Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Does it include jurisdiction over the Public Utilities Holding Company Act?

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). I am glad we agree on this. As the gentleman from Florida is aware, while I am disappointed in the Senate's action on this, I have agreed to let this bill pass today and move the process forward. Mr. Speaker, can we agree that the committee will, early next year, begin to look into this matter more closely with the National Reconnaissance Office so that we can place good reforms into our launch program and pursue what is best for our national security, let alone our taxpayers' best interests?

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I also would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who spoke in favor of this, too. It is a shame we cannot get it done this year, but we do have to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Committee, in a brief colloquy. I would like to thank first of all the chairman for the wonderful job with this year's intelligence authorization legislation. I congratulate him for it. Obviously, we congratulate Mr. Dixon for it, but his loss is immeasurable to this Congress, as so many people have said. It is sad he cannot be here today. I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. As the chairman knows, I strongly support the overall bill, but have withheld my final support because of what I view as an egregious action by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and perhaps others. As Members are well aware, we worked hard to address the needed reforms to our satellite launch program, as over the last almost 2 years six rocket launch failures have destroyed or made ineffective important military communications and intelligence satellites, risking the national security of the United States and costing taxpayers over $3 billion. Our provision, approved by the House and Senate conferees and passed by both Houses of Congress, would have ensured more accountability for the launch program of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force, promoting better acquisition practices. A series of meetings, hearings, and briefings on the severity of these problems, with the help of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Sanford), has made it obvious that our failures and problems were rooted in the morass of contracts used in the launch program and exacerbated by a tangle of bureaucratic turf concerns. The Senate's refusal to acknowledge that these reforms are needed is shortsighted and risk more problems in the satellite launch program. Unfortunately, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not see fit to include this provision. It stripped the measure out without debate or justification. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is it his understanding that the National Reconnaissance Office provision would greatly help streamline the satellite launch process, and that the Senate's refusal to acknowledge that these reforms are needed is short-sighted and risks more problems in our satellite launch program?

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I may ask a question of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but there are those of us who are rank and file Republicans who frankly were somewhat alarmed by what we saw in the newspapers of the statement by the distinguished majority whip that we should have a 1-year continuing resolution. Agreeing with what I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said and what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has said, it is the judgment of a lot of us that this has been worked on very hard by both parties, a lot of good input has gone into it, a lot of progress has been made. We are pretty close to the end. These various programs would be good for this country, and we should try to do it as rapidly as possible. Let me point out, we are, I think, 2 months and a week beyond the beginning of the fiscal year for which this should have been done. I think personally it should be done by this particular Congress and this particular President and not by the next President and the next Congress. I would glean from the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that the gentleman is in agreement with this and that is the direction which the gentleman continues to go, in spite of what I read of the statements of the majority whip. I assume that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, is still in that position, and just the comforts to us who feel this is what we are waiting for and that we are having continuing resolutions for and we have been waiting for, I would like to get the gentleman's view of that.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, the comments of the gentleman give me comfort, and I thank the gentleman a great deal.

Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just sort of review where we started all this, because sometimes I think we get a little beyond where we really have commenced and where we are going. Basically, the request in terms of dollars to go to teachers is the same in terms of what is in the bill, what the minority is requesting, as what we have provided at $1.7 billion. As a matter of fact, we have agreed on this side that 75 percent of that money should go to the class size issue which they are mentioning. So basically we are arguing over the other 25 percent, and the question is, should that 100 percent go to class size or should it go to teacher training to help with quality. Obviously, I come down on the side of more flexibility. A little bit later, when I have a little more time, I am going to talk about that. I would like to talk about Mrs. Buckles for a moment. I had her in seventh grade. She taught us diagraming in seventh grade. I am surprised I survived all that. I can tell the Members, the woman could teach brilliantly, as a matter of fact. I learned something about the construction of a sentence, which I remember to this day because of her ability to teach. I do not think it would have made any difference if there were five people in that classroom or 100 people in that classroom, she had the ability to get our attention, the ability to enforce discipline, the ability to process the work that was there. Everybody in that classroom learned dramatically as a result of being in there with Mrs. Buckles. A good teacher can do that. I have also visited elementary schools in Wilmington, Delaware, and other parts of Delaware where I have seen teachers I thought needed extra assistance in terms of what they are doing, and perhaps needed another teacher to help reduce class size, or a teacher aide. I think we need to provide those teachers the inspiration, the educational experience, the training, perhaps the quality experience, whatever it may be in order to improve their teaching. Frankly, where we lose a lot of teachers is in their first or second year of teaching. In fact, maybe the young lady who has gone to work for the gentlewoman from Ohio is in that capacity. We lose them because they do not necessarily have the proper training. That is where the greatest percentage of teachers is lost. We need to retain them, as well. That is why I beseech everybody here to get behind the concept of having some flexibility on these particular dollars which we are talking about. I hope we can come to an agreement at some point on it.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start, Mr. Speaker, by just pointing out what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce has stated again, which has already been stated several times. We are not talking about a difference in money here at all. The $1.75 billion is in the Labor, HHS Education bill. It is a controversial bill, but not about that sum of money, I think we all know that, that sum of money will survive all of this. As a matter of fact, 75 percent of it will be used for the exact purpose that is talked about in the motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the reduction of class size and a balance to be used for teacher training. This is not a block grant situation, but the balance will be used for teacher training. So we are talking about a minor degree of flexibility. Here is what I would ask everybody to do, maybe there are some people listening in their offices and they have a moment to do this before they vote on this or on the Labor, HHS bill, but to call their Governors up, I do not care if they are Republicans or Democrats, and ask them about this. Ask them if they want it mandated that they have to use all this money to hire teachers or if they could have some flexibility to use some of the money for teacher training. Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to wager a small bet, if you will, that 100 percent of those answers would be give us whatever flexibility you can in order to use that money so we can accommodate our State and our local school districts as best we can. Mr. Speaker, at a recent committee hearing, I asked Secretary Riley, who, of course, is a former Governor, if he would prefer to have some measure of flexibility in the use of Federal funding which, as my colleagues will recall, it accounts for about 6 percent of all Federal spending, and he was unresponsive to that. But I would point out that the one issue I know of that all of the Governors got behind in the last couple of years and that has been referred to by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), too, is the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, which I think speaks volumes about flexibility in this area, it is called Ed Flex. We did get it passed. We all agreed to it in every way we possibly could. So my judgment is that we are talking about flexibility. We are talking about giving us the opportunity to be able to spend money properly. Let me finally just say this, and I will quote, ``we can reduce the education gap between rich and poor students by giving schools greater flexibility to spend money in ways they think most effective, like reducing class sizes in early grades.'' They are also those who support, and again I quote, ``granting expanded decision-making powers at the school level, empowering principals, teachers and parents with increased flexibility in educating our children,'' and that ends the quote. We have fought a lot about this, but it is interesting to note that those quotes that I just gave my colleagues are two principles which can be found on page 86 of then Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore's book Putting People First. I think we can all agree that education flexibility is what is needed here. Twenty-five percent of this money is for choice of the district. They can use it all for class size reduction if they want. They even have that option as well. Let us give them the flexibility; and I politely say that, because I respect what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) is trying to do. But I would urge all of us to turn down the motion to instruct conferees to give the flexibility to the States to improve education for all of our children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of Representatives.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the specifics of the motion to instruct conferees presented by the distinguished gentleman from Oregon; but in the principle of what he is saying, I reach full accord and agreement, and I think frankly most Members here probably do and most people involved with education probably do. I have been worried about education for many, many decades now in my State of Delaware. I have visited all of the public schools in Delaware at one time or another. I have been in those classes, and I have watched what happens as you get smaller class sizes, particularly with the younger ages, with the use of teachers or teacher aides who can achieve the level of being able to teach at a teacher's level, and I have seen the benefits that come from that. That is something that we in my State have done. With legislation we have mandated, particularly in the lower class sizes, the lower ages and we think that has made a difference as far as all this is concerned. I think we as Republicans have recognized that fully in the Congress of the United States. As a matter of fact, I think it is very important to point out, and to me this is the crux of this whole discussion we are having right here, and, that is, that what is conspicuously absent from this motion to instruct is language requesting further increases in education spending. The Republican Congress has provided dramatic education spending increases in recent years. In the 5 years before this, we have increased spending for education by 8.2 percent a year, well above the cost of inflation and well above the 6 percent a year in the 5 years before that when the Democrats were in control of the Congress of the United States of America. As I have said in the previous discussion, the increases for this year in the Labor-HHS-Education bill for K-12, and there is no argument with this, there are arguments with another part of that bill right now, are 20 percent which is a dramatic commitment to education. We in the majority side, of course, are very proud of that. That having been said, we need to deal with this particular issue. Again we are not dealing with numbers. We are dealing with flexibility and how one is going to spend money. We are willing to expend the money, but we have indicated that, of the $1.7 billion request, that three-quarters of it should go to class size and a quarter of it should go for teacher training, unless you have more than 10 percent who are not qualified to teach a course, in which case 100 percent would go for class size. Why do it that way? It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. As you go across the United States of America, you are going to find that there are 15,000 school districts with over a million classrooms. You are going to find classrooms that have a large number of students in them, with good teachers, who have the ability to handle those children and teach them well. You are going to find other circumstances in which you have a classroom with somebody who could be a good teacher but needs some sort of training in order to become better. You are going to have a variety of situations with teachers and aides where they are able to make it all come together and teach kids as well as possible, all driving at the purpose of the motion to instruct conferees, that is, to reduce class size but, more importantly, to make sure that we are teaching those children as well as we possibly can. We say give them that flexibility, give them some flexibility in some instances to be able to train teachers better. There are too many teachers, frankly, who are teaching courses for which they are ill prepared. Perhaps they did not study that as a substantive course when they prepared to be a teacher; perhaps they just do not have the knowledge. Perhaps they do not have teaching skills. We say that we need to address that. But that is not what is really important. What is important is we are saying, Let's put some flexibility into the program. The decision should not be made here in Washington at the Department of Education or at the White House. It should be made back in Oregon, Delaware, Pennsylvania, or wherever it may be, or done in the various towns and school districts within our States as they make the decision as to what is in the best interests of those children for their education. Those are the differences. The differences are not great, but they are important and they are distinguishable differences. I happen to believe the flexibility side of it is the side which is right. Obviously, the gentleman from Oregon feels differently; but my view is that we have put the money in, we have provided the necessary flexibility, we are trying to help with more teachers and help teachers prepare better. If we do that, then we have taken the right steps to help all of our children with their education. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), another strong member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE

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. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after the funds for construction or renovation were taken away in fiscal year 1995--we are talking about 5 years ago now-- the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request did not include any money for the Education Infrastructure Act. I think it is important, and I did this earlier, but I want to put this in, this is exact quotes from what the Department of Education budget documents stated, this is President Clinton, ``the construction and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments financed 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 administration opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for school construction.'' It is now 5 years later the tea leaves are reading a little differently. People seem to favor education and all of a sudden we have a reversal of fortune as far as school construction is concerned from the administration and obviously from some of the people who have spoken here. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we have met the needs of education from the Federal point of view, as well as we could, having higher percentages of increases, 8.2 percent for the last 5 years versus 6 percent for the 5 years before that under the Democrats. This year, in particular, the increase, Mr. Speaker, is 20 percent from last year to this year. It meets all of the requests as far as construction is concerned of $1.3 billion that the President has made. I do not know what the arguments are, but they are relatively small time as far as any differences that can be picked upon that the Republicans have proposed to try to help with these problems and the problems of education.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we probably said this about 10 times, we keep thinking this is the last time he is going to be on the floor, but we keep coming back. This is truly a friend of education in the United States.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. One is, again, we have in the basic appropriation bill that is going through, that will pass here eventually, the $1.3 billion for construction. Secondly, it is a 20 percent increase in education for this year. I want to look at the history of this for a moment. This is very important, because we are only talking about 5 years ago. The Congress, under Democrat control, appropriated $100 million for fiscal year 1995 for the School Facilities Infrastructure Improvement Act. But the President rescinded this, and subsequently the program has received no funding. Following that rescission of funds for fiscal year 1995, the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request did not include any money for the Education Infrastructure Act. In fact, the Department of Education budget documents stated: ``The construction and renovation of school facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local governments, financed 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 reasons explained above, the administration opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for school construction.'' That was the last year that the Democrats had control of the House of Representatives here, and they refused to do anything about school construction in conjunction with the President. Now that it is a popular issue politically out there, everyone is talking about it. I do not have a great problem with that because I think we should be doing that, but it is the Republicans who have led the charge for expending more money and making sure we are helping our schools.