[Page: E1619]
---

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1995) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to empower teachers, improve student achievement through high-quality professional development for teachers, reauthorize the Reading Excellence Act, and for other purposes:

• Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, and support the Martinez substitute.

• As I looked over the materials I had received regarding H.R. 1995, I found myself wondering how the Republican leadership could offer an education bill, a bill for teachers, that is not supported by educators themselves. Nor do parents, Boards of Education, or many others concerned about our education system support it. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Parent Teachers Association, the National Association of State Boards of Education, Council of Great City Schools, the New York State Education Department, and the New York City Board of Education each oppose this bill. Does this seem right? How can the American public have faith that we are going to improve their schools when nearly all education groups oppose the proposed education bill?

• As a newly elected Member, I can tell you that parents in my congressional district are concerned. They want smaller classes. They want assurances that money isn't going to be taken from their low-income school districts and transferred to districts with more resources. They don't want rhetoric. They want results.

• H.R. 1995 takes away the guarantee of smaller classes by rolling class size reduction funds into a block grant for professional development purposes and class size reduction. While class size reduction is a ``mandatory use'' under H.R. 1995, there is no commitment that serious funds will be used for that purpose.

• We should not reverse the process that was put into place last year when a bipartisan commitment was made to fund the first installment of a program aimed specifically at reducing class sizes. Instead, we should show our local school districts that we will be there with the followup funds so they can retain the teachers they are hiring this year and continue their class reduction efforts.

• Furthermore, H.R. 1995 severely undermines the original goal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--to provide assistance to the neediest students. This bill fails to direct sufficient resources to schools that need the most help: the highest poverty districts in each state and district.

• Overall, H.R. 1995 would divert resources away from districts, like many of those in New York City, that need the money the most. Altering the funding formula from 80 percent of the funds being allocated to high-poverty districts to having only 50 percent being allocated to districts, combined with the loss of class size reduction funds, would result in a $22 million loss for New York City's public schools. I am sure that this result will be mimicked in cities and towns across the country.

• I know my Republican colleagues will argue that a hold harmless provision has been added to the bill. However, that hold harmless is for the first year only. After that, there is no guarantee that funding for class size reduction will not be dramatically decreased.

• We must not abandon our commitment to class size reduction and to helping our neediest students. The Martinez substitute ensures that we honor our commitment to class size reduction. Additionally, the Martinez substitute does not alter the intent of the ESEA, to assist the neediest school districts. We should pass the Martinez substitute, and, if not, we should defeat H.R. 1995.

  END