the special 
interests weighed in with the Republican leadership, and they blew up 
the deal. Why? Because big business did not like a part of the bill 
that protects the health and safety of workers from crippling 
repetitive stress injuries.
  So big business said, ``Jump,'' and the Republican leadership said, 
``How high?'' And jump they did. They scuttled the bipartisan 
agreement. They put the whole investment in education in serious 
jeopardy.
  The Republican leadership is telling America's schoolchildren, 
``Wait, because the special interests must be served.'' That is wrong. 
It is wrong. It is unfair. It is an affront to the values of American 
families, who want their kids to be able to go to a first-class school.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. One is, again, we have in the basic 
appropriation bill that is going through, that will pass here 
eventually, the $1.3 billion for construction.
  Secondly, it is a 20 percent increase in education for this year.
  I want to look at the history of this for a moment. This is very 
important, because we are only talking about 5 years ago.
  The Congress, under Democrat control, appropriated $100 million for 
fiscal year 1995 for the School Facilities Infrastructure Improvement 
Act. But the President rescinded this, and subsequently the program has 
received no funding.
  Following that rescission of funds for fiscal year 1995, the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget request did not include any money 
for the Education Infrastructure Act.
  In fact, the Department of Education budget documents stated: ``The 
construction and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been 
the responsibility of State and local governments, financed primarily 
by local taxpayers. We are opposed to the creation of a new Federal 
grant program for school construction. No funds are requested for this 
program in 1996. For the reasons explained above, the administration 
opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for school 
construction.''
  That was the last year that the Democrats had control of the House of 
Representatives here, and they refused to do anything about school 
construction in conjunction with the President.
  Now that it is a popular issue politically out there, everyone is 
talking about it. I do not have a great problem with that because I 
think we should be doing that, but it is the Republicans who have led 
the charge for expending more money and making sure we are helping our 
schools.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted the gentleman to clarify his remarks 
about the President rescinding money for infrastructure. It was a 
Republican-controlled Congress that rescinded the money. They came in 
just after that bill was passed. It was the Senator from Illinois that 
led that and got $100 million into the budget, and it was a Republican-
controlled Congress who rescinded that.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), another champion for excellent education.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct conferees to 
put our children's education first by giving them modern, safe schools, 
and smaller class sizes.
  We, as Members of the 106th Congress from both parties, could not 
find a more legitimate, nor a more timely, use of a proportion of our 
surplus than to help our communities build new schools and equip those 
schools with up-to-date technology. All of our public school kids 
deserve an equal opportunity for a good education, including those who 
come from communities with the highest property tax burdens who 
therefore cannot afford to build and repair their schools.
  Mr. Speaker, the average age of our public schools is now 42 years, a 
third of them are in bad need of repair or complete replacement.
  As only one example, in my district in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a 
town of 20,000 people, the middle school was closed because the walls 
were literally crumbling, threatening the safety of the students. Now 
the middle school students are crammed into the town's overcrowded high 
school which has a leaking roof.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the majority passed the flawed $2\1/2\ 
billion school construction bond program in their tax bill. In that 
same bill, they gave $18 billion, seven times as much in a variety of 
business tax breaks, including, of all things, additional tax deduction 
for business meals and the repeal of taxes for producers and marketers 
of alcoholic beverages.
  Remember the three martini lunches?
  Those are simply wrong priorities. We should not put tax breaks for 
business ahead of our schools and our children's education.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to accept this motion and thereby 
improve the Labor-HHS bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Goodling) 
has said, this issue is all agreed, then bring the negotiated Labor, 
Health and Education agreement to the floor, and we will take a long 
step toward completing our work.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, we probably said this about 
10 times, we keep thinking this is the last time he is going to be on 
the floor, but we keep coming back. This is truly a friend of education 
in the United States.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a couple of minutes, 
because I do not think most people know what is in the agreement when I 
sit here listening to the discussion.

