Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, Rev. Dr. Evelyn R. John as a Point of Light for all Americans. Rev. Dr. Evelyn John was born and raised in Georgetown Guyana. All through her childhood she was exposed to a Christian upbringing, and in her adulthood she joined the Guyana Unity Church. After several years as a Truth Teacher, she was ordained a Minister in 1980. Rev. Dr. Evelyn John migrated to the United States in 1983 and on February 12, 1984, she founded the New Life Center of Truth in the Flatbush Brooklyn Community, with an initial membership of about sixty members. Today the ``New Life Center for Truth'' serves over five hundred active members and approximately three hundred non-registrants. She also caters to a cross section of youths in the Youth Group and Sunday School, in the form of guidance counseling and self development which provides incentives for the pursuance of higher learning. Over the past several years, she has traveled to seminars overseas, namely India, Antigua and Peru where she made vocal presentations. It has always been her desire to serve. Hers is evident in her untiring devotion to people and their spiritual needs. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Rev. Dr. Evelyn R. John as a Point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, Dr. Stephen Carryl, as a Point of Light for all Americans. Dr. Stephen Carryl is the Director of Surgery at the Brooklyn Hospital-Caledonian Campus and also an Attending Physician at the Brookdale University Medical Center in Brooklyn. He specializes in Laparoscopic Surgery. He received his Bachelor's Degree at Oakwood College in Alabama and subsequently earned his MD Degree from Loma Linda University in California. He has been in private practice for 8 years and is the President of OMAT (Overseas Medical Assistance Team). OMAT consists of a team of volunteer Nurses and Doctors who provide medical care to the underprivileged in 3rd world countries and the Caribbean. Treatment that is not readily available in those respective countries are rendered here in the United States through funds donated by OMAT. OMAT has gone on missionary trips to Haiti and Guyana. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Dr. Stephen Carryl as a Point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, Nigel O. Pile as a Point of Light for all Americans. Nigel O. Pile hails from Guyana. He was born on December 22, 1950. He held various leadership positions while growing up in Guyana, including Chairman of the St. James The Less Anglican Church Organization. He also represented the Diocesan Youth Association at International Conferences, through various Youth Exchange Programs. Athletics continues to gain tremendous support from Nigel. Nigel Pile came to the United States in 1977. He holds an Associate Degree in Banking and Finance from Borough of Manhattan Community College and furthered his discipline in finance at Baruch College. He has worked in the New York financial district as an Account Administrator where he was responsible for the investing of cash from various Pension Funds, such as the New York State Pension Fund. In 1983, he started a small Travel Agency on Fulton Street in the Bedford Stuyvesant area. National Pride, as it is known, has become a household name to the Guyanese family. From a one-desk, one-phone and one-staff agency, National Pride is now one of the most successful enterprises in New York and Guyana. Nigel Pile has expanded this operation to two offices in New York and five in Guyana. Through this expansion, he has created opportunities of entrepreneurship and employment for the residents of the Flatbush and Queens communities. The establishment of National Pride has created channels through which Guyanese Americans can initiate and maintain contact with relatives and friends in Guyana. In the spirit of fostering unity among Guyanese, Nigel Pile maintains his sponsorship of the Ms. Guyana New York Pageant, and continues to support social programs for youth as well as the elderly. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Mr. Nigel O. Pile as a Point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, Rev. Dr. Henry A. Chan as a Point of Light for all Americans. The Rev. Dr. Henry A. Chan was born in Guyana in 1946 at Golden Grove, East Bank Demera to Ruby and Clarence Chan. While growing up at Pin Schoon Ord, he attended primary schools on the West Bank of Demerara and obtained his secondary education at Queen's College in Georgetown, Guyana. At the age of thirteen, Dr. Chan felt the call to the Priesthood in the Anglican Church and was tutored in his teenage years by then Archbishop of the West Indies and Bishop of Guyana, the Most Reverence Dr. Alan John Knight. On completion of his studies at Queen's College in 1964, Dr. Chan was directed by Archbishop Knight to work for some years in order to obtain experience in the world before going on to Codrington College in Barbados and afterwards, to Durham University in England. In 1967, instead, Dr. Chan came to the United States of America to further his studies in Engineering and Computer Science. He felt that the priestly vocation might have been a boyhood fantasy. But God had endowed Dr. Chan with many gifts and a broad knowledge during his Queens College years. He enrolled initially as a student in the Electronics Technology program at RCA Institutes. During the ensuing years, Dr. Chan discovered that he had a hobby-- collecting academic degrees. His degrees include Bachelor of Science in Computer and Information Science (State University of New York, 1978); Master of Business Administration in Management (Dowling College, 1980); Doctor of Public Administration (Nova Southeastern University, 1981); Doctor of Ministry (University of the South, 1987); Master of Sacred Theology in Spiritual Direction (General Theological Seminary, 1990) and Doctor of Philosophy in Pastoral Psychology (Graduate Theological Foundation, 1994). He is also a 1982 graduate of the Mercer School of Theology in the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, New York. During the years 1969-1982, Dr. Chan held many positions in data processing, including systems analysis, project management, and long- range planning. Dr. Chan is married to Jean Flora Chan, and they have three children, Anthony, Andre and Natasha. Dr. and Mrs. Chan became proud grandparents for the first time when Anthony and his wife Gloria, were blessed with a son, Justin on May 24, 2001. Events in his life led Dr. Chan to test his vocation to the ordained ministry in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church. He was ordained to the diaconate in 1982 and to the Priesthood in 1983 in the Diocese of Long Island, where he has served up to this day. Dr. Chan has been at St. Peter's Church, Rosedale from January 1, 1988 to the present. He came to St. Peter's Church at a time when one of the considerations for the future of this Church was to close its doors because of the small size of the membership and financial giving. Under his pastoral leadership, however, St. Peter's is a thriving Church today with a membership of about 150 families from all parts of the Caribbean, Central and South America, and the United States of America. Furthermore, the Church is debt-free. During the past thirteen years, the buildings and ground shave been restored and the people can tell from this that God is present in Rosedale and surrounding communities. Each year in January and August when Dr. Chan has a break from his parish duties at St. Peter's Church, he travels to Guyana at his own expense, to render assistance to the Diocese of Guyana where there is an acute shortage of clergy. Dr. Chan eagerly looks forward to serving the Church in Guyana on these occasions, pastorally and spiritually, for Guyanese are hungry for growth in their relationship with God. But in parishes where there are no full-time priests, they are like sheep without a shepherd. In addition to the demands on his time as priest and pastor at St. Peter's Church, Dr. Chan serves as a volunteer mediator with the Queens Mediation Network, Community Mediation Services, from which he received his training. Dr. Chan feels blessed by God in his ministry as a priest and pastor and he has only one burning desire, that is, that in whatever he does, to God be the glory. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Rev. Dr. Henry A. Chan as a Point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, James Norris Williams, as a Point of Light for all Americans. James Norris Williams, was born and educated in Guyana. He first started working as a teacher of Latin, Math, English and History at West Demerara High School in 1961. Four years later he took a position as an Assistant in the Reservations Department for Guyana Airways Corporation, which would set the stage for a prolific and enduring career in the company. Soon after he was initially hired by Guyana Airways, he became Traffic and Operations Assistant and was sent to Trinidad where he worked and underwent training in the Operations Department with BWIA at Piarco Airport and on his return to Guyana, was promoted to Senior Traffic and Operations Assistant; he was quickly promoted to Station Superintendent at Atkinson Airport in Guyana. James Norris Williams was married to June James in 1967, and only a few weeks later, he was sent to London to train with British Airways Commercial and was presented with a Service Handling Specialist Diploma upon completion of the program. In 1972, James was promoted to Assistant General Manager of Guyana Airways, and in this capacity, coordinated the Caribbean Free Trade Association and was responsible for cargo, marketing and sales, aircraft operational permits and handling documentation. Later that same year, he was appointed Manager for Cargo Services North American based in Miami, and from 1975 to 1978, he served as General Manager of Guyana Airways. Upon moving to the United States in 1979, James worked as a manager at Medas Shipping, before acquiring two trucks of his own and establishing a family business, Williams Shipping and Delivery Service, which delivered furniture to stores throughout the tri-state area. In 1986, the company expanded and its name changed to Williams Worldwide Shipping and Trading which now operates as a worldwide shipping company, servicing Guyana and the Caribbean Islands and is Brooklyn's main cargo consolidator. James and his wife June have three lovely children: Nicholas, Michelle and Lester. Four granddaughters--Leslie Ann, Shenice, Kennedi and Kristen. They also have one grandson, Ethan Nicholas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Mr. James Norris Williams as a Point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, as the nation of Guyana celebrates its 35th Independence Anniversary, I would like to salute an outstanding Guyanese American, Ed Ahmad, as a Point of Light for all Americans. Ed Ahmad is a successful entrepreneur who owns and operates many businesses. He is currently the broker/owner of Century 21 Ahmad Realty, Inc. and Ace Mortgages, Inc. He is also the CEO/President of the Chateau Royale, Inc. A Guyanese immigrant, Mr. Ahmad arrived in the United States in 1983. He came in search of prosperity for himself and his family. He worked hard and obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree from The City College of New York in 1988. he is a licensed real estate broker, mortgage banker, and insurance broker. Mr. Ahmad is very versatile; he is knowledgeable in all office, data based and modern business products. He is experienced in all facets of business, from training to budgeting and advertising. His personal awards include a Gold Medallion, and Certificates of Achievement for exceptional sales in real estate. Century 21 Ahmad won first place in Queens County and was ranked third in real estate in the Northeast Division. The Chateau Royale won first place for best in design and architecture from the Queens Chamber of Commerce in 1997. Mr. Ahmad is an active participant in community and political affairs. He is the founder of the New Concept Democratic Club. He supports and donates to many community organizations. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute Mr. Ed Ahmad as a point of Light for all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we had a major education bill on the floor for consideration, and we did not permit a single amendment to deal with school construction, renovation, or school modernization. We were afraid to have the issue presented on the floor. I think we were afraid that we might get a majority vote on it. For some reason, the leadership is afraid of school construction, school modernization, and school repairs. We are pushed into the vehicle of a motion to discharge today; and I urge all of the Members, regardless of their party, to sign the motion to discharge on the Rangel-Johnson bill. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill which impacts on all America, rural as well as urban. It is a bill which almost every school district in America can benefit from. Even charter schools can benefit from a bill which calls for more funding for construction, for modernization, and for repairs. It is impossible to go forward and really claim we want to reform education unless we are willing to provide the physical facilities that are necessary to educate our children. I urge my colleagues to sign the motion to discharge.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1885 has been assured of passage as a result of the participation of the White House to promote a four month extension while the President considers our request for a one year or a permanent extension. We should all applaud the bi-partisan cooperation which allows us to immediately relieve the anxieties of many immigrants who could not make the April 30th deadline. Last month I joined several of my New York colleagues by sending a letter to President Bush asking him to support extending 245(i) by at least one year. ``We are concerned that once section 245(i) expires, those individuals who have failed to apply by the deadline could face deportation, and in some cases, be barred from reentry to the U.S. for three to ten years. Many of these individuals are parents of natural- born citizens of the U.S.'' Recently, President Bush has indicated he does support extending 245 (i) beyond four months. As a result, I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues to ensure legal immigrants are given extended opportunities to petition for permanent resident status. On December 21, 2000 former President Clinton signed into law the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) which reinstated section 245 (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As a result, thousands of hard working immigrants were given the opportunity to apply for legal residence without the threat of being deported. Unfortunately, the deadline for visa petitions expired on April 30th of this year which left many immigrants in my district at a loss. Because of the backlog of immigration cases in large cities such as New York, recent immigrants seeking legal residence face a system that is ill-equipped to handle such a large volume of cases. Each day, case workers are inundated with hundreds of new cases that demand immediate attention. For this reason, I strongly support H.R. 1885 which extends 245(i) for four months beyond the April 30th deadline. The four month extension will provide relief for thousands of New Yorkers, who due to no fault of their own, did not file a petition before April 30th. Extension of 245(i) would not only benefit legal immigrants who seek permanent resident status, but would ensure the United States economy does not suffer as a result of the mass deportation of thousands of immigrants. With the passage of H.R. 1885 everybody wins.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of Tiananmen Square, blind and extreme, has invaded decisions about energy policies in California. The same spirit of the tanks in Tiananmen Square has invaded the latest decisions with respect to Vieques in Puerto Rico. Both the Navy and a Federal judge are blindly pursuing a policy which rules out the choices of the people, refuses to recognize the choices of the people, and have resorted to measures like putting people in jail for 90 days. One New York leader, Al Sharpton, has now been sentenced to 90 days in jail in Puerto Rico, and several other political leaders have been sentenced to 40 days in jail. This kind of extremism will only make martyrs of people and also will call for an invasion of Vieques. The Navy does not need Vieques that badly. We should listen to the will of the people, not have a blind eye similar to the tanks that rolled over the will of the people at Tiananmen Square. Mr. Speaker, judges have done enough harm also in this generation and should stop seeking their 15 minutes of fame. This judge is wrong. These sentences are wrong. Vieques should be set free.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit adds a vital component that has been left out of our deliberations so far. We were not allowed to offer an amendment on the floor dealing with school construction, renovation or modernization, and this motion to recommit includes instructions to continue the school renovation program, which is now in its first year, and increase that funding to $2 billion. My colleagues will recall that last year we did agree on a $1.2 billion school repair, renovation bill. We would like to at least raise that to $2 billion. It is a small amount compared to the need. We know that in 1994, the General Accounting Office said we needed $110 billion at that time for school renovation, construction, and repairs. The NEA did a survey last year which said we need about $320 billion for school construction, repair, and renovation across the whole Nation. The $2 billion was merely to make a beginning on emergency repairs and is still very important. It is important we say to the children in the public schools of America, 53 million children, that we care about more than just testing them. Accountability means more than accountability of the students and school and the massive testing we have proposed. Accountability also means we will stand up and make certain that those tools that they need to work with are there, especially the infrastructure, the facilities. In a religion we would never propose to proceed without the temple, the infrastructure, the physical building being in tip-top shape to begin with. We cannot propose to have decent education if we are going to neglect the actual infrastructure, the buildings and the facilities, that children are to receive their education in. So this is a modest proposal, a mere $1.2 billion at this time. We want to raise that to $2 billion to take care of emergency repairs and renovations, and we ought to continue this. I hope every Member will vote for this.

