Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of this committee, and as I said to the ranking member, and let me just say to Members of the House, I do not have any plans to take a vote on this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman, in all honesty, for his hard work in this effort. I really thank the gentleman for his efforts. I come from the school of thought that we have to do all that we can do to improve opportunities for higher education in this country, and I know both gentlemen, particularly this gentleman and the chairman, have worked hard to provide that opportunity for young people. We have too many young people who graduate from college in this country who will leave a college or a medical school or some graduate school with over $100,000 worth of debt. If they have that opportunity to work their way through college, work their way through graduate school, or even have the opportunity to work in community programs to pay back their loans, that is the point that this gentleman and the gentlewoman from Texas had made and is making.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increased funding of the National and Community Service Programs by $178.5 million above its level in the bill. It raises it to $543.5 million for fiscal year 1997. It provides $28.5 million for administrative services, $129 million for national service trust account for educational awards, $261 million for grants under the national service trust program. It also provides $6 million for Points of Light Foundation, $22 million for the Civilian Community Corps. It provides $53 million for school- and community-based service learning programs across the country. It provides $37 million for quality and innovative activities. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it provides $7 million for audits and other evaluations of the program itself. Each of these programs provides our Nation with one thing that we lack most, and that is community involvement. This program is a network of community-based programs which provides Americans with results- driven programs. In exchange for a year or 2 years of hard work, AmeriCorps members earn education awards to finance their way through college, graduate school, vocational training or to help pay back student loans. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during a time that many young people are defaulting on their student loans, there could not be a better program than the National Service Program to give individuals an opportunity to earn their way through college and not only earn their way through college and graduate school but give them an opportunity once they finish college and graduate school. They can in fact be a part of one of these national service programs and pay for their educational enhancement. More of our youth should be able to earn a college education by helping in the community, so we receive a twofold effort. One, we give an opportunity to a young person to earn their way through college, and we also help many facets of our community at the same time. In my State of Louisiana, there are over a million people who participate in this program. The exact number, Mr. Chairman, is 1.2 million persons involved in the National Service Program. That only costs the Federal Government about $6.20. We have allocated to the State of Louisiana about $7.8 million. Some of the programs that the individuals participate in: the Delta Service Program, with 50 participants who help find affordable housing for low-income residents, facilitate independent living for home-bound individuals, and tutor children on literacy skills. Those are great programs that have taken place in my State, and those programs are taking place all across the country. I tender this amendment to the Members of this House as a friendly amendment to simply bring national service funding up to the level that it was so that more young people can participate in a very worthwhile program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman, and I want the gentleman to know that I get no great pride out of taking money out of FEMA. I simply had to take it somewhere because the bill has to be budget neutral, as the gentleman knows. But I do think, when it comes to our kids, when it comes to giving kids an opportunity to earn their way through college, that is something very positive that we should do everything we can to do that. This is only $170 some million and I do appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and in closing I want to lastly thank the chairman and thank the ranking member for their work in this effort. I can only say that I know how to count and I know where the votes are, but I would like to say to the Members of this House that even in disasters, and I understand FEMA's budget, but whenever there is a national disaster and the moneys are not there in the FEMA's budget, the chairman knows as well as the ranking member knows and every Member of this House knows that this Congress has the right and the obligation to go back to the Federal war chest and appropriate additional funds. So while I understand and respect the gentleman's argument about FEMA, I wish not to take the money from FEMA, but the amendment has to be budget neutral. I think I have made the point, Mr. Chairman, that there are a lot of young people across this country who should have the opportunity to go to college. They are caught in the middle. Their parents make a little too much money to qualify for a student loan or a grant but they do not make enough money to send them to college. National service is a program for the future, and this Congress should be totally committed to it. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the gentlemen for his leadership. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois on the other side of the aisle [Mr. Hyde] for this very important matter and also for bringing to it the floor. Mr. Speaker, the burning of churches in this country is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any shape, form or fashion. This legislation will give Federal prosecutors the tools they need to prosecute those perpetrators of the crime to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has witnessed over five burnings in the past 4 months, four in one night alone. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and thank the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this very important piece of legislation to the floor and would like to say in no uncertain terms that this Congress will not tolerate individuals burning churches.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the issue of church burning. Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina who had a resolution tonight on the floor of this House and it passed. And I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in that area. I also want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma as well. Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus to chair an issue that we have been talking about tonight for some time. That is the issue of church burning, burnings across the country. I take a moment of personal privilege to talk about these church burnings here again tonight because in my on own State five churches were burned. Second, Mr. Speaker, I feel like Fannie Lou Hamer tonight. I feel sick and tired of being sick and tired. I am tired of individuals who have no respect for human life and no respect to buildings, burning churches at night. I also feel sick and tired of being sick and tired because while individuals burn churches at night, we have people who wake up in the morning and put on black robes and burn congressional districts in the daytime. And I think that is simply unacceptable and unconscionable. I am happy that the gentlewoman from Texas will be a part of this special order tonight and the gentleman from Illinois will be a part of this special order tonight, the gentlewoman from California as well as the gentleman from South Carolina. Before we talk about church burnings, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the districts that were burned today in the Supreme Court. To know that as a result of this ruling, a State like the State of Texas, a State with a population of almost 20 percent African- Americans, will not have the opportunity, not the guarantee but will not have the mere opportunity to send an African-American to this Congress is absolutely unacceptable and unconscionable. These burnings must stop, not only the burning of churches but the burning of congressional districts and legislative districts across this country. In order for us to get along in this country, in order for us to move forward in this country, we will have to learn how to be more inclusive. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, who has represented her constituents so well here in this body. I want to say to her in no uncertain terms that she has done a great job. Continue to press on and know that you must keep the faith. We are very pleased with the work that you do. Now, on the issue of church burnings, Mr. Speaker, the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, we will first have a hearing right here in the Nation's capital. We will have the Justice Department. We will have ATF and all Federal agencies involved. That hearings will be headed and led by Congressman Conyers. And we will talk, we will also have black churches, members, ministers of black churches to talk about these church burnings. Then we will leave this capital and we will travel across this country in each congressional district or each State where there has been church burnings, because we will not accept individuals putting torches to churches. We are going to insist that every Federal agency in this country use every ounce of its power, every ounce of its resources, to make sure that we find the perpetrators of these crimes and bring them to justice and then move very swiftly to prosecute them. I have, Mr. Speaker, a map of the entire United States of America which gives you some sense of church burnings across the country. Before I yield to my colleagues who have joined me here tonight, I want you to see, I want Members of the House to see how this proliferation of church burnings is taking place all across this country. Utah, the State of Utah, one church burning; Colorado, one church burning; State of Arizona, one church was burned. Even the State of New Mexico had a church burning. Texas, the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Texas, not only have they burned the districts, the congressional districts in the State of Texas, but two churches, two black churches were burned in the State of Texas as well, which is absolutely, positively unacceptable and we must insist that every Federal agency that has anything to do with investigations do everything possible to find the perpetrators of these crimes. The State of Oklahoma, one church; even the State of Illinois, the gentleman from Illinois who is here tonight, a church was burned in his States. The State of Tennessee, which leads the whole Nation in terms of church burnings, six churches were burned in the State of Tennessee; five in the State of Louisiana; three in the State of Mississippi; five in the State of Alabama; one in the State of Georgia; five in the State of South Carolina, the gentleman who is here tonight, five churches were burned, many of them were in his congressional district; three churches in North Carolina; one in Virginia; two in Maryland; one in the District of Columbia; one in New York; and one in Pennsylvania. And then to know that in Oklahoma, which is the most recent church burning, when we were debating tonight, we were debating on this floor about church burnings, to wake up the next morning and learn that a church was burned in the State of Oklahoma, it absolutely irks Members of this Congress, particularly Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I want to thank the Members who decided to come here tonight at the wee hours of the night because this is an important issue. I want the Members of this congress to know that the Congressional Black Caucus will not sit idly by and allow individuals to burn churches and get away with it. We are going to insist that every Federal agency that we have under the control of this Federal Government do everything that is humanly possible to find the perpetrators of these crimes, bring them to justice and then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], who has been participating in these special orders for some time, and also to the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentlewoman from California as well. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FIELDS