[[Page 25865]]

  First of all, please do not use the word construction. We are not 
talking about construction at all. The $1.3 billion has nothing to do 
with construction. The $1.3 billion is renovation, modernization. The 
whole thing is renovation and repair, that is what the $1.3 billion is 
all about.
  Do not get people out there thinking that somehow or another with 
$1.3 billion we are going to do some construction. Obviously, you 
cannot construct two classrooms or three classrooms with $1.3 billion, 
so let us make sure we have our terminology correct.
  That construction business they are talking about over on bond issues 
and so on, but not $1.3 billion.
  First of all, under the proposal, everybody understands we are 
talking about $1.3 billion. It does not matter whether you are the 
White House, whether you are Republicans or Democrats. It is $1.3 
billion.
  Under this proposal, we say 75 percent would be allocated to school 
districts for one-time competitive grants for classroom renovation and 
repair. A portion of the funds would be targeted to high-poverty 
schools and rural schools.
  School districts would receive 25 percent of the funds through 
competitive grants for use under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act or school technology, discretion of the local agency. It 
goes out based on title I formula to the States, and then those grants 
go from that point on.
  Criteria for awarding renovation grants to school districts would 
include the percentage of school children counted for title I grants, 
the need for renovation, the district's fiscal capacity to fund 
renovation repairs without assistance, a charter schools ability to 
access public financing and the district's ability to maintain the 
facilities if renovated.
  Funds for renovation repair could be used for emergency repairs for 
health and safety, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
access and accommodations provisions for the Rehabilitation Act, and 
asbestos. No new construction would be allowed, except in connection 
with Native American schools. The 25 percent would be distributed to 
school districts through competitive grants.
  Under the $25 million, they could use that for charter school 
demonstration projects to determine in public schools what is the best 
means for leveraging the money.
  Again, I want to make sure we understand what it is that the 
Democrats have agreed to, the Republicans have agreed to, and the White 
House has agreed to.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), my distinguished colleague who will explain that 
we do indeed understand what is stated here.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my colleague, for this motion to 
instruct. On this Labor HHS appropriations bill or on another pending 
bill, we must address this issue of school construction. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and Representative Johnson have offered a 
very positive proposal, as has the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge), my colleague, with his particular focus on high-growth 
areas.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from one of those high-growth areas, where 
thousands of students are going to school in hundreds of trailers, and 
we have to do something about it.
  Some have portrayed this as some kind of grab for Federal control; 
that could not be more inaccurate. The decision about when and how and 
if to build would remain with local authorities, but the Federal 
Government would be a partner, using tax credits for bond holders to 
lessen the interest burden on local communities, to stretch those bond 
dollars further, and to relieve pressures on the local property tax.
  A survey in my district recently showed that over 90 percent of our 
students grades K through 3 were going to school in classes of over 18. 
Almost one-third of the students were going to school in classes of 25 
or more. We need to do better than that.
  I fully expect us to approve a bond issue next Tuesday that will help 
in my district's largest county, but we have to stay with this 
challenge.
  We need to recruit more well-trained teachers, and we need to build 
and modernize school facilities so that those teachers and their 
students can do their best work.
  Vote for this motion to instruct. This Congress should not adjourn 
before we have addressed the pressing needs in our communities for 
school construction.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to repeat. We are not 
talking about school construction in this one $1.3 billion so everybody 
understands that.
  But I do want to correct the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), she made a statement that it fell apart because of the 
Republicans. It did not fall apart because of the Republicans. It did 
not fall apart because of the Democrats. It did not fall apart because 
of the White House, although I think the White House may have known 
that what they agreed to was not the language that was written.
  As soon as we saw the language, it was obvious what they thought they 
were doing they were not doing, and that all deals with ergonomics. I 
am sure that will be repaired. It was not Republicans. It was not 
Democrats. It is was not the White House. It was the language.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) for bringing up this important issue of not only 
construction but modernization, which we need both. It is not one 
issue, but it is both issues. I think it is important that we look at 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this from California's 
perspective. By the year 2003, California will have to provide more new 
schools than the entire number of schools that exist in Nebraska. This 
is in the whole State of Nebraska, California will need more than the 
whole State, it will cost approximately $6 million to provide new 
buildings.
  Our existing schools need to be modernized and repaired at a cost of 
over $10 million, and 60 percent of our public schools in California 
are more than 25 years old.
  It is important that we look and put a high priority in education. 
Education is the number one priority. If we do not invest in education, 
we are failing America. We need to invest in our future. We need to 
look at our children to make sure that we create an atmosphere that is 
good for them. That means that they have to have the construction in 
the schools there.
  In California, alone, we have more portable trailers than we do 
anything else. When we look at safety, it is important that we provide 
a safety environment for our children as well. If we do not have, what 
is going to happen to America? We need to invest in education. This is 
the beginning.
  We need to invest both in modernization and school construction, if 
we need to meet the demands of our future as well. We want to make sure 
our children have an opportunity to learn, an opportunity and 
environment that is conducive like anyone else.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, after the funds for construction or renovation were 
taken away in fiscal year 1995--we are talking about 5 years ago now--
the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request did not include any 
money for the Education Infrastructure Act.
  I think it is important, and I did this earlier, but I want to put 
this in, this is exact quotes from what the Department of Education 
budget documents stated, this is President Clinton, ``the construction 
and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the 
responsibility of State and local governments financed primarily by 
local taxpayers. We are opposed to the creation

