THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
[Page: H1549] GPO's PDF---
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility partnerships, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LAHOOD). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. CLAY
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Points of order are reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. CLAY moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 800, an Act to provide for education flexibility partnerships, be instructed--
(1) to disagree to sections 6(b), 7(b), 9(b), and 11(b) of the Senate amendment, (adding new subsections to the end of section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations Act of 1999), which is necessary to ensure the first year of funding to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades; and
(2) to agree that additional funding be authorized to be appropriated under sections 8 and 10 of the Senate amendment for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but not by reducing funds for class size reduction as proposed in sections 6(b), 7(b), 9(b), and 11(b) of the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct the conferees to oppose the Senate amendment offered by Senator LOTT that reneges on last year's agreement to fund the Clinton-Clay class size reduction plan.
Last year we made a $1.2 billion down payment on a plan to help communities hire 100,000 new, well- qualified teachers over the next 7 years. All across this country, parents and students who are facing overcrowded classrooms are counting on Congress' commitment to reduce class sizes.
The Lott amendment reneges on this commitment, and cynically pits one group of parents against another for money that Congress has already designated to be spent for class size reduction.
All major education groups oppose this insidious attack on the class size reduction plan. The National Parents and Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Chief States School Officers and the National Education Association, even Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, according to press accounts, opposes the Lott amendment because it jeopardizes passage of the Ed-Flex bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe President Clinton would veto a bill that undermines funding for class size reduction. These new teachers are needed in the early grades, to reduce class size to no more than 18 children. Achieving the goal of 100,000 new teachers will ensure that every child receives personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further learning, and is prepared to read by the end of the third grade.
Department of Education data shows that students in smaller classes in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana and Tennessee outperformed their counterparts in larger classes. A study of Tennessee's Project Star found that students in smaller classes in Grades K through 3 earned much higher scores on basic skills tests. Based on this solid record of achievement, the Clinton-Clay class size reduction initiative should be granted a long-term authorization.
Mr. Speaker, this motion further instructs the conferees to insist that additional funding be appropriated for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA . Rather than forcing one vital program to compete for funds against another, we should instead pursue a greater overall investment in public education.
[Page: H1550] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion and, by doing so, give both the class size reduction initiative and IDEA the opportunity to be funded at an appropriate level.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. BRADY of Texas). Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) have a point of order?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws the point of order.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees to drop the Lott amendment.
One does not usually go into a game showing how many aces they have and how many jokers they have. One usually does that when they get involved in the game or when they start their negotiating. One does not usually drop their amendments before they ever get there.
I have to kind of laugh about all of the rhetoric about IDEA . They have heard that speech that was just given for 23 years, and they did not get anything until 3 years ago. They were promised that if we give them from the Federal level 100 percent mandate in special ed, they will get 40 percent of the excess money to fund it; just the excess money to fund it. When I became Chair, they were getting about 6 percent. We will probably be up to about 12 percent; a long way from 40 percent.
Can we imagine what they could have done with class size reduction, what they could have done with refurbishing classrooms and building new classrooms, had they been getting millions and millions and millions of dollars extra year after year after year? They would not be looking to us.
They are smart enough out there now. They got burned on IDEA and burned badly, and they realize that that is the thing that drives their property tax up, up, up. That is the thing that takes all of their money away from being able to do all the things they want to do in reducing class size or anything else that they want to do to improve education in their district.
They are smart enough to know that they are not going to come here and say for one year we are going to give them 100,000 teachers. We are not going to pay for all the fringe benefits, et cetera; that is their responsibility. We will be gone in a year's time and then they are stuck. They would have put on those teachers.
Just like the big deal we are going to have 100,000 new police. How many stepped up to the plate? About one-third. Why? Because they would have put them on themselves if they had had the money, but they knew we would be gone and then they are stuck with them, and in all probability in a negotiation where they cannot get rid of them, even though they cannot find a way to pay for them.
[Time: 17:15]
So let us not use IDEA in this debate, because they know that that is a phony argument that we have heard before we became the majority for 20 out of 23 years.
What has the situation been in California? California said on their own, just as my Governor says on his own, we are going to reduce class size. They spent $1 billion last year, they are going to spend $1.5 billion this year.
What did they get? I will tell Members what they got. In the areas where they need the best teachers, they got mediocrity. That is all they got, and probably not very many with certifications; and even those with certifications, very little other than mediocrity, for $1 billion last year and $1.5 this year.
So let us not fall into the trap that somehow or other we will look out for IDEA down the line. That is the President's whole initiative. He cuts every program in his budget that works. Why? Because he has a feeling that, oh, the appropriators will come along and appropriate for that. He does not have to do that, he can get all these other silly ideas of what we do to improve education.
So let us not fall for it. Vote against the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by my ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri.
As Members know, the Senate version of the Ed-Flex bill includes a provision which allows school districts to take funds targeted in last year's appropriation bill for class size reduction and use it for special education. This provision should be struck by the conferees and we should send that message today.
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities has written to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) supporting this motion that we instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from the Consortium.
The letter referred to is as follows:
CONSORTIUM FOR
CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES
March 23, 1999.
Hon. WILLIAM CLAY,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CLAY: On behalf of the members of the Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, we write to you today in support of your motion to instruct conferees to strike the Lott Amendment to the Ed-Flex bill and to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ).