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the lady. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. The gentlewoman represents a very diverse district, and, as I stated earlier, we appreciate her leadership, and I think citizens not only in her congressional district but citizens all across her State and citizens all across this country appreciate her leadership, and this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]. Before I do, I would like to say that in our discussions on this task force on church burnings across the country, particularly in the southern part of our country, the gentlewoman from California, who by the way, is new to this body, made it very clear that we should have hearings, we should talk to ministers, we should talk to community people, people in the community about their feelings, and also make sure that there is a relationship merged between the investigators, the Federal agencies, and these ministers and these parishioners of these churches. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership because as a result, there was a meeting at 8 a.m. this morning in the office of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and as a result of that meeting, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary decided to start his hearings right here in Washington, DC. Because of her leadership, we will be traveling all across the country as a caucus, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, in each of these several States holding hearings on church burnings. At this time I would like to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman. There are individuals in this country who are trying to turn back the hands of time, trying to make 1996 look like 1896, but we are not going back. We have come too far now. We have come to a threshold of freedom, and we have reached the periphery of liberation and we have seen the ambition of liberty. We are not going back. There are those who try to burn opportunities by burning affirmative action. Some try to burn political inclusion by burning congressional districts, and some even try to burn our spirits by burning churches. But we are not going back. At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman who has probably the most experience in the civil rights movement of all of us here tonight, the senior Congressman from the great State of South Carolina, who I have a great deal of respect for. I want to say to the gentleman, I have never been confronted with a door that said colored or white only. I have never had to sit in the back of a bus. I am benefiting from fruits of a tree that I did not plant, I did not nourish, and I did not even shape. I am here today because of people like the gentleman from South Carolina who stood in those many lines and who marched the many highways. And I just want to say thanks to the gentleman, and I know I speak for the gentleman from Illinois as well. We are here today because of the sweat and tears of your work and we want to thank you. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. In closing, I would just like to say to the gentleman that I am happy and pleased that this Congress, and the American people should know that this Congress stands in unison, we stand together tonight, both Democrats and Republicans, blacks, whites, young, old, men and women. We will not tolerate the burning of any churches. We are going to appropriate the necessary resources to the agencies that are conducting investigations and we will find the perpetrators of these crimes and they will be brought to justice. To end this special order, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. Before I do, I want to leave on this note. I often talk about what we have in common. I will never forget when I graduated from high school my mother said, ``What's the universal language?'' I said, ``It's English, Mom.'' And she said, ``No, it's not.'' She said, ``If you cry, can you cry in English?'' I said, no. She said, ``If you're in Spain can you cry in Spanish? If you're in France can you cry in French?'' She said, ``No, you cry in pain.'' There is a lot of crying taking place tonight. I do not care if you are black or white, young or old, male or female, we all cry the same. I would hope we would work together to end that cry. I yield to close to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, tonight I am joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], who will also talk about an issue that we both have a great deal of compassion about as well as other Members of this Congress who will join us later to talk about an issue that we are somewhat complexed about because of the amount of church burnings across America, particularly in the southern part of our country. So tonight, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we would like to take the remainder of this hour to talk about the church burnings across the southern part of the country. Mr. Speaker, over 63 churches over the past 5 years were burned. All of these were African-American churches; 20 of those cases have been solved at this point. And before I go any further, I would like to commend the Justice Department, who has been working extraordinarily hard in trying to bring a resolution to the many recent church burnings across the country, and in particular I want to commend Deval Patrick, who is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. That department has been working profusely night and day to try to ascertain as much information as possible as relates to these burnings, and I would like to commend him and his staff for all the work that they are doing, and I would like to also commend him for the support that he has given to legislation to make penalties much more tougher and bring people to justice much quicker. And he will be on the Hill tomorrow, as I appreciate it, trying to convince the Committee on the Judiciary to pass legislation in that regard. I would also like to commend Jim Johnson, who is with the Department of the Treasury, who is the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement. They are working night and day to try to get as much information as possible as relates to the church burnings, and he has worked relentlessly in trying to obtain as much information as possible; and, of course, the personnel over at the entire division, Janet Reno, who on yesterday and on today met with many of the pastors of the churches that were burned from across the South, and I appreciate her compassion and the diligence she has shown in trying to bring people who are the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The President should be commended as well for his commitment to expending as much resources as possible through this administration to ascertain any information that is possible to bring these senseless burnings to an end. Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like to share with the Members of the House very briefly the most recent churches that were burned across the country. I mentioned that there was 63 in the past 5 years, 20 of those cases unresolved, and I think as of last night 21 because a fire was, as I appreciate it, a church was set afire on last night in the State of Texas. In the State of Alabama, Mr. Speaker, there are a total of 5 churches that were burned. On December 22, 1995, Mount Zion Baptist Church, which is an African-American church, was burned in that particular State. On January 11, 1996, Little Mount Zion Baptist Church in Green County was set afire. On that same day Mount Zoar Baptist church in Green County was set afire. In both of these cases or both of these churches, the ATF agents have already ruled that arson was the cause of these fires. On February 28, 1996, New Liberty Baptist Church in Tyler was set afire, and on March 25, 1996, Missionary Baptist Church in Selma. A total of five churches in the State of Alabama have been burned since December 22, 1995, to this present day. In the State of Georgia there was one case of arson. On March 27, 1996, Gay's Hill Baptist Church in Millen was burned. And in Louisiana, my State and my own district, we have had over five church burnings. One was Saint Charles Baptist Church, which was the fifth church that was burned, and that was burned on April 11, 1996, which is the most recent burning in the State of Louisiana. On February 1, 1996, Cyprus Grove Baptist Church in East Baton Rouge Parish was set afire, and Saint Paul Free Baptist Church in East Baton Rouge Parish and Sweet Home Baptist Church in Baker, which is adjacent to East Baton Rouge Parish, and St.Thomas Chapel Benevolent Society in East Baton Rouge Parish. All four of these churches, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, were set afire the same night, and on April 11, 1996, as I stated earlier, Saint Charles Baptist church was set afire as well. In the State of Mississippi we have identified two to three cases of arson. On March 5, 1996, St. Paul Church was burned, and on March 30, 1996, El Bethal Church was burned. And in North Carolina there were four incidents. One that comes to mind the quickest was the 93-year-old wooden sanctuary that was once used by the congregation of Matthews-Murkland, which was a Presbyterian church, and that was in Charlotte, North Carolina, and that church was burned on June 7, which was the most recent burning in 1996. And in South Carolina there were five churches. Mount Zion AME Church was burned, and on August 15, 1995, St. John Baptist Church; June 22, 1995, Macedonia Baptist Church; and April 13, 1996, Rosemary Baptist Church. Finally, on April 26, 1996, another Baptist church was burned in the State of South Carolina, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], who had worked profusely on this and also in the CBC to inform Members of these church burnings, has been working very hard with ATF and with the FBI and the Justice Department to try to get as much information as possible, and perhaps he will join us in this colloquy later tonight. The State of Tennessee had a total of six burnings. January 13, 1995, Johnson Grove Baptist Church in Denmark and Macedonia Baptist Church in Crockett County; they both burned the same night, on the 13th of January. On January 31, 1995, Mount Calvary Baptist Church was burned, and on December 30, 1995, Selma Baptist Church in Fruitland was burned, and on January 8, 1996, Inner City Church in Knoxville was burned to the ground, and on May 14, 1996, Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, which is being investigated at this point, is still under investigation, and they have not yet ruled this church to be a church that was burned by arson. And last, the State of Texas, on June 6, 1996, New Lighthouse of Prayer in Greenville. And a Church of Living God was burned in Virginia on February 21, 1996; Glorious Church of God and Christ in Richmond was burned. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], we have talked about what could we do as Members of Congress to try to assist in stopping this avalanche of church burnings across the southern part of our country, and we were happy to learn that the ATF decided to publicize a 1-800 number, so we urge Members of this Congress to please inform their constituencies of the 1-800 number that their constituents can take advantage of if they know of any information whatsoever about any of these church burnings, and I am told that toll free number is 800-ATF- FIRE, which is a 24-hour a day, 7-day-a-week number where any citizen in this country who has any information whatsoever about church burnings in America can, in fact, call this number, and agents will respond. We feel that this country should have zero tolerance for anyone who would have the audacity and the gall to burn anything, but particularly, particularly, a church. For a person to light a match to a place of worship in this country shows no respect, first of all, to himself, to the individual who chooses to do it, and certainly does not show any respect to human life. And we are committed to work with the Justice Department, the ATF, and the FBI, and all of the investigative agencies. As Members of Congress, we are committed to supporting this effort so that we can bring it to some conclusion. And this is a bipartisan effort, both Democrats and Republicans. We all agree that there should not, none of us, have any tolerance for individuals who would burn a place of worship. We started this coalition with the blue dog Democrats, as a matter of fact, about 3 months ago when these church burnings first started to set some type of pattern across the southern part of our country, and then that coalition expanded, of course, to the entire Congress. So I am thankful to all of the Members who have been participating in briefings on church burnings, and I am very thankful to the Justice Department and the administration for their zero-tolerance attitude for this type of behavior and action across the country. At this time I am going to yield to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I think I hear what the gentleman is saying. The gentleman is saying, as I appreciate it, that we as public officials who are looked upon on a day-to-day basis for leadership, be it in our own districts or be it throughout the country, we have to be, first of all, more tolerant of each other, and we must also realize that we have to lead by example and try to talk about concentrating more on those things that bring us together than to put so much emphasis on those things that may divide us. I think the gentleman is correct. Many times, all too often people in public life, people who run for office use issues as a wedge rather than a magnet to bring people together, but a wedge to divide. I do not know if this is what we get, the church-burning is a result of what we get as a result of dividing and not healing and bringing people together. I do not know if that is the reason or not. But I do think the gentleman certainly makes a very compelling argument in that respect. It goes to show you that people do in fact, if that is one of the by-products of division in this Congress, division in government, if one of the by-products is somebody going to go put a match to a church, then we have to be very careful in terms of how we lead and govern.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. That leads me to the point of legislation. The gentleman spoke of the legislation that was introduced by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] and also to legislation that was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] as a matter of fact. I am a coauthor of those pieces of legislation, and will be fighting profusely to pass those pieces on this floor, and to even make them stronger, because in listening to the President's address on Saturday, I do agree with the President. This legislation not only needs to be supported by Members of Congress but it also needs to be strengthened. I am going to be working with members of this body to strengthen this legislation. I agree with you, we need more than legislation, because we have heard time and time again, one cannot legislate morality. We need more than tougher laws on the books. We need more than a good speech from an individual or a group of individuals. We need positive action. I think that just seeing Democrats and Republicans come together on legislation to prevent further harm to churches or to try to show some attention, bring some attention on a very serious problem is a good indication that we can in fact work together. But all too often we do it later, rather than sooner, and I think you are right, we have too much race-baiting, for lack of a better word, in this country. It is not only in the Congress, it is in State legislatures. Now there is affirmative action, a thing that was created by people, legislators who thought and who felt a genuine need in their heart and mind and in their soul to bring people together and to give individuals who have been discriminated against for years and years an opportunity, no a guarantee but a mere opportunity to be treated fair. That thing we call affirmative action is now a racial buzz word, and people use it to divide people instead of bringing people together, and I think that is unfortunate. But the gentleman is right, we have to lead by example. If we want racial harmony in our society and in our country, then the best example is the one that we make ourselves, and it is not only on this floor but throughout our daily lives.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I agree with the gentleman. I think one of the problems we have with affirmative action is a perception problem. People try to view affirmative action as two parallel lines, if you will, where we take somebody who is not qualified and we elevate them to the level of somebody who is. But in all actuality, that is not affirmative action. Affirmative action should be viewed instead as a circle, where every person in the circle, they are all qualified to do the job, to perform the obligation of the contract, but there is one problem. Though there are women in the circle, they never get chosen. Very few of them get an opportunity to fly a plane, though they are qualified pilots. Though there are a lot of African Americans in the circle who can perform the obligation of the contract, they never get an opportunity to even bid. So affirmative action is not two parallel lines where we take somebody who is not qualified and elevate them to the level of somebody who is. It is instead a circle where everybody within the circle, one of the prerequisites that one must have in order to get into the circle are qualifications. A person has to be qualified to get into the circle. The only problem is, but for affirmative action, many qualified people within that circle would never get an opportunity to compete. People do not get jobs because of affirmative action. Women do not get jobs because of affirmative action, blacks, Hispanics, Latinos. They get jobs because they are qualified. They only get an opportunity to compete. I want to also mention a meeting that I had today. We started the special order off talking about the church burning and now the byproducts of it. I met with the ministers from my district. About four of them were in my office today, after meeting with the Justice Department, and it is amazing, I guess it is not really amazing but it is encouraging, which is a better word, to see these ministers who have had their churches burned to the ground, not lose faith. One of the ministers when asked by, I guess, the Justice Department what penalty he thinks should be imposed, he said, ``Well, 15 years of going to Bible school, or 10 years of going to Bible study and working with the choir and the church.'' These are individuals who have lost their buildings, not their churches, because it takes more than a torch to burn a congregation. That was only a building. To know that those congregations all across the southern part of our country are still meeting, meeting in homes, meeting in parking lots, even meeting at other churches and those ministers still leading that flock, it brings a breath of fresh air. So for individuals who think they can kill the spirit by burning the church, they are going to have another think coming, because it really does not even weaken it. I have even been in my own State where it has made some of these churches even stronger. I would like to thank those individuals. I do not know about in other areas of the State but the local community. When we went through this calamity in Louisiana of the initial church burning, four in on night, to see the business community and to see the community at large come together to try to pool resource to help support those congregations is absolutely extraordinary. It just goes to show the good that we have in so many people. If we can just advocate that good, not only in times of disaster as the gentleman stated, but advocate that good will that we all have within ourselves as often as possible, then hopefully those kind of hate crimes will go away and be a thing of the past.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for those comments. In closing, I can only say that we have a long way to go and we can make it there if we do it together and we can get there a lot quicker. There is an old saying that you can get it a place a lot quicker if everybody pulls in the same direction. The more we pull in the same direction, the sooner we will get to that destination, that promised land, so to speak, that Dr. King talked about where we all could work together and more forward. Hopefully one day we will not have these senseless burnings like we have today, senseless bombings like we have had in the past, but people will grow to be tolerant of each other and respect each other and learn how to live with each other. I would only say in closing to those churches and those ministers and those congregations, I am just pleased that Attorney General Janet Reno and the President; Deval Patrick, the Assistant Attorney General; the ATF and all the enforcement mechanisms that we have at our disposal here in this government are all working together in concert with each other to try to change or to try to at least bring these individuals, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to justice so that they can be duly prosecuted under the law. That is their function. We can do something probably even more profound than that. Not only can we pass legislation, and we will, but we can lead by example and try to bring out the best in people. There is no rhyme nor reason whatsoever for an individual to put a torch to a church, a place of worship in this country. That is a sad day in our society when we have individuals setting fires at places of worship, and we would hope that it would cease and would cease right away. And for those individuals in our respective districts who know any information whatsoever, it is incumbent upon us to publicize this 888- ATF-FIRE number. That is our responsibility, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois. It is our responsibility to go back to our respective districts in these several States and try to public that 888----

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. ATF-FIRE number, and encourage any individuals with any information whatsoever to call that number and give it to the proper authorities so that we can at least bring those individuals to justice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of raising the minimum wage. It has been over 5 years since working Americans have had a raise. Since April of 1991, the minimum wage has been fixed at $4.25. If left unchanged, the minimum wage will be at its lowest in more than 40 years in real inflation-adjusted terms. Nearly three-fourths of the workers affected by the increase are adults over the age of 20. Between 1981-88, President Reagan adamantly opposed an increase in the Federal minimum wage, the longest period of time for it to remain stagnant. It lost 25 percent of its purchasing power during that time. The purchasing power has dropped 15% since the last increase in 1991. Adjusted for inflation, that is nearly 50 cents. The average minimum wage worker must work 3\1/2\ days more in order to pay rent than in 1981, now totalling 17 days. The average minimum wage worker has to work more than full time, 15 hours more, to stay out of poverty. Forty percent of minimum wage earners are sole breadwinners. Minimum wage workers' earnings account for almost half, 45 percent, of a families total earnings. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the minimum wage increase could lift 300,000 families out of poverty, including 100,000 children living in poverty. At $4.25 an hour, a full-time employee working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year earns $8,840. Fifty-nine percent of all minimum wage workers are women. Many of these women are single parents. Ten million Americans working for minimum wage would take home another $1,800.00 a year if a 90-cent increase were enacted. This 90 cent increase could enable a single mother to pay: for 7 months of groceries, rent or mortgage payments for 4 months, a full year of health coverage, 9 months worth of utilities, and more than a full year's tuition at a 2-year college. In Louisiana, 313,605 workers, 20 percent of the total work force, are minimum wage earners. Before working for me, one of my own employees, a divorced mother, with no support from her child's father, had to work three part-time jobs to keep her head above water. Because she was also in college trying to obtain a degree, she was unable to work 8 straight hours a day and go to classes and take care of a child. Not only that, but many employers will not hire a minimum-wage earner for 40 hours a week to keep from having to pay benefits. She is a prime example of a minimum wage earner bringing home $8,840 a year. With a monthly income of less than $700 after taxes, she was in the red every pay period and forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid to get by. Expenditures taken from that $700 a month: rent, $225.00; utilities, $60.00; child care, $300.00; telephone, $29.00; incidentals (toiletries, diapers, household items, etc.), $50.00; transportation, $30.00. Total remaining: $6.00

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, tonight I rise to talk about an issue that every person in America, every person in this Congress, has a great interest in, and that is the issue of education. We often talk about the need to provide a college education to our children across this country, and Members of this Congress, about 72 in number, decided to come together to form something called an Education Caucus. Members of the House, as well as Members of the Senate, decided that for the first time in this Congress, we needed to concentrate our efforts on a group of people who believe that we should push education forward in this country, should meet as a caucus, and organize as a caucus, and push legislation and appropriations as relates to education in both the House and the Senate. I am very pleased that so many Members of this Congress have decided to participate in this caucus and to move it forward, and tonight, I am just making a simple plea to all Members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle to take an interest and to join a caucus that we consider to be one of the caucuses of the future of this Congress, a caucus that believes in bipartisanship because education is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. I would like to mention that Senator Wellstone will be chairing the caucus, co-chairing the caucus with myself. Senator Wellstone has been working very diligently in the caucus on the Senate side, and we have now organized such that we have even a whip operation in the caucus, and tonight I want to talk about some of those national organizations who are concerned about education, who met at our very first meeting, and who talked about the concerns of education in this country. We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, that on the 16th of May several education groups embarked upon this Capitol to talk about the children and to talk about how we prepare for their future and to talk about how we, as Members of Congress, could make an impact on their future by improving the quality of education in this country, elementary on up to higher education. We have caucuses in this Congress for almost everything. We have a Sun Belt Caucus, we have a caucus for peanuts, a caucus for cotton, a caucus for almost every issue that you can imagine. But I thought it was somewhat strange that we did not have a caucus for education, and these individuals for the first time in years had the opportunity to sit and express their concerns before a group of people, lawmakers, about how they felt about education. One individual, Mr. Speaker, was Ms. Scarlet Kelly who was the executive director of the National Community Education Association. She was able to come to that meeting and give us some insight in terms of what we should be doing as lawmakers to improve the quality of education, because all too often one of the things we fail to do is to get the input from teachers and from parents and from students themselves as relates to education. We often walk into the Halls of Congress and the halls of State legislatures, quite frankly, speaking across this country, and make very, very crucial decisions that affect education, and many times we fail to consult enough educators and enough parents and enough students and fail to involve them, in a real sense, in the process, and many times those decisions are not the best decisions because of lack of information. Ms. Kelly was able to bring to the table some community aspect of education and how we can improve education by networking with the community. I am going to enter her testimony into the Record because I do think that people should know some of the things that we can do to improve education, and it should not always come from politicians and from lawmakers. It should come many times from people who do it on a day-to-day basis. We also heard testimony from Mr. Joel Packard who has the senior professional association and governmental relations division for the National Education Association, the NEA. The NEA, as most of you know, has been very, very strong advocates of education in this country. They were pleased at the fact that Members on both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and Republicans, were coming together to talk about education, and he shared some very good information to each of us. One of the things he wanted to make emphatically clear is that in order for this caucus to be effective, we had to pull from both sides of the aisle, and he talked about how people should be able to rally around the issue of education. I do not think there is a Member of this Congress who does not believe in education. I do not think there is a Member who is elected to public life, to be quite honest with you, who does not advocate a strong educational system and building educational systems, be it in a State through a State legislature or through a board of education, a State board of education, or be it in the U.S. Congress. But we do differ, quite frankly, speaking in terms of how we meet that goal. We all have the same motive. We all, every Member of this Congress, I do not care if you are a Democrat, I do not care if you are a Republican, I do not care if you are from California or from New York; every Member of this institution believes that we need to provide kids with a quality education. We all have the same motive. But many times we have different methods. I think one of the reasons why our methods are somewhat different is, and many times we find ourselves fighting on the floor of the House, is because we do not network enough. This caucus will provide an avenue for us to network and talk about some of our differences in terms of how we move education forward. Joel Packer said it best. In order for us to get education moving, we cannot do it by bickering on the floor of the House. We have to do it by showing real leadership, because the individuals who are looking to us for leadership are the born and the yet-unborn who are in public schools and in private schools, and those who plan to attend colleges and universities across this country and who are dependent on many of our decisions in terms of how they finance their education, for example. There are many students who want to go to college who do not have the money, and who do not necessarily want a grant. Some students have no problem with taking out a student loan, but those student loans ought to be available to those individuals who wish to seek a higher education. His testimony, Mr. Speaker, will be entered into the Record tonight as well. We also heard from Ricki Rafel, who was a board member from the National Parent and Teachers Association. One of the great things about this caucus is we are going to include many groups from the outside. At the next caucus meeting we are going to talk to business people, because we know that business and education work hand in hand. No longer can businesses in this country not get involved in education, because it affects their business. There are too many businesses in this country who have to train workers, even after they finish college, in order to prepare them to do a day's work. So business realizes that there is a necessity to have a strong and quality educational system in each State and across this country. Ms. Rafel talked about parental involvement. I am cognizant of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is not government's responsibility to raise children. It is the parents' responsibility to raise children. We should, in order to make education work, we should have a relationship between parents and teachers. When I was growing up, my teacher knew my mother and my mother knew my teacher, and I as a student knew that the two knew each other. There is something different that takes place in the classrooms when parents and teachers know each other, and the student is cognizant of that fact. We need to bring about better parent and teacher relationships. We cannot do that through legislation. We cannot pass legislation and mandate that parents and teachers sign a covenant, but we can do it by including parents in the decisionmaking process, to make them a part of the process. In this caucus meeting we had an opportunity to hear the parental side in terms of what parents think, what is going through the parents' minds, how can we improve the quality of education in this country, how can we make our schools safer, how can we give parents some