[[Page 25866]]

of a new Federal grant program for school construction. No funds are 
requested for this program in 1996. For the reason explained above, the 
administration opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for 
school construction.''
  It is now 5 years later the tea leaves are reading a little 
differently. People seem to favor education and all of a sudden we have 
a reversal of fortune as far as school construction is concerned from 
the administration and obviously from some of the people who have 
spoken here.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we have 
met the needs of education from the Federal point of view, as well as 
we could, having higher percentages of increases, 8.2 percent for the 
last 5 years versus 6 percent for the 5 years before that under the 
Democrats. This year, in particular, the increase, Mr. Speaker, is 20 
percent from last year to this year. It meets all of the requests as 
far as construction is concerned of $1.3 billion that the President has 
made.
  I do not know what the arguments are, but they are relatively small 
time as far as any differences that can be picked upon that the 
Republicans have proposed to try to help with these problems and the 
problems of education.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) a champion for education for all.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Holt motion 
to instruct on H.R. 4577, because we cannot expect our children to get 
a first-rate education in second-rate and third-rate school buildings. 
A recent GAO study on the condition of America's schools found that 60 
percent of schools in America need at least one major repair or they 
need renovation.
  On top of that, and we have said it today, even though it is not part 
of this, on top of repairs and renovation, we also have a great need 
for new schools, in my home State alone, in California, more than 
30,000 additional classrooms will be needed in the next 8 years.
  What is the message that we are sending our young children, when 
their communities boast new, shiny shopping malls and new sports 
stadiums, while we tell them that they must try to learn in 
overcrowded, crumbling schools?
  This is the time, Mr. Speaker, for us to show our children that they 
are absolutely as important as a new mall or a new stadium.
  A vote for the Holt motion is a vote for this Nation's most precious 
resource, our children. Our children are 25 percent of our population. 
Our children are 100 percent of the future of our Nation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that both sides care about education. I 
think that from the bottom of my heart. But the way we get there is 
different. My colleagues on the other side have their interests. We 
have ours.
  When my colleagues on the other side talk about school construction, 
for example, my colleagues on the other side want it to fall under 
Davis-Bacon which costs 35 percent more. We want to let the schools 
keep the money. My colleagues on the other side want it to go to the 
unions.
  The only interests that both sides should have here is the school 
children, not the unions. I had a hearing when I was chairman of the 
Authorization Committee, some of my colleagues were here at that 
hearing.

