Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me try to conclude by saying that the public may have the impression that this is kind of like the golden arches at McDonald's where, all across the country, public schools are the same and the same inputs; and, therefore, any time there is a disparity of outputs, it has something to do with the individual children involved or their families or their community when, in reality, what we have is a system in which, in the poorest districts, in the most disadvantaged circumstances, in urban and rural America, the State governments, with the flexibility that they have, have decided that the poorest kids need to get the least amount of resources. Time after time, in 49 States, that is the story, not just in Democratic districts, but in Republican districts. In Pennsylvania, 216 rural school districts filed suit years ago challenging our funding system. We have seen these suits in Kentucky and all across the land. I am suggesting that the Congress use the carrot of Federal dollars to insist that States create a more equal playing field. I hope that my colleagues would support this amendment. I will guarantee to my colleagues this amendment will be before us again.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me first defend the negotiations that were commented on by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). The Democratic leadership on this committee had negotiated a bill, and they stood on the floor, and they said that they are going to support this bill. There was never any agreement that there would not be amendments offered. But they have said they are going to support this bill whether these amendments are passed or defeated. Now, we heard from another gentleman who said he is opposed to the bill, and he is opposed to this amendment. I want to rise in support of this amendment because it focuses dollars that the Congress has appropriated for disadvantaged children at schools in which at least 50 percent of the children are disadvantaged. Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if we were appropriating money for all children, then we would not be keying on free and reduced lunch levels, there would not be a program for children who were disadvantaged. It is because, in 49 out of our 50 States, disadvantaged children, that is poor children, are in schools in which their State governments have found a way to have less being spent on their education than children who are not disadvantaged; that is, they start out impoverished in school districts in which the financing systems end up giving them less per pupil than in the wealthiest districts in those States. So, now, why should the Federal Government come along with money to help disadvantaged students and dissipate the effectiveness of those dollars? This amendment would raise the level to 50 percent. It would say one has to have 50 percent of the kids in one's school in poverty in order to have these dollars be spent on a schoolwide effort. That is a reasonable position for the Democratic leadership on the Committee on Education and the Workforce to take. It is also understood that there was a negotiation. We are prepared to stand by that negotiation. But it does not bind the floor. Members of this Congress should come and listen to the National Education Association, the Council of the Great City Schools. Listen clearly to the administration in its statement of administration policy that they would like to see these dollars targeted if one wants to have the administration finally support this effort. So we ask that the Congress consider the Payne amendment. We think it is a reasonable position. Those of us who support Title I and support this bill think that this would improve the bill. We have those who do not support the bill, are not going to vote for the bill, who are saying that somehow they think that defeating the Payne amendment is the right way to go. Let us be on the side of those who support Title I and know that, even though it is a good bill, it can be improved by adding the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, let me thank my ranking member and his counterpart in my home State, the chairman of the committee. These two gentlemen, along with the former governor, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), have done an extraordinary job crafting the legislation that is now before the House, and I am pleased to rise in support of it. This is a major step forward. It is a bipartisan bill. It responds to the national cry that we focus more on the next generation and their education than perhaps we ordinarily would do. It is said that the difference between a statesman and a politician is the focus on the next generation versus the next election. Well, this bill focuses on the next generation in an important way. I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this bill and the subcommittee chairs. I want to say that I want to have the opportunity to offer a couple of amendments that I hope that will improve the bill. I know all who offer amendments are hopeful that we will be able to improve this bill. But the work that has been done should be applauded by this House. This is a bill that today represents a significant step forward; and, rather than take time out of the general debate to focus on my amendments, I really wanted to just rise and to ask this House to make sure that, at the conclusion, we have a bill that is at least as good that has been presented to us today, because I think this bill is worthy of this House's support. The amendments that I am going to offer is just going to attempt to even the playing field between Title I students and non-Title I students, between disadvantaged students and those who have a little more advantage in our States. This is supposedly one Nation under God. We should work through this bill to make sure that each child has an equal opportunity. We say that a lot, but we know that, in each of our States, different children have different sets of opportunities. The amendments that I am going to offer are going to seek to close those gaps and to make sure that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) said in his opening remarks, that the children who most need to have a qualified teacher have a qualified teacher, and that we have the opportunity in terms of equalizing spending to encourage our States to make sure that they are providing an equal playing field as the Federal Government comes in and hopefully provides a hand up for those who may be starting out in a deficit position. I would encourage my colleagues to support the Student Results Act, H.R. 2.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for speakers on our side, and I would assume the case to be so on the majority side. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, the majority chair, in support of this legislation. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to be able to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, who we are going to hear from in just a few minutes, who was the prime sponsor of this legislation. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) I think represents not just the State of Mississippi but, in many respects, because of his concern in terms of national defense and a whole range of issues relative to the national interest, the best of what this Congress has to provide in terms of legislative leadership. He is principled and committed, and it was a pleasure to be able to help facilitate this bill coming to the floor because it is important to him. Naming a postal facility is an appropriate honor to bestow upon someone who has done all of the things that we are going to hear about in a minute. I do not want to steal the thunder from the sponsor, but I do want to say that it says something about his life, that his wife would donate the home to the Baptist Children's Village as a home for children. It shows the continuing legacy that I think this naming of a postal facility will add to. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1374. First of all I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who serves as the majority chair. The Subcommittee on Postal Service has had a great deal of responsibility over the course of this session. First, of course, the oversight of the largest postal service anywhere in the world and the finest, some 800,000 employees on a whole range of issues. Our committee has dealt with postal reform in macro. We have been working here more recently on the whole issue of fraudulent solicitation for sweepstakes in a bill that we hope to have considered on the floor very soon. Some might think for the Congress to take time to honor individuals by naming post offices is some type of work that perhaps we could do in a different fashion, but I think that for this body, the Congress, to take the time to honor a mayor of a town in New Jersey, a widow who raised her children, saw one rise to be a Member of the Congress and another the mayor of a big city, to honor a Republican from Kansas and a Democrat from California and a baseball great is appropriate for this House, to take and pause a minute, because this country is made up of individuals who helped make us what it is that makes the rest of the world want to have some small part of the ideals that are represented here in America represented in their lives. I want to thank the majority chairman for facilitating these bills coming to the floor. I would like to say we will be back, I am sure, with other legislation that will deal with some of these other matters, but today I think it is important that these were brought forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, not having any further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). With his permission, I ask unanimous consent that the humorous reference to junkets by former and present Members be revised in his remarks.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of a woman who embodies the story of literally millions and millions of women throughout our country who struggled against tremendous odds and difficult circumstances to raise children. Her two sons she raised after their father died, her husband died, when they were very young children. She worked as a domestic worker. She did what was necessary to feed and clothe and educate her children. One became a United States Congressman of some note because, not only was he the first African American to serve the great State of Ohio and the Congress, but a Congressman whose work and accomplishments and achievements are not equaled by many who serve in this House or have served in this House. The other son went on to be the mayor of a major city at a time in which no other African American had ever served in such a capacity. So it is a remarkable woman that we acknowledge in this naming. But it is a story that is very important to the very fabric of our country that I think is acknowledged through her life's work. I want to thank the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the prime sponsor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, on the floor today, we have the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member who served in leadership positions on Gus Hawkins's former committee, the Committee on Education and Labor, as it was named then. These are gentlemen who, like Chairman Hawkins, have dedicated a great deal of their work to education and employment issues. It is appropriate that Gus Hawkins be acknowledged, and in this way the California delegation and particularly the prime sponsor of this have offered the House this opportunity. His work is acknowledged I think by a lot of people, but many of the people who have been helped by his work may never know his name. We were together for the 25th anniversary of the Pell Grant bill, which he helped move through. I went to college on a Pell Grant, and so have tens of millions of other young people benefited from his efforts in this regard. So I am pleased to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the prime sponsor of this measure.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that the previous speaker has laid out for the House ample reason for us to swiftly pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join with the gentleman from New York in moving today some five postal naming bills. This is the first, and it is indeed an honor for us to have the opportunity to participate. It really provides to the people of Kansas the notice that is appropriate for the service of a former Member by naming this post office, and the majority Chairman has walked through the tremendous public service that Congressman Avery provided, not just his service here in the Congress for more than a decade, but his service as a member of a local school board, his graduation from Wakefield high, his service in the State House, and then finally, his service as governor of the State of Kansas. I think it is appropriate that we move this naming bill that was introduced on July 2 by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and as the minority ranking member on the Subcommittee on Postal Service, I want to just offer my thanks to the cooperative working relationship that I have had with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). And as we will see today, we have moved through the committee a number of these bills that are important not just to the Members who have introduced them but to the memory of those whose names these postal facilities will bear, because it represents I think the continuing hope that there will be others from those communities who will come and provide service, not just here in this House, but in a variety of roles of public service throughout our Nation, and that it is appropriate that the Congress recognize the achievements and accomplishments and the legacy of service of people like the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Avery, who we honor today through this legislative proposal. So Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the House that oftentimes when people talk about tomorrow, the other day that they refer to is yesterday. And in this particular case, there was a yesterday not too long ago when the substance of the Thomas legislation was offered as an amendment to Shays-Meehan in committee and the majority decided that they did not want to have it be a part of the Shays-Meehan package. The plain English of where we are tonight is embodied in the rule that the majority created to govern this debate, that is that this is not an amendment to Shays-Meehan, this is a substitute. All too often some are eager to take a substitute over the real McCoy or, in this case, the real Shays-Meehan. A substitute just will not do, because what we have come to understand even here in this House is that the time has come to reform our campaign finance laws. It is embodied in this bipartisan approach, and the only way that we can get to the Shays-Meehan approach, which a majority of us agree on, is that we have to move the substitutes aside and focus on the real reform that is embodied in the base bill that we will have a chance to vote on once we dispose of the Thomas amendment. Now, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of my committee, and I think that the suggestions that are offered are something that all of us can work towards, and that is why I offered it as an amendment to Shays-Meehan. Maybe now, after we dispose of it tonight, we will find another way on another day when we can get to it, but those who want to point at tomorrow as some far off day have to look at their own actions when they had the opportunity to take these suggestions and embody them in the vehicle that this House passed last year and will pass again tonight. When we want to clean up the creek, we have to get the hogs out of the water first. We, in order to get to Shays-Meehan, have to remove these substitutes out of our way. We have to keep our eyes on the prize. I would ask my colleagues to say no to the Thomas substitute so that we can focus in on real campaign reform.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that we had learned to listen. Well, teachers have said that they do not want this bill. They want the Democratic substitute. Parents have said it through the PTA. We have heard earlier that the governors, that each of the elements of the educational enterprise in our country, support the Democratic substitute over the main bill. My colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, just said, as he closed his remarks, that it was time for us to think seriously about putting a qualified teacher in every classroom. Well, let us think about that for a minute. Who has been responsible for putting unqualified teachers in classrooms of children around this country, particularly in areas where children come from low-income families? Who has been responsible for doubling the number of children in classes that all of us believe ought to be there, including President Clinton who says the number should be 18? It has not been the Federal Government making these decisions. It is the people that my colleagues suggest they want to give more flexibility to. They want to take these Federal dollars where we are trying to set some priorities that local people agree with, that is, the parents agree, the teachers agree, the local school boards agree. But no, my colleagues want to take the same local entities at the State level, who have made these unfortunate decisions, and give them more of an opportunity. I think that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) said, let us think seriously about putting quality teachers in every classroom. Let us take our responsibility seriously. Let us be leaders. Let us set some priorities. The President has said, first and foremost, classroom reduction. That is the Democratic mark. Now if my colleagues would like to come up with another $1.2 billion and do it and focus on some other issues, then fine, let us all work together. But let us not step on this initiative in a way that creates a problem for any of us to have the kind of decision making we want on this issue.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues from The Philadelphia Inquirer on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's activities in Philadelphia. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, June 22, 1999] Doing Good for Hud For a bureaucracy, it's a startling move: Sending skilled professionals out of their offices with sweeping orders to help people. They are ``community builders'' in what HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo calls ``an urban Peace Corps.'' (By Maida Odom) John Carpenter drives past rubbish-filled lots in Philadelphia, wondering if there's some way to get them into the hands of owners who would clean them up. Cynthia Jetter solves problems and investigates complaints from advocates for the disabled--the same people who last month protested outside her employer, the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development in Washington. And Michael Levine, a career Washington bureaucrat now in Philadelphia, is getting to see some of the social programs he helped design. ``When you come in and meet people in a situation, you realize no program in itself is going to solve the problem,'' he says. They are executives who have left their offices-- ``outsiders'' with connections, insiders now on the street. They are HUD employees, members of a unique group of two- year ``fellows'' called community builders. Handpicked from inside and outside HUD, these special workers--about 900 at 81 offices nationwide, and 26 in Pennsylvania--have an extremely broad mandate: Do good. Jetter was a HUD employee who left to work at the Philadelphia Housing Authority and then returned. Carpenter formerly headed a Community Development Corp. Both are assigned to the Philadelphia office, as is Levine. HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who announced the program in March of 1998, dubbed these ``fellows'' an ``urban Peace Corps''--knowledgeable professionals from private industry, social services, other branches of government and elsewhere temporarily added to a HUD talent pool that has been winnowed through years of budget cuts. Karen Miller, who heads HUD's mid-Atlantic region, which is based here, helped write the ``community builders'' job description. ``What has been expected of HUD's staff was schizophrenic,'' she said. HUD bureaucrats were the ``cops'' who guarded public dollars, she said, while at the same time they were expected to offer technical assistance to the people being monitored. ``The Secretary [Cuomo] separated the two roles,'' she said. ``The great majority [of HUD employees] are still defenders of public dollars,'' involved in awarding grants, moving applications through the system and monitoring spending. ``Community builders are the ones who go out and work with the community and help them do what they want and need to do.'' In almost two decades as a Washington-based bureaucrat, Levine saw himself getting further away from his personal career goal ``to go out and help communities develop.'' As a HUD executive he was writing programs and evaluating projects. Eventually, there were few fact-finding trips into the field to see firsthand what he was planning and administering. About half the community builders are like Levine, people who had worked inside HUD and are now getting a chance to see their work in action. Being in the area of welfare-to-work for about a year has been eye-opening, he said. Over that period, Levine has arranged for more than 700 people--public-housing managers and tenant leaders--to get special briefings explaining the new welfare-reform laws. In Washington, he had administered and written a program offering public-housing tenant councils $100,000 grants to develop job opportunities. ``They didn't want to spend the money for fear of getting into trouble,'' Levine said. Now, as a community builder, he's helping bring together public and private sources to create computer centers at public housing developments. ``A computer center is a place where children can go after school, where adults can get the literacy they need,'' he said. ``When I ran that program in Washington I didn't see the money being used that way. You get a different perspective. You don't realize the nuances. ``It's not like I learned any big new things to shock me. But things are much clearer now.'' Before she met Jetter, Nancy Salandra, project coordinator for the Pennsylvania Action Coalition for Disability Rights in Housing, generally found herself fighting to get HUD to listen. Jetter has been ``a terrific person to work with,'' Salandra said. ``What she says she's going to do, she does. ``She has the knowledge; she has the understanding of housing; she has the understanding about HUD; and she understands how the system overwhelms people.'' In addition to meeting with groups that usually come to HUD with complaints. Jetter is bringing together people who work on housing for veterans and disabled and homeless people. She also is trying to organize a tracking method to keep up with who needs services and who's receiving them. ``We need to track the impact of programs [and] track housing, and we can better address the needs of the population.'' Jetter worked for HUD for 14 years before taking over as head of resident services at the Philadelphia Housing Authority. She left there for a research project at the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. in New York. Last fall, she rejoined HUD as a community builder. When Jetter left HUD, she thought she'd never go back. For most of her years with the agency, she felt it was growing farther away from the people it served. People ``were numbers,'' she said. ``This is a big step for HUD to take people in from the outside. And the response has been overwhelming. P.R. for HUD is a big part of it. We go to every meeting we can, try to be a visible as possible. After a meeting, people are almost knocking you down to get your card. ``We used to be the ones who said `Gotcha!' Now people can talk to us before they get into trouble.'' Carpenter, who formerly headed the New Kensington Community Development Corp., where he won praise for clearing and reusing vacant lots, joined HUD last summer. In this job he's been able to pull together people he could not have assembled in his old job. For example, a group of American Street area residents and representatives of a community development corporation there were working together earlier this year, hoping to obtain funding to design projects for property acquisition and housing preservation. Carpenter, according to Santiago Burgos, director of the American Street Empowerment Zone in North Philadelphia, was able to help people working in the area ``think through to design a project to consolidate those goals.'' Carpenter helped them see that they needed money for pre-development and environmental testing. Their improving planning made it easier to identify and get funding, Burgos said. In addition, Carpenter brought in the right people as advisers and consultants, Burgos said, and ``shortened the learning curve'' for the community people, moving things forward faster. Such projects are close to Carpenter's heart. ``Frankly, it's one of Philadelphia's biggest disgraces-- what happens to vacant land once the building is torn down. The city essentially abdicates responsibility. They do not clean it, they do not maintain it, they do not cite the owners for not maintaining it. ``For a developer driving by here, the first gut-recoiling reaction is, `Why would I even build here if the people who live here tolerate this? What would they do to my store? What would they do to my business? ' '' Although the problem is vast, Carpenter said--in the city there are about 40,000 vacant buildings and 30,000 vacant lots, most privately owned--he thinks it can be tackled. ``Having the HUD seal of approval gets people to listen to me,'' he said.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat on the full committee.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am also honored to have the opportunity to participate in this very important naming bill introduced by my colleague from the State of Oregon. I want to first thank the majority chairman, for he has continued to be gracious and bipartisan in his leadership of the Postal Subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with him. On this occasion, we come to move a very important piece of legislation, because it recognizes something that all too often goes unmentioned, which is that many, many States have had difficulty with the election of women to the United States Congress, House and Senate. I come from a State in which we have among our congressional delegation at this point not one female member. The State of Oregon has been ahead of the game for a long time, and it is symbolized by the honor that is bestowed through this bill. But rather than talk about the details, I would recognize my colleague and yield to her, since she is the sponsor of this measure, the opportunity to explain its purpose and why it is that the full committee under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the Postal Subcommittee found it, I think, important to move this legislation swiftly. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly in closing, let me respond to the very gracious comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of our subcommittee, in saying how much I have appreciated his leadership and his hard work on a whole range of issues, but certainly on this bill as well. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), too, as the ranking member on the full committee, for his initiative and his support in assisting us in bringing forward this measure which, as we have heard from the very, I think, heartfelt comments of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), as to how former Senator Neuberger is most deserving of this honor. Mr. Speaker, I urge the unanimous support of our colleagues on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.