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OWENS. At this point I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note first that this amendment represents blazing guns of an ambush of what was supposed to have been a bipartisan compromise. This is a partisan ambush, this amendment. We agreed several years ago that a good alternative to public schools, if one wanted to test them out and try to make them more accountable or more innovative, was charter schools. Charter schools was supposed to be the alternative, and not vouchers. Vouchers are a waste. Vouchers are fraud really. It misleads parents in the most frustrating situations. Nobody wants vouchers except frustrated parents in inner-city communities who want to have a better education for their children, and they have been sold this bill of goods. They have been swindled into thinking that vouchers are the answer. Most of them think that vouchers are going to pay the full tuition. They are not told that vouchers will only pay a small part of it. I think at most vouchers, under this system, will be able to contribute maximum of $1,500 in some situations, in most situations less. Tuition is far greater than that. The parents do not know. There was a woman who came before the committee who testified from New York. She thought she would get $8,000 per child through the voucher system because New York estimates it costs $8,000 per child in the public school system. She will not get anything near $8,000 if her child is in this voucher system. It is a fraud. It is a swindle. Frustrated parents are being victimized by high-pressure publicity about vouchers. The best way to go is charter schools. That is the noble compromise. Charter schools. But they do not want to go that way because charter schools need money for building and construction. They need the money for capitalization. They need the same kind of effort that we need for public schools. They need resources. This is a shortcut to get away from providing adequate resources for public education. We want to make everybody accountable except the States, the cities, and the Federal Government to provide resources. This is not the answer. Resources are the answer. We should be honest with parents and tell them that.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, due to an emergency in my district I unexpectedly missed two votes yesterday. If present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes No. 126 and No. 127.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for bringing a budget to the floor which represents reality. It is very close to the reality experienced by the American people. In the area of education, it is proposing to expend about $110 billion over the next 5 years. That is closer to what is really needed. Among those needs that will be addressed is the need for school construction, modernization, and renovation. I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the fact that President Bush has taken a step backwards with respect to school construction and renovations. We appropriated $1.2 billion last year. Now the President refuses to expend that funding on school repairs and renovations, and he has nothing in the ongoing budget to continue any school repairs and renovations. We made a major breakthrough, and now this President who proposes to leave no child behind is going to leave no child behind with arsenic in the water, with more carbon dioxide in the air, and unsafe schools that do not encourage learning, unsafe buildings. So we would like to stress the fact that we have made a breakthrough. This budget continues that. Mr. Chairman, I will submit a letter that was sent to President Bush on February 6, 2001, by 141 Members of the House asking him to appropriate the money that was put in the budget last year.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we might call today kind of opportunity day, since today is the day that the Republican majority introduced their bill on education reform that has been long awaited. The bill introduced by the Republican majority is the administration's bill. We have all waited for this great education initiative which responds to the fact that the American people have, over the last 5 years, consistently said that education is a priority; they would like to see government do more in the area of education. They would like to see every level of government, but they particularly would like to see the Federal Government, do more to help improve education. So the Republican bill was introduced today. I have not seen the details of the bill, but we, of course, have had for several weeks the outline that the administration issued very early this year. That outline talks about focusing on failing schools and targeting Federal resources so that most of the Federal resources go to the most disadvantaged students in these failing schools. Now that was introduced formally as a bill today. At the same time, we introduced a 21st century higher education initiative today from the Democratic side of the aisle. The Democratic Caucus, under the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), we have fashioned a bill which we call the 21st Century Higher Education Initiative. And that bill was discussed at great length today at a press conference. We held a press conference today and we talked about the bill today, in particular, because today is the 2nd day of a very important conference being held here in the City of Washington, D.C., the National Association for Equal Opportunity, NAEO, which represents Historically Black Colleges and Universities, predominantly black colleges and universities, and is holding their annual conference this weekend. It will go on until this Friday. Mr. Speaker, among the colleges represented by NAEO are 118 Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and those institutions have been the subject of some controversy over the last few weeks in that the Committee on Education and the Workforce where I serve as a member chose to place all minority colleges, both the three categories of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and the tribally controlled colleges were all placed in a subcommittee away from the core of the higher education concerns. We have resolved that dispute. And I do not want to go into it in any great detail, but I think it is relevant, because as we focus today on the introduction of the administration's education reform bill and the introduction of the democratic initiative called the 21st Century Higher Education Initiative, it is important to place in perspective the role that those institutions can play. They can play a great role in education reform. Historically Black Colleges and Universities are only a tiny part of the larger constellation of higher education institutions in America. There must be about 3,000, more than 3,000 overall higher education institutions in America, and the 118 Historically Black Colleges and Universities constitute a very tiny segment of that constellation. Even if we add the Hispanic-serving institutions which are defined as institutions which have at least 25 percent of their student body as Hispanics, and we have the tribally controlled colleges, which are the colleges which serve native Americans, we still have a relatively small number of institutions, minority-focused institutions in the larger constellation of higher education institutions. Of course, most of the African Americans now in America are attending colleges that are not Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Larger numbers are out there in the various State universities and the private colleges because discrimination, which is the reason the Historically Black Colleges and Universities were created, has greatly lessened. In fact, that kind of blatant discrimination which cut off opportunities completely from African- American students has ceased. That is not the problem anymore. The reason these institutions are important and should continue to exist is because they do have a special mission. Whereas the mission before was to serve those that could get no decent service anywhere else, or those that needed particular kinds of nurturing, the purpose, the mission still remains. They do not need nurturing because they cannot get into other colleges and universities as a result of racial discrimination, no, that is not the problem; they need nurturing because large numbers of these students are poor. Large numbers of these students need opportunity. They have backgrounds that did not prepare them as well as they should have been prepared for other institutions, and they need the nurturing and the guidance and the counseling and the special focus of concern that they may receive in minority-serving institutions. So the opportunity is where we should be focused now. We ought to look upon ourselves as being a society which is engaged in a crusade for opportunity, a crusade for opportunity. We have had a lot of debates and we will continue to have debates about race and the role that race plays in terms of opportunity and opening doors and allowing people to fully develop themselves. That debate will still go on. However, we could minimize that debate, or almost make it irrelevant, if we focus on opportunity and say, regardless of what one's race or color or creed, we want to maximize in this society the amount of opportunity that we have. We want to maximize opportunity for all individuals because it is good and in harmony with our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. For the right to pursue happiness, the implication is that we will not only guarantee the right to pursue happiness, but we will encourage the conditions to pursue happiness, and one of the conditions of the pursuit of happiness is that one has to have the opportunity to develop and be able to, first of all, survive by earning a living, and secondly, to earn enough to be able to improve quality of life. So if we rally under the flag of opportunity, then we will solve a lot of problems, avoid a lot of controversies, and we could carry this administration, this next 2 years of the 107th Congress, carry it forward nobly into a set of bipartisan activities that would do us all proud. It would be very uplifting for the entire country, it would certainly stoke the spirits of the Members of Congress if we could really tackle the education issue and come out of it with a bipartisan bill and bipartisan program that carries our Nation forward educationally. That would be highly desirable. So the introduction of these two pieces of legislation related to education is a good jump-off point. We are more serious about it now. Let me just backtrack and say that whereas the administration introduced their bill today for education reform, we had already as Democrats introduced a bill earlier. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the rest of the Democratic members on the committee, introduced a bill which would accomplish the same kind of education reform which the Republican majority bill introduced today is proposing to accomplish. Our bill, we should note, did not hesitate to make resources available. We are talking about $105 billion over a 5-year period in the legislation that the Democrats introduced, which is going to be one of those major differences between the administration's bill and the administration's approach and the Democratic minority's approach. We must approach the opportunity ethic and the opportunity crusade that is needed to bring the country to the point where we want to bring it where every citizen can be educated, has a maximum opportunity to be educated, can make their own contribution to our society in an era of great global competitiveness; every citizen can carry their own weight; every citizen can help us maintain our leadership economically, militarily because they are educated and the requirements of this particular complex society are that one has a maximum number of educated people. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important no greater resource can any Nation have than to have an educated populous. But as we approach the provision of opportunity for all, we cannot leave out certain areas that are directly impacting upon that opportunity. It is not by accident that the education function, the jurisdiction for education programs is also coupled with the jurisdiction for all programs related to working families and the workplace and the acquisition of income. The Committee on Education and the Workforce used to be called, was called for a long time, most of the history of this Congress, the Education and Labor Committee. It was clearly understood that education and labor went together, were inseparable. One of the things we must do in improving the workforce is to make certain that they all get a decent education. One of the ways we improve the lives of working families is to make certain that they are in a position to have their children educated without unnecessary strain. If families have to pay enormous tuitions, if they have to move about in search of good schools regardless of other kinds of factors that may exist in the economy, then they are saddled with great hardship that should not be. So we must be concerned as we look at an approach which would maximize opportunity with the total set of conditions that are in our economy and society that government has an impact on. Government has a duty, government has the authority, government has the responsibility to create an atmosphere where the pursuit of happiness is a possibility. They have the responsibility to create an atmosphere where the pursuit of happiness is a possibility, where the pursuit of an education is a possibility, where the ability of families and individuals in those families to take advantage of opportunities that are provided for education are increased. This increase is greatly facilitated if the income of the families improve. The best way to help poor people, the best way to help poor families is to make sure the amount of money that they have is increased. There are a number of ways that have been proposed in terms of fighting poverty, but the best way to fight poverty is to get some more dollars into the hands of working families so that they can spend those dollars in a way to help them pursue happiness and to pursue opportunity. We cannot have an education policy, we cannot go forward with the educational reform and totally ignore the conditions under which the large majority of the people we are targeting live and work. President Bush is targeting his program to innercity communities, rural communities, places where there are disadvantaged children, places where there are failing schools. The correlation between poverty and disadvantaged children and failing is very clear. That correlation with poverty is very clear. Failing, poverty and disadvantaged go together. We have recognized this for quite a while in our legislation. We have a Title I program, which is a primary program which serves poor students; and Title I is based upon a laser beam being focused on the poorest areas and attempting to provide Federal aid in the areas where the poorest students attend schools. We are identifying those poor students with another Federal program, students who are eligible to receive free lunches. Free lunches are provided by the Department of Agriculture. It is under the auspices of the United States Department of Agriculture, a Federal program that has a longstanding history of success. So we identify the worthy recipients of our education funds by those who qualify for the free lunch programs. Poverty and the need to provide opportunity enhanced by Federal dollars is closely correlated. There is no argument about this. Everybody concedes that there is a close correlation between poverty and lack of opportunity, poverty and disadvantaged status. So let us, as we address the education issue, look at the larger education workforce issues. Look at the fact that we have not passed an increase in the minimum wage. The 106th Congress got close to it at one point, but we did not bring it to the floor. There was no increase in the minimum wage, even a minimum increase in the minimum wage. I do call it a minimum increase, because all we were proposing was a 50 cent increase in the minimum wage per year over a 2-year period. That would have brought the minimum wage up to 6.15 from the 5.15, and we did not do that. The minimum wage at this point is at the level of 5.15 per hour. There are some other mechanisms that relate to the Fair Labor Standards Act and other responsibilities under the Department of Labor related to improving income which also have not been activated. Most people do not know or understand the regulations related to the H-2A program, H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. Mr. Speaker, the H-2A foreign agricultural worker program is a complicated program designed to stop illegal immigration into the country, exploitation of immigrants, and that has worked in many ways in terms of an orderly flow of immigrants into the country into the farm areas where large numbers of farm workers were needed. One of the provisions in that legislation and one of the provisions presently existing in the law is a requirement that a survey be made of the prevailing wages in the area, something similar to Davis-Bacon for construction, across this country. But in order not to undercut farm laborers who already are in the country, citizens of the Nation who are working in the farm areas, farm workers who are not immigrants, in order not to undercut them, this law requires that there be a survey made of the area, and you reach some kind of level of identifying a prevailing wage for farm area workers. All of the temporary foreign agricultural worker programs must then pay that wage. It varies from one area to another. But sometimes there is a considerable amount of substance between what the farm area workers are earning and what the imported immigrants are paid. But, by law, they must pay this wage that is established as a result of the survey. We were deeply concerned with the fact that each year they issued the tables and they published the statistics and the determinations of what this wage rate should be and, as a result of that publication, the workers in those areas are eligible for, and should be paid, according to the new calculations, the new wage rates. We were concerned that this is a routine matter, a ministerial function of the Department of Labor. It does not take much to get out a letter which says that the survey has been conducted, State-by-State. Here are the figures, and here is the table for this year. Mr. Speaker, that has been done pretty routinely in the past, and we were shocked to find that it did not happen with this new administration. We wrote to the Department of Labor Secretary, Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, in February of this year, February 28, because usually very early in February these tables for the new wage rates are issued. They were not issued. We wrote a letter to her, and I am going to read that letter and enter it into the record, so that you will see what the problem is. What are we talking about? We are talking about income for people at the very bottom of the scale, income for migrant farm workers. But more importantly are, or just as important as the income of these workers, is the standard