                              {time}  1345

  We had 16 people from all over the country. They said they had the 
absolute best program in the entire world. At the end of the hearing, 
as chairman, I said, which one of you have any one of the other 15 in 
your district? Of course, none.
  We said that is the whole idea. We want to send you the money 
directly to the school where the parents, the teachers, the community 
can make those decisions on spending education dollars, not Washington 
bureaucrats. That way, you get more effective results.
  In my opinion, that is a lot of the reason why Head Start and some of 
the other education programs do not work. They are underfunded, because 
there are too many other bureaucracies that eat up the money, and one 
gets very little money down to the classroom in the Federal program.
  Federal education spending is only about 7 percent, yet it ties up a 
lot of the money at the local level. We think that is wrong. So when 
one talks about children, we want the money to get down to children, 
not the unions, not the liberal trial lawyers and special education 
administrators, not the bureaucracy back here in Washington; but to 
children, to teachers, to the community.
  I would say to my colleagues, we care about education, and I believe 
you do. But let us both come together and get the maximum amount of 
dollars to the schools, not the special interests.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey 
has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to address the 
comment there, because here we go again. This has been held up. The 
agreement has been held up over worker safety. We have failed to get 
the minimum wage.
  I have to remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who 
just spoke that Davis and Bacon were two Republicans who thought that 
it was really unfair to have outside workers come in and, not just 
undercut wages, but undercut working standards. That is what we are 
trying to preserve here.
  As I understood from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), this was in fact agreed 
upon. Davis-Bacon is not the issue here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, there are two very good academic studies that 
have been done that show that Davis-Bacon does not increase the cost of 
schools. In fact, the best schools and the best buildings are put up by 
Davis-Bacon contractors, so much so that the Fortune 500 corporations 
have recently decided that they prefer to hire Davis-Bacon contractors 
because they get the best work done in the final analysis.
  We have all kinds of impediments being thrown in the way of the use 
of Federal dollars to solve a basic problem. In the context of a $230 
billion surplus, why are we quibbling about $1.3 billion for school 
renovations, repair, construction, whatever one wants to say? If a coal 
burning furnace in the school is removed, are we going to call that 
renovation or repair? I do not care. Let us get the deadly fumes and 
the pollution of the coal burning furnace out of the schools.
  We have more than 100 schools in New York that still have coal 
burning furnaces. Do we have to have the Federal Government do this? 
Obviously we do since the States are lagging so far behind. Or perhaps 
the Federal Government can serve as a stimulus, and by providing some 
of the money, stimulate and embarrass the States and the local 
governments into doing far more.
  The estimate is that we need about $320 billion just to take care of 
infrastructure needs for the current enrollment, without projecting 
future enrollment. That is the estimate of the National Education 
Association. One might say they are a teacher organization, they are 
biased.
  Well, the education commissioner recently came up with a statement 
that $127 billion is needed. Some years ago, 1994, the General 
Accounting Office said we needed $110 billion then.
  The need is great. We are going to improve education. The least we 
can do is take care of the highly-visible infrastructure problems. It 
does not require

[[Page 25867]]

