[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7361-7368]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I start today by talking about 
the person whose name I carry and the reason I have such a long name on 
the board. That name is Millender, Juanita Millender-McDonald. It is 
because of my father, Reverend Shelly Millender, who taught us that 
education is important, that we must have a quality education in order 
to challenge the world that would be before us. And so, Mr. Speaker, 
tonight I rise with several of my colleagues to discuss the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act known to 
us as ESEA.
  This act is an act that is of immense importance to our children and 
the future of our Nation. The education of our Nation's children is an 
issue of paramount concern. As Members of the House of Representatives, 
it is imperative that we remain focused on our national priorities of 
raising standards and providing special assistance to children in need 
to ensure that all students are prepared to face the challenges of the 
21st century. Globalization has brought us into a more competitive 
world where the challenges of technology will dominate the economic 
relations among world nations. If all of our children are not prepared 
to face these challenges, our great country will not continue to lead 
the world in the vital areas of economy and technology, and also in the 
critical areas of democracy and political participation.
  We must, Mr. Speaker, guarantee quality school facilities, quality 
teachers, smaller classroom sizes and gender equity in technology so 
that all of our children, both boys and girls, are able to face these 
new challenges.
  I stand with some of my Members who are on the floor today as we 
recognize America's teachers. As a former teacher, I know the 
importance of teachers and their leadership to the classroom, but more 
importantly their leadership for the future, for our future, America's 
future because they are guiding our children who will be the leaders of 
tomorrow. Some of them will be the Members of Congress. Therefore, we 
must instill in them not only the moral standards, character building, 
but also quality education, quality education that comes from good 
teachers. I stand today in that salute and recognize the importance of 
teachers in this whole process.
  In the 106th Congress, the authorization of Federal aid to many 
education programs covered under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act known as ESEA is expiring. These bills have passed through the 
House in a piecemeal approach to reauthorizing major ESEA programs. It 
is expected that the final piece of the ESEA puzzle, H.R. 4141, will be 
coming to the floor soon. H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunity to 
Protect and Invest in Our Nation's Students Act, also known as the 
OPTIONS Act, amends ESEA programs regarding education technology which 
is part of title III, the safe and drug-free schools and communities 
that is couched within this title III. It also amends title IV, and the 
education block grant which is title V.
  I am deeply concerned, however, Mr. Speaker, with title I of H.R. 
4141, entitled the transferability. Transferability is essentially a 
backdoor block

[[Page 7362]]

grant program which would allow Federal funds intended to target 
technology, teacher training, school safety and after-school care needs 
to be used for any purpose deemed educational regardless of its 
relevance to the core mission.
  When we look at, Mr. Speaker, technology we think about the digital 
divide. The urban and rural areas both are in dire straits because of 
the lack of high technology to our students in both the urban and the 
rural areas. When we look at teacher training, Mr. Speaker, we look at 
those persons who will be guiding and directing our students through 
this 21st century, and indeed it is critical that we focus on 
professional development as an ongoing core of teacher training.
  School safety. We do recognize that children must be in an 
environment that is conducive to learning and, therefore, school safety 
is vital for this training. After-school care cannot just be left up to 
the schools now. It should be the community, it should be churches and 
all others who are getting involved in after-school care programs. 
These are very vital, very critical areas in the holistic education of 
our students.
  Title I of H.R. 4141 allows States and local educational agencies to 
transfer funds between ESEA programs after receiving funds for specific 
purposes. I would like to draw attention to that, because we can ill 
afford to have moneys that should go for one program specifically for 
that purpose to be transferred to another program. That is the whole 
notion of this transferability clause. Under title I, local education 
agencies can transfer up to 30 percent of one program's funds to 
another without any publicly documented rationale.
  That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to really train our 
teachers, educate our students, have a school that is conducive to 
learning and have targeted technology that is applied for all students, 
then we must not have this transferability clause that will snatch 
funding from any program one deems important to transfer these funds to 
another program. In other words, if the funding has gone to the State 
specifically for a purpose and a program, then we should not be allowed 
to transfer up to 30 percent or any percent on a program that was not 
initially funded by this body.
  If a local education agency receives State approval, then 100 percent 
of those funds can be transferred between programs. In such cases, the 
State is not required to establish criteria for these decisions or 
document their approval. Again, it would not be up to the State, it 
would be up to the legislation that we apply here on the floor, and 
this is why I believe that H.R. 4141 does a great injustice to this 
country's young people, our students.

                              {time}  1930

  Block grants, whether by law or de facto, and despite their 
popularity, do more harm to education than good. In fact, by pouring 
Federal funds into general State operating funds, we are not able to 
guarantee that the needs of all children are served, particularly the 
schools and the students with the most need.
  Again, I reiterate, those students are the students who are in the 
urban schools like my schools, in the Watts area, in the Compton area, 
and the Linwood area and the Wilmington area. Those are the schools 
where there are the students with most needs, and also in the rural 
communities where those students are falling behind in technology.
  Transferability, as mandated in Title I of H.R. 4141 increases the 
odds that ESEA money will not reach urban, minority students for much-
needed educational programs. A study done, Mr. Speaker, by the General 
Accounting Office in January of 1999, reported that Federal funds are 8 
times more likely than State funds to target disadvantaged students. 
Why are we putting this in the hands of the State when this has been 
documented by GAO, that the funds will be targeted more for 
disadvantaged students in coming from the Federal as opposed to the 
State?
  The report further concluded that Federal monies helped to close the 
gap in spending between the richest and poorest districts. Currently, 
local education agencies that receive Federal money are required to use 
the funds on specific populations and for specific purposes. No more, 
no less. The transferability clause of H.R. 4141 will allow local 
education agencies to use Federal funds in any way they like, resulting 
in the possible exclusion of funds for programs that serve 
disadvantaged students in low-income districts.
  We know that is not right, Mr. Speaker. We know that we cannot look 
to any local education agency to apply the funds that should be 
documented in legislation from us. We just give them that autonomy to 
transfer 30 percent of those funds to any program they deem important.
  Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to think that funds earmarked for the 
improvement of our education system's core mission can be used for 
virtually any purpose. Transferability makes this prospect a reality 
and it is likely to have a negative effect on teacher training, school 
safety, and education technology.
  Under H.R. 4141, we run the risk of diminishing our present emphasis 
on teacher training that is critical to maintaining a high standard 
among our schools. Under H.R. 4141, schools can decide to use funds 
targeted for upgrading and improving teacher quality for other 
purposes. Funds that could be used for teacher recruitment and 
certification may also be transferred to other programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I have with me tonight a gentleman who we all know was 
the superintendent of public instructions in the State of North 
Carolina. He has come tonight because we are both rather stunned by 
this H.R. 4141 and its adverse impact on the education of our students. 
Let me now present the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for yielding, and I thank her for putting together this Special Order 
tonight, and for her leadership on this issue in the House. It is an 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about this critical issue 
of education for our Nation. When we talk about that, we talk about our 
children. I often wonder, having served at the State level in North 
Carolina for 8 years where I saw the funds coming, the Federal funds, 
and let me remind our colleagues and the people who might be listening 
this evening that when we talk about Federal funds, they only represent 
about 7 percent of the total money spent in this country on education. 
Is that insignificant? No. Is that the only amount we can have? Well, 
let me explain to folks that if we go back to the 1960s, it was about 
15 percent.
  So it is not a magic number, it is just a number that we live with 
today because the money has been cut over the years. Did that money 
make a difference? Absolutely, because it was categorical money. Folks 
tend to forget that in the 1960s, we decided math and science were 
important in this country after Sputnik. We put the resources in, and 
did it make a difference? Absolutely, it made a difference. It gave us 
a lead in science and technology that we are enjoying the benefits of 
today. Our public schools responded, and so did our universities.
  Now, why people need to have movement of funds from one category to 
another in that is very easy. There is not enough money in them. If 
there is enough money in those categories, they would not need to steal 
from staff development for teachers and for teacher recruitment and 
those dollars that are badly needed. It is important that those dollars 
be there, because I think the Federal commitment, as the gentlewoman 
has pointed out, is so critical. It says that it is important to this 
Nation.
  Here just today we have stood on this floor and talked about how 
important our teachers are, and now we have a chance to decide that we 
are going to turn words into actions.
  Mr. Speaker, I said today, words are cheap, talk is cheap. We ought 
to walk the walk instead of talk the talk.
  I happen to have a son who teaches the fourth grade. If we paid 
teachers

[[Page 7363]]

the minimum wage, we would be raising the salary of teachers in this 
country, because they put in an awful lot of hours they are not 
compensated for.
  I think a lot of folks think of teachers working from maybe 7:30 or 8 
o'clock to whatever time is school is out in the afternoon. What they 
do not realize is those teachers grade papers in the evenings, they 
take children on field trips on the weekends, and here we are arguing 
about a few dollars. It is a lot of money in terms of what schools get, 
but if we look at it in terms of the whole Federal budget, it is not 
really a great deal of money. But a few dollars at the classroom level 
where teachers are makes a big difference.
  We have colleagues here who want to say well, it is just where the 
teacher is. No, we need people for staff development. We need people in 
the principal's office, we need people in the central office, because 
someone has to coordinate all of this. We need people at the Federal 
level. I know when I was State superintendent, I depended greatly on 
the Federal office of education for research and development monies, 
and yes, for those grant monies. So it does make a difference that we 
have those monies in those categories.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that we want to talk about taking it 
away, and that is really what we are talking about. Any way we cut it, 
we are going to take it away from some of the most needy children in 
this country, the very children that we want to raise the threshold for 
and make sure that in the 21st century, they have a chance to make it.
  We talk about the digital divide, and I will talk about that more in 
just a moment. But the digital divide is nothing compared to the divide 
that we are going to have for the children who do not have the 
opportunity to learn to read, and reading is fundamental; that do not 
learn to do math early, because many of the children show up at the 
public schools in this country who have not had the opportunity before 
they get there for a variety of reasons, the biggest one being poverty.
  If there is one thing that we can classify, it reaches across ethnic 
lines, no matter whom they are, a child who shows up from poverty is a 
child more likely to be behind in school and have a difficult time. If 
we do not give children a good education, we relegate them and the 
future generation to poverty.
  That is what public education is about in this country. America is 
really the one place in the world that says, no matter where one comes 
from, we give them an opportunity to step up to this great smorgasbord 
we call public education, if one is willing to work for it. But if 
America is going to seize this opportunity of a new economy in the 21st 
century, Congress must provide national leadership in this vital 
effort. We cannot capitulate now. The one time we have a chance to make 
a difference, we ought not to just lay down and play dead.
  I have often said, there is a big slip between the lip and the hip, 
and that really comes with a lot of talk and not a lot of resources to 
get the job done.
  Across this country, the American people are crying out for a greater 
investment in education. I have been in probably many schools, maybe 
more than most people in this body, having been superintendent, and I 
go back regularly. I have never had a child, the truth is I have never 
had a teacher to ask me who paid for something in the school, whether 
it was local, State, or Federal. They just know they do not have 
enough. There are surveys after surveys that tell us that teachers take 
money out of their pocket to make sure they have resources in the 
classroom for their children.
  Now, I am here to tell my colleagues tonight that is not right. Here 
we are arguing about a few dollars that we are going to send to help 
make education better for the poorest of our students, because those 
are the ones the teachers take money out of their pockets for. They are 
the ones who are there that we are not paying as well as we ought to.
  I told someone today, my colleague may have overheard it, when we go 
through the grocery line in the check-out and pay for our groceries, 
because the teachers are not paid like they should be, in my opinion, 
they do not have a check-out that says, if you are a teacher, come 
through this line, and if you are a millionaire, come through this 
line. We all go through the same line. We ought to recognize that. If 
we truly value what our teachers do, and I do, I think we have to do a 
better job, and I think folks are expecting us to do it.
  The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, has to join 
with us to make it happen. We have to stop arguing about those things 
like school vouchers. Every year they want to talk about school 
vouchers. That is not the answer to the problem. Because if that were 
the answer, we would have all been on board a long time ago. All that 
is is a way to take money off the top and deny those most-needed 
students their opportunity.
  We can talk about all we want in saying, well, competition is what we 
need in schools. We have 53 million students in school in America this 
year, and 94 percent, roughly, in this country, and in some States it 
is higher than that, it is 95, 96 percent, they are in the public 
schools. So the key is for us to use what resources, to use the kind of 
influence and support we have to help all of our children do better.
  I think our schools are doing a far better job today than they have 
ever done, for all of our children. There is no question about that. No 
one can tell me that is not true, after looking at the data and look at 
the data across years. But the challenge we have is what we have done 
last year or 5 years ago is not good enough. It will not suffice in the 
high-tech economy we find ourselves in, competing with the world. We 
cannot drain off resources from our public schools and leave our 
children behind, condemned to a bleak future of failure.
  As we work in this Special Order tonight, I hope we can share with 
the American people that our commitment is to our public schools, it is 
to make sure that every single child has an opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have done in this country is make 
sure that children, try to make sure that children show up ready to 
learn. We can tell a difference in a child who comes from a background 
who has not had those opportunities, if he just had one year of Head 
Start, good Head Start or preschool.
  In North Carolina, as my colleagues well know, our governor has 
worked with the general assembly and they are now putting in a 
prekindergarten program. They call it Smart Start. We had some when I 
was superintendent that we used Federal monies for that, and it makes 
all the difference in the world. It is a public-private partnership, 
and in some cases, we are working with other groups. But for the 
children who have not had that enrichment, who show up at school who do 
not know their colors, who have not been read to when they were little 
folks, it makes all the difference in the world. It helps the teacher, 
when we have 26, 28, and in some cases, 30 children.
  I often remind folks that Fay and I were fortunate. We have 3 
children. I would have hated to have had 26 of them, trying to teach 
them. Some days it was tough with 3. People do not realize what it is 
in that classroom. Teachers are liable to stay in that classroom. If 
they want to go to the bathroom, they have to get relief. There are not 
many jobs like that today. I think we need to honor them and respect 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, our job here in Washington ought to be talking about how 
we can make it better, not create situations that are barriers to those 
teachers, and the teachers are the ones who really understand the 
problems the children have. They do not want the money to be taken away 
from staff development. Education may be the only place I am aware of 
where we tell teachers that they have to continue to get recertified, 
and they to pay for it themselves. Most businesses that I know of pay 
for their employees to go to get continuing training.
  We are starting to do a better job, but we are not there yet where we 
are paying for all of them. I think if we

[[Page 7364]]

honor education and we care for our children and our teachers, we ought 
to be about doing those things. Our schools can do better, and they 
will with our help, but only if we are willing to help.

                              {time}  1945

  We need to foster a greater connection, I think, between students, 
teachers, parents, and the broader business communities, one of the 
points we were talking about earlier.
  If a community gets involved, it is amazing what happens to students. 
One of the things you talked about earlier that are so important, we 
have to reduce class sizes. But if we talk about reducing class sizes 
on the one hand and take away staff development for the teachers and 
the training opportunities they have, all of a sudden we are working 
against ourselves because we are saying, well, this worked well but we 
are going to take that away and put it over here.
  What we really need is to enrich and help that whole system. We need 
staff development for teachers and administrators. We need to make sure 
that when we are looking at roughly 2 million teachers we are going to 
need in the next few years, we ought to be looking for ways we can 
energize and put money out there. We did it in the sixties when we 
wanted to do math and science. We are going to have to do it again if 
we honor and believe in education.
  I happen to believe very strongly that I would not be here in the 
United States Congress if it had not been for public education, and I 
would say to the bulk of the Members, neither would they. They should 
not forget from whence they came. I would not be here. If we had been 
in the process of vouchers and all these other things, I would not have 
gotten the kind of education I did. I went to the public school, and 
whatever the most affluent child in my community got, I had the 
opportunity to get. That is true of most of the people in this body.
  We should never forget that. We should not deny that opportunity for 
any child in America, no matter where they come from ethnically nor 
where they come from economically, because who knows, who knows, one of 
those youngsters may find the cure for cancer or any other number of 
diseases. Eventually they may be in this body making some of the same 
decisions.
  We have a tremendous challenge. We need a national commitment. We 
need that commitment to the notion that parents in America have the 
right to expect that their children will have the best teachers in the 
world, and we cannot have, attract, nor retain the best teachers if we 
do not support them. It is one thing to get them there. It is equally 
as important to keep them there with pay, respect, and support.
  That means staff development. That means when they need help, we 
respond; that we honor what they do, rather than criticize what they 
do. That bothers me greatly when I hear Members in this body do that. I 
was pleased today that we passed a resolution, but I will repeat one 
more time, now that we have said the words, we need to walk the walk. 
We need to have an education bill that bespeaks of how important 
education is in America for every child. Whether he lives in the 
richest suburbs or the poorest inner city or the most isolated rural 
parts of America, he should have the opportunity for an education.
  I think block grants and vouchers are not the way to go. We would 
ultimately waste the ability of children in this country. We must make 
sure that every neighborhood school in America works.
  I thank the gentlewoman for putting together this special order.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. He is 
steeped in experience. As a former State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, he recognizes and understands the importance of quality 
education, and he understands the barriers that are there with our 
children. They already come with a set of barriers, being poor and 
having unskilled parents. Then to further those barriers by not giving 
them the quality education is just absolutely an atrocity, in my book.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on this 
issue.
  I have another Member who is a leader in education who is on this 
floor just about every night talking about the inadequate education, 
given the funding that we do not get, but is busy pushing the whole 
notion of school construction and quality teacher training so that we 
can have the quality education that is sorely needed for those 53 to 54 
million students.
  I yield to none other than the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding to me. I want to congratulate her and applaud her insight in 
focusing on a very serious facet of the education bill that is going to 
be coming to this floor soon.
  I serve on the Committee on Education, and I have had to live with 
this for a long time. To have Members who are not on the committee 
understand what is going on and offer to give us some help in this 
crucial area is very uplifting. It is good to hear that we are going to 
be prepared to fight the fight on the floor which we fought in the 
committee and we lost.
  The crux of the argument that is being made tonight is that we should 
not take the Federal monies that are appropriated primarily to help the 
poorest students in the poorest communities and water that down, spread 
it out to communities which may need money for education, but we should 
not give them additional funds for education at the expense of those 
who have the greatest need.
  The original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 
to provide additional help for the poorest school districts and for the 
poorest students in those school districts.
  We have had a doctrine of flexibility and super flexibility, and 
various names have been assigned to it in the past 6 years by the 
Republican majority. But what they are attempting to do is Robin Hood 
in reverse. What the Republican majority wants to do is take the money 
from the poor and spread it out to the others who need it less.
  The irony of it is that they have better choices. We can all rejoice 
that we can make choices now which are very different from that and at 
the same time address the needs of any area that has educational needs.
  We have a surplus. We have a surplus. A lot of people do not want to 
talk about it here in Washington. It is the most important factor and 
development in the last 10 or 20 years. Instead of talking in terms of 
a deficit, there is a Federal surplus. Why do we have to rob the poor, 
therefore, to spread the Federal funds out to cover needs in some other 
district?
  I do think there are other needs. Nobody has spoken more often here 
on this floor than I have in favor of the Federal government taking a 
larger role in funding for education. The Federal Government's role now 
is around 7 percent of the total funding. Most funding for education 
comes from the State governments and from the local governments. The 
Federal government has a small role. The Elementary and the Secondary 
Education Act that we are talking about today is about $8 billion of 
Federal funds, $8 billion out of a huge budget for education, when we 
add the State and local government contributions.
  Clearly, if we go back and read the law it is still there, the 
findings in the preamble to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
that clearly the Federal government did not meet all the needs of 
everybody in education. The reasoning was that we should help those 
districts which have the needs most, help the poorest students, to 
relieve some of the burden from the State and local governments doing 
what they should have been doing all along, giving the kind of help 
these districts needed.
  The pattern is across America that those who need it most get the 
least. The pattern of State government is that they neglect those who 
need it most because they are the ones who have the least amount of 
power. It is a

[[Page 7365]]

power situation. The pattern over the years has been State government 
always neglects the needs of the poor, whether it is health care or 
education or any other need.
  The Federal government has stepped in in the interests of national 
security, in many cases. In World War II, they found when they had to 
draft large numbers of young men that they were basically unhealthy, 
suffered from poor nutrition, any number of problems that led to the 
generation of concerns at the national level about health care.
  We later on got the beginning of health care programs in terms of 
Medicare, Medicaid, and various other funding for hospitals and well 
baby clinics because it was understood that we cannot leave that to the 
States because they do not deal with it, and there is a need, there is 
a national security interest, in having a healthy population.
  There is now a national security interest in having a population that 
is well-educated. Nothing is clearer than the fact that brain power now 
drives the world in terms of the economy. If we move to the military 
sphere, any area of activity among governments or in governments 
requires a tremendous amount of brain power. Educated people are our 
best resource.
  What we are proposing here and what the gentlewoman from California 
has pinpointed is we are proposing a very dangerous and deadly move. We 
are moving in the wrong direction at a time when the budget surplus 
permits us to give more aid to education. If we want to help other 
areas beyond the poorest of the poor, then we could just add money to 
the budget and cover the additional areas.
  No, at a time when we can do that, we are proposing to take the money 
away from the poorest of the poor and give it to the other areas. Why 
not, at a time like this, dedicate more of the Federal budget to 
education?
  Let us stop for a moment. The American people should listen closely 
to what is happening. Between the time that Congress recessed and the 
time we came back last week, the estimates of the budget surplus went 
up by $40 billion.
  The estimate now is, the most conservative estimate is that this 
year's budget surplus, the amount of money we will take in in terms of 
taxes, revenue, versus the amount of money we have spent, the surplus, 
the leftover money, will be no less than $200 billion, $200 billion. 
The projection is that over the next 10 years we will have about the 
same or more, $200 billion per year for 10 years. We are talking about 
a $2 trillion surplus over a 10-year period.
  Why are we in an atmosphere of that kind? Why are we, with 
opportunities of that kind, going to rob or take money from the poorest 
of the poor and give it, spread it out for the rest of the schools? 
That is mean-spirited, it is insensitive, and it is shortsighted.
  We should rise to the moment. We have a golden opportunity, every 
legislator here, everybody in government has a golden opportunity to 
rise to this moment when we have abundant resources. We have had to 
make decisions for a long time based on the fact that we had a deficit. 
There was not enough funding. Now we have the funds. Where is our 
conscience? Where are our consciences? Where are our hearts? Where are 
our souls when it comes time to make decisions with resources that we 
have been blessed with?
  Instead of the generosity and charity spirit prevailing, just the 
opposite is happening. We choose to take what we have allocated for 
education for the poorest of the poor and to give it to those who need 
it less, spread it out.
  Sandra Feldman, who is the president of the American Federation of 
Teachers, has put it well in a recent article that she has in several 
papers.
  The legislative term for what is happening she says some people call 
a block grant, but she calls it a blank check. ``The result would 
probably be the disappearance --or at least the radical weakening--of 
programs designed to guarantee funding for critical national objectives 
like safe schools and lower class sizes.''
  I am quoting from Sandra Feldman's article, Mr. Speaker, and I will 
include the entire article for the Record.
  The article referred to is as follows:

Commentary on Public Education And Other Critical Issues--A Blank Check

                          (By Sandra Feldman)

       People in Hartford, Connecticut, have good reason to be 
     proud and pleased. For a number of years, students in this 
     poor, urban school district ranked academically lowest in the 
     state, but things are changing. A new superintendent, working 
     with the AFT local, used Title I money (federal funding 
     targeted specifically to educationally needy children) to put 
     in place a proven program called Success for All. And this 
     year, the district celebrated significant improvements in 
     math and reading test scores.
       This is just one story among many in which children are 
     doing better because their schools receive federal funding. 
     But if a measure that Congress is currently debating becomes 
     law, there will be fewer of these success stories.
       The so-called Straight A's bill would allow states to lump 
     together federal funding now devoted to programs that are 
     proven to help children learn--as well as programs that help 
     keep schools safe and drug free and enhance learning 
     technology--and give the money to the states to use in any 
     way they choose.
       The legislative term for this is ``block grant.'' But it 
     should really be called ``blank check.'' The result would 
     probably be the disappearance--or at least the radical 
     weakening--of programs designed to guarantee funding for 
     critical national objectives like safe schools and lower 
     class sizes.


                           Guranteed Funding

       The biggest of these programs, Title I, reaches 11 million 
     disadvantaged kids--though in fact many more could use the 
     kind of help it offers. Title I money goes directly to the 
     districts and schools where it's most needed, and it pays 
     for, among other things, extra teachers and programs that 
     help students master reading and writing and achieve higher 
     standards. Over the years, as Title I has been improved and 
     focused on proven programs, student achievement has improved, 
     and in some cases, such as Hartford, Title I has been a big 
     factor in turning around entire schools and even school 
     districts.
       It is possible that the states would carry on Title I and 
     other programs that are working--but it's very risky. The 
     reality about block grants is that they allow state 
     governments to spend the money any way they want to. And of 
     course, they have their own priorities, their own pressures 
     and demands to answer to, which do not necessarily include 
     needy children.
       This is not to say the states aren't good at lots of 
     things. Most have been working successfully to raise student 
     achievement. But it has been the targeted program funds of 
     the federal government that have spurred most of them on. 
     States have never done a good job of making sure all children 
     get their fair share of the education pie. Schools in poorer 
     communities have always been underfunded. Poor children, who 
     need more than other children, have always gotten much less.


                           Specious Arguments

       Supporters of education block grants talk about giving 
     states the right to run their own school systems without 
     federal interference. They claim they are for ``flexibility'' 
     and against the ``status quo.'' This is disingenuous, to say 
     the least. Virtually all of the Title I money already goes to 
     the local level, so what kind of flexibility are they talking 
     about? (Flexibility not to spend the money on what works?) As 
     for moving away from the status quo, that already happened in 
     a big way in Title I just four years ago. Strong 
     accountability requirements for district and schools 
     receiving Title I funds were added, and those requirements 
     have been the engine driving a lot of the academic progress 
     we've been seeing in the states.
       Of course, there is a big remaining problem with the status 
     quo: There simply isn't enough federal education funding to 
     meet needs. One percent of the entire federal budget is spent 
     on K-12 education, in comparison, for example, with the 2.5 
     percent spent on transportation. No one denies that 
     transportation is critical, but is building highways more 
     than twice as important as educating our kids?
       Americans want money spent according to need, not politics. 
     So why would Congress even consider turning the funding for 
     programs that serve needy kids into pork barrels for the 
     states? Straight A's is bad news for children, and people who 
     care about educational equity should call their members of 
     Congress to tell them so.

  To continue reading from her article, quoting, ``The biggest of these 
programs, Title I, reaches 11 million disadvantaged kids--though in 
fact many more could use the same kind of help it offers. Title I money 
goes directly to the districts and schools where it is most needed, and 
it pays for, among other things, extra teachers and programs that help 
students master reading and writing and achieve higher standards. Over 
the years, as Title I has been improved and focused on proven programs, 
student achievement has improved, and in some cases, such as Hartford, 
Title I has been a big factor in turning around entire schools and even 
school districts.''

[[Page 7366]]

  ``Supporters of education block grants talk about giving states the 
right to run their own school systems without Federal interference. 
They claim they are for `flexibility' and against the `status quo.'''

                              {time}  2000

  This is disingenuous, says Sandra Feldman. This is disingenuous to 
say the least, virtually all of the title I goes to the local level so 
what kind of flexibility are they talking about? They are talking about 
flexibility not to spend the money on what works.
  As for moving away from the status quo, that already happened in a 
big way in title I just 4 years ago. Strong accountability requirements 
for districts and schools receiving title I funds were added, and those 
requirements have been the engine driving a lot of the academic 
progress we have been seeing in the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the examples that have already been made by 
the Welfare Reform Act, where large amounts of money that were targeted 
for the poorest of the poor, welfare people, has not been spent by the 
States, and instead of them using that money for daycare and for job 
training, where they have had choices, and sometimes even when they did 
not have choices, they have channeled the money into other kinds of 
general funds or road repair or whatever and not bother to use it for 
the human resource needs that they have had.
  Given that example, why should anyone think that giving the States a 
blank check on maximum flexibility on education funds will mean that 
they are going to spend them wisely on those funds? I would like to 
conclude by saying there is a simple formula that I would like to leave 
with everybody who cares about education in America. If we just take 10 
percent of the surplus, 10 percent of the surplus each year, and devote 
it to education, we could resolve all of these problems with a minimal 
amount of distress anywhere.
  We do not have to take it from the poor to give to the rich. We can 
add money to the budget; that 10 percent would pay for construction 
needs, infrastructure needs. It would pay for additional computers. It 
would pay for a lot of different things like more teachers for the 
classroom, 10 percent of the surplus is $20 billion. It is only 10 
percent, but because the surplus is so large, it is $20 billion per 
year.
  With $20 billion per year, we can meet the capital needs in terms of 
infrastructure and equipment, and at the same time, we can also meet 
the needs in terms of improvements in education in other areas.
  We have an answer, and the answer does not require us to be mean-
spirited and take away from the poor to give to the rich. The answer is 
to add more money, 10 percent of the surplus should go for education, 
and we can solve this problem.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much 
for his leadership and the expertise that he brings to the table on 
education.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens). He has absolutely been stalwart in bringing to this floor those 
education needs and some of the concerns that are critical in the 
communities that have been underserved. We thank again the gentleman 
from New York.
  We have another education leader, I say, because he is on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, but he has also shown great 
leadership in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, I bring to now the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) for yielding to me. I commend her for giving us an 
opportunity this evening to have a general discussion of the state of 
education policy in the United States Congress and the all-important 
work that we are trying to accomplish in reauthorizing the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, that is the Federal programs affecting 
preschool and K through 12 and even afterschool activities that have 
been reauthorized every 5 years, and this year it is up. I hope we get 
it right.
  Earlier today we did pass a resolution in this House in regards to 
commemorating and honoring the teachers that serve our children 
throughout the country. And I am very glad that we took a few minutes 
this afternoon in order to do that, because, obviously, the studies 
show that outside of the active, caring, loving, involvement of parents 
in their own children's lives and especially the education, the next 
important determinant of how well a child is going to succeed in the 
classroom is the quality of the teacher actually working with our 
children, and that is why I feel we cannot do enough in order to 
support the teachers, provide them with the resources that they need in 
order to accomplish the job and the tasks and the objectives that we 
are calling upon them ever more so today to do.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid that the turn of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act has not been a happy one. I mean the Federal 
involvement in K through 12 education funding is roughly 6 percent to 7 
percent. It is not a large chunk of the pool of money that is provided 
to our public school systems throughout the country, but I feel it is a 
very important piece of the pie, because it goes to targeted, high 
need, disadvantaged students who are otherwise slipping through the 
cracks, and through the history of ESEA, there was a consensus 
developed throughout the Nation and in this Congress that the Federal 
Government can be involved in a targeted fashion, filling in some of 
those cracks, providing resources to the poor and disadvantaged high 
need children in the country. Also, our involvement kind of sets the 
tone as well and develops themes and develops priority that is we as a 
Nation really should be working on; issues such as class size 
reduction, one that hopefully is starting to pick up more momentum 
State by State, school district by school district.
  Even in my own home State of Wisconsin, we have had a very successful 
SAGE program that has been in place for quite a few years. Last year, 
the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee just did a comprehensive study 
and analysis of the SAGE program, which is a pilot program throughout 
the State, and the results were really stunning, as far as student 
achievement and the benefits of class size reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, as we speak to the administrators and the parents and 
the teachers, those involved in the public education system, there are 
certain things that they are calling upon from the Federal Government, 
for State governments, even the local school boards to step in and to 
assist them on, one of which is providing resources needed in order to 
reduce class sizes so that we do have a better student-teacher ratio in 
the classroom, which will help with individualized attention then to 
students, so that the teachers can focus on a high-need students and 
devote the attention that they need.
  But it also adds to increased discipline and safety in our schools. 
It should be a shared goal throughout the Nation. It should not be a 
partisan issue. But, unfortunately, it has not become a major part of 
the elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill, and I 
think that is a little unfortunate. But hopefully we will have a chance 
to correct that.
  Another important piece of the ESEA reauthorization was something 
that was passed by the House of Representatives last year, it is still 
pending action in the Senate, but it was the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
and that is the resources that we provide back to local school 
districts in order to provide training and professional development to 
teachers so they can enhance their skills so that a new generation of 
teachers, who will hopefully be very well qualified and talented, will 
be entering the classroom.
  Lord knows that we see the real challenge that lies before this 
Nation over the next 10 years. We are projecting about a 2.2 million 
teacher turnover within the next 10 years, and this presents not only a 
challenge but an opportunity. An opportunity to increase our 
involvement and effort in improving the quality of teachers, attracting

[[Page 7367]]

young, bright, talented students into the teaching professions, asking 
them to meet certain certification requirements so that we are getting 
the best and the brightest into the classrooms dealing with our 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have a new generation of teachers stepping in 
who are very capable of meeting the needs of an ever-changing global 
marketplace and a new economy that our kids have to find themselves in. 
So we need to do what we can within the ESEA reauthorization to help 
with the teacher training and professional development programs.
  There was a provision that I got included in the Teacher Empowerment 
Act which also provided resources for the professional development of 
our principals and superintendents and administrators of school 
districts, realizing that they play a very important role 
quarterbacking the school districts, setting the tone and providing the 
leadership of where a school district is going to go.
  But I talk to a lot of teachers who feel a little bit discouraged 
that there are not enough resources being provided for school 
modernization needs, providing the infrastructure and the technology in 
the classrooms, making sure that our kids have access to the technology 
that they need, which can be an incredibly powerful new learning tool 
at their disposal, but making sure the classrooms are wired, that they 
are getting access to the software and the hardware and especially, 
again, that there is professional development funding so that our 
teachers feel competent and capable of integrating that technology 
right into the classroom curriculum.
  In light of that, I, along with other members of the committee, 
offered an Ed-Tech amendment to a recent piece of the elementary and 
secondary education bill, one which would provide targeted funding 
exactly for this technology need in the classroom and exactly for the 
professional development of teachers and also for the integration of 
the technology into the classroom instruction and curriculum.
  Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected in committee. I think it 
is short-sighted, given the needs of the global marketplace today. In 
fact, just quickly, I had a very interesting lunch with Jim and 
Bridgette Jorgensen, who are the cofounders of the AllAdvantage.Com 
company. They started this company with two others, both of whom were 
H-1B visa students. They have created 700 jobs in this country alone, 
and they are expanding by leaps and bounds. But I was asking them about 
the issue of having to expand the H-1B visa program in the country and 
why it was necessary. And they said, in the short term it is necessary, 
because in the short term we are not getting enough of our own kids 
interested in math and science and engineering and computer science 
classes so that they can step in and meet the growth needs of a lot of 
these technology companies that are expanding incredibly fast, and 
helping to create a 3 percent unemployment level in this country.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce made a very important point in passing. Since we are 
paying tribute to teachers today, I just want to make certain that that 
point does not get lost. That is that many teachers who are now 
employed as teachers, as well as many students who are considering 
teaching, they point to the abominable working conditions in the 
schools. And one of the abominable working conditions that they cite is 
the physical infrastructure, the fact that schools are in disrepair.
  Schools have, in the case of New York, furnaces that still burn coal 
and, therefore, they pollute the air. Respiratory illnesses not only 
are there to be contracted by the children, but also by the teachers. 
Schools are overcrowded, and that creates an atmosphere which 
exacerbates the discipline problem. Schools are overcrowded, so they 
force the kids to eat lunch in three or four cycles, so they have to 
eat lunch very early.
  Mr. Speaker, if we care about teachers, and I heard many 
protestations on the floor today as to how important teachers are and 
how much we care about them, if we care about teachers, then we ought 
to give them better working conditions and I think we should not 
overlook the fact that we have better working conditions in many plants 
and industrial offices than we have in our schools for teachers. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is 
a very important point. Even schools in my district in western 
Wisconsin, especially in rural areas, are in need of repairs, and some 
are emergency repairs. But the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
offered a bit of a solution to this nationwide problem in a tax credit 
for bond referendums issued for the sake of school modernization and 
school construction needs.
  I think it is a very important role the Federal Government can 
provide by providing tax credits to local school districts, which will 
save local school districts with the additional expense of having to 
pay interest on those bonds that are being issued today. And so again, 
another piece in the puzzle where the Federal Government can partner 
with the State and local school districts in order to make it 
affordable for us to be able to provide quality education facilities 
for our schools.
  The essence of passing a budget here in Washington is also about 
establishing priorities. And if we want to be productive and meaningful 
as far as our children's future is concerned, we should be building Taj 
Mahals to our kids in the form of school buildings that they are going 
to be proud to walk in and do the work and feel proud to learn in. It 
would be a sure sign to our kids that the adults in their lives think 
enough about them and their education that we are willing to invest the 
resources that are needed to get this done and to get this 
accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that our colleagues here in this body would 
support the school modernization legislation that the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed.
  Let me just conclude by ending where I started and that is commending 
the teachers for the hard work that they put in throughout the Nation, 
and also commending the Vice President who had the courage to finally, 
at the Federal level, to speak up and say if we are going to get the 
teacher component of education right, we have got to talk about 
compensation. We cannot be afraid about talking about adequately 
compensating our teachers so that we can recruit the best and the 
brightest in the teaching profession, so that we can retain good 
quality teachers and not lose them to the private sector. And he has, I 
think, a very reasonable realistic proposal in awarding teachers who 
are going on and developing their professional skills with professional 
development classes, receiving higher degrees of education, providing 
bonuses to students who go into this subject area and obtaining their 
higher level certifications that are now being implemented on a State-
by-State basis.

                              {time}  2015

  This is something that, for too long, we have been afraid to talk 
about, yet we see the wholesale abandonment in the teaching profession 
by a lot of good teachers who would love nothing more than to stay in 
the classroom and work with our kids, but who are being enticed in the 
private sector with more lucrative job offers.
  Again, it becomes a question of priorities with our budgets and as a 
Nation of whether or not we are going to do right by the teachers and 
award them and provide them with an adequate compensation level so that 
they can make a decent living and take care of their own family while 
doing something that they love and want to do, and that is, teach in 
the classroom.
  It has been said that good teachers have a form of immortality. That 
is because their influence and radiance keeps on shining. I have had a 
few very, very good teachers that touched my life as a kid growing up 
on the north side of La Crosse, whether it was

[[Page 7368]]

Mrs. Heillesheim or Mrs. Stoker or Mrs. Mulroy or Mr. Trumain in the 
elementary school at Roosevelt in La Crosse, or whether it was Mr. 
Knutson or Mr. Kroner, Gary Corbiser, Mrs. Bee Small in the middle 
school at Logan. In high school, there were so many good teachers who I 
had the privilege to have teach me, whether it was Ernie Eggett, who 
taught me advanced algebra or calculus; or Joe Thienes who made physics 
and chemistry interesting for this student; Mr. Anderson, Mr. Markus, 
and Diane Gephardt who taught me how to write; Ron Johnson who sparked 
my love and interest in history that I carry with me even today.
  I just want to conclude by thanking them, in particular, for the role 
that they had in bringing me up because it did not necessarily have to 
end up here in the Chamber of the people's House, the House of 
Representatives. But for their influence and their concern about the 
future and my life, as well as a couple of loving parents that I had 
growing up under, it could have been a lot different for this kid on 
the north side of La Crosse.
  So tonight I just want to pay special tribute to those teachers who 
had a major impact and influence in, and influenced my life.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, one can see the leadership that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) shows, and he shares with us in 
showing how great teachers and quality teachers can bring about a 
quality Member of Congress.
  I suppose I started also in talking about the person who was 
instrumental in my life, my father, because my mother died when I was 
3\1/2\, and I was brought up by my father. This is why I carry the full 
name of Juanita Millender-McDonald. But he was so absolutely so strong 
on quality education.
  This is why, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4141 is potentially detrimental to 
both the Safe and Drug Free School Act and the 21st century community 
learning centers. Further, the national program on hate crime 
prevention sponsored by the Safe and Drug Free School Act could lose 
much-needed funds if this particular provision, that transferability 
clause, passes in this ESEA reauthorization.
  We can no longer, Mr. Speaker, tolerate violence, especially gun 
violence that affect the lives of our students. We have seen that with 
Columbine and the others.
  So I plan to offer an amendment which repeals the transferability 
clause in Title I of H.R. 4141 when it comes to the floor. I believe 
that it is extremely harmful for the local education agencies to be 
able to transfer funds between educational programs thereby weakening 
the original mandate of those funds.
  Again, Title I is for our poorest of children, the poorest of 
schools. I have those schools in my district of Watts and Wilmington 
and other places.
  I say to all of us in this House, let us not forget the disadvantaged 
student, the one who critically needs quality education.

                          ____________________