[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1063-1070]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE THREE R'S PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the 
Chamber today to talk about what is the most important issue facing our 
country today and certainly in the future, education: How can we 
prepare our children to become adults with the skills and the knowledge 
that they need to succeed and compete in the world today. It is a 
challenge that we are presently not meeting to the degree that we 
should, and it starts with K-12 education.
  Right now we are losing too many students before they even make it 
through high school, too many students who are not developing the 
skills and the learning experiences that they need. How can we go about 
fixing that problem?
  Well, for the most part, this is a local issue. This is something 
that States, school districts and local communities are going to be the 
primary drivers on in terms of fixing the problems, investing the 
resources and making the decisions. And I think we should keep that in 
mind, as the United States Congress, that we want to make sure that we 
empower the locals to do the job that they are in the best position to 
do.
  But the Federal Government does have a role. There is a lot of people 
that say that the Federal Government does not have any business being 
involved in K-12 education because it is a

[[Page 1064]]

State and local issue, period. I disagree.
  On the single-most important issue facing our country, the quality of 
our child's education, I think all taxpayers would like to know that 
some of that money that they pay in taxes to the Federal Government is 
going to help improve our K-12 education system since it is such an 
important issue to all of us.
  But the question that we are addressing here today is, what is the 
proper role for the Federal Government? How can they best use the money 
that they spend?
  Right now the Federal Government is responsible for about 7 percent 
of the school district's budget. Are we getting the most we can for 
those dollars? Are those dollars going to the right places? Are they 
coming with the proper amount of flexibility? I do not think so.
  Myself and a number of colleagues of mine have introduced a bill on 
education called the Three R's bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and others have 
cosponsored this to try to shift the focus of the Federal role in 
education to improve it and to make it work better. There are some 
basic principles that we want to outline today that we are headed 
towards on this program.
  First and foremost is we do need to make an increased investment in 
education. And have a chart here that lays out what our goals and 
priorities are, and that is the first time.
  There are many people that would like to believe, I guess, that we do 
not need to spend more money to make education better. And I will agree 
that we do not need to only spend more money, we have to make it more 
efficient, more effective and more accountable as well. But when we 
look at our crumbling classrooms in one end of this country to the 
other, the crushing need for school construction, at the coming 
shortage of teachers that we have, at the growing class sizes, at the 
growing needs for technology in our schools, there is no question that 
we as a Nation need to make a greater investment in K-12 education, and 
that is something that we ought to start with.
  But the other thing is, when we are looking at the Federal 
Government, where should we send our money? Those Federal dollars 
should be targeted to help where we can best help, and that is driving 
those dollars out to the communities that are in poverty, to the poorer 
communities that frankly do not have the same access to education that 
other communities have.
  If they live in a wealthy or tax-rich community, they have a number 
of options for funding the programs that they need in school. If they 
do not, they do not have as many options, they cannot simply raise a 
$100,000 from the parents or pass a levy or bond issue to generate 
those dollars.