sense of ease when they walk into their job and they have their loved one, their little child, their little 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-old in a school, how can we give them some comfort, to know that that child is not sitting next to a person who may have a gun? So the parental aspect is so important. She had the opportunity to talk about how teachers and parents need to create a better marriage, because when we have a marriage between the two, then we can really get student involvement. We felt that her testimony was quite informative, and we certainly want to thank them for all the work that they are doing across the country. The other organization we heard from, Mr. Speaker, was the National Head Start Association. Ms. Angelica Santacruz, who is the associate director of governmental affairs, she talked about the need for Head Start. I know Members of this Congress may have different opinions about the Head Start program, but this caucus will provide an opportunity for us to talk about it before we walk on the floor and vigorously oppose each other, be it appropriations or just be it philosophical, for philosophical reasons. I personally feel that Head Start is a very good thing. But we want more Members of this Congress to join the caucus so we can talk about it. If there are real problems with full funding of Head Start, let us talk about them, because each of us are committed to improving education in this country, and in order to do that we ought to have dialogue. That dialogue should not begin and end only on the floor of the House of Representatives. It ought to be that we ought to take the time to talk about it in other places, as well. We also heard from Mr. Jerry Lewis, the director of TRIO. He also works at the University of Maryland with the National Council on Educational Opportunity Association. The TRIO program is a very worthwhile program, and we had the opportunity to hear success stories from this gentleman, because often we walk to the floor and we talk about TRIO funding, needing funding and not needing funding, but it gives you a different perspective when you actually have the opportunity to witness a person who teaches in a TRIO program, who teaches students in a TRIO program, and who has vast experiences and success stories. I take a moment of personal privilege when we talk about TRIO, because I am a product of the TRIO program. I know what the TRIO program did for me. I know what it is doing for students all across this country and will do for students who have yet to enter the program. I personally feel it is a program that is much needed. Oftentimes young people who are in high school look at college as a fear. There is a big fear factor in the minds of many young people. Before they take that step and enter a college campus, they need sometimes a little push. Many people are the first to graduate or to go to college. Many households, many kids come from large households and they may be the first person to enter college. The TRIO program takes away that fear, to a large degree. I take myself as an example. I was afraid of college. I made very good grades when I was in high school, but I did not have a lot of people who lived next door to me who graduated from college, quite frankly speaking, so I did not know if college was the right thing or the wrong thing. I did not know if I could make it without a college education or not. I wanted to be a lawyer, but I did not have a lot of people who I could talk to about college. I was afraid of college. To walk on a college campus with 10,000 people, leaving a high school with 600 was a big shift for me. But TRIO took me out of the high school on the weekends and put me in a college setting. I had an opportunity to be a college student as a high school student, so I was not fearful of college. I had an opportunity to learn about college while I was in high school, so I could not wait to graduate from high school so that I could enter college. It was no longer a fear factor for me. Those real stories, those stories are not told on the floor of the House of Representatives, many times because we are under time restraints. For example, most of us, when we speak on major legislation, we have 1 minute, 30 seconds, 2 minutes. You cannot bring out those kinds of success stories, but we can do it in a caucus, and we can do it when Republicans and Democrats sit around a table and talk about programs, and not just look at it in terms of the bottom line in terms of numbers, but the bottom lines in terms of success: what impact these programs are having. We also heard testimony from Edward Kealy, who is a director of the Committee for Educational Funding. He also spoke of the need for the caucus to be bipartisan, how we need to bring Members from both sides of the aisle together to talk about education, because if there is one issue that we all agree on in terms of whether or not we should have a good system, it is education. I am happy that we have a number of Republicans and Democrats who have joined the caucus and encouraged them to continue to participate. Mr. John Forkenbrock, who is the executive director of the National Association of Federally-Impacted Schools, shared a lot of economic information, talked about how Federal funds are needed for many of the schools. Many times we look at it from a bottom line perspective in terms of dollars, and in terms of how we balance budgets and how we can make everything add up, but he actually gave some real meaning to the need for the Federal Government to be involved in the education of his children. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we heard from Marilyn Aklin, executive director of the National Coalition of Title I--Chapter 1 Parents, a program that many of us have debated quite profusely on the floor of this Congress. She was able to talk about the needs for the program and how we can in fact improve the program. Members would be amazed at many of these individuals who came before the caucus on Thursday of last week, and how they were not individuals who walked into the caucus begging for more Federal funds, but in fact they were folk who wanted to really improve the quality of education for our children. That was very refreshing. When we deliberate appropriations, this caucus may not have the kind of impact it should have on the 1997 budget appropriations for education, but budget is not the only thing. I do think there are many other things we can do to improve education other than money: teacher- parent relationships. That is a very good start. To many of the members of the caucus, one of the things we will do is attend schools within our respective districts and try to do it on a weekly basis, or at least on a monthly basis, where we can walk into classrooms and actually talk to kids and talk to them about how we feel about education, and also talk about how individuals can in fact improve their own lives through education. Mr. Speaker, we have established this caucus. I urge Members of this Congress to join the caucus. If there are Members who wish to be a member, wish to talk to our office a little bit more about the caucus, we will be happy to do that, and we certainly feel it is a worthwhile cause. I see that I have been joined by two members of the caucus, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Texas is my neighbor State, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I can only say to the gentlewoman that as Members of Congress, as you know, we should view education across the board, irrespective of what kind of household an individual actually comes from, what income level they come from. The national security risk that we have in this country is to not educate our children. That is the biggest threat that this country is faced with, not Russia, but to actually have thousands upon thousands of kids who are not literate, that is a national security threat in my mind. Because who will take on the jobs of tomorrow if we do not educate our children? Who will serve in the military, in fact, if we do not educate our children? I think this Congress is going to get there. Tonight I am working for bipartisanship. I want to pull Members from both sides of the aisle to just sit down and talk about education before we walk to the floor of the Congress, and work out our differences to the extent that we can, because there is not a Member of this Congress who does not believe that a child should not get a quality education. Now many say, well, education should be a local issue. We should send money to locals, and the locals should basically make those decisions in terms of how they run their educational systems. I differ with that. That is not to say that I am absolutely right. I just feel that education should be a partnership. I think it should be a partnership between local, State, and Federal Government. I just think the three of us ought to have a role in education. If we have a role, if the city, if the local, the State, and the Federal Government can play a role in putting people in jail and building prisons, then we ought to have a role in building schools and educating our children. I just feel very strongly about that, and I think there are enough Members of this Congress, because when each of us runs for office, let us face it, there is not a Member of this House who does not run for Congress and use education as an issue, not one. You can poll any district in America, and you will find that education is an issue, among other issues, but never will people say education is not an issue. Every citizen in this country is concerned about education. Now, the gentlewoman mentioned the congressional classroom and you also mentioned, as I stated earlier, that money is not everything. The solution to education is not necessarily money. I do not think this caucus, I do not want to scare people away from this caucus, to think that this is a caucus only to do budget pushing for education. This is a caucus to really improve the quality of education for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for starting the same kind of program. We started congressional classroom in Louisiana. I noticed at town hall meetings, I saw parents, I did not see kids. Every town hall meeting I had when I was first elected to Congress, the adults were there. Mom or grandmother, they were there, dad, granddad, they were there, but very seldom would you see son or daughter. So I decided I wanted to get young people involved, and we started a congressional classroom. I tell you, since the development of that group, it grew from 250 to now over 3,000 kids, and their interest level is so high because they feel that somebody really cares about education. We challenge them. We tell them, ``Listen, you come to class. We have classes on weekends. In order to come to class, you have to behave yourself. You have to respect people. You have to do well in school.'' We take time with them. We have had people like Vice President Al Gore to walk into a classroom, to their classroom, the Vice President of the United States of America, and say ``Listen, you better not do drugs, and you better stay in school.'' These kids, I mean chills running down their spine to say the Vice President of the United States of America cared enough about me to come to this little classroom and say, ``Stay away from drugs, and I care about you.'' Even today, in classroom settings, in classroom meetings, members of the classroom: ``How is the Vice President? You tell him I am doing well.'' Janet Reno, the Attorney General, met with these kids. Tomorrow, General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, flying to Baton Rouge, LA to meet with 3,000 kids and challenge them that they can be any and everything that they want to be if they believe in themselves. Mr. Speaker, that is not government. General Powell is retired. That is personal involvement. We were preparing for this program this weekend. For 2 months, these kids, they were practicing their speeches, they are so excited about meeting General Powell. That is going to have an everlasting impact. That is not a piece of legislation, but it is going to have an everlasting impact on those kids when they hear somebody who they have had an opportunity to see on TV, but now in person tell them, ``Listen, education is important. Let me tell you my story. I did not become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by dropping out, by doing drugs, by not working hard.'' It makes these kids say, ``Well, golly, I can do that.'' So everything is not government, and if each Member of this Congress, like the gentlewoman starting the same kind of program, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] is starting the same kind of program, the gentleman from your State, Mr. Green, is starting this same kind of program. People from all over the Congress are starting those kinds of programs, and we are committing to spend at least a day a month in a classroom in our respective districts. We need to bring parents and teachers together. I now have town hall meetings with parents and teachers where parents can meet teachers and teachers can meet parents, town hall meetings on education. When they walk into that room, they do not just talk about, well, we need better funding. They talk about how we can improve the quality of education. ``How can I get involved, Congressman, as a parent? I want to be more involved in the education of my child and the future of my child. I want to work with my child's teacher.'' It is amazing things that happen in town hall meetings. This caucus will bring those things to the forefront. So I want to urge Members on both sides of the aisle, let us talk about it. We talk about peanuts. We talk about cotton. We caucus for gas and oil. We caucus for almost every issue in this country. Let us caucus for education.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Again I want to thank the gentlewoman for joining me tonight in this special order. I will simply close by saying we have had a lot of finger pointing on issues, issue like education. I think it is high time for us to stop pointing fingers and start working together to try to bring a solution to a real problem, because there is a problem. There is a problem in a country when you find yourself spending more money on jails than you do schools. There is a problem when you have kids who walk into classrooms and walk down the street or drive down the highway and find their schoolhouse is in worse condition than the jailhouse. There is a problem when the jail is in better condition than the school. There is a problem in the country when the air conditioner at the school does not work, but the air conditioner at the jail works. There is a problem when the jail ceilings never leak, and the school ceiling leaks every time it rains. There is a serious problem in America, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and there always be a problem, as long as we look at education as only a local issue, and not sit around the table and talk about how we can improve it. Let me close finally by just giving you some of the benefits of education. If you really want to do something about welfare in this country and getting people off the welfare roll, then we really ought to do a better job at educating people. If you want to decrease crime in this country, and you really want to decrease crime, then we have got to do something about educating people. If you want to get people to work and get them off the unemployment rolls, then you have to do something to educate people. Everybody wins when we educate our kids. We lose when we do not. Over 80 percent of the people, Mr. Speaker, who are in jail are high school dropouts. There is a nexus and relationship between education and incarceration. We spend almost $30,000, $25,000 to $30,000, to incarcerate a child, and only about $5,000 or $6,000 a year to educate them. Welfare rolls, most of the people on welfare are high school dropouts. So if we really want to improve the conditions of our country, then we must invest in education. I want to thank the Speaker for being so patient tonight. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Furse, who has worked so hard on the issue of education and who is one of the whips of this caucus. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California Ms. Pelosi, who has been working hard on the issue of education. Finally I want to thank the cochair of this caucus, Senator Wellstone, who has been a very strong champion of education for our children in this country. Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials for the Record. Education Caucus Membership Rep. Mike Bilirakis, Rep. David Bonior, Sen. John Breaux, Rep. George Brown, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. Robert Cramer, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, Rep. Chaka Fattah,* Rep. Vic Fazio, Rep. Cleo Fields,** Rep. Victor Frazier, Rep. Martin Frost, Rep. Elizabeth Furse, Rep. Sam Gejdenson, Rep. Sam Gibbons, Rep. Gene Green,* Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Sen. Bennett Johnston, Rep. Bernice Johnson, Rep. Tim Johnson, Rep. Joe Kennedy, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Rep. Bill Luther, Rep. Carrie Meek, Sen. Moseley-Braun, Rep. L.F. Payne, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Lynn Rivers, Rep. Bernard Sanders, Rep. Tom Sawyer,* Rep. Jose Serrano, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. John Spratt, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Bob Torrecelli, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Robert Underwood, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Curt Weldon, Sen. Paul Wellstone,** and Rep. Albert Wynn. * Indicates membership on the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. **Indicates Co-Chair of Education Caucus. Testimony of Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the National Community Education Association Before the Education Caucus, May 16, 1996, Panel Discussion Senator Wellstone, Representative Fields and Members of the Education Caucus: Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony regarding the state of education in our country. I am delighted that the caucus was formed and has such a diverse membership. I am Starla Jewell-Kelly, Executive Director of the National Community Education Association. The invitation from Rep. Fields asked that I provide the Caucus with some of my thoughts on the systemic deficiencies contributing to the education crisis in this country. The task we face today is formidable. The world has changed, and children have changed. If you have any doubt of that, walk through most any high school in this country, and you will definitely feel like you have entered another world. If we are serious about systemic change in education, then I believe what we follow the old adage. The main thing to remember is to remember the main thing--children--not the teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, the business community, or the politicians, but, the children. We let children know that they are valued. We do not practice a double standard wherein some children get the very best and others are left to make-do with the left-overs. Education has always been rooted deeply in the spirit and in the community of this nation. Every morning, 40 million children get out of bed and hurry off to 83,000 schools from Bangor, Maine to Hawaii. An absolutely stunning achievement, according to the Ernest Boyer, which we all too often take for granted. This was not accomplished by a Washington directive, but by local citizens who have committed themselves to the audacious dream of the common school for the common good. The truth is, dreams can be fulfilled only when they have been defined, and if during the decade of the 90's quality education would become a mandate of the nation, then I am convinced that all of the other goals of our country would in large measure be fulfilled. We start by making sure that our children are fed, healthy, cared-for, guided and loved. We make sure that they do not have to walk through flying bullets, step over dead bodies, broken glass, drug paraphernalia and boarded up and decaying buildings to get to school. We let them know that they do count by putting them in school buildings that are warm and safe, not deteriorating, not rat-infested. We give them books that are current and high-tech equipment that is in good repair. We let them know that they are expected to achieve high levels. We do not ``dumb down'' the curriculum. We expect our teachers to be dedicated and supportive of all students. We let the teachers know that their task is one of the most important in this world. We support teachers in their efforts to help every child reach his or her potential. We also expect accountability from all school personnel as well as from parents. We do this at the local level, building by building. We stop experimenting with school reform models that work in one place and not another. We expect each community to design its own reform efforts and to do so with input from families, teachers, students and other community members. We expect entire communities to be responsible for their children. not just the schools. And, we do not ``write-off'' the kids who are in trouble or considered at-risk. We start as this committee has started--by sitting down around a table and asking, ``What can we do to help our children?'' We let go of turf issues, our own agendas, and look for a way to bring together all of our resources in order to provide for our children the start in life and education that they and this country so desperately need. Secretary of Education Riley has made the first steps toward this effort with his Family Involvement Initiative. He has convened school, business, religious and community representatives in order to find ways in which we can all work together to support and nurture our children. We are inclusive, not exclusive. We view the school as a delivery site for all educational, social, and health services. These services are delivered by the social and health professionals. We do not expect classroom teachers to do those tasks for which they are not trained. We keep the school building open after school for child care so the 30- 50% of our children who now go home to empty houses do not need to. And we open the school early in the morning for before school child care. We protect our children from neighborhoods that would destroy the scant amount of hope they may have. We provide lifelong learning for the families of our children so they are prepared to work in today's working environment and be flexible enough in their training that they can adapt to the changes occurring so rapidly. By guaranteeing the quality of our work force, we also guarantee a level of economic security for our families. I don't believe that as a nation we can afford to do any less. Every institution and community has an ethical and educational obligation to commit itself to create a safety net for children. Schools cannot do the job alone. If we expect all children to be well prepared for school, we simply must have families and communities that first give love then support to their children. We must prepare our parents for parenting. We must teach them how to nurture their young and how to raise healthy, contributing members of a community. Does this sound impossible? It is not. We have schools and communities such as these all across our 50 states. They are called community schools and they have been functioning for the past 50 years. In New York they are also called Beacon Schools. They are learning communities that spread their influence community-wide. Do they work? Yes. Do they cure all the problems. No. But, through local decision-making and collaboration, they go a long way towards addressing community needs. They make a difference in the quality of life of their local communities and in their schools. We can do this if only we remember the main thing--and that is to remember the main thing--Children and their future, for it is really our future as well. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today, and would be pleased to respond to any questions the caucus may have. Remarks of Joel Packer, Senior Lobbyist, National Education Association, May 16, 1996 Thank you for the opportunity to address the historic first session of the Congressional Education Caucus, which we hope will help to restore the tradition of bipartisan leadership on Capitol Hill for children and education. Coordination and cooperation across party lines are essential to strengthening public education in America and providing every child with an excellent opportunity to learn. Those goals are central to the mission of the National Education Association, and I know they are shared by everybody in this room. I want to offer a few thoughts on how this caucus can work effectively to strengthen education, and briefly outline NEA's education agenda. First, let me tell you about the NEA. We represent over 2.2 million educators, including both elementary and secondary public school teachers, higher education faculty, and education support personnel ranging from school bus drivers to cafeteria workers to custodians. In addition, we have both student members and retired members. NEA conducts research on school finance, sponsors the National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, which is dedicated to improving student performance, works to improve teaching and learning through many projects including Learning Laboratories, Mastery in Learning program, Teacher Education Initiative, and Keys to Excellence for Your Schools; maintains a Professional Library for educators, and actively promotes quality public schools at both the Federal and state level through our 13,000 local affiliates. It is important to put today's challenges in historical perspective. Over the past few decades, most of the landmark education legislation was passed by strong bipartisan majorities. Many of these bills were championed by Republican leaders in the House and Senate, and many were signed into law by Republican presidents. To cite a few examples, over twenty years ago, in the summer of 1975, the Congress passed legislation guaranteeing a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities. The bill passed the Senate 63-10, while the House margin was 375-44. Even this year, in the Senate the IDEA reauthorization is a true bipartisan effort, with legislation sponsored by Sen. Harkin (D-IA) reported unanimously by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. The Elementary/Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 1987 by a vote of 401-1. This bill included Title I, as well as bilingual education. The Senate vote that year was 97-1. Vocational Education, was reauthorized in 1989, with the House bill passing 402-3, and the Senate acting by a unanimous 96-0. The following year, Head Start was extended by a 404-14 House vote. Higher education programs have also enjoyed this broad bipartisan consensus. The Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1992, by a 419-7 vote in the House and a 93-1 vote in the Senate. And just a few weeks ago, many Republicans joined Democrats in restoring over $3 billion in education funds that had earlier been cut from the FY 1996 appropriations legislation. So there is ample precedent for the bipartisan work of this Caucus. As all of the public opinion polls have shown this year, the American people have put education at or near the top of their priority list of issues. Indeed, voters also recognize the importance of the Federal role in education, with upwards of 90% of Americans opposing cutting Federal aid to education. And their focus on education crosses party lines. In a USA Today poll this January, for example, education led voter concerns and vied closely with deficit reduction as a concern among Republican voters. Senator D'Amato was right on target when he recently commented that American voters ``did not vote to cut education.'' I want to make it clear to this group that NEA's goal for the coming years is to build a bipartisan pro-education majority and to work with leaders from both parties who want to strengthen public education. We are very grateful for the hard work of Democratic leaders on our agenda this year, but we also thank mainstream Republicans who courageously stood up for education and we hope and expect that more will join your ranks in the coming years. A bipartisan education caucus could play an important role through a variety of activities ranging from sponsoring briefings for Members and staff, preparing objective reports on education issues, providing analysis of proposed education legislation, and serving to advocate the needs of children and education through testimony, floor speeches, introduction of legislation, and sponsoring of floor amendments. Let me briefly outline our legislative agenda for the balance of 1996. Ensuring adequate funding for children and education. While the deep cuts advocated by many in the House leadership were largely rejected in the final FY 96 appropriations bill, education programs were still cut by $450 million. This is on top of over $600 million in cuts that passed as part of the FY 95 recession bill. Thus, since the beginning of 1995, over $1 billion has been slashed from education. Both the FY 97 House and Senate budget resolutions fail to invest in children and education, since they provide no growth to compensate for inflation, 20% enrollment increases at the K- 12 level, or rising college costs. Indeed, the House budget would slice over $1 billion from the FY 96 levels, and again attempt to eliminate Goals 2000 education reform, bilingual and immigrant education, Perkins Student Loans, State Student Incentive Grants, and many other important programs. Indeed, even a freeze over six years results in cuts of at least 17% from FY 96 levels. Extending and Strengthening the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. NEA strongly supports reauthorization of IDEA, with provisions to increase local flexibility for schools to properly discipline seriously disruptive students, strengthen professional development, and provide adequate resources to ensure that appropriate services are provided to children with disabilities. Opposing back door block grants under the Local Flexibility and Empowerment Act. While NEA supports increased flexibility for local schools to administer Federal education programs, we believe that legislation now pending in Congress (HR 2086/ S 88) would undermine Federal education programs, allowing for education dollars to be siphoned off for other purposes, and weaken or remove accountability and important standards for program quality and access for disadvantaged children. Stopping efforts to punish immigrant children. NEA strongly opposes the so-called Gallegly amendment, which passed the House as a part of the immigration bill (H.R. 2202), that would allow states to deny public education to illegal immigrant children. Not only would this proposal unfairly punish children for actions of their parents, it would create significant paperwork and administrative burdens on both local schools and parents of all children, who would have to document and prove the immigration or citizenship status of their children. Preventing expansion of Federal courts control over local schools. Under legislation advocated by the Christian Coalition, known as the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (H.R. 1946/S 984) parents would be granted unlimited right to sue schools in federal court over virtually any decision of their local school. Discipline policies, selection of textbooks, curricula content, and other local decisions would all be subject to litigation by parents, with Federal courts deciding local educational policies. Not only would this bill gut the authority of locally elected school boards, it would also lead to teachers' efforts to report possible cases of child abuse and neglect being deemed an interference with parental rights. In addition to these issues, NEA is fighting to ensure that secondary and postsecondary students continue to receive needed vocational education services, to oppose the imposition of private school vouchers, to protect the school lunch program from block grants, and to protect needed health care services for children through Medicaid. Looking beyond 1996, we are planning to work with the new Congress that takes office in 1997 on new initiatives for education. Like many of our coalition partners, we have several pro-active strategies we are now discussing and developing to address such pressing issues as school infrastructure and technology needs. Our vision for all children is a vision of safe schools, active learning, advanced technology, and modern classrooms. Our vision includes keeping the things that are working well in schools and scrapping those that are not. Our vision includes a public education system where every person in the community has a voice and a role, in ensuring that tomorrow's schools serve tomorrow's students. We plan to bring this group into that collaboration. The next four years will bring us to the year 2000--a major benchmark for American education. We look forward to working with you to make this a very productive and forward-looking time for education in the United States Congress. Testimony of Angelica Santacruz, National HeadStart Association, Education Caucus, Hearing on May 16, 1996 Congressman Cleo Fields, and members of the Education Caucus. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today about the Head Start program and the National Head Start's Association's (NHSA) vision for including all eligible children in Head Start. I would like to applaud Congressman Fields for forming a bipartisan Congressional Education Caucus to address the issues confronting the current education system. It is time to meet the challenge together and include early childhood programs in the process. In terms of providing children in poverty with a fair chance to start equally in school, Head Start has proven it works over 30 years. However, there are issues that must be addressed: increasing funding to service all eligible children who need Head Start; providing services that meet the needs of today's families; and providing leadership to build a more coordinated and effective system of services for children and families through collaboration and research. head start Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive services including health, education, social services and parent involvement to more than 14 million children and their families. Today, Head Start serves over 750,000 children in approximately 1,433 grantees, reaching low-income children in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific territories. Head Start serves children ages zero to five, with four- year-olds comprising 62 percent of its population. More than 13% of Head Start enrollment consists of children with disabilities. The basic goal of Head Start is to bring about a greater degree of social competence in children of low income families. The Head Start program is a developmental approach to helping children achieve social competence. To the accomplishment of this goal, Head Start objectives and performance standards provide for: The improvement of the child's health and physical abilities; the encouragement of self-confidence and self-discipline; the enhancement of the child's mental processes and skills with particular attention to conceptual and communication skills; the establishment of patterns and expectations of success for the child; an increase in the ability of the child and family to relate to each other and to others; and the enhancement of the sense of dignity and self-worth within the child and his family. Head Start works! Research shows that Head Start has had an important impact on program participants. Positive impacts include: Improving cognitive test scores, including reading; reducing placement in special education; increasing self- confidence and improving social behavior; improving health, including better eating habits, decreasing anemia and increasing immunizations received; improving parent awareness; and enhancing parent's employment and educational status. issues Head Start's record of achievements and experience in providing comprehensive services to low-income children and their families, makes it the perfect program to address these new challenges and to help build a competitive and strong country. Head Start has the potential to serve as a model of comprehensive services, to reach large numbers of children and families, to respond to a diversity of needs, and to provide leadership in collaboration and research for the entire early childhood field. Yet today, funding for Head Start falls short and limits the program's ability to meet its full potential. Three conditions exist in Head Start that must be addressed. First, to be effective in the future, the program must continue to provide good early childhood services. However, Head Start faces threats to program quality. Second, in the upcoming years, Head Start must be expanded to serve all eligible children and must be flexible enough to meet the diverse needs of children and families, particularly demands for full-day centers. Presently, Head Start serves 20 percent of zero to five-year-olds. The demand for Head Start is still tremendous. Third, as the largest early childhood program, Head Start must provide leadership to the entire early childhood field. It must help develop a coordinated delivery system, ensure adequate community services for low-income families, encourage the continuation of comprehensive services as children move on to the public schools and develop new knowledge to improve practice and policy. There is increasing concern that the progress made by children in the Head Start program may be lost when there is not continuation of comprehensive services in the school. At the federal and local levels, there has been a lack of collaboration between Head Start and federal programs serving low-income families. The Administration of Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) has put considerable effort into improving the transition of children as they move to kindergarten through the Transition Project. Although these efforts have been useful to the initial adjustment of children as they enter school, there is a need for schools to become much more involved with families. Despite the challenges, Head Start has accomplished major early childhood services. The following are some of Head Start's ultimate highlights: The Child Development Associate (CDA) programs; Home-based services; Bilingual-multicultural approaches; Indian and Migrant Head Start Programs; Resource Access Projects provide training and technical assistance to programs; Early Start provides services to zero-to-three year-olds; Performance Standards; and Quality Improvement. Congress and the Clinton Administration must remember that Head Start is an investment. President Clinton has proposed for Head Start for fiscal year 1997 $3.981 billion. The National Head Start Association urges Congress to consider an appropriations bill that moves toward the goals of both the Bush and Clinton Administrations to expand Head Start to guarantee services to all eligible children by the year 2000. Testimony of Jerry Lewis, J.D., Before the Congressional Education Caucus, May 16, 1996 Senator Wellstone, Congressman Fields, Members of the Education Caucus, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Jerry Lewis and I am the Director of Intensive Educational Development at the University of Maryland-College Park. In that capacity I am responsible for two of the Federal TRIO Programs sponsored by the University. These include the Ronald E. McNair Post- baccalaureate Achievement Program and the Student Support Services Program. I am testifying today on behalf of the National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations (NCEOA). Before sharing my brief remarks on post-secondary educational opportunity as it relates to low-income students in America, I want to take a moment to applaud your efforts in establishing this Caucus. The federal role in assuring educational opportunity has become increasingly questioned in recent years. Moreover, even those who articulate support for education often do not back their words with dollars. Your active advocacy for education is deeply appreciated. Post-secondary Education Opportunity Is Declining There is presently extensive evidence on the growing gaps in educational attainment between children from upper-income families and children from low-income families. As reported in Business Week, utilizing Census data, Thomas Mortenson demonstrates that a child from a family in the bottom income quarter (family income below $22,000) has only an 8% chance of graduating from college with a Baccalaureate by the time he is 24. In contrast, a child from a family in the top income quarter (income above $68,000 per year) has a 79% chance of attaining the Baccalaureate at this juncture. Thus individuals from upper-income families are more than ten times as likely to graduate frown college by the time they are 24 than are individuals from low-income families. At the same time, the ability of any worker to adequately support his or her family without a college education is declining. Today, median family income in households headed by an individual with a college degree is $73,000 per year, an increase in real dollar terms of 14% since 1973. At the same time, households headed by individuals with only a high school diploma have a median income of $41,000, a decrease of 20% in the same time period. Households headed by families without a high school diploma have a median income of only $28,000. Real median income for households headed by the least educated individuals has fallen over 37% since 1973. Addressing this Critical Issue The Federal government has historically utilized a multi- pronged strategy to support post-secondary educational opportunity. Student financial assistance--grants, loans and work--are made available to low and middle-income students so that lack of financial resources does not prevent them from enrolling and succeeding in college. Unfortunately, as the following chart demonstrates, student aid has not kept pace with inflation. While in the Mid-1970's the principal Federal grant program--Pell--covered nearly 80% of the cost of attending a public, four-year college, today it covers less than 40% of that cost. While student financial aid helps students overcome financial barriers to higher education. TRIO programs help students overcome class, social and cultural barriers to college. Over 1,200 colleges, universities and agencies now sponsor TRIO programs which enroll nearly 700,000 low-income students who aspire to attend or are currently enrolled in college. As mandated by Congress, two-thirds of the students served in TRIO must come from families with incomes under $24,000, where neither parent graduated from college. Over 1,750 TRIO Programs currently serve nearly 700,000 low-income Americans between the ages of 11 and 27. Many programs serve students in grade six through twelve. Forty-two percent (42%) of TRIO students are White, 35% are African American, 15% are Hispanic, 4% are Native American, and 4% are Asian. Sixteen thousand (16,000) TRIO students are disabled and 7,000 are military veterans. TRIO is made up of five programs. Three assist young people and adults in learning about and preparing for college: Talent Search, Upward Bound, Educational Opportunity Centers. Congressman Fields is himself a product of one of the programs--Upward Bound at Southern University--and he has often voiced strong support for TRIO. In addition to their pre-college efforts, there are two programs--Student Support Services and Ronald E. McNair Post- baccalaureate Achievement Program--which serve undergraduates. At the University of Maryland, for example, each year Student Support Services provides counseling, tutoring, and other support to over 350 students. These services are made possible by over $350,000 in institutional funds and $245,000 in TRIO funds. And this investment has made a difference. For example, it has raised the graduation rates of those minority students enrolled in Student Support Services by over 70% over graduation rates of minority students not assisted by Student Support Services. evidence of achievement I could speak much more than my allotted time, providing evidence on TRIO's behalf. It is noteworthy, for example, that: Students in the Upward Bound program are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO. Nearly 20% of all Black and Hispanic freshman who entered college in 1981 received assistance through the TRIO Talent Search or EOC programs. Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are more than twice as likely to remain in college than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program. TRIO Programs are very effective and many students from low-income families depend on these programs to succeed academically in high school and college. In fact, since 1965 an estimated two million students have graduated from college with the special assistance and support of our nation's TRIO Programs. I am more comfortable, however, citing individuals than statistics. One has only to look at Congressman Fields--and his three colleagues in the House who were also TRIO participants--to learn of TRIO's merits. (Congressman Bonilla, Congressman Watts, and Congressman Wynn were also TRIO graduates.) One can turn to the nineteen freshmen in Student Support Services' freshman class at the University of Maryland who have grade point averages above 3.0 as a measure of TRIO's achievement. One can look at our recent graduates who came from D.C. Public Schools and single parent homes and are now enrolled in doctoral programs in mathematics and computer science to learn of TRIO's achievement. I am confident each of you has also visited with TRIO students and TRIO graduates and knows of TRIO's accomplishments. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I turned in 12 copies. I would be happy to share this copy with the gentleman from New York if the gentleman does not have a copy of the amendment. It is the exact amendment that I introduced earlier. The only change is the change in location.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.