Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 106th Congress, Second Session, Volume 146, Part 18 Page: 25,860
[1541] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
25860
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
When I became chairman after all of
those years of sitting there on the mi-
nority trying to encourage them along
with the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. KILDEE) to do something about the
unfunded special ed mandate, they
were only up to 6 percent. I am happy
to say at the end of this year we will
probably be up to 15 percent and that is
a long, long way.
It is also interesting that this issue
comes up again this particular year.
Why is that interesting? Well, the
former majority decided that in 1995
that they would pass the School Facili-
ties Infrastructure Improvement Act.
Now that is a big title. It sounds very
interesting. That was passed in 1995,
and the appropriators put $100 million
in at that particular time. Guess what?
Somebody brought about a recession to
that effort. Now, who was that some-
body? Somebody sent us a notice and
they said, and I quote, "The construc-
tion and renovation of school facilities
has traditionally been the responsi-
bility of State and local governments,
financed primarily by local taxpayers.
We are opposed to the creation of a new
Federal grant program for school con-
struction. No funds are requested for
this program in 1996. For the reason ex-
plained above, the administration op-
poses the creation of a new Federal
grant program for school construc-
tion."
Is that not interesting in this same
administration who is now seeking for
something else?
Let me again close by simply saying,
I know there must be political purposes
for this. There has to be some reason
for it, but it has already been con-
cluded. After lengthy negotiations, it
has already been completed and agreed
to by those of us who were negotiating
and by the White House, as was and is
the class size reduction legislation.
So again it is just an exercise in fu-
tility. I do not know what it is, as a
matter of fact; but obviously, as I said,
not too many people in New Jersey and
Oregon will be watching this debate,
and that is unfortunate because they
will not get to hear, if they did not
hear it Saturday, the same repeat of
what we did on Saturday.
Mr. Speaker, negotiators have made sub-
stantial progress on the issue of school con-
struction, and I am optimistic that we will soon
be able to reach agreement on this issue.
I have made it clear to the administration
that state and local flexibility must be a com-
ponent of federal funding for classroom mod-
ernization and renovation. I would like to see
a substantial portion of the funding available
for other pressing needs, such as activities re-
lated to the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
I am not doing this to be stubborn. School
districts across America are clamoring for help
with the additional costs of educating special
needs children. When Congress passed the
law requiring public schools to provide edu-
cational services to these children, we prom-
ised that the federal government would help
with the increased costs.We promised to provide 40 percent of the
national average per pupil expenditure. Here
we are, 25 years later, and we are only at 13
percent-significantly less than what we prom-
ised. And we've only reached that under the
Republican Congress, because that 13 per-
cent represents a doubling of what the federal
government was providing when we became
the Majority.
The result of our failure to provide the prom-
ised funds is that school districts are using
their own money to make up the shortfall.
These are funds which could otherwise be
used for school maintenance costs and other
local needs. If the federal government were
actually providing the 40 percent we promised,
school districts across the country would re-
ceive significant funding:
New York would receive an increase of
more than $170 million;
Los Angles would receive nearly $100 mil-
lion more:
Chicago would get an additional $76 million;
Miami would receive an increase of $45 mil-
lion; and
Newark would receive an increase of $8 mil-
lion.
The primary responsibility for school con-
struction should remain at the state and local
levels. However, the federal government can
provide assistance to help states and localities
comply with federal laws that mandate school
building modernization.
The Administration has switched positions
on whether the federal government has a role
in school construction over time.
The Congress under Democrat control ap-
propriated $100 million for Fiscal Year 1995
for the School Facilities Infrastructure Improve-
ment Act. But the President rescinded this,
and subsequently, the program has received
no funding.
Following the rescission of funds for FY
1995, the President's FY 1996 budget request
did not include any money for the "Education
Infrastructure Act." In fact, Department of Edu-
cation budget documents stated:
The construction and renovation of school
facilities has traditionally been the responsi-
bility of State and local governments, fi-
nanced primarily by local taxpayers; we are
opposed to the creation of a new Federal
grant program for school construction.-.-- -
No funds are requested for this program in
1996. For the reason explained above, the Ad-
ministration opposes the creation of a new
Federal grant program for school construc-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I again point out that this mo-
tion to instruct conferees is irrelevant given
our current negotiations on the Labor/HHS/
Education appropriation's legislation. As such,
I oppose the gentleman's motion.
MEETING THE FEDERAL IDEA MANDATE
[Selected Cities]
Additional
City Funds re- If 40% man- toundseecom-
ceived date met mitment of
StatesNew York...................
Los Angeles ...............
Chicago ....................
M iam i ..................................
Philadelphia......... ................
Jacksonville.................
Houston.....................$41,435,700 $212,316,300 $170,880,600
23,145,989 118,600,048 95,454,000
18,438,243 94,477,557 76,039,400
10,873,800 55,717,300 44,843,500
7,501,863 38,439,546 30,937,600
7,305,504 37,433,402 30,127,900
5,738,851 29,405,873 23,667,000November 1, 2000
MEETING THE FEDERAL IDEA MANDATE-Continued
[Selected Cities]
Additional
City Funds re- If 40% man- to meet com-
Csceived 1 date met itment of
StatesDallas.......................... 3,881,900
Washington, DC ............... 3,047,500
St. Louis ............................... 2,032,800
Newark ................. 1,932,760
Pittsburgh ..................... 1,514,07719,890,700
15,615,500
10,416,100
9,903,462
7,758,13116,008,800
12,568,000
8,383,300
7,970,700
6,244,00011995 data (most recent available).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from North Carolina (Mr.
ETHERIDGE), one of the leading men in
this debate on school construction and
classroom construction, who will ex-
plain why this has not yet been settled
and why it is necessary for us to bring
this up yet again today.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in strong support of the Holt motion. I
thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. HOLT) for his leadership on this
important issue because my friend, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
HOLT), has not only been a Member
representing his people but he has only
been here about 2 years and he has al-
ready made a tremendous difference for
his district and for this country on the
issue of children.
Let me say to my friend, the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOOD-
LING), who said he was amused, I want
everybody to understand that I am not
amused. I do not get amused one little
bit when we are talking about issues
that affect children. I was the State su-
perintendent of my school system in
North Carolina for 8 years, an office to
which the people elected me twice. I do
not get amused when we are talking
about the needs of children. I know we
talk about rhetoric, and is this a polit-
ical issue? Darn right, it is a political
issue. Everything we do in this body is
about politics. But this is the kind of
politics we ought to be dealing with for
the children of this country, because
they cannot vote; they cannot sit in
this body. If we cannot do it, then who
does it?
Yes, I recognize only 7 percent of the
money comes through the Federal Gov-
ernment, but there are places in this
country where they are hurting, and
they have great needs today, and we
have a responsibility. Yes, we do pro-
vide money for roads; and, yes, we do
provide money for prisons and a num-
ber of other things. And to say it is
interstate money, the answer is, yes, it
is dedicated; but there was a time when
there was no money dedicated and
there were those that said we ought
not to be putting it in. I happen to read
history, and I remember that. We can
do it for our children, too, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just share a couple of quick
statistics before my time runs out. In
my home district, there are a number
of areas, and I am in a district where
we have spent a lot of money and we
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 106th Congress, Second Session, Volume 146, Part 18, book, 2000; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31035/m1/75/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.