CCD is gravely concerned that children with disabilities are being used as pawns in a political game. The Clay Motion to Instruct addresses this concern because it does not pit the interests of children with disabilities against the interests of their classmates.
Over the past three years, IDEA funding has grown by 85 percent. Unfortunately, given the increase in students in special education, the federal share accounts for only ten percent of the additional costs associated with educating students with disabilities. In the 1997 Amendments to IDEA , Congress recognized the need for additional support for general education. Now states can use twenty percent of new IDEA funds for general education activities. CCD supports this provision because it is designed to assist schools better meet their obligations to all students.
Every child in America benefits from increased education funding . CCD applauds the efforts of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate on both sides of the aisle who are committed both to securing additional funding for IDEA and to protecting the rights of children with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education. We urge members of the House of Representatives to support the Clay Motion to Instruct on the Ed-Flex bill.
Thank you for considering our views.
Mr. Speaker, full funding of IDEA is a goal I have been committed to since I arrived in Congress. Do we need to provide 40 percent of the excess costs of educating a child with a disability? Absolutely. Should this be one of our priorities for Federal education funding ? Absolutely.
As my chairman knows, I have joined him and my other colleagues in demanding additional funding for special education. Supporting the needs of disabled children and providing them with the chance to become productive, participating members of society is extremely important. However, it should not be at the expense of other Federal education programs.
Last year's appropriations bill created the class size reduction program, and recognized the commitment to hire 100,000 teachers over the next 7 years. That bill provided funding to hire the first 30,000 teachers, and put us on the path to reducing class size in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18. This is an essential tool in the education reforms of States and localities. We should not jeopardize this funding only months before it is scheduled to go out.
The issue of IDEA funding is not a Democratic or a Republic concern. There has been strong bipartisan support for the substantial increases in funding for IDEA in recent appropriation bills, and I believe this will continue. I hope that the motion to instruct conferees of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) attracts the same type of support today.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that every study that has ever been printed has indicated that the number one issue as to whether a
[Page: H1551] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. CASTLE).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding time to me. I am pleased to be able to speak to this briefly.
I do rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. We as House Members have, I think, done the right thing. I think we passed a good piece of legislation. Yes, I know there were some amendments from the other side that they would like to have had put in which were not put in, but essentially I think we have passed a good bill.
Let us remember what it was we passed, it was education flexibility. It really had nothing to do with IDEA per se. It had nothing to do with the 100,000 teachers per se. Over in the Senate, they have taken the whole provisions with the $1.2 billion for the reduction of class size, which is really the hiring of more teachers, and they have added a provision to allow IDEA to get involved with that.
That may or may not be a good thing to do. It is something which I think should be discussed at the conference. But I do not think we should have this motion to instruct conferees as part of that. I think it may upset the equilibrium enough so we might not even get to the conference on what is a good piece of legislation. I would hope we would remember that.
I think this is an instructive discussion we should have in terms of what we should do with respect to the conference. The bottom line is, we have a piece of legislation which was highly popular. We have a piece of legislation reported out of our committee with 33 yes votes and only 9 no votes. We have a piece of legislation which passed the House of Representatives just a week later which received 330 yes votes and only 90 votes against it. We have a piece of legislation which has been approved by each and every Governor of every State in the United States of America. We have a piece of legislation which the Secretary of Education and the President of the United States has said is a good piece of legislation.
There are differences between the House version and the Senate version, some of which are not touched in this motion to instruct conferees, which we are going to have to address as well.
This is a bipartisan bill. We have a very strong House position with respect to the bill. Quite frankly, I do not think getting involved in a technical motion to instruct conferees, to undermine what they have done in the Senate before we get there, that we can negotiate fairly as a House team, is the way to go.
I would encourage each and every one of us, Republicans and Democrats, to stand united in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees so we can go into that conference, get this bill done, and have a real achievement for the greater good of education in the United States of America.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Clay motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 800, to preserve our commitment to the class size initiative agreed to in last year's budget.
No one here disagrees with the need to provide additional funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program. However, we should not take away from other programs, like the class size initiative, in order to fund idea .
Our public schools have many critical needs, but we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. The Lott amendment as adopted by the Senate to their version of Ed-Flex allows localities to shift funds from the class size initiative to fund special education. We have seen continual efforts like this to shift funding from other educational accounts to IDEA without changing our bottom line investment in education.
Opponents of this educational funding shell game miss the point. The needs of students and schools are such that we cannot afford to back away from our commitment at the Federal level to properly fund public education.
Mr. Speaker, all students benefit where there is an appropriate student-to-teacher ratio. Discipline problems are minimized, the students receive the individual attention they need, students with special needs who are mainstreamed are able to participate in a more meaningful way because the teacher is able to give them the additional assistance they need.
I urge my colleagues to support the class size initiative and support the Clay motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE) introduced for the Record the letter from the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. I think it would be instructive to read the letter to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CLAY) on their behalf:
On behalf of the members of the Educational Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, we write to you today in support of your motion to instruct conferees to strike the Lott amendment to the Ed-Flex bill and to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
CCD is gravely concerned that children with disabilities are being used as pawns in a political game. The Clay motion to instruct addresses this concern because it does not pit the interests of children with disabilities against the interests of their classmates.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents