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
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WOOLSEY) a champion for education for all.
[Page: H11737] GPO's PDF
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Holt motion to instruct on H.R. 4577, because we cannot expect our children to get a first-rate education in second-rate and third-rate school buildings. A recent GAO study on the condition of America's schools found that 60 percent of schools in America need at least one major repair or they need renovation.
On top of that, and we have said it today, even though it is not part of this, on top of repairs and renovation, we also have a great need for new schools, in my home State alone, in California, more than 30,000 additional classrooms will be needed in the next 8 years.
What is the message that we are sending our young children, when their communities boast new, shiny shopping malls and new sports stadiums, while we tell them that they must try to learn in overcrowded, crumbling schools?
This is the time, Mr. Speaker, for us to show our children that they are absolutely as important as a new mall or a new stadium.
A vote for the Holt motion is a vote for this Nation's most precious resource, our children. Our children are 25 percent of our population. Our children are 100 percent of the future of our Nation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that both sides care about education. I think that from the bottom of my heart. But the way we get there is different. My colleagues on the other side have their interests. We have ours.
When my colleagues on the other side talk about school construction, for example, my colleagues on the other side want it to fall under Davis- Bacon which costs 35 percent more. We want to let the schools keep the money. My colleagues on the other side want it to go to the unions.
The only interests that both sides should have here is the school children, not the unions. I had a hearing when I was chairman of the Authorization Committee, some of my colleagues were here at that hearing.
[Time: 13:45]
We had 16 people from all over the country. They said they had the absolute best program in the entire world. At the end of the hearing, as chairman, I said; Which one of you have any one of the other 15 in your district? Of course, none.
We said that is the whole idea. We want to send you the money directly to the school where the parents, the teachers, the community can make those decisions on spending education dollars, not Washington bureaucrats. That way, you get more effective results.
In my opinion, that is a lot of the reason why Head Start and some of the other education programs do not work. They are underfunded, because there are too many other bureaucracies that eat up the money, and one gets very little money down to the classroom in the Federal program.
Federal education spending is only about 7 percent, yet it ties up a lot of the money at the local level. We think that is wrong. So when one talks about children, we want the money to get down to children, not the unions, not the liberal trial lawyers and special education administrators, not the bureaucracy back here in Washington; but to children, to teachers, to the community.
I would say to my colleagues, we care about education, and I believe you do. But let us both come together and get the maximum amount of dollars to the schools, not the special interests.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LAHOOD). The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 1/4 minutes remaining.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to address the comment there, because here we go again. This has been held up. The agreement has been held up over worker safety. We have failed to get the minimum wage.
I have to remind the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM) who just spoke that Davis and Bacon were two Republicans who thought that it was really unfair to have outside workers come in and, not just undercut wages, but undercut working standards. That is what we are trying to preserve here.
As I understood from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. CASTLE), this was in fact agreed upon. Davis- Bacon is not the issue here.
Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. OWENS), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, there are two very good academic studies that have been done that show that Davis- Bacon does not increase the cost of schools. In fact, the best schools and the best buildings are put up by Davis- Bacon contractors, so much so that the Fortune 500 corporations have recently decided that they prefer to hire Davis- Bacon contractors because they get the best work done in the final analysis.
We have all kinds of impediments being thrown in the way of the use of Federal dollars to solve a basic problem. In the context of a $230 billion surplus, why are we quibbling about $1.3 billion for school renovations, repair, construction, whatever one wants to say? If a coal burning furnace in the school is removed, are we going to call that renovation or repair? I do not care. Let us get the deadly fumes and the pollution of the coal burning furnace out of the schools.
We have more than 100 schools in New York that still have coal burning furnaces. Do we have to have the Federal Government do this? Obviously we do since the States are lagging so far behind. Or perhaps the Federal Government can serve as a stimulus, and by providing some of the money, stimulate and embarrass the States and the local governments into doing far more.
The estimate is that we need about $320 billion just to take care of infrastructure needs for the current enrollment, without projecting future enrollment. That is the estimate of the National Education Association. One might say they are a teacher organization, they are biased.
Well, the education commissioner recently came up with a statement that $127 billion is needed. Some years ago, 1994, the General Accounting Office said we needed $110 billion then.
The need is great. We are going to improve education. The least we can do is take care of the highly-visible infrastructure problems. It does not require the Federal Government getting involved with decision making. It is a capital expenditure.