                              {time}  1315

  The Federal Government should target their dollars that they send to 
get to those poor communities. We do not do a good enough job of that 
right now. Too many of those dollars are not going to the communities 
that truly need them. Our bill adjusts those formulas to drive them out 
primarily based on need, based on those poverty-based communities that 
we are headed towards.
  The other major problem of the Federal role in education right now is 
that it is too bureaucratic and there are too many strings attached to 
those dollars that are sent out. That is a problem in a couple of 
different areas. First of all there is insufficient flexibility. The 
needs of one school district may not necessarily be the same as 
another. The needs in Seattle may not be the same as Chicago or Spokane 
or South Bend, Indiana, there may be differences in what they want, but 
the Federal Government is very prescriptive in how we send the dollars 
out. They have to be spent in a certain way. That reduces the 
flexibility of those local communities to best use those dollars. But 
the other problem with it is the bureaucratic nightmare that goes with 
it.
  The way the Federal structure is currently set up, there is somewhere 
in the neighborhood of 60 different Federal programs, pots of money of 
varying sizes that all school districts in the country have to compete 
for. They fill out grants to go get these dollars. There are a whole 
series of problems with this process. First of all, the communities 
that need these dollars the most, the poor, the rural communities, they 
do not have the money for grant writers. They are struggling just to 
provide the educators they need in their school districts. So it 
becomes a snowball effect. They do not have the money to hire the grant 
writers so they cannot get the additional money the Federal Government 
is providing and the dollars do not get driven out where they are truly 
needed. But even in communities that have large school districts, you 
do not want your school district personnel to be grant writers. You 
want them to be educators.
  There is a school district in my congressional district that 
estimates in 1 year they spent 900 person-hours filling out Federal 
grants for money. Think of what those 900 person-hours could have been 
better used for to help educate our children. We need to give them that 
flexibility and freedom from the grant writing that is currently 
required of so many school districts. We drive our dollars out in a way 
that does not require that, that gives them that greater flexibility 
and lifts them away from that bureaucracy.
  The last issue I want to touch on is accountability. As I mentioned, 
we certainly need to invest more in education. But we also need more 
accountability, more effective results. The biggest reason for that is 
you cannot fix a failing school. You cannot educate a child that is not 
learning to read or write or develop the math skills that he or she 
needs if you are not aware of it. If we are not measuring the results 
of our schools and our students, we do not know where they are at. Now, 
this is something that should be State driven, no question. But I 
believe it should be the policy of the Federal Government to require 
States to keep track of how their schools are performing, so that 
parents can know what is going on and so that, most importantly, we can 
meet the needs as they come up. So that is another important part of 
our bill is we require States to measure performance at least three 
times during the course of K-12 education. In my home State of 
Washington, we do it in the fourth, seventh, and tenth grade. Different 
States do it at different places, but there needs to be a measurement 
so we know how the schools are doing.
  But the second most important part about accountability is the part 
that I think we are doing the weakest job on as a country, and, that 
is, once you find out the schools that are not succeeding, the students 
that are not succeeding, what do you do about it? Are you then 
investing and making the changes necessary to fix the problem? It is 
nice to know, but it is far more important to get in there and fix the 
problem so that all of us, all of our children, have access to a 
quality education. What our bill does is it requires that measurement 
and then once you find out what schools are not performing, we set 
aside money for the States to go into those specific schools and 
improve them and make them work better, to get the results that we 
need.
  Our bill is a significant change in Federal education policy. It is a 
change that reflects the need to spend more money certainly but to 
target those dollars in an appropriate place, to increase local 
flexibility so that they are not filling out Federal paperwork but, 
rather, educating our children and to have accountability, to measure 
results so that we know how our children are doing, how our schools are 
doing, so hopefully we can step up and improve them. I feel there is no 
more important issue that this Congress will deal with. I am pleased 
that the President has shown an indication to move in this direction. 
We have some differences on the proposal that he has outlined. But we 
also have a lot of similarities. I think there is a good chance that 
this Congress will make a significant change in education policy.
  With that, I am joined by several colleagues today who are cosponsors 
of this bill and share with me in our desire to get it passed and 
change this

[[Page 1065]]

role. I would first like to call on the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith). We appreciate that so much.
  I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, the national debate has shifted to our 
American system of education. Recently, President Bush offered a 
comprehensive education package. I am glad priorities concerning 
education are taking the national stage now, because improving our 
schools makes all our lives better.
  The President's proposal has much merit, but let me tell my 
colleagues about another education proposal and that is what the 
gentleman from Washington is talking about today, the Three R's Act. 
This bill demonstrates that both parties are willing to invest more in 
education and support strong accountability measures. The Three R's 
bill streamlines the Federal bureaucracy, allows for more local 
control, increases funding for poor schools and allows for more teacher 
and principal hiring and recruitment. The Three R's Act actually 
streamlines 50 Federal programs into five performance-based grants. It 
also provides for more resources to schools with high concentrations of 
poor children to help States meet their new performance goals. This 
will also be of particular benefit for my State, Mississippi.
  I recently released a report conducted about class sizes in our 
congressional district. The gentleman was talking about it earlier. The 
study revealed that over 80 percent of young children in these grades 
were taught in classrooms that exceeded the national goal of 18 
students per classroom. That is in my district. It is important that 
some of the funds from the Three R's Act or any education bill go to 
help reduce class sizes. Smaller class sizes have been proven to 
increase student achievement, reduce discipline problems and increase 
the amount of instructional time teachers are able to spend with 
students. Class size reduction has the strongest effects on children in 
kindergarten through third grade. A study conducted in Tennessee, for 
example, revealed that in the fourth grade, students from the smaller 
classes still outperformed the students from the larger classes in all 
academic subjects.
  In order to have a comprehensive solution to ensuring that our 
children receive a quality education, we must invest in school 
construction and modernization, mental health professionals and more 
guidance counselors in our schools, technology in the classrooms and 
smaller class sizes.
  With smaller class sizes, a teacher can better identify the needs of 
the students, provide individual attention, and spend less time on 
disciplinary matters. I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues in Congress on an education bill that will strengthen our 
education system for the 21st century.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) who serves on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and has been a leader on education policy for the full decade 
he has been in Congress and is one of the prime drivers behind this 
legislation.
  Mr. ROEMER. I appreciate the very kind words from my good friend and 
fellow New Democrat from the State of Washington (Mr. Smith). I want to 
applaud him for his hard work on this bill over the past year and a 
half. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for 
the eloquence in his statement. We will be joined by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to talk about education as well from his vantage 
point on the Committee on Education and the Workforce where he has 
joined me working on these efforts for the past several years.
  I also want to commend all the New Democrats that have worked so hard 
on education legislation over the past several years. We have a host of 
people that dedicate their careers in public service to trying to 
improve opportunities for young children, for people that are going 
back to school, whether they be 28 or 48 years old, to get a better 
education, whether it be a nontraditional student at 33 years old going 
to a community college. We are interested in working in areas to 
improve education for Americans across the country. The New Democrat 
Coalition has been a driving force to try to come up with these new 
ideas, to try to work with the Senate where, with this particular bill, 
the Three R's, we have worked with Senator Bayh, my colleague from 
Indiana, and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut to craft this 
legislation. And where we look to work in a bipartisan way with our 
fellow Republicans across the aisle, with the new administration and 
with all those people across the country that continue to say that 
education is the single most important issue across America.
  You can go into a small business or a large business and the first 
thing out of their mouth is education, to improve productivity. You can 
go into a labor union and talk to people about training opportunities 
and apprenticeship programs and the first word is improving education. 
You can talk about Democrats and Republicans, the Bush administration, 
the former Clinton administration, the nexus is here, the rivers are 
all coming together for us to finally work in a bipartisan way to 
achieve some much-needed results in improving public education in this 
country.