that is upheld. You do not undercut the farmer workers who are already there. Though farm workers who are already working, making very low wages, should not have their wages undercut by immigrant farmer workers who come in and are paid less are exploited. That is the reason why we insist that there be a survey made, an establishment of a prevailing wage. And once the prevailing wage is established, you must pay the immigrant workers at that level so you do not undercut the labor standards and the labor standard of living of the workers in that area. So we wrote to Secretary Chao, ``We are deeply concerned that the Department of Labor has not performed the simple annual clerical duty, as required under current regulation, to publish in the Federal Register the adverse effect wage rates applicable to farm workers and employers under the H-2A temporary foreign agriculture foreign worker program. Ordinarily, the wage rates are issued in early to mid- February; however, the wage rates have not been issued yet. ``Department of Labor's responsibility in issuing the wage rates is ministerial. The Department of Labor merely publishes the State-by- State results of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's regional surveys of the average hourly wage rates for field and livestock workers. This information has already been given to the Department of Labor.'' They had the information that was empowered from the surveys. Continuing to read in the letter to Secretary Elaine Chao dated February 28, ``Failure to publish the new wage rates in the Federal Register apparently means that they will not take effect. Consequently, employers can pay farm workers last year's adverse effect wage rates, most of which are significantly lower than they would be if the new wage rates were published. ``Although many farm workers are affected by the H-2A program have not yet begun their seasons, in Florida, for example, there are ongoing seasons and there are H-2A companies operating at this time of the year. Florida's H-2A AEWR was $7.25 per hour for the year 2000.'' This year it is supposed to be increased to $7.66 an hour, and it has not taken effect. They also give an example for Georgia. Continuing in the letter to Elaine Chao, ``The DOL, the Department of Labor, cites the moratorium on regulations as the reason for its failure to publish. This is absurd, since the DOL's act of publishing in the Federal Register the survey results'' would be really of publishing the survey results which ``already obtained from the USDA would not be a new regulation. The current regulation, issued in 1987, directs DOL to publish these wage rates in a timely manner and the failure to do so violates the regulation. ``We strongly urge you to take prompt action to publish the adverse effect wage rates under the H-2A program in order to carry out the Department's obligation to protect U.S. farm workers and foreign workers from being subjected to wage rates that undermine labor standards in American agriculture. ``Please let us know when we can expect DOL to carry out its obligations under the law.'' This letter is signed by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). Mr. Speaker, I want to include for the Record the letter to Elaine Chao as aforementioned: Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives Washington, DC, February 28, 2001. Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Chao: We are deeply concerned that the Department of Labor (DOL) has not performed the simple annual clerical duty, as required under current regulation (20 CFR 655.107), to publish in the Federal Register the adverse effect wage rates applicable to farmworkers and employers under the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. Ordinarily, the wage rates are issued in early to mid- February; however, the wage rates have not been issued yet. DOL's responsibility in issuing the wage rates is ministerial. The Department of Labor merely publishes the state-by-state results of the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) regional surveys of the average hourly wage rates for field and livestock workers (combined). This information has already been given to DOL. Failure to publish the new wage rates in the Federal Register apparently means that they will not take effect. Consequently, employers can pay farmworkers last year's adverse effect wage rates, most of which are significantly lower than they would be if the new wage rates were published. Although many farmworkers affected by the H-2A program have not yet begun their seasons, in Florida for example, there are ongoing seasons and there are H-2A companies operating at this time of the year. Florida's H-2A AEWR was $7.25 per hour for the year 2000. The Florida AEWR is supposed to increase to $7.66 per hour for 2001. In Georgia, where most work has not started yet, the H-2A AEWR is supposed to increase by 11 cents per hour to $6.83. These changes may be small but they are extremely important to the farmworkers who earn these low wage rates. The DOL cites the moratorium on regulations as the reason for its failure to publish. This is absurd, since the DOL's act of publishing in the Federal Register the survey results already obtained from the USDA would not be a new regulation. The current regulation, issued in 1987, directs DOL to publish these wage rates in a timely manner and the failure to do so violates the regulation. We strongly urge you to take prompt action to publish the adverse effect wage rates under the H-2A program in order to carry out the Department's obligation to protect U.S. farm workers and foreign workers from being subjected to wage rates that undermine labor standards in American agriculture. Please let us know when we can expect DOL to carry out its obligations under the law. Sincerely, George Miller. Major Owens. Howard L. Berman. Mr. Speaker, the response from Secretary Chao came on March 16. Dear Congressman Miller, thank you for your and your colleagues' letter expressing concerns regarding the Department's publication of the Adverse Effects Wage Rates as required under the 20 CFR 655.107. I share your concerns about U.S. farm workers and U.S. farmers. Staff have provided me with an initial briefing on the issues surrounding the AEWR. As a result, I have learned that concerns have been raised about the fairness and accuracy of the methodology used to compute the AEWR. In keeping with the spirit of the memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled, Regulatory Review Plan, the announcement of the 2001 AEWR is delayed for 60 days while I review the issues in preparation for a decision. I have instructed staff to further investigate the concerns that have been raised about the methodology used to compute the rates to assist me in becoming more familiar with the issue. I will be pleased to advise you when final action has been taken. I hope the information above is responsive to your concern. Sincerely, Secretary Elaine L. Chao. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the response from Secretary Chao: Secretary of Labor, Washington, March 16, 2001. Hon. George Miller, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Miller: Thank you for your and your colleagues' letter expressing concerns regarding the Department's publication of the Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWR) as required under 20 CFR 655.107. I share your concerns about U.S. farm workers and U.S. farmers. Staff have provided me with an initial briefing on the issues surrounding the AEWR. As a result, I have learned that concerns have been raised about the fairness and accuracy of the methodology used to compute the AEWR. In keeping with the spirit of the memorandum from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff entitled, ``Regulatory Review Plan,'' the announcement of the 2001 AEWR is delayed for 60 days while I review the issues in preparation for a decision. I have instructed staff to further investigate the concerns that have been raised about the methodology used to compute the rates to assist me in becoming more familiar with the issue. I will be pleased to advise you when final action has been taken. I hope the information above is responsive to your concerns. Sincerely, Elaine L. Chao. Mr. Speaker, I think that any high school student and sophomore can see one of the problems here are the regulations were supposed to be issued in early February. They were not issued; and, therefore, we wrote a letter to the Department of Labor Secretary. And now she is telling us in March that she is putting it on hold for 60 days in order to review it. The reason given for reviewing that is that the President's staff has issued a statement that there should be no new regulations until they are reviewed. This is not a new regulation. This is a simple computation that was mandated by an old regulation. This is a simple matter of issuing a statement based on what the law already has dictated should be done so that workers out there earning minimum wages in the farm sector will not have to wait for 60 days from March 16. She did not really say she has given herself a deadline. It is a vague 60 days. Mr. Speaker, March 16 is already 2 months late in issuing these standards, another 60 days, and it may go on to June, and a half year will go by. What does a half year mean to a farm worker? In the case of New York, the regulations say that, instead of being paid 7.68 an hour, as they are now, the new prevailing wage rates show that they should be paid 8.17 an hour, close to 50 cents more for a 40-hour week. Fifty cents more means that you got $20 more in your pay. For a whole 6 months, a half year, that is 20 times all those weeks. My colleagues might say that still is chicken feed, chump change, not much money, but for a worker who is earning $7 an hour, that is important money for his family. Why should we deprive them of 50 cents an hour because there is this kind of lethargy and laziness? Mr. Speaker, I hope there is nothing more sinister than that in the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor ought to go ahead and issue the standards. The table is right here. It is already compiled. It is available for every State. California moves from $7.27 an hour to $7.56 an hour, Florida from $7.25 an hour to $7.60 an hour. On and on it goes, with increases I think being as high as 50 cents an hour that workers would be getting. That is workers who are foreign workers coming in. It is also workers who already here would be paid at the same level. In fact, their payment at that level is already established. That is how one arrives at these figures. So if one cares about opportunity, if one cares about education at the elementary, secondary school level, if one cares about education at the higher education level, then one of the first things one wants to do is make certain that families have decent incomes; that they are in a position to send their kids to school with a decent meal in their stomachs, and that they are able to support the atmosphere needed, stable homes for the youngsters when they return. One cannot separate out the responsibility of the government to maintain in this complex society of ours some kind of justice with respect to wages and say that one cares about education and opportunity. Opportunity has to come with a recognition that the basic problem in this Nation is poverty. The basic education problem is the poverty of the families. The correlation between poverty and failing schools, between poverty and failing students is overwhelming and clearly established. I cite workers who are farm workers, but do not forget the fact I started by saying we refused to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 over a 2-year period. So we are looking at families in America saying that, you know, you can wait. The dollar increase that we proposed 2 years ago, which would raise the salaries by now to $6.15 an hour are not in motion. Last year's Congress did not act on it. It is not on the agenda for this year. So are we interested in enhancing opportunity for all in America? Forget about race, color, creed. Let us focus on a crusade for opportunity. Provide opportunity for everybody, and that way we solve a lot of different problems. In the provision of opportunity, do not overlook the conditions that working families live under and the fact that they have to have decent incomes. In the area of migrant workers, for example, for my colleagues' information, there are an estimated 1.6 million migrant or seasonal farm workers working in the fields, the orchards, the greenhouses, the nurseries, and the ranches of America. But this does not include those who work in meat-packing plants and livestock assemblies. One thing we could say is that we in Congress are examining requests for new programs to ensure that agricultural businesses remain in business. Traditionally, it has been the grains, soybeans and other capital-intensive crops that have relied on subsidies and government assistance. We taxpayers have paid subsidies for some of these same crops these farm workers are gathering. The way we are doing it now helps to eliminate the subsidies necessary to be paid by the government. The growers of fruits, vegetables, and other labor-intensive crop growers have not received subsidies. Produce growers have benefited from international trade agreements and Americans' greater interest in eating fruits and vegetables for health reasons. But fruit and vegetable growers more and more are asking for additional government assistance. As we consider expanding assistance to agricultural businesses in the upcoming farm bill, we should look at how those employees in those businesses are doing. The evidence is that agriculture workers are not doing well. In fact, as the fruit and vegetable industry has expanded its imports dramatically, U.S. farm workers have gotten poorer. The National Agricultural Workers Survey of the Department of Labor profiles characteristics of crop workers and their jobs. This is Report Number 8 in a series of publications based on the findings of the National Agricultural Worker Survey, a nationwide random survey on the demographic and employment characteristics of hired crop workers. This report, like those before it, finds that several long-standing trends characterizing the farm-labor work force and the farm-labor market are continuing. It finds that farm-worker wages have stagnated, annual earnings remain below the poverty level, farm workers experience chronic underemployment, and that the farm work force increasingly consists of young single males who are recent immigrants. Their findings of low wages, underemployment and low annual incomes of U.S. crop workers are indicative of a national oversupply of farm labor. Low annual income, in turn, most likely contributes to the instability that characterizes the agricultural labor market, as farm workers seek jobs paying higher wages and offering more hours of work. Over the period of the 1990s, with a strong economy and greater, increasingly widespread prosperity, farm-worker wages have still lost ground relative to those workers in private, nonfarm jobs. Since 1989, the average nominal hourly wage of farm workers has risen by only 18 percent, about one-half of the 32 percent increase for nonagricultural farm workers. Adjusted for inflation, the real hourly wage of farm workers has dropped from $6.89 to $6.18. If just for the fact that the cost of doing business in this society has gone up, farm workers are really going backwards in terms of their minimum wage. Consequently, farm workers have lost 11 percent of their purchasing power over the last decade. For the past decade, the median income of individual farm workers has remained less than $7,500 per year while that of farm-worker families has remained less than $10,000 a year. A farm-worker family, four people have to live on $10,000 per year. The majority of the farm workers had incomes below the poverty level in America. Despite the fact that the relative poverty of farm workers and their families has grown, their use of social services remains low; and for some programs, their use of social services has even declined. In 1997, 1998, most farm workers, about 60 percent, held only one farm job per year. The majority had learned about their current job through informal means, such as through a friend, a relative or a workmate. On average, farm workers were employed in agriculture for less than half a year. Even in July, when demand for farm labor peaks in many parts of the country, just over half of the total farm-labor work force held agriculture jobs. On average, farm workers supplemented their agricultural earnings with 5 weeks of nonfarm employment. The number of weeks this work force is employed each year in farm and nonfarm jobs in the U.S. has been declining. In every way, these people on the very bottom of the labor wage scale, have been going backwards. I cite farm workers only as one example because they happen to fall under the purview of the committee where I serve as the ranking Democrat. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections is responsible for minimum wage. The minimum wage of all workers in America is established by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires action by Congress, and Congress failed in the 106th Congress last year to raise the minimum wage by a measly $1 over 2 years. We are now saying that we want to maximize the opportunity with education in our society. We want to really do something about the reform of elementary and secondary education. How can we accomplish reform in elementary and secondary education? How can we improve opportunity in higher education when we are acting with contempt on the very basic issue of income for American families? One cannot separate out the issue of education from the issue of security and the nurturing of the family. All of it must go together. I started before by saying that today is a great day, because today we introduced the President's education initiative in the form of a bill. We always had his outline before. Now we have a bill. The President has introduced his education initiative for elementary and secondary education. At the same time, the Democrats introduced a bill called the 21st Century Higher Education Initiative, where we are moving to improve higher-education opportunities for minorities, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the tribally controlled colleges, and the Hispanic-serving institutions. I think it is important that it all happened today. I wanted to take note of that here and say that, if there is anything, nothing would be more pleasing to both sides of the aisle than we should come out of this 107th Congress with a meaningful education-reform bill, an education-reform bill that really carries us forward beyond the rhetoric that has been going on for the last few years. Everybody talks about education in the Congress, but very little has been done about it in the last few years. Everybody talks about education. The American people have listed education as being our number one priority for the last 5 years. But we still have schools out there which are