You go in; you give help; you get out. It is the best way to spend Federal dollars, most efficient way to spend Federal dollars. Let us do it today.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. FOLEY).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time talking about two deceased Republican Members of Congress, Davis and Bacon. We on this side are talking about the future of the children of our communities.
My father taught all his life in public schools. He retired as a principal. Oftentimes he and many of his fellow educators would tell me, please, get rid of the burden imposed upon us by the Federal Government. Let us teach the kids. Give us the resources to do it.
In this bill we have the resources. We have spent 20 percent more than last year on education. Our construction dollars are identical to what the demands of the minority are. We are meeting in the middle to try and solve the problems for children.
The rhetoric should stop. The actions should start. The children will be able to learn if we pass this bill without some of the sentiment attached.
I can just tell my colleagues, going to classrooms every time I am in Florida, I find kids eager to learn. Yes, the conditions are poor. But I was in a portable in 1973 in high school. I was in the same conditions then, and that is when the Democrats ran this place. For 40 years, they ran it; and, finally, education is getting better, thanks to the majority party today.
[Page: H11738] GPO's PDF
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT) has the right to close.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to make the point, I do not believe, for the membership of the Congress that we are not talking about school construction. So I guess I will now address everyone who is sitting up here and everyone who might be watching it, please do not get the idea that we are talking about school construction.
We are talking about $1.3 billion that the President asked for for renovation and repairs, $1.3 billion. That is what the President asked for. That is what the Democrat-Republican group on the Committee on Appropriations said he gets. That is what those of us who negotiated how the money goes out said, here is your $1.3 billion. Renovation and repair. A done deal.
Let me once again say, under this proposal $1.3 billion would be distributed to States under the title I formula, with a set-aside for small States. Seventy-five percent would be allocated to school districts for one-time competitive grants for classroom renovation and repair.
A portion of the funds would be targeted to high-poverty schools and rural schools. School districts would receive 25 percent of the funds through competitive grants from the State for use under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and school technology. That is what we have negotiated. That is what the President has asked for. That is what everybody has agreed will happen.
The legislation we are discussing now has not been sidetracked, as I said before, because of Republicans. It is sidetracked because, at midnight or after midnight, they thought they had language that they, the Republicans, Democrats and the White House, agreed to in relationship to ergonomics. They discovered after rereading it that it did not do what they said at all. We now have new language, hopefully, that will go forward. But it is a done deal.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the speakers here have made it clear why it is necessary to instruct the conferees to depart from the Senate amendment, which denies the President's request for dedicated resources for local school construction and instead broadly expands block grants.
The other side has said we are plowing the same ground. Any farmer in my district will tell us that one can plow ground again and again. Until one plants, one cannot reap.
We want to make sure that we actually get some benefits, that the students of America can reap the benefits here. Talk is cheap. We have yet to have a vote on this. That is why it is necessary to instruct conferees so we can bring to the floor legislation that will take care of the decrepit and crumbling schools and the pressing need for construction of new classrooms.
We are not here to refight partisan squabbles of 1995 and 1996 the other side seems to want to do, about who killed what and who rescinded what. That is not the point. The point is that, today, we have a multi-hundred billion dollar need in the schools of America to provide adequate facilities so students can learn for the 21st century.
That is why it is necessary to instruct the conferees to depart from the Senate language so that we can actually, not just talk about providing these facilities for the students of America, but vote on it and see that it is done.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees to insist on dedicating funding for school construction.
Right now, three-quarters of the nation's schools need funding to bring their buildings into a ``good overall condition.''
Right now, the average age of a public school building is 42 years, an age when schools tend to deteriorate.
How can a child learn when she has to cross a courtyard to get to a temporary trailor for one of her classes?
How can a child learn when her classes are held in janitor closets?
How can a child learn when her school needs emergency repairs?
How can a child learn when her class meets in a hallway?
How can a child learn when the school is crumbling around her?
We have an obligation to do something about this problem. And our children should not have to wait.
Two hundred and thirty Members of Congress support the Johnson-Rangel school construction measure.
This bipartisan bill helps communities to modernize their current schools and construct new facilities so our children will learn in the finest facilities possible.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that while the Republican leadership can't set aside $25 billion for modernization and construction of new schools, it has no problem giving $28 billion in tax breaks to big businesses, HMOs, and insurance companies.
It is unfortunate that we are at the end of the appropriations process and the education priorities are still not taken care of.
Our number one priority must be education. And school construction funding must happen this year.
Our children are counting on us.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOLT).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 176, nays 183, not voting 73, as follows:
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
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