  Now, we are 2 years behind, ladies and gentlemen, 2 years behind in 
reauthorizing the most important education bill where there is a 
partnership between the Federal Government and our local schools, 
locally driven, I might add, for the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. We have proposed a bill that the gentleman from Washington has 
just very, very quickly outlined, and done it very well. That I think 
is a very, very good starting point and a possible ending point, for 
good bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the ESEA proposal. Let me 
outline two or three major components of this bill and then maybe touch 
on a brief area of disagreement with the Bush administration, and then 
conclude with the importance of resources and investment for public 
education in this country.
  First of all, what we do in this Three R's education proposal which 
has been dropped today, I think the number will probably be H.R. 345, 
is we consolidate a number, 50 to 60 Federal programs, down to five 
competitive Federal grants. These five areas, including title I for the 
poorest children; teacher quality to improve on the number of people 
going into the teaching profession and coming out, maybe going in at 
mid career; we talk about public school choice and expanding choice to 
empower more parents. Those are the five critical areas to consolidate 
and make sure that these decisions are not driven by Washington, D.C. 
but are driven by the local community with help and assistance from the 
Federal Government.
  Secondly, we demand more accountability and results from our schools, 
from every teacher, from every single child, to make sure that they can 
live up to the standards and the requirements of this new economy, so 
that they can meet the needs upon graduation from high school that are 
going to be needed by our businesses, by our unions, by our hospitals 
and our banks, so that they make certain requirements and that diploma 
is meaningful coming out of high school, that diploma means they have 
met certain assessments and skill levels, but that we do not also 
overtest and put a Federal mandate on our local schools. There is a 
delicate balance that we try to reach in this bill between recognizing 
the needs to test our students and demand more from our students but 
also not give unfunded mandates to our local schools.
  Thirdly, and I will talk about this a little bit more, we target new 
resources, new investments, new opportunities to some of the poorest 
children in inner city and rural areas in America that are not getting 
the same opportunities to a good education that some other students 
might be getting.
  Now, the CBO today is releasing new figures that say over the next 10 
years, the Federal surplus will swell to $5.6 trillion. Now, on a 
cautionary note, ladies and gentlemen, 1 month ago their

[[Page 1066]]

preliminary figure was $6 trillion, but with the economy slowing down, 
they have readjusted that by $400 billion in the last month. If we have 
an energy crisis, if we have a recession, if we have a problem 
overseas, that could significantly go down from that $5.6 trillion 
initial guesstimate.
  We do not know what it is going to be over the next 10 years. But 
certainly in this town where people are rushing to increase a tax cut, 
where they are rushing to throw money at defense, the very first thing 
that we are going to try to do in this session of Congress is work in a 
bipartisan way on investments in results of better public education. 
Certainly we can afford to invest some more resources into our 
education system, for quality teachers, for more public school choice, 
for professional development opportunities for our teachers, and 
smaller class sizes, things that are going to make a big difference in 
the quality of the student graduating from school.

                              {time}  1330

  So we will be fighting for more resources, and this bill devotes 35 
billion extra dollars on top of current funding over the next 5 years 
to education for ESEA.
  Consolidation, accountability, new resources, and less bureaucracy 
here. I think this is a very, very strong bill to work with the Bush 
administration and our fellow Republicans in a bipartisan way to 
finally get ESEA reauthorized.
  There are a couple of areas of disagreement that I think our 
colleagues will probably talk more about. One of them is how do we 
address failing schools. If the school is not adequately preparing, if 
the school is not adequately requiring, if the school is not adequately 
making sure that that student is getting good results and learning, 
then we need to do something about that school.
  The Bush administration proposal is to say we are going to give that 
student a $1,500 voucher to then leave that public school and take it 
somewhere else. Well, the first problem is, the $1,500 voucher could 
not really get someone in the door of a private school. They still have 
a $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 required payment to make for the tuition. 
But secondly, it starts to take vital money away from that public 
school that is failing.
  The slogan is, ``Leave no Child Behind.'' Well, one is leaving a 
school, an entire school, behind with that philosophy. We say in our 
bill, for a failing school, we are going to demand more. We are going 
to require more. We are going to remediate that school. We are going to 
put teachers or principals on probation. We are going to do more to 
make that school work with empowering parents with public school choice 
and charter schools and magnet schools and alternative schools, but 
keep that $1,500 in the public school system.
  We also have differences in some other areas that I will not get into 
on the amount of testing, on the amount of resources that we devote, 
but we will probably talk more about these ideas as this bill makes its 
way through. I think there is a great foundation between our bills to 
begin working together, with 80 percent agreement and bipartisan 
reauthorization of ESEA.
  I will conclude by again saying that I am very, very proud of the 
people that have worked so hard to put this new Democratic Coalition 
bill together and look forward to working in a bipartisan way to see 
that reauthorization of ESEA is a possible stepping stone to working in 
a bipartisan way on other issues.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to, before calling 
on my next colleague, amplify the point that the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) made about where the new Democrats are coming from on this 
issue. For years, there has been this sort of frozen public debate 
going on between Republicans and Democrats, with Democrats arguing that 
more money needs to be spent and Republicans arguing that there needs 
to be more accountability for results; and that as a consequence we 
have not done anything. We really have not moved forward significantly 
in either area.
  What this bill represents and what the new Democratic Coalition has 
worked so hard to do is a way to find a middle ground to bridge the gap 
and recognize what we ought to do is both. We certainly ought to have a 
more accountable education system that measures results, that tells us 
who is succeeding and who is not. We also need to invest resources; and 
that is going to be a major, major topic of conversation between us and 
the White House, is how much money are they willing to put into this to 
help make sure we do not leave any child behind. If we are talking 
about ratcheting up the tax cut from a trillion to $1.6 trillion to $2 
trillion to whatever it winds up as being, think about what we could do 
with some of those dollars if they were invested in education if we 
actually made a difference on things like class size and school 
construction and investing in those poor communities that do not have 
adequate access.
  I think we need to make sure that the White House shows us a 
commitment on the investment side as well as on the accountability 
side. We as New Democrats are trying to do both because we recognize 
that both need to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is also a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and has been working on these issues for a 
number of years.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith), for yielding me this time and also securing 
this hour for general discussion about education policy.
  As my friend from Indiana pointed out, there is a convergence of 
energy and interests and anticipation really in doing something good in 
this session of Congress in regards to reforming the education system 
in this country.
  I am a proud sponsor, as a member of the new Democratic Coalition, of 
the RRRs program that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) has 
just laid out for us. I think it is a realistic proposal. It is 
credible, and it is long overdue.
  The consolidation aspect is much needed. It will increase flexibility 
to local school districts so that the decision-makers, those who are 
intimately involved in reforming the education system, will have an 
opportunity to implement the reforms that they know will succeed at the 
local level; but it also recognizes importantly enough that we have to 
be committed to making a major investment if we are going to see the 
results that we are demanding now from our school districts and the 
administrators.
  This is a very exciting proposal. It is a very good starting point. 
Many of the features that we have in this RRR proposal are very similar 
to what the new administration and President Bush just announced last 
week. In fact, last Thursday I had the opportunity to go to the White 
House and sit down and have a good conversation with the President, 
along with a few other members of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, in regards to the proposals that he released last week. 
There are a lot of good proposals that President Bush is bringing to 
the table on education reform, not least of which is his philosophy 
that there is a Federal role in the education system, in the education 
of our children.
  It was a philosophy that in recent years, at least, we were fighting 
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Many of our colleagues 
in this Chamber were actually advocating shutting down the Department 
of Education, claiming that there was no Federal role at all to help 
with local school districts and the resources that they need in order 
to make the improvements that we would like to see. President Bush is 
saying, no, that is wrong. There is a role. We have a responsibility, 
and there is a way for us to work together in a bipartisan fashion to 
assist these local school districts in making these reforms.
  There are also some points of contention, issues that we are going to 
seriously debate and get into as we get into the formulation of 
education policy, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act that we have to get accomplished this year

[[Page 1067]]

in committee; not least of which is the whole idea of accountability, 
and what people mean by that, because it has various definitions. It 
has various meanings.
  I think what we have with the RRR proposal from the new Democratic 
Coalition is a requirement that we want to see student performance 
measured so that we can take corrective action, take remedial action 
for students who are detected as falling behind, so that they are not 
left behind as they progress through the education system.
  I would hate for us in this Congress, though, to work on a system of 
accountability which merely establishes a regime of sanctions and 
penalties, and I am afraid that with the private voucher proposal in 
the President's plan that we could very easily get to that step where 
we would be draining precious and limited resources from the public 
education system that we want to support and put it into the private 
sphere, where there are, granted, a lot of good private schools doing 
wonderful things throughout the country. But let us face it, the 
private school system does not have the same type of system of 
accountability that the public school systems currently have. Nor would 
we necessarily want to attach strings and a lot of accountability with 
the funds that go into private, and especially parochial, education.
  I am very concerned about the separation of church-and-state issues 
if accountability follows the Federal dollars, which is an issue that 
really has not been aired all that much when one gets into the private 
voucher plan, and one that we really need to be more careful about in 
our discussions as we go forward. There are some very attractive 
features in what the President is calling for, what we are calling for 
in our education plan, the emphasis on professional development 
programs so we have the quality teachers in the classroom, which is 
perhaps the second most important determinant of how well our students 
are going to perform, right after parental involvement.
  I hope we do not lose sight of the necessity of investing in 
professional development of the school leaders, principals, 
superintendents, the administrators. Everyone who has been involved in 
the school system realizes how important it is to have quality people 
in those positions to quarterback the education system and to provide 
guidance and implement the reforms that are necessary. The President, 
too, is emphasizing, as President Clinton before him, early childhood 
literacy programs which, again, received fierce resistance in this 
House over the last 4 years, the Reading Excellence Act. President Bush 
is now asking for a ramp up in early childhood literacy programs, and I 
applaud him for that, but there is one area that hopefully we can 
embrace and form bipartisan consensus around, and that is for this 
United States Congress to live up to the Federal responsibility and 
obligation to fully fund special education costs throughout the 
country.
  Our obligation is roughly 40 percent of the special education costs 
that school districts have to incur in order to educate these children. 
These children deserve to be educated. They deserve to get a good 
education, but it requires an investment because of the special needs 
that they bring to the classroom. We have only been funding it at 
roughly 12, 13 percent. If we can get to that 40 percent level, which 
will require a substantial investment in special education, IDEA is the 
program's name, that would free up a lot of resources then by its very 
nature at the local school districts. That would provide them with 
increased flexibility in order to make reforms that they want to make 
at the local school districts, and all that it requires is an act of 
Congress, with the cooperation of the appropriators and the 
administration, to be committed to this concept of fully funding our 
obligation to special education needs across the country.
  Not only is it the right thing to do, I think it is good policy if we 
really want to see the results that many of us have a passion for in 
the public school system. It is an issue that I personally raised with 
the President as they are beginning to formulate their budget proposal 
which will be submitted shortly to Congress for our consideration.
  Just to close on a point that my friend, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer), made, there is a lot of euphoria in Washington these days 
in regards to the latest CBO projected budget surpluses, $5.6 trillion, 
which was announced today; but I think we need to be careful because I 
think the greatest challenge we are going to face this year in Congress 
is to lose fiscal discipline. By that I mean if we look at the actual 
numbers and how they play out, first of all, two-thirds of even that 
projection does not occur until the second 5 years, which means we 
cannot front-load a lot of that tax cut which a lot of people want to 
do because of the slowdown of economic times. We do not have the money 
to do that.
  Secondly, if we take the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare 
Trust Fund out of that equation, and hopefully we are going to have 
consensus on that this year, that $5.6 trillion is suddenly reduced to 
$2.6 trillion. If we are starting with a premise of a $2 trillion-plus 
tax cut, that leaves very little for all the other domestic policy 
items which will be receiving attention, increasing defense spending, 
farm relief again because the farmers are suffering, the education 
investment that many of us would like to see; but also I think we are 
hopeful and hedging our bets on whether or not the economy is going to 
continue to perform and produce these surpluses that these tax figures 
are being based upon right now. So we face some challenges. I think we 
have a lot of area of common ground and some good common agreement in 
which to start from.
  There are going to be some contentious issues. I think the RRR 
proposal that we are introducing today is very comparable, in fact, to 
what a lot of moderate Republicans in Congress have been advocating for 
some time as well. I feel a political coalition can be formed quite 
easily, as long as we deal up front with some of the more contentious 
issues and not allow that to bring down what could be a very good 
education year here in the United States Congress.
  I commend again my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), 
for the hard work that he has put in over the last couple of years in 
being able to put an education proposal of this nature together. There 
have been a lot of people involved and hopefully good things will 
emanate from it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the help 
from the gentleman, and support and work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy), also a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proudly as 
a cosponsor of the new Democratic Coalition on supporting the RRRs. I 
sit on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and for the last 4 
years we certainly have been trying to bring together new initiatives 
on how we are going to bring the best education to all of our children, 
all of our children; and the RRRs program is a program that can work 
for all of our children across this country.
  Politicians are very good a lot of times at saying, well, we are 
going to do this, we are going to do this, we are going to do this. I 
really hope this time around that we are going to have an educational 
policy that is going to be there for our children.
  Each and every one of us comes from different districts. We all 
represent different parts of this country; but when it comes down to 
education, the American people want us to do something. The RRRs 
education program, as far as I am concerned, will answer all of the 
problems that we are having across this Nation.
  I want to just say a little thing on the side. Thank goodness the 
majority of our schools in this country are doing well. Please let us 
not forget them. We are talking about dealing with schools that need 
extra help. I have a school in my district, Roosevelt School District, 
and they were taken over by the State a couple of years ago and they 
are

[[Page 1068]]

struggling. This is why I am such a strong opponent of having a voucher 
system. If we start losing monies that go into the Roosevelt School 
system, what are we going to do with all the other kids?

                              {time}  1345

  We are going to leave so many children behind. Vouchers sound 
wonderful. They do sound wonderful. They are not the answer. Federal 
dollars have to go into our public schools.
  A question that I certainly hope that someone will be able to answer 
for me from the administration is, if it gets passed, and I am hoping 
that it does not, but if the $1,500 voucher gets passed, and a child 
takes that into whatever school they go to, where is the accountability 
for that $1,500? How do we know that that child is getting the 
education that they should be getting? These are some of the questions 
that we have to answer in the next several months.
  The bottom line is, the American people want to have a good 
education. When we talk about 7 percent of our Federal dollars going 
into our schools, if we really think about that, it is not very much 
that goes back to our school systems. But the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind) and I agree totally on IDEA. Those are the schools, 
unfortunately, that are getting hurt the most, because it puts that 
much money out to these children that learn differently. That is all it 
is. They learn differently. If the schools could be freed up for the 
monies that they have to spend to educate these children, then school 
districts would have more local control on educating those students 
that are considered ``normal.''
  Let me say something about that. We have such an opportunity in the 
next few months to do probably one of the best things that we can do 
for this country and for the future of this country, and that is 
passing an educational program that is going to go to our neediest 
children, which our program does; it will go to the neediest children, 
it will give those school districts the head start that they need. We 
are building on the future of America. We are not only doing ourselves 
a favor, we are doing this whole country a favor.
  So as we go forward in the months ahead, I think the RRRs educational 
proposal, which is something that has been out here for a couple of 
years; this is not new. We have been trying to push this for a couple 
of years. Hopefully, we will see our program go through, and then we 
will be doing the right thing for the American children, and we will be 
doing the right thing for our country.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. It is 
now my pleasure to call on one of our new colleagues, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis) who worked in her State on educational 
issues and now has the opportunity to bring that knowledge to the 
Federal level.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be an 
original cosponsor of this bill, Improving Education Through the RRRs. 
Increasing the excellence of our children's education must be our 
national priority.
  This approach to funding and focusing on educational reform is a 
philosophical framework for how to keep our eyes on that goal.
  First, it recognizes that a large increase in funding for education 
is not only critical and possible, but that money must be directed 
where it is most needed. Title I funds not only deserve the 50-percent 
increase called for, but also are protected from nonprogram uses. The 
bill requires accountability of the results of these programs.
  Second, there is an emphasis on promoting the recruitment and 
retention of high-quality teachers and principals. This is fundamental 
to improving teaching, particularly in California where less than half 
of the needed new teachers are being trained in our universities. There 
are many successful programs to recruit new teachers and support them, 
and they deserve new funding. In California, we have supported a very 
successful mentoring program for teachers in their first 2 years. 
Individuals who enter teaching as a second career also need extensive 
mentoring and training support when they enter the classroom. These are 
costly programs and need additional funding which is included in this 
bill.
  Retaining the best teachers is also important. As a member of the 
California legislature, I sponsored substantial one-time awards for 
teachers who have achieved National Board for Professional Teaching 
Standards Certification; and, as a result, the number of candidates for 
this demanding program which demonstrates excellence in the classroom 
have doubled annually. This is one example of the type of program which 
would be eligible for funding under this bill. It inspires excellence 
and rewards the best professionals. Public recognition of 
professionalism is another way to improve retention of our most valued 
teachers.
  Targeting funding to recruitment of mid-career teachers is also 
critical. The new Troops to Teachers program can be a model for the 
much larger Transition to Teaching program called for in this 
legislation.
  Third, as prudent stewards, we must insist on accountability of the 
programs we fund. California has initiated many of the types of 
accountability called for under this proposal. As a result, I am keenly 
aware of the care which must be taken in aligning our testing with 
State and locally developed curricula and of moving toward testing 
which evaluates many different types of student performance. I look 
forward to working on refining these programs so that they also are 
effective.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill establishes the appropriate 
framework for improving education, and I commend it to my colleagues.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we are joined by another 
freshman Member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has 
also worked on education issues on the State level and now is taking 
that expertise to the Federal level.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in urging 
support for the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and 
Responsibility Act. This bill invests more in education, $35 billion 
over 5 years, for title I, for poor and disadvantaged communities where 
many young people, through no fault of their own, are getting a poor 
education, and are failing to meet their full potential because of our 
failures. It provides more for charter schools, for magnet schools and 
innovative public school choice programs, and also to help children 
unlock the door of opportunity that is the English language.
  How do we make this investment? Are we simply throwing good money 
after bad? Are we spending more without doing more? The answer is no. 
This bill targets children who are most in need. Seven percent of the 
public school budget is provided via Federal funding. Our solution is, 
therefore, a 7 percent solution; and it will only be effective if it is 
targeted and targeted to those who are most in need. This bill does 
that.
  The bill also provides local schools with greater flexibility to use 
local innovation to meet local needs. It does this by consolidating a 
myriad of Federal programs into five national goals. I introduced 
legislation not unlike this in the State legislature in California.
  It was very instructive as we proceeded with that bill, consolidating 
30 categorical education programs into one. Each of the special 
interests that had grown up around that particular categorical program 
came to oppose it. It became very apparent to me, as I think it has to 
many in this country, that some of the educational programs, albeit 
started for good reason and with the best of intentions, have come to 
exist and persist for themselves, not for the benefit of the children 
they were intended to teach, but to perpetuate the suppliers, the 
vendors, of those materials of that approach, and this has to end if we 
are going to change public education for the better.

[[Page 1069]]

This proposal consolidates those programs, develops a system based on 
accountability, not accountability simply that the money is spent for 
its intended purpose, but rather accountability that says, we will give 
you flexibility, you give us good results.
  Under the current law, there is no accountability. That has to change 
if we are going to improve the quality of a public school system. We 
have to demand more of our teachers, of our parents, of ourselves, and 
this bill goes a long way to doing exactly that.
  Why all the focus on education in the last few years? We have a proud 
heritage in this country of public education. It has always been the 
great equalizer providing opportunity to the poorest among us, tapping 
the human potential of every child, and giving them a chance to 
succeed, a chance to enjoy the American dream. We are losing that 
heritage to schools that underperform, with children who fail or drop 
out or perhaps, saddest of all, who graduate and cannot read, who get a 
diploma and cannot write. Jefferson once said that ``A nation that 
expects to live both ignorant and free expects what never was and never 
will be.'' Today's bill does honor to the father of public education, 
and restores our commitment to public education and civic education.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the work of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and others; and I urge the support of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the 
points that the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) mentioned about 
the accountability provisions and how they are currently in the Federal 
law and what we would like to do to change them to. Ironically, right 
now, there is no accountability in terms of the Federal money spent. 
That means that the Federal Government does not periodically do audits 
of school districts, but when they go in, what they look at is, did you 
spend the money the way we told you to, and did you fill out the 
paperwork that proves that. The one thing that those Federal audits do 
not care about is whether or not the children are succeeding, whether 
or not the school is working. That is a ridiculous situation, putting 
process over results.
  What we try to do here is we change that. We will give them the 
flexibility to spend the money to succeed, but we are also going to 
keep track of whether or not you are succeeding and if you are not, we 
are going to figure out a way to help all schools succeed. It is much 
better than the paperwork approach used right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to a new Member of Congress, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address one of the most pressing issues 
facing the Nation and my district, and that is education. Having just 
been elected to Congress in November, I have spent many months 
traveling across the second district of Washington State meeting with 
parents and teachers and local school officials from Everett to Blaine, 
from Concrete to Coupeville and up in the San Juan Islands as well, and 
the message from them is clear: they want local control of education. 
Again and again I hear that people are greatly concerned about public 
education. They are concerned about the quality of education and 
preparing our kids today to compete in the job market of tomorrow. They 
want accountability. If taxpayers support education, they simply want 
their money to be spent more wisely.
  Today, therefore, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the 
RRRs bill, the Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 
2001. This bill is a new approach to Federal education policy, one that 
refocuses our resources and our resolve on raising academic 
achievement. The RRRs streamlines the more than 50 Federal education 
programs into five performance-based grants. It increases the Federal 
investment in education, but better targets those funds. Most 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, it increases the accountability for results 
with Federal tax dollars, focusing these monies on our local school 
district.
  The approach of the RRRs plan that we introduced today is simple: 
invest in reform and insist on results. We want to give States and 
local school districts the resources that they need to help every 
student learn at a high level.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not promote vouchers, but the targeting 
of Federal dollars to the communities across this Nation and my 
district that need them the most. In fact, I believe that vouchers are 
the wrong answer to the right question: What are we going to do to 
improve our public schools? The RRRs bill, in my opinion, is a key step 
in improving our public schools.
  In the new economy, it is a time to take an approach to education in 
a new way, so I join with my fellow Democrats and colleagues in 
supporting the RRRs legislation; and I look forward to working in a 
bipartisan fashion here on the floor of the House with Republicans and 
with the administration in passing the RRRs here in Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, that concludes our 
presentation. I am going to conclude with a few remarks of my own, but 
I want to thank my colleagues who joined me here today to introduce our 
proposal on Federal education policy, the RRRs proposal that was 
introduced today as a bill. I particularly want to thank the new 
Democrats and the work that they have done to forge this middle ground 
on education, to stop the either/or partisan rhetoric that has been 
going on and focus on something that will really work and will give us 
the results that we want.
  We have a great challenge over the course of the next few months. Our 
President has made education his top priority and that gives us a 
tremendous opportunity to make some long-needed changes in Federal 
education policy. But the devil is always in the details and the 
difficulty is not in talking about it, but in getting it done. So I 
hope that we will work hard to make sure that we get there and do what 
we need to do on education.
  We need to make an investment, but in order to make that investment, 
we need to show the taxpayers that they are going to get results for 
their dollars. That is sort of the battle I think that has been going 
on in this country, and a lot of skepticism about the ability of 
government to get anything done. There are those who believe that 
government should just sort of get out of the way of everything, and we 
are not going to change their minds. However, I think there is a larger 
group of people out there who recognize that particularly in an area 
like education, government can have a real positive impact on improving 
the quality of our lives in this country.

                              {time}  1400

  These taxpayers just want their money's worth. They do not want us to 
simply say we are going to throw more money at the problem. They want 
to know that they are going to be accountable for results that comes 
with that money. If we can push the three Rs bill that focuses on local 
control, flexibility and results, I think we can get the public support 
we need to spend the dollars we need, but that is going to be a real 
challenge.
  It is a challenge as new Democrats that we put down for the President 
to work with us, certainly to get the accountability and the results-
oriented focus. But once we have done that, make the investment that is 
necessary to get it done, I mean, I wish we could improve the quality 
of education without spending any more money on it, that would make all 
of our lives more easy. We would not have to find the dollars and make 
the more choices when you look at the crushing needs out there, 
particularly in impoverished communities, rural communities, some urban 
communities, areas that do not have the dollars to get the basics of 
what they need, you know that they need help in the resources 
department.
  They need some money from the Federal Government to help meet the 
needs of their children. And if the philosophy is leave no child 
behind, you

[[Page 1070]]

better be prepared to step up to that commitment.
  We will give them the accountability and the results, but let us make 
sure that we go out there and make the investments necessary to educate 
our population to the degree that they deserve.
  I am joined by the person who has done more work on this than 
anybody, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman and 
I actually introduced this bill last session of Congress. It did not go 
anywhere then, but it is moving now.
  There is some change here and I think we have a real opportunity to 
move forward on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) to 
conclude our discussion today.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) for yielding to me, and I am just delighted to 
be here in support of our three Rs proposal.
  As Democrats, we recognize that we have to make reforms in the way 
that the Federal Government is participating as a partner with our 
local school districts, and what we are doing with this proposal is 
understanding that it is incumbent upon us to invest more in our public 
schools and investing those dollars in a way which we are sure are 
going to benefit those students that are facing the greatest 
challenges.
  I represent a district in the central valley of California. It is one 
of the lowest income districts in the State. There is a lot of farm 
worker families that are struggling to make ends meet.
  Our school districts are struggling financially, and what this 
proposal will ensure is that those children of farm workers are not 
going to be left behind, that the Federal Government is going to be 
there in order to provide them with the resources that those schools 
need to ensure that they are going to have the opportunity to excel 
academically.
  But basically as a covenant that we are creating here with our local 
school districts, by providing these additional dollars, we are going 
to be demanding more. We are going to be demanding that those schools 
be held accountable for improving the academic performance of these 
students. We are going to require that we see improvement on an annual 
basis of these children and their performance in their classes.
  We also are convinced that while we are providing these additional 
resources, we are providing for greater accountability that we have to 
have confidence in our local school districts, to do what they think is 
best in order to provide for this quality academic environment. Thus, 
we are giving those school districts greater flexibility.
  We have consolidated over 45 programs down into five revenue streams, 
giving those school districts the ability to develop those programs 
that are going to meet some of their unique challenges. So in return 
for that investment of additional dollars, in return for giving those 
school districts greater flexibility, we are going to demand the 
greater accountability, because we believe, as President Bush does, 
that we cannot leave any child behind.
  We disagree with President Bush on a number of his proposals, but 
where there is a lot of in common, there are some significant 
differences is that with our proposal, when we have a school that is 
not meeting the academic performance that we believe is appropriate, is 
that we provide them with additional resources, both in personnel and 
dollars initially to help see improvement there. But if they continue 
to fail, we then provide for the option of those school children to go 
into other public schools.
  We provide for public school choice. We also allow that school 
district to convert that school to a charter school so they can try 
different and more innovative approaches to improving the academic 
environment there.
  President Bush takes a little bit different approach, and basically 
he would abandon those schools after 3 years and give that child a 
$1,500 voucher that could be used at another public school or a private 
school. Many of us think that is a false promise, because a $1,500 
voucher to a farm worker child in my district that does not have a 
private school option, or the private school option they have is much 
more expensive than that, it is really a false promise.
  We are hopeful as we move forward here with this debate on education 
that we can narrow or find the common ground that is between President 
Bush's proposal and what we are offering today, because we think, we 
are not that far apart, with the exception of the utilization and 
embracement of vouchers by President Bush. Our 3 R's proposal is one 
which I am convinced will provide the flexibility and resources that 
our local schools need, will ensure that our children will have a 
higher quality education, and will ensure that those children that are 
in some of the most struggling economic areas of our country will have 
the resources that they need to ensure that they will have the academic 
opportunities that are going to be so important in terms of their 
future success.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), I 
really appreciate all the work the gentleman has done there and all the 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), who is the prime sponsor actually of the 3 R's 
proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all of my colleagues once again for 
their broad support. I think we have the opportunity in the next 
several months to make some very positive changes in Federal education 
policy, and I think this bill is an excellent place to start.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on that with all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

                          ____________________