crumbling. We still need, according to the survey done by the National Education Association, we need $320 billion for repairs and modernization and the construction of new schools, new public schools. $320 billion is needed across the Nation for the modernization, construction, and repair of schools. We have been talking about it now for the last 5 years, but the Federal Government did not appropriate a single penny for construction until the last session. In the last days of the last session in December, President Clinton was able to hold out and finally get an appropriation of $1.2 billion for school repairs, a mere $1.2 billion compared to the need that was established by the National Education Association, which says we need, over the next 10 years, about $320 billion. But at least the 1.2, it broke the barrier. We had never had, for the last 50 years, never had Federal legislation on school construction. We have broken the barrier. $1.2 billion is available. Now the rumor is that the present administration that has come in refuses to spend the $1.2 billion on school repairs. We are going to have to fight about money that has already been appropriated by the last Congress before we move on to improve education in this Congress. I hope that the rumor and the stated intentions of administration are not true as stated. They are refusing to spend money for school construction. No improvement of education can go forward. I have seen the outline of the President's bill. They want to focus on schools that need help most, in the areas where we have the poorest population. There is a correlation there. In the inner-city communities and in the rural communities, we have the worst buildings, the worst physical facilities. Most children and adults who live in suburban areas and go to modern up-to-date schools have no idea what I am talking about. They cannot envision a school which has a coal-burning furnace. Still in America, we have schools, certainly in New York City, we have schools that are still burning coal in their furnace. What does it mean to burn coal in the school furnace? It means that there is inevitable pollution that is taking place day by day. The children are being subjected each day to unnecessary pollutants. When I first bought a house years ago, I could not afford anything else, I bought a house that had a coal-burning furnace. The house, we put filters on; and we did everything possible to minimize the amount of coal dust that circulated in the house. No matter what precautions one takes, if one has a coal-burning furnace in the building, the tiny particles of coal are going to seep through. If one has small children, they are going to be jeopardized because the lungs of small children are more susceptible. And certainly, please, do not have a child who already is disposed to asthma. The asthma rate in New York City is very high. We can find the highest rates of asthma among children in the areas where we have schools that have coal-burning furnaces. The correlation, again, is overwhelming. So it is hard for most people to visualize that we have schools that are still burning coal in their furnace. I suppose it is also hard to visualize the fact that, in New York City, most of the school buildings are more than 50 years old. The life of a brick building at one time they said is about 50 years. All of our schools are more than 50 years old just about. Maybe about 15 percent are not that old; but the rest of them, more than 50 years old. Then about 25 percent of the schools are almost 100 years old. The buildings are almost 100 years old. So if one is going to improve education, whether one follows the Republican majority plan or one follows the Democratic initiative that was introduced earlier in the year, either one requires that one does something about the physical condition of the schools. How do we convince young people we really care about education if we are forcing them to attend school in a building that has a coal-burning furnace? We cannot convince children that we are interested in really improving education if we are forcing them to attend school in a school building that is so overcrowded because it has so many more pupils than it was built for. We have some schools in my district built for 500 pupils and they now serve 1,100. They are serving 1,100 children in a building built for 500. More than twice the number of children that the building was built for. As a result, the lunchroom cannot hold all the youngsters, of course. They have to eat in three or four cycles. The first cycle in the school begins at 10 o'clock. In other words, a certain group of children, one-third, are told that they have to eat lunch at 10 o'clock. Now, they have just had breakfast, but they have to eat lunch at 10 o'clock. The other group, the final third, will be eating late, after 1 o'clock. So they will be hungry. The first group is being forced to eat when they are not hungry. Those kinds of conditions exist in too many of our schools, where they start eating lunch early because the cycle has to be completed for three or four different cycles because the building is too small, the cafeteria is too small. It was not built for those kinds of students. We have situations where we have trailers, trailers in the school yards. And this is something that is not common to big city schools. All over the country one of the problems with rural schools is they have a lot of trailers out there too that were temporary. Trailers are temporary constructs. They are not built to last 20 years. One of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), says she went to visit her old junior high school that she had attended and the trailers that were there temporarily when she was in that junior high school were still there. And we know that across the country we have trailers in the schoolyards and they stay there forever. Are we going to convince a student or the teachers that we are serious about improving education if we do nothing about these physical conditions that exist at present? If we do nothing about the fact that large numbers of schools do not have trained and certified teachers, are we going to be able to convince the youngsters or the teachers or parents that we seriously care about schools? So dollars are going to be necessary in order to fulfill the rhetoric and the plans and the vision statements that have been made about education. We also have to recognize the complexities of the situation. Although the President is focusing and the administration bill focuses on elementary and secondary education, and we are not scheduled to revise the Higher Education Assistance Act until next year, we must move across all fronts at the same time. Higher education cannot be separated from elementary and secondary education if we want to improve the schools. After we get past the very serious problem of physical infrastructure, the biggest problem that schools have now is qualified personnel, qualified teachers, teachers who are trained, educated properly. Teachers who are certified. In some cases, we have certified teachers who are teaching subjects that they are not certified to teach. A few years ago, in central Brooklyn and other parts of New York serving mostly Hispanic and black students, they made a survey and they found that most of the teachers who were teaching math and science in the junior high schools had not majored in math and science in college. They were certified teachers, but they were certified in some other area. Well, that is better than the situation that existed in a lot of elementary schools in one segment of my district. In New York City, the total city is divided up into 32 school districts. One of the school districts in my congressional district, district 23, year before last had a situation where one-half of their teachers were substitute teachers all year long. They were not certified, and they were not regular. So the students in that district were constantly being subjected to changing teachers every day. One-half of them were in that kind of situation. Is it any wonder that there was a drop in the reading level scores in that district, or that for years that district has had the notoriety of being on the very bottom for the whole 32 school districts in the city? They have gone up in the last couple of years as a result of paying attention to this problem and many others. But the problem of certified teachers is a problem that we must tackle head on. We will have no improvement in education unless the teachers and administrators and principals are all well trained. An initiative in higher education, colleges and universities, allows us to train teachers, to get those certified teachers into the classrooms, to improve the supply of teachers, and to be able to meet the number one requirement of education improvement. For that reason, I am proud of the fact that, along with my Democratic colleagues, we introduced an initiative today which relates to higher education, and we expect that to have an impact on education in general. With great pleasure, I join my Democratic colleagues today to introduce the 21st Century Higher Education Initiative. Since 1837, Historically Black Colleges and Universities have played a vital role in producing this Nation's most influential African-American leaders; people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Jordan, and Langston Hughes, all graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and they have inspired a generation of young people of all races. Today, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions, are continuing