the Federal Government getting involved with decision making. It is a 
capital expenditure.
  You go in; you give help; you get out. It is the best way to spend 
Federal dollars, most efficient way to spend Federal dollars. Let us do 
it today.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle spent a lot of 
time talking about two deceased Republican Members of Congress, Davis 
and Bacon. We on this side are talking about the future of the children 
of our communities.
  My father taught all his life in public schools. He retired as a 
principal. Oftentimes he and many of his fellow educators would tell 
me, please, get rid of the burden imposed upon us by the Federal 
Government. Let us teach the kids. Give us the resources to do it.
  In this bill we have the resources. We have spent 20 percent more 
than last year on education. Our construction dollars are identical to 
what the demands of the minority are. We are meeting in the middle to 
try and solve the problems for children.
  The rhetoric should stop. The actions should start. The children will 
be able to learn if we pass this bill without some of the sentiment 
attached.
  I can just tell my colleagues, going to classrooms every time I am in 
Florida, I find kids eager to learn. Yes, the conditions are poor. But 
I was in a portable in 1973 in high school. I was in the same 
conditions then, and that is when the Democrats ran this place. For 40 
years, they ran it; and, finally, education is getting better, thanks 
to the majority party today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has the right to close.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to make the point, I do not 
believe, for the membership of the Congress that we are not talking 
about school construction. So I guess I will now address everyone who 
is sitting up here and everyone who might be watching it, please do not 
get the idea that we are talking about school construction.
  We are talking about $1.3 billion that the President asked for for 
renovation and repairs, $1.3 billion. That is what the President asked 
for. That is what the Democrat-Republican group on the Committee on 
Appropriations said he gets. That is what those of us who negotiated 
how the money goes out said, here is your $1.3 billion. Renovation and 
repair. A done deal.
  Let me once again say, under this proposal $1.3 billion would be 
distributed to States under the title I formula, with a set-aside for 
small States. Seventy-five percent would be allocated to school 
districts for one-time competitive grants for classroom renovation and 
repair.
  A portion of the funds would be targeted to high-poverty schools and 
rural schools. School districts would receive 25 percent of the funds 
through competitive grants from the State for use under the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act and school technology. That is what we 
have negotiated. That is what the President has asked for. That is what 
everybody has agreed will happen.
  The legislation we are discussing now has not been sidetracked, as I 
said before, because of Republicans. It is sidetracked because, at 
midnight or after midnight, they thought they had language that they, 
the Republicans, Democrats and the White House, agreed to in 
relationship to ergonomics. They discovered after rereading it that it 
did not do what they said at all. We now have new language, hopefully, 
that will go forward. But it is a done deal.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the speakers here have made it clear why it is 
necessary to instruct the conferees to depart from the Senate 
amendment, which denies the President's request for dedicated resources 
for local school construction and instead broadly expands block grants.
  The other side has said we are plowing the same ground. Any farmer in 
my district will tell us that one can plow ground again and again. 
Until one plants, one cannot reap.
  We want to make sure that we actually get some benefits, that the 
students of America can reap the benefits here. Talk is cheap. We have 
yet to have a vote on this. That is why it is necessary to instruct 
conferees so we can bring to the floor legislation that will take care 
of the decrepit and crumbling schools and the pressing need for 
construction of new classrooms.
  We are not here to refight partisan squabbles of 1995 and 1996 the 
other side seems to want to do, about who killed what and who rescinded 
what. That is not the point. The point is that, today, we have a multi-
hundred billion dollar need in the schools of America to provide 
adequate facilities so students can learn for the 21st century.
  That is why it is necessary to instruct the conferees to depart from 
the Senate language so that we can actually, not just talk about 
providing these facilities for the students of America, but vote on it 
and see that it is done.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to instruct Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees to insist on 
dedicating funding for school construction.
  Right now, three-quarters of the nation's schools need funding to 
bring their buildings into a ``good overall condition.''
  Right now, the average age of a public school building is 42 years, 
an age when schools tend to deteriorate.
  How can a child learn when she has to cross a courtyard to get to a 
temporary trailor for one of her classes?
  How can a child learn when her classes are held in janitor closets?
  How can a child learn when her school needs emergency repairs?
  How can a child learn when her class meets in a hallway?
  How can a child learn when the school is crumbling around her?
  We have an obligation to do something about this problem. And our 
children should not have to wait.
  Two hundred and thirty Members of Congress support the Johnson-Rangel 
school construction measure.
  This bipartisan bill helps communities to modernize their current 
schools and construct new facilities so our children will learn in the 
finest facilities possible.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that while the Republican 
leadership can't set aside $25 billion for modernization and 
construction of new schools, it has no problem giving $28 billion in 
tax breaks to big businesses, HMOs, and insurance companies.
  It is unfortunate that we are at the end of the appropriations 
process and the education priorities are still not taken care of.
  Our number one priority must be education. And school construction 
funding must happen this year.
  Our children are counting on us.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. 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 176, 
nays 183, not voting 73, as follows:

[[Page 25868]]



                             [Roll No. 590]

                               YEAS--176

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--73

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Collins
     Conyers
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lucas (OK)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Neal
     Northup
     Ose
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Spratt
     Talent
     Turner
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wise

                              {time}  1416

  Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mrs. WILSON, Mr. EHLERS, Mrs. ROUKEMA, and 
Mr. PORTMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 590, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed House 
rollcall Vote No. 590. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. SOUDER. I erroneously voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 590, 
the Holt Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4577, the Departments of 
Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. I intended to vote ``nay'' on 
that rollcall vote.

                          ____________________