[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25869-25877]
[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. WU. 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. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Wu 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 
     size in the early grades 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 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) each will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I urge the leadership to keep our promise to the 
Nation's school children by continuing the program to reduce class size 
in the early grades. For the past 2 years, this Congress has provided 
funds through the class size reduction initiative to reduce class size 
in the early grades to a size of students of 18 or less.
  I have seen this program work in my home State of Oregon. At 
Reedville Elementary School in Aloha, Oregon, there was an 
extraordinarily large incoming class of first graders of 54 students. 
Instead of the two first grade teachers that they did have, the class 
size reduction initiative permitted Reedville Elementary School to hire 
an additional first grade teacher, and because of this program, working 
exactly as intended, Reedville Elementary School has three classes of 
18 first graders instead of two classes of 27 first graders. Something 
similar has been happening at William Walker Elementary School in 
Beaverton, Oregon, where class size in first grade was reduced from an 
average of 25 to 22. It would have been reduced more if not for 
significant and unexpected population growth.
  This program is working. It has worked for the past 2 years. We 
should keep our agreement with each other across this aisle, but, more 
importantly, our agreement with the school children of Oregon and 
America and work as hard as we can before this session ends to reduce 
class size in the early grades.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the specifics of the motion 
to instruct conferees presented by the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon; but in the principle of what he is saying, I reach full accord 
and agreement, and I think frankly most Members here probably do and 
most people involved with education probably do.
  I have been worried about education for many, many decades now in my 
State of Delaware. I have visited all of the public schools in Delaware 
at one time or another. I have been in those classes, and I have 
watched what happens as you get smaller class sizes, particularly with 
the younger ages, with the use of teachers or teacher aides who can 
achieve the level of being able to teach at a teacher's level, and I 
have seen the benefits that come from that. That is something that we 
in my State have done. With legislation we have mandated, particularly 
in the lower class sizes, the lower ages and we think that has made a 
difference as far as all this is concerned.
  I think we as Republicans have recognized that fully in the Congress 
of the United States. As a matter of fact, I think it is very important 
to point out, and to me this is the crux of this whole discussion we 
are having right here, and, that is, that what is conspicuously absent 
from this motion to instruct is language requesting further increases 
in education spending.
  The Republican Congress has provided dramatic education spending 
increases in recent years. In the 5 years before this, we have 
increased spending for education by 8.2 percent a year, well above the 
cost of inflation and well above the 6 percent a year in the 5 years 
before that when the Democrats were in control of the Congress of the 
United States of America. As I have said in the previous discussion, 
the increases for this year in the Labor-HHS-Education bill for K-12, 
and there is no argument with this, there are arguments with another 
part of that bill right now, are 20 percent which is a dramatic 
commitment to education. We in the majority side, of course, are very 
proud of that.
  That having been said, we need to deal with this particular issue. 
Again we are not dealing with numbers. We are dealing with flexibility 
and how one is going to spend money. We are willing to expend the 
money, but we have indicated that, of the $1.7 billion request, that 
three-quarters of it should go to class size and a quarter of it should 
go for teacher training, unless you have more than 10 percent who are 
not qualified to teach a course, in which case 100 percent would go for 
class size.
  Why do it that way? It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. As you go across 
the United States of America, you are going to find that there are 
15,000 school districts with over a million classrooms. You are going 
to find classrooms that have a large number of students in them, with 
good teachers, who have the ability to handle those children and teach 
them well. You are going to find other circumstances in which you have 
a classroom with somebody who could be a good teacher but needs some 
sort of training in order to become better. You are going to have a 
variety of situations with teachers and aides where they are able to 
make it all come together and teach kids as well as possible, all 
driving at the purpose of the motion to instruct conferees, that is, to 
reduce class size but, more importantly, to make sure that we are 
teaching those children as well as we possibly can.
  We say give them that flexibility, give them some flexibility in some 
instances to be able to train teachers better. There are too many 
teachers, frankly, who are teaching courses for which they are ill 
prepared. Perhaps they did not study that as a substantive course when 
they prepared to be a teacher; perhaps they just do not have the 
knowledge. Perhaps they do not have teaching skills. We say that we 
need to address that.
  But that is not what is really important. What is important is we are 
saying, Let's put some flexibility into the program. The decision 
should not be made here in Washington at the Department of Education or 
at the White House. It should be made back in Oregon, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, or wherever it may be, or done in the various towns and 
school districts within our States as they make the decision as to what 
is in the best interests of those children for their education.
  Those are the differences. The differences are not great, but they 
are important and they are distinguishable

[[Page 25870]]

differences. I happen to believe the flexibility side of it is the side 
which is right. Obviously, the gentleman from Oregon feels differently; 
but my view is that we have put the money in, we have provided the 
necessary flexibility, we are trying to help with more teachers and 
help teachers prepare better. If we do that, then we have taken the 
right steps to help all of our children with their education.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I thank the gentleman from Delaware. The gentleman must recall that 
we worked closely together on the Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act. We both believe in flexibility. We both believe in local control. 
In the funding for the class size reduction program, last year we 
negotiated additional flexibility for the use of these funds. We 
negotiated an increase in flexibility in using the funds for teacher 
training from 15 percent going up to 25 percent.
  I must point out to the gentleman that local school authorities are 
using only 8 percent of those funds for teacher training. The rest they 
are using for class size reduction as was originally intended. The 
gentleman and I share our interest in flexibility. However, it appears 
to me that local school authorities are using the funds for class size 
reduction the way that we think they would.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). Every parent wants to 
send their child to a public school with the best qualified teachers, 
high standards that challenge students, and that provides the kind of 
discipline that our youngsters need. That means an investment in 
teacher training, a commitment to turning around failing schools and 
helping schools with the cost of special education, helping school 
districts build and modernize 6,000 crumbling schools.
  But at the center of every quality school are high-quality teachers. 
There is a serious teacher shortage on the horizon. Class sizes are 
already exploding, making it more difficult for teachers to reach every 
student and to be able to inspire them. Studies clearly show that 
reducing class size makes a tremendous difference. By keeping class 
size down, classrooms can become again a place of learning, of 
discipline, where teachers can teach and children can learn.
  This is not about numbers. It is about an educational environment. We 
ought to be able to do that for America's families and for America's 
children.
  Despite what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle, this 
issue is not settled and that is for one specific reason: the 
Republican leadership of this House went back on their word. They 
wrecked a bipartisan agreement that would have made this investment in 
schools. And they did it all because of an issue that was totally 
unrelated to education, but an issue that the special interests could 
not abide. So the Republican leadership faced the choice. They could 
side with public school children or they could side with the special 
interests. The choice that they made speaks volumes about their 
priorities and their values. They stood with the special interests.
  Let me quote the Washington Post today: ``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.''
  They stood with the special interests. That is why we are here today. 
That is why we are fighting to make this education investment happen. 
We cannot trust the Republican leadership to keep their word and invest 
in schools unless we keep their feet to the fire. We have got to speak 
up for America's public schools, to make sure that the voices of 
America's public schools and the children that rely on them are heard 
in this House. Ninety percent of our youngsters are in public schools 
today. We should not be here for the special interests, but because of 
America's children.
  Pass this motion. Let us do something positive for America's children 
and for America's families today. That is what our values dictate that 
we do in this body.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of the last 
discussion on school renovation, how lucky people are if they did not 
get to see it on Saturday, they now get to see the same production on 
the same stage today. They get to see it twice in a couple of days. The 
only difference is that the leading players were leading ladies on 
Saturday. Today the leading players are leading men. That is the only 
difference in the debate and the discussion.
  Of course, again, we are talking about something that is already a 
done deal. Last year, we tried to make it very clear to the President 
that everybody understands that class size reduction in early grades is 
very, very im-portant if, if there is a quality teacher to put in the 
classroom. I could not get him to talk about quality, but I am so happy 
that the last year and a half that is all he has been talking about. So 
I made some progress.
  When we were negotiating last year, fortunately one of the largest 
school districts of the newspaper that covers that area had the entire 
front page said, parents, do you understand that 50 percent of the 
teachers that are teaching your children are not qualified? So every 
time I would talk about flexibility, I would open this up. We were not 
talking about flexibility to do anything you want under the sun. We 
were saying, wait a minute. If they have 50 percent of unqualified 
teachers in that classroom now, should we not be allowing them to use 
some of this; perhaps they have some potentially very good teachers, 
that, with some additional instruction, some additional help, could 
make a first class teacher? Of course, what happened? The first group 
of teachers hired under this program, over 30 percent were not 
qualified, and the tragedy was that they went right into those same 
school districts where they already had 20, 30, 40 and 50 percent 
unqualified teachers. That is exactly what I knew would happen. We 
should have taken a lesson from Governor Wilson. He pushed the same 
issue, but he did not have the flexibility in it.
  So what happened? In Los Angeles, they hired 30 some percent of 
totally unqualified teachers. When a new classroom is created, it has 
to have someone in that classroom. So they had to hire unqualified 
teachers.
  Fortunately, we got our message through last year. We negotiated in 
good faith. We got our flexibility to make sure that if potentially 
there were good teachers, there was an opportunity to make them real 
quality teachers. There is no substitute, after the parent, for a 
quality teacher in the classroom. I do not care whether it is a marble 
building, whatever it is. It is the quality teacher in the classroom.
  Mrs. Yost had to teach all of us in one building, 100-year-old 
building I might mention. She had to teach all the special needs 
children. She had to teach everybody. She had to teach all four grades, 
but she was an outstanding quality teacher and she could do that.
  So what we negotiated last year, what we got, was that there has to 
be the flexibility. What we have already negotiated again this year is 
exactly what we got last year, and, therefore, it is a done deal. So we 
are here, again as I said before, maybe in Oregon they are not on lunch 
break yet, but I do not know why we are going through this same 
procedure that we went through on Saturday. I said all we did was 
change the leading characters. I said that to two of the ladies that 
were the leading characters on Saturday and

[[Page 25871]]

they said well, we thought we would give the men a chance today. So I 
guess that is what it is all about.
  We want reduced class size if there is a class quality teacher to put 
in that classroom. The biggest job we are going to have from now until 
I do not know when is getting quality teachers in the center-city 
America and quality teachers into rural America. I do not know the 
answer to that. We have tried to give all sorts of monetary benefits. 
We will reduce their loan if they will just commit to going there and 
teaching. It has not worked. We have tried to have alternative 
certification, but we do not have anything to do with certification.
  So if we get someone that wants to change their career in the middle 
of their lives, they are not going to go back and take 30 credits in 
pedology. I do not blame them. I have had 90 of them. That is enough 
for a lifetime. You are going to have to find some way to get quality 
teachers in center-city America and rural America. We have not come up 
with that solution.
  As I have mentioned many times, it used to be easy because we had the 
brightest and best women who had two choices. They could be a teacher 
or they could be a nurse if they wanted to be a professional. That is 
gone forever and, therefore, getting teachers in areas that are quality 
teachers is very difficult.
  This great idea that we will have national certification, what does 
that do for center-city America? It does nothing. It does nothing, 
because where do they go? They go where they are sure that they will 
have an opportunity to teach as they want to teach.
  So, again, we are going through an exercise today, as we went through 
on Saturday, which is an exercise in futility. It has already been 
negotiated. It is exactly the same as last year, which makes everybody 
happy because now we are talking about a quality teacher in the 
classroom. Do not reduce the class from 23 to 18 and put somebody in 
that classroom that does not know how to teach and does not have the 
qualifications to teach, because I will guarantee that the only thing 
that will have been done is spare five other people from being in a 
classroom where there is not a quality teacher.
  So let us quit playing the games. Let us get on with the business. It 
is negotiated. It is there. It is the same as last year. It gives us 
the flexibility we say one positively has to have if they are going to 
get quality teachers in classrooms. That should be our whole emphasis: 
Quality, quality, quality.
  I sat there for 20 years and all I ever heard was, if we just had 
another $5 billion, if we could just cover another 100,000 children, 
then all the problems would go away.
  Nobody ever asked, are we covering them with quality or are we 
covering them with mediocrity? In many instances we were covering them 
with mediocrity. That is a tragedy. The disadvantaged under title I are 
still disadvantaged. We have not closed the achievement gap at all. We 
have to have a quality teacher in a classroom and then reduce class 
size. Do not put the cart before the horse. Do not try to eliminate the 
flexibility to try to make existing teachers who are in that workforce 
now anything other than better teachers. That is what we should be 
doing. That is what we agreed to do, and, therefore, as I said, it is a 
done deal, same as last year; and again hopefully, we will not make the 
mistake we made the first year, because the first year 30 percent of 
all of those who were hired had no qualifications whatsoever and 
tragically went into the very classrooms in center-city America where 
the very best teacher was needed. That was a real tragedy. We cannot 
let that happen.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the distinguished chairman on 
one issue, and that is I agree with the chairman and with the Bard that 
we are but players temporarily on this stage, but it is not so for the 
children of America. For each day that passes in their school year we 
never get that day back. We never get a day back when we miss a day of 
quality education, and that is what makes this debate absolutely 
crucial.
  I disagree with the distinguished chairman on two important issues. 
This is not exactly the same as last year. The dollar amounts are 
different. There is a one-third increase in this bill for the class 
size reduction program; and, in addition, the chairman's concern about 
qualified teachers is addressed because there is a requirement this 
year for 100 percent qualification for the teachers hired under this 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), for bringing this 
important issue to the attention of the Congress.
  As a former teacher, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
class size reduction program. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate 
the single most significant factor in boosting academic achievement in 
the classroom is the presence of a fully qualified teacher in smaller 
classrooms, and in conjunction with high standards.
  What this means is that we can search out the very best teachers in 
the country. We can send them through top-of-the-line training 
programs. We can give them the latest technology and textbooks, but if 
we do not do something to reduce the size of the classrooms, 
particularly in kindergarten through third grade, which exceeds over 30 
students in many of our schools, we will not be giving our children the 
education they deserve.
  In the 1999/2000 act, due to the class size reduction program, 
schools in my district received the following: 17 new first grade 
teachers; 14 new second grade teachers; 12 new third grade teachers; 
and 3 new teachers for other grades. When I visit with school 
administrators, when I visit with parents, when I visit with teachers, 
they like this program. They say it works.
  This is a program that makes a difference in their schools. 
Altogether, this program has helped our Nation's schools hire 29,000 
highly qualified new teachers. If we eliminate this program, we not 
only jeopardize the gains we have made but we will prevent schools from 
hiring additional 20,000 qualified teachers to serve over 2.9 million 
children.
  As the end of this session draws near, hopefully it draws near, this 
is a program that we cannot let fall through the cracks. We talked this 
session a lot about having a surplus. We need to use that surplus to 
pay down the debt. We need to use that surplus to shore up Social 
Security and Medicare. We need to use that surplus for reasonable tax 
cuts, but we need to use that surplus to continue the investment in our 
children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat one more time, there 
is no argument about whether reducing class size is good in early 
grades if there is a quality teacher to put in the classroom. Everybody 
agrees to that. I did that 30 years ago as a superintendent of schools. 
I did not come to Washington and ask to do that. I went to my school 
board and asked to do that, and they agreed. I hope no one on that side 
was somehow or another saying these qualifications were put in because 
somebody on that side or somebody down at the White House wanted to do 
it. The qualification issue was forced upon the administration, and I 
was one of the leading enforcers, and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) helped me, I might also say, when the Secretary 
came up to enlist his support last year. He said he was tired of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) beating us up over the issue 
of quality.
  Again, let me remind everyone that this year's negotiation is even 
better, because last year we said if there was more than 10 percent 
unqualified teachers 100 percent of the money could be used to improve 
the quality of

[[Page 25872]]

the teachers in the force, if the State was an ed-flex State. The White 
House agreed with us. We will remove the ed-flex State business so all 
of those center cities now have an opportunity, as a matter of fact, to 
use their money to improve the quality of teachers in their classrooms.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, to 
say that the chairman and I share a passion for flexibility at the 
local level.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) 
for yielding me such time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for one minute the commitment by my 
colleagues and the Chair on the other side of the aisle for 1 minute 
his dedication towards helping reduce class sizes throughout this 
country.
  I just want to talk about the effects that it had on New York City. 
For the bill that was passed last year, the 1999/2000 act, New York 
City received $61 million in Federal class size reduction funds. In 
addition, the city received some $49 million in State funds to help 
reduce the size of classes as well. The State and Federal funds created 
950 new smaller classes in grades K through 3 with an average of about 
20 students in each class. New classes were created in 530 of the 
district's 675 schools; remarkable usage of that Federal and State 
dollars.
  The Independent Education Priorities Board recently completed a 
study, and the study revealed, among improvements reported, results 
were that noticeable; declines in the number of disciplinary referrals; 
improved teacher morale; a focus on prevention rather than remediation; 
and higher levels in classroom participation by students. This is 
really working, and we want to see that continue.
  I understand this may have taken place on Saturday, the debate as 
well again, and once again we find ourselves in the same act being 
repeated, but we had an agreement. The conferees met. The conference 
report was signed, and the leadership, the GOP leadership, killed that 
deal, making a mockery, in my opinion, of the conferee process. So if 
this is a show, if this is a ploy, the Republican leadership has 
created it.
  I suppose we will take this play on the road. We will take this play 
off Broadway and on the road back to our districts, and I guess on 
Tuesday the people will decide who was right and who was wrong.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a senior member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the motion because it is a step backwards as 
far as flexibility is concerned for local school districts, and that is 
very important.
  The legislation that we are basically talking about increases funding 
for schools and for hiring teachers and for teacher training, and that 
carries forward a pattern that we have seen under the chairmanship of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) during the last 6 years 
in this committee. He has constantly talked to us, as we have heard 
here this afternoon, about the importance of having quality in 
education; and he has not just talked about it, he is the point man in 
negotiations over a number of budgets and has actually managed to get 
significant flexibility in these programs.
  What is the difference? Well, let me just give my colleagues an 
example. If one happens to represent a relatively rural area or an area 
with a small school district, without the efforts of the chairman of 
this committee in negotiations, one would get nothing out of this 
program, because half the school districts in the country, their share 
of the money we are talking about would be less than the salary of one 
teacher. Because of the flexibility that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) negotiated a year ago in the budget, if we 
do not get enough money under this Federal program to hire even one 
teacher, then one gets the money for teacher training and upgrading, 
and one can participate in this program. That is half the school 
districts in the United States.
  He also fought repeatedly to try to have as much of the funds we are 
talking about in this program to be able to be used not just to hire 
bodies, but to assure quality, by teacher training and a variety of 
other approaches, and that is important. In the real world, the area 
that I represent, I visit a lot of schools and, by the way, in our 
State, school construction is going forward at a very great pace 
because of changes in the way the State aid program works. And the new 
schools, of course, are much different than the older schools. We have 
electricity, not just a couple of lights, but wired all the way 
through, and the kids are going to be learning with computers and 
personal computers as an aid from early grades on in the next few 
years. The whole configuration of the school and how it works changes.
  Also, we are in our communities trying to get much more parental and 
community involvement in education. I was just recently at a school 
district dedication where there was, in addition to the classrooms, a 
senior citizens center. Why? Because they wanted to have a separate 
entrance for the senior citizens and then the doors open so that 
seniors could be honorary grandparents to young kids and read with them 
and have them as friends. We have had a family crisis in our country. 
We have many families with just one parent and that person having to 
work, and what is to happen to the little kid? There is no one taking 
an interest in them.
  So trying to do things like this makes a lot of sense, and just a 
one-size-fits-all that does not provide flexibility would miss 
opportunities in the areas I represent and all across the country. So I 
hope my colleagues will listen to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) and not support the motion.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
point out that on a bipartisan basis we passed that flexibility. We all 
believe in that flexibility. The gentleman from Delaware and the 
chairman share that perspective, as do most of my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the 
gentleman from Portland, Oregon (Mr. Wu), not only on this important 
motion, but on his work throughout this session of Congress on behalf 
of schoolchildren and teachers in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. It has been very important not only to Oregon, but it has 
certainly been important to the children that I represent down in 
central Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here last night of, at all times, on 
Halloween evening, amidst the colossal mismanagement of this Congress 
that has continued throughout the last 2 years, I could not help but 
think that perhaps this House was haunted, haunted by the ghost of Newt 
Gingrich, or perhaps it is only that the extremist spirit that we faced 
throughout his leadership never really left the House.
  The program that we debate today is patterned after the program that 
Newt Gingrich and his extremists fought back at the time that they were 
shutting the government down and inconveniencing people across this 
country. At that time they opposed our proposed 100,000 federally 
financed cops on the streets of America. I think that this COPS program 
has worked.
  But if we were to replay the arguments of those who opposed that 
program, our Republican colleagues, they would sound very much like the 
arguments that we have just heard against the gentleman's very 
insightful, intelligent, and important motion. At the time of the last 
Republican government shutdown, they were saying, ``oh, let us just 
give the States all the money and let them run it through their 
bureaucracy.'' They were saying,

[[Page 25873]]

``well, maybe there will not be enough qualified people out there to 
work in our neighborhoods and help us deter and reduce crime''; and 
they fought us through two, three sessions of this Congress against the 
100,000 Cops on the streets of America, until they were finally 
convinced by the people of America, that this was a rather good Federal 
initiative.
  I can tell my colleagues that in Travis County, in the center of 
Texas, we have over 200 additional law enforcement officers in our 
neighborhoods, protecting our families and our businesses as a result 
of the COPS program. This 100,000 teacher program that the gentleman 
from Oregon is supporting takes exactly the same approach, and it is 
already beginning to work. Last session, over the objections of the 
Republican leadership, we got additional teachers into the classrooms 
specifying that that was going to be a specific purpose of our 
appropriations bill for education. At the beginning of this current 
school year, with my school superintendent there in Austin, Texas, I 
went out at that happy time when new teachers and parents and kids were 
sharing the excitement of a new school year. There to greet those 
students in Travis County, Texas, were 72 new teachers employed as a 
result of this classroom size reduction initiative. Not one of them 
would have been funded had the Republicans prevailed during the last 
session.
  What we are saying through this motion is, it works, just like our 
COPS program. Let us support new, well qualified teachers, so that 
classes will be of a size where they can maintain discipline and can 
work in creative ways with these young minds. There is substantial 
evidence that if we have smaller classroom sizes, our students can 
benefit. So we say through this motion, let us do something 
constructive to back up local efforts, not to interfere with them, give 
them the flexibility that they need, but back them up in their efforts 
to improve the quality of education.
  Mr. Speaker, as we review this Republican Congress, we have to say 
that, with reference to this motion and so many others, that the words 
that come to mind are failure and flop and fiasco. Unfortunately, the 
report card for the performance of this Republican leadership is pretty 
much straight Fs. In contrast, the approach that the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) has suggested is an enlightened one that can really 
help improve the quality of education for young people in the center of 
Texas, in Oregon, and across this country.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), another strong member of the 
House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I do not know who is enlightening whom, but I would like to say a few 
things. This motion, while superfluous really, and I think the 
gentleman really knows that, and based on some of his own statements I 
think he realizes it is, it does give me a chance to come down and jog 
everyone's memory. Because of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the chairman of your committee and mine, last year, when the 
President's plan for 100,000 teachers was the focal point of the debate 
on the budget, it was our chairman who convinced the President that 
there are not 100,000 certified in-field teachers who are not working, 
and that if we gave the option to certify some of those that were 
already teaching and were not certified by use of some of the funds, 
and the flexibility to do it, then we could not only reduce classroom 
size, but we could also enlighten students by having better qualified 
existing teachers.
  Last week, in our hearing in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce when asked the question, are there 100,000 certified in-field 
teachers to be hired, Secretary Riley said, no, there are not. Because 
he knows that as well, and he acknowledged the need for training.
  Another enlightening statement, and it has not been mentioned yet, 
and we all deserve credit. Let us get out of this finger-pointing. This 
one issue we pretty much agree on except when facts are manufactured. 
But the fact of the matter is that under title I of this year, 66,002 
title I teachers are being hired with Federal money, and 107,000 
paraprofessionals, that is notwithstanding the 100,000 teachers and 
class size reduction.
  For someone to say that our Congress is a fiasco, that our leadership 
is not responding, I do not see it. In fact, the truth of the matter 
is, and I know the gentleman's intentions are well intended, and I know 
the gentleman cares, and I know in his opening statement he said Oregon 
has already benefited, Oregon has already benefited because last year 
this Chairman and your President agreed we ought to train them and hire 
them and they did in Oregon get more teachers. And this year, it has 
already been agreed to, though yet to be signed, a portion that deals 
with classroom size reduction is better in money, as the gentleman 
said, than last year's. The truth of the matter is, the unintended 
consequence of this resolution would be less qualified teachers in 
America's public schools, because it would take the flexibility to use 
25 percent of the money to train noncertified teachers who are already 
in the classroom, and I know the gentleman does not mean that to 
happen, and I would never accuse him of intending for it to happen.
  But, Mr. Speaker, why do we not for once agree that we have made 
major steps in education. We have followed a leader. We have responded 
to a President. And in the end, America's classrooms are less crowded 
in K through 3. Teachers who were not certified are being certified 
and/or gone and Georgia and Pennsylvania are better off for it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Wu), my freshman colleague. It has been a great first 
term for us, and I have had a great time working with him.
  Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), my good 
friend, the only thing I can say to the gentleman is that consider 
this: a less qualified teacher with a smaller class is better than a 
less qualified teacher with too many children. That is just basic 
mathematics. But the gentleman was being revealing in his statements 
and enlightening.
  I am fortunate to have a brand-new young staff member on my staff, 
and she just completed a year of teaching in elementary school, and she 
wrote this statement for me. Her name is Beverly Smith, and she said, a 
teacher told this story: imagine throwing a birthday party for your 
child and 25 of his or her 7-year-old classmates decided to come. You 
have hats, a full-service amusement center, and the parents will pick 
the children up in just 2 hours. Now, imagine those same kids, for 7 
hours in a classroom with one teacher. Let us face it. It is difficult 
to learn to be an innovative and inquisitive thinker in a class of 25 
or more students. In fact, with 25 students, the teacher may never even 
get the chance to ask every student a question.
  We need smaller class sizes. This is what Beverly Smith says. 
Otherwise, the students shut down, the teachers burn out, and we find 
ourselves back at square one. We want to provide quality education for 
each and every student, not just the chosen ones, not just the 
privileged ones. We want every student to get quality attention in 
education every day.

                              {time}  1500

  See, that is what class size reduction is all about. It is about 
giving students the opportunity to practice the skills they need to 
succeed, not only today but also in the future.
  I am thankful for Beverly Smith, and I am thankful for the dedication 
of her and all the other teachers who work in classrooms. Let us give 
them some support. Reduce the class size. Help them to get better 
qualified and help our Nation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just sort of review where we started all 
this, because sometimes I think we get a little

[[Page 25874]]

beyond where we really have commenced and where we are going.
  Basically, the request in terms of dollars to go to teachers is the 
same in terms of what is in the bill, what the minority is requesting, 
as what we have provided at $1.7 billion. As a matter of fact, we have 
agreed on this side that 75 percent of that money should go to the 
class size issue which they are mentioning.
  So basically we are arguing over the other 25 percent, and the 
question is, should that 100 percent go to class size or should it go 
to teacher training to help with quality.
  Obviously, I come down on the side of more flexibility. A little bit 
later, when I have a little more time, I am going to talk about that.
  I would like to talk about Mrs. Buckles for a moment. I had her in 
seventh grade. She taught us diagraming in seventh grade. I am 
surprised I survived all that.
  I can tell the Members, the woman could teach brilliantly, as a 
matter of fact. I learned something about the construction of a 
sentence, which I remember to this day because of her ability to teach. 
I do not think it would have made any difference if there were five 
people in that classroom or 100 people in that classroom, she had the 
ability to get our attention, the ability to enforce discipline, the 
ability to process the work that was there. Everybody in that classroom 
learned dramatically as a result of being in there with Mrs. Buckles. A 
good teacher can do that.
  I have also visited elementary schools in Wilmington, Delaware, and 
other parts of Delaware where I have seen teachers I thought needed 
extra assistance in terms of what they are doing, and perhaps needed 
another teacher to help reduce class size, or a teacher aide.
  I think we need to provide those teachers the inspiration, the 
educational experience, the training, perhaps the quality experience, 
whatever it may be in order to improve their teaching.
  Frankly, where we lose a lot of teachers is in their first or second 
year of teaching. In fact, maybe the young lady who has gone to work 
for the gentlewoman from Ohio is in that capacity. We lose them because 
they do not necessarily have the proper training. That is where the 
greatest percentage of teachers is lost. We need to retain them, as 
well.
  That is why I beseech everybody here to get behind the concept of 
having some flexibility on these particular dollars which we are 
talking about. I hope we can come to an agreement at some point on it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just point out to the gentleman from 
Delaware that in fiscal year 1999 funding, school districts, local 
educational authorities, used only 8 percent of the allocations under 
this fund for personal development and teacher training.
  We upped that amount from 15 percent to 25 percent, but the evidence 
from the flexibility that we have granted local education authorities 
is that we have lots of flexibility under this program because they are 
not using anything close to the 15 or the 25 percent of the monies that 
they can for teacher training under this program.
  I must further add that the reason why we are here today, this is not 
an exercise in futility. This is not a dry fire exercise. The reason 
why we are here today is because the passage of each and every day 
means the loss of an opportunity to make a difference in a child's 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Owens), my colleague on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem of a failure of vision, a 
failure to understand that every time the word ``flexibility'' is used, 
it is used in a way which says that there is a limited pot of money 
here. We want to squeeze it in as many ways as possible. We want to 
give the flexibility to the people who have neglected the priority in 
the first place.
  The State governments have neglected the priority. The local 
education agencies either have neglected the priority or they do not 
have the funds. We have only a few basic initiatives being undertaken 
by the Federal government.
  The initiative is based on a recognition of the need. There is a need 
for smaller class sizes. There is clear research that has proven that 
smaller class sizes are very effective. The class size of the class my 
colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), went to when he 
was young did not have any 32 youngsters in it, I can assure the 
Members.
  There is a clear need for a focus in this area. There is a clear need 
for a focus on school repair, innovation, and construction, as we were 
talking about before.
  The American voters have made it quite clear that they understand the 
need. They have the common sense to see that we need more government 
assistance in education, and underneath that, they have pinpointed 
certain areas where the need is.
  Instead of my Republican colleagues, the Republican majority, 
recognizing that we should approach the problem comprehensively, with a 
comprehensive plan, where we have additional money for teacher 
development, professional development, as well as money to reduce class 
sizes, they want to seize upon the fact that here is an initiative that 
is moving, it has the approval of the populace out there, it is 
popular; therefore, let us strangle it and wrestle it until we get 
something out of it that we can use for some other purpose: We can hand 
money to the Governors, or hand money to the local elected officials.
  Let us have an additional amount of money for professional 
development. Mr. Speaker, let us have a comprehensive approach: more 
money for professional development, more money for certification of 
teachers, more money for the recruitment of teachers, more money for 
undergrads.
  We have a major crisis underway already. We need many more teachers. 
We need numerous incentive programs. Across-the-board, we should 
recognize the need to move to take care of our brain power needs in 
America. Our brain power needs are overwhelming. With our nickel-and-
dime approach, squeezing each program, trying to get flexibility, 
trying to use the same money in two or three different ways, that is 
not appropriate. We need a brain power approach which requires that the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce have the courage and vision to 
take a comprehensive approach.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), a senior member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join those who have commended the gentleman 
for his leadership on the education issue so important to our country.
  I would also like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling). This may be the last debate on education, one never knows.
  I listened with great interest to the gentleman's comments earlier 
about all of the good provisions that were in the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, and now bemoan the fact that the Republican 
leadership has walked away from all the good things that the gentleman 
says are in there.
  Of course, I think it is important for us to do everything in our 
power to help equip our children with the tools necessary for them to 
reach their self-fulfillment. It is in their personal interest, as well 
as in the competitiveness of our great country, to have an educated 
work force.
  That is why it is so sad to see the Republican leadership walk away 
from the Labor-HHS bill that was negotiated by chairmen, respective 
chairmen in the House and Senate, on this bill.
  If it is, as the gentleman says, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) and others on the majority have said, that it contains 
all of these great provisions, why squander all of that just to pander 
to the needs of the extreme in the business community that does not 
want to have workplace

[[Page 25875]]

safety for so many millions of Americans who are susceptible to 
repetitive stress injuries?
  I want to get back to the professional development that the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens) talked about. He has been a champion over the 
years on this, as well.
  The research that is contained in this very bill, the funding for the 
National Institutes of Health and the institutes within that that study 
how children learn, tells us that children learn better in smaller 
classes. Indeed, they do better in smaller schools.
  We cannot have smaller classes and smaller schools without school 
construction. We talked about that in the previous motion to instruct.
  The motion of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) addresses the need 
for more teachers. If we are going to have the smaller classes that the 
scientists tell us help children learn better and thrive better and 
succeed, then it is necessary, of course, to have more teachers, better 
trained, and have the professional development that is necessary.
  The $1.7 billion that was in the bill is a good start. It goes a long 
way. Then we see the need that this very science describes that we in 
this body fund, that we support, and then, what, turn away from it 
because the business community did not like chapter and verse of an 
agreement reached in good faith by Republicans and Democrats in a 
bipartisan way on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill?
  So again, I always say the same thing: The children can hear us. They 
hear us when we speak, especially when we speak about them. Let us not 
send them a mixed message that education is important, but we do not 
want to spend the money on it to help them reach their fulfillment. 
Education is fulfillment, it is important, except if the business 
community does not like some other comma or semicolon in the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's motion to instruct.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my colleague on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu). I congratulate and thank him for his tireless efforts 
in his first term on behalf of the principle of reducing class sizes. I 
think his motion correctly understands a problem that we do have and a 
tradition that we should have.
  I certainly respect the judgment of local school districts. I admire 
those who serve on school boards and who work in the school districts. 
I also understand, though, that there is an unfortunate tradition of 
growing redundant administrative staffs in local school districts. 
There is an unfortunate tradition of diverting resources away from 
direct instruction to the education bureaucracy at the local level.
  That is why I am very reluctant to change this administration's 
emphasis from targeted dollars for class size reduction to a more 
flexible discretionary block grant that I believe would not serve the 
purposes that I believe we all seek to serve.
  The tradition that we ought to keep is a tradition of some decisions 
at the national level for national purposes. We should make a national 
decision at the national level to favor smaller class sizes, 
particularly in the primary grades, in order to enhance reading skills 
and other skills for students.
  Mr. Speaker, when we passed the 100,000 police, we did not give every 
mayor in the country a block grant and say, ``Go out and try to reduce 
crime.'' We instructed the local governments to hire more police 
officers, and it worked.
  When we passed a water resources bill in this House, we did not go to 
the local elected officials and say, ``Which flooding problems or 
drainage problems do you have? Figure out how to solve them, and here 
is some money.'' We say, ``build this dam'' or ``dredge this river'' or 
``solve a certain problem.''
  We should not substitute our judgment for those of local elected 
people, but we should not abdicate our right and responsibility to make 
certain crucial judgments for the commonwealth of a nation.
  I think the motion of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) reflects one 
of those judgments. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, I want to make sure everybody understands there is no 
discretionary block grant. We are not talking about any discretionary 
block grant. There is not such in what we have negotiated.
  What we have negotiated is the same as what we negotiated last year. 
The reason we were able to negotiate it last year is because the 
President understood, after experience, that I was right. When he 
discovered that 30 percent of the first group were not qualified and 
went into areas where they already had 30, 40, 50 percent unqualified 
teachers, he realized that was a mistake.
  So all we said last year, and say this year, is that if there are 
some teachers who have potential, please use some of the money to make 
sure that they become quality teachers.
  I am so glad to hear that everybody has accepted the idea of 
flexibility. Boy, I will tell new members on the committee, for 20 
years in the minority I could not even get the gentleman's side to put 
the word in the American dictionary, or any dictionary, as a matter of 
fact.
  But again, the public is probably wondering, what is it they are 
discussing? They are talking about 100,000 teachers. Do they not 
realize there are 16,000 public school districts? Do they not realize 
there are 1 million classrooms? That is just a spit in the ocean.
  Well, it is a spit in the ocean, but it is the right spit, because it 
will go to rural America. It will go to center city America, where the 
problem is the greatest, trying to attract quality teachers.
  But again, I just heard down in the well one more time how wonderful 
it is to have 18 in a classroom. I do not know where the 18 came from. 
All the research would indicate if we cannot get down to 12 or 13, we 
are probably not making much difference.
  However, what the gentlewoman should have said was if there are 23 in 
the classroom and the teacher is qualified, please do not take my five 
youngsters in order to bring that down to 18, and put them into some 
classroom where the teacher is not qualified.

                              {time}  1515

  Any parent wants their child to be in a classroom where the teacher 
is fully qualified enthused and dedicated.
  Again, let us not talk about the Republican leadership bringing this 
to an end, that is not what it is all about. When we are negotiating at 
midnight and 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock in the morning and we do not have 
everybody there that we should to look at language, all three sides 
thought that they negotiated the same thing, then they read the 
language and discovered, as a matter of fact, that is not what they 
negotiated at all.
  Now we are on the business of trying to make sure that what all three 
sides think they agreed to is written in such a manner that that is 
what it says, and my colleagues would not want it to be any other way.
  Again, let me remind everyone what we are doing this year is what the 
White House agreed to last year, to make sure that we talk about 
quality in every classroom; that we do not try to put somebody in a 
classroom that is unqualified just to reduce the class size; that, as a 
matter of fact, we try to find some way, some way to get qualified 
teachers into center-city America and rural America, a difficult job my 
colleagues will have to solve after I am gone.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by just pointing out what the gentleman 
from

[[Page 25876]]

Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce has stated again, which has already been stated 
several times. We are not talking about a difference in money here at 
all. The $1.75 billion is in the Labor, HHS Education bill. It is a 
controversial bill, but not about that sum of money, I think we all 
know that, that sum of money will survive all of this.
  As a matter of fact, 75 percent of it will be used for the exact 
purpose that is talked about in the motion to instruct conferees 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the reduction of class 
size and a balance to be used for teacher training.
  This is not a block grant situation, but the balance will be used for 
teacher training. So we are talking about a minor degree of 
flexibility.
  Here is what I would ask everybody to do, maybe there are some people 
listening in their offices and they have a moment to do this before 
they vote on this or on the Labor, HHS bill, but to call their 
Governors up, I do not care if they are Republicans or Democrats, and 
ask them about this. Ask them if they want it mandated that they have 
to use all this money to hire teachers or if they could have some 
flexibility to use some of the money for teacher training.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to wager a small bet, if you will, 
that 100 percent of those answers would be give us whatever flexibility 
you can in order to use that money so we can accommodate our State and 
our local school districts as best we can.
  Mr. Speaker, at a recent committee hearing, I asked Secretary Riley, 
who, of course, is a former Governor, if he would prefer to have some 
measure of flexibility in the use of Federal funding which, as my 
colleagues will recall, it accounts for about 6 percent of all Federal 
spending, and he was unresponsive to that. But I would point out that 
the one issue I know of that all of the Governors got behind in the 
last couple of years and that has been referred to by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Wu), too, is the Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act, which I think speaks volumes about flexibility in this area, it is 
called Ed Flex.
  We did get it passed. We all agreed to it in every way we possibly 
could. So my judgment is that we are talking about flexibility. We are 
talking about giving us the opportunity to be able to spend money 
properly.
  Let me finally just say this, and I will quote, ``we can reduce the 
education gap between rich and poor students by giving schools greater 
flexibility to spend money in ways they think most effective, like 
reducing class sizes in early grades.'' They are also those who 
support, and again I quote, ``granting expanded decision-making powers 
at the school level, empowering principals, teachers and parents with 
increased flexibility in educating our children,'' and that ends the 
quote.
  We have fought a lot about this, but it is interesting to note that 
those quotes that I just gave my colleagues are two principles which 
can be found on page 86 of then Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al 
Gore's book Putting People First.
  I think we can all agree that education flexibility is what is needed 
here. Twenty-five percent of this money is for choice of the district. 
They can use it all for class size reduction if they want. They even 
have that option as well.
  Let us give them the flexibility; and I politely say that, because I 
respect what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) is trying to do. But I 
would urge all of us to turn down the motion to instruct conferees to 
give the flexibility to the States to improve education for all of our 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are sometimes inconvenient. Facts can be 
somewhat inconvenient. We have been hearing that there is no difference 
between what would happen if we did not pass this motion and what would 
be happening under last year's appropriations and next year's 
appropriations. That is absolutely not true. That is absolutely not 
true.
  Class size reduction program, a 30 percent increase, that would not 
happen if we go home under a continuing resolution as is currently 
proposed. Next, school renovation, school renovation, there will be no 
school renovation money if we go home under a continuing resolution as 
is currently proposed.
  Next, 21st century community learning centers offering families a 
safe place and their children to learn, there is 100 percent increase 
in funding for 21st century community learning centers that would not 
occur if we go home without this next new appropriation completely 
done.
  Eisenhower Professional Development grants, a two-thirds increase for 
the Eisenhower grants.
  Finally, Pell Grants, a $500 increase in Pell Grants, that would not 
occur, not occur if we go home under a continuing resolution, rather 
than getting the work of the House done.
  Why have we not been getting the work of the House done? We did reach 
agreement on all of these education issues, but the deal was broken. I 
noticed this motion on Sunday, with an intent to bring it up on Monday, 
but we had an agreement as of Sunday night.
  Because powerful special interests called into the Republican 
leadership, and I do not fault the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) and I do not fault the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) for this, but because telephone calls were made, that deal to 
increase education funding, to increase Pell Grants, to increase 21st 
center learning centers, to increase teachers, to reduce class size, 
that deal was broken.
  In my congressional district, I commissioned a study on class size, 
only 6.4 percent of students in my congressional district are in class 
sizes of 18 or fewer. The other students, the other 94 percent of 
Oregon's students in the 1st Congressional District are equally split 
between class sizes of 19 to 24 students, or 25 or more.
  More devastatingly, in Clackamas County, almost 50 percent of 
students in kindergarten through third grade are in class sizes of 25 
or more.
  In Multnomah County, Portland, the percentage of students in grades K 
through 3 in classes of 25 or more is also at almost 50 percent. In 
Washington County, it is more than one-third of the students. In 
Yamhill County, it is almost one-third of the students.
  This is a program which makes a difference. I saw it. I visit schools 
all the time, as my colleagues do. At Reedville Elementary School in 
Aloha, it worked exactly as intended by adding only one additional 
first grade teacher, it brought the average class size down from 27 
students to 18 students.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the studies do show that when we 
bring class size down from 27 to 18, it makes a measurable difference 
which lasts over the years. The SAGE study from Wisconsin demonstrates 
that, the STAR study from Tennessee demonstrates that, and even the 
program in California, which has been very difficult to measure, 
indicates that in the third grade, there are measurable differences.
  But the fact is this: This class size initiative makes a difference. 
I have seen it make a difference. I have seen it cut class size from 27 
to 18, but it is not being done today, because powerful interests 
called the leaders of this Chamber.
  I want the students of America to have the same access to leadership 
as these powerful interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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 Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum 
is

[[Page 25877]]

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 168, 
nays 170, not voting 94, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 591]

                               YEAS--168

     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
     Clay
     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
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--170

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     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--94

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Barr
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Conyers
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Neal
     Ney
     Ose
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Turner
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise

                              {time}  1547

  Messrs. SHIMKUS, RILEY, EHLERS, and TAYLOR of Mississippi changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________