to produce highly qualified students that fill key positions in the public and private sector. For instance, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities are now responsible for producing 28 percent of all bachelor's degrees and 15 percent of all master's degrees earned by African Americans. While these numbers are encouraging, more must be done to ensure that minority students are not locked out of the higher education debate. The 21st Century Higher Education Initiative more than doubles funding for title III and title V and increases the maximum Pell Grant award from $3,750 to $7,000 over a 3-year-period. Increasing funding for title III and title V will close the funding gap between minority- and nonminority-serving institutions. Increasing the maximum Pell Grant award will make the burden of paying for college easier for poor minority students who cannot afford to attend college. The 21st Century Education Initiative also includes dramatic increases for supplemental equal opportunity grants and Federal work study by increasing each program by $300 million over the next 3 years. Both programs play a critical role in the lives of students who are often the first person in their family to attend college. Also included are increases for TRIO and GEAR-UP, which encourage minority students from underserved communities to attend college. TRIO and GEAR-UP have a long track record of preparing minority students for college through academic enrichment and mentorship activities. The bill also includes funding to preserve buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by authorizing $60 million a year for facilities most in need of repair on the campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In addition, the bill addresses the critical needs for qualified minority teachers by authorizing $30 million for a new program that will strengthen teacher preparation programs at minority-serving institutions. The 21st Century Higher Education Initiative also takes into account reports from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration and the Benton Foundation regarding the Digital Divide. The initiative would create a $250 million program based on proposals by Senator Cleland and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) that will provide equipment, wire campuses, and train students for careers in technology. Providing increased funding for technology at HBCUs will ensure that young African-American students are given every opportunity to compete on a level playing field. In closing, the Democratic party has sent a clear signal to Members of the House and the Senate, educating minority students from underserved communities is at the top of our agenda. We look forward to working with our colleagues from across the aisle and the administration in passing legislation that ``leaves no child behind.'' Increasing funding for HBCUs, HSIs, and TCCs will not only benefit the minority community but provide our Nation with experienced and talented young people who are prepared to compete in today's global workforce. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that we bring it all together. Let us make this year of 2001 the first year of the 107th Congress, the first year of a new administration, a year where we achieve one outstanding, glowing, bipartisan accomplishment, and that is the improvement of education in America. And as we improve education in America, let us also understand that a part of that requires that we improve opportunities for working families, starting with improving their wages and income. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a chart of wages; a Comparison of H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. So for all who are listening, no matter where you are, it is important to note the fact that we celebrated. We celebrated the fact that students, teachers, librarians, all over the country came to the aid of those of us in Congress who were fighting to maintain and expand the e-rate. What is the e-rate? The e-rate is a special fund created as a result of actions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. When we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a provision was put in the Act which called upon the telecommunications industry to provide free or very low-cost services to all schools and libraries in America. Private schools, public schools, all schools were to be included and have been included in the e-rate process--and libraries. The development of the procedures and the standards for doing this under William Kennard were magnificent. They determined that, instead of providing it free, they could not go that far, there was a lot of pressure on them from industry, they did determine that funds could be made available not through the Treasury of the United States or any other government but through the industry itself. The funds could be made available to allow for a discount program where every school and library in America would at least get a 15 percent discount on their telecommunications services. They could apply and, as a result of the e-rate, the initial wiring of the library or the initial process of gearing up the schools, that could be funded and the cost of that could be covered up to 15 percent in any school. However, for the schools that had the poorest populations, those schools could get a discount in proportion to the number of children who were poor, up to a 90 percent discount. We have a lot of our formulas in the Federal Government based on poverty, especially when it comes to education. The biggest program that the Federal Government has is Title I, Title I for elementary and secondary education. Title I is based, the distribution of it, is based primarily on poverty. Poverty is measured by the number of students in each school who qualify for the free lunch program. The forms and the investigations that are conducted at the time that they decide how many youngsters will get free lunches through the Department of Agriculture, that form is used again and again as a basis for deciding how many children are poor in the school. So the e-rate is based on a sound formula, and the poorest schools could get up to 90 percent discounts. That means that for every $1 they spent on their telecommunications services, or on the initial wiring of the school, they would only have to pay 10 cents. The other 90 cents would be paid out of the e-rate fund. This caught on. It spread. Numerous, numerous schools and libraries are reaping the benefit of the e-rate. So we celebrated that. Everybody who was listening at that time, especially young people, I invited to join me in celebrating the fact that the e-rate did go into effect, was beaten down, lawsuits were threatened, all kinds of things happened, but it went into effect because the outcry from the young people, the students and the teachers and the families out there, the working families was so great until they acquiesced and they supported chairman Kennard, the chairman of the FCC, and we instituted the e- rate. It has been highly successful. But let me warn you tonight that we are about to go backwards. The e- rate is threatened, is jeopardized. We have a situation now where the e-rate may be folded into the regular budget. The President's budget, the President's education plan is proposing that we have the e-rate funded through the regular budget, that we combine that with some other programs. Now, that would be a great step backwards, because the e-rate now is funded through funds that come out of the telecommunications industry and any placing of it in the budget means you jeopardize the funds because you are competing with the other funds in the budget. We did a lot to fight for the e-rate. It is time to rise up and let your legislators know, people who are in this room, Members of Congress listening, you must understand that it is jeopardized by this new move; and, therefore, we should take action to let it be known we will not sit still and allow the e-rate to be taken away. The other item that is being jeopardized is the one we celebrated, the $1.2 billion in construction funds. The Federal Government has not appropriated money for school construction in the last 50 years. The Federal Government, the Title I programs, all the Elementary and Secondary Education Assistance Act stayed away from school construction. It is most unfortunate because a study by the National Education Association showed that we need about $320 billion to bring the infrastructure of the schools, the laboratories, the physical infrastructure of public education in America, just to bring it up to a point where it can take care of the present students, would be about $320 billion. They have suffered so greatly from neglect. If you leave it all to the local governments, you leave it all to the State governments, they are not doing as much as they should do and could do, but certainly the Federal Government which has had large amounts of money coming from the local level. All money originates at the local level. All politics is local. All taxes is local. It comes from us. It is not a matter of Washington giving us back something that belongs to Washington. It is our money, and it should come back for the needs that are clearly articulated. If ever there was a need that was clear, it is school construction. Yet we have not over the last 50 years appropriated any money for school construction. We finally made a breakthrough. As a result of a tremendous effort we put forth, President Clinton insisted that there be some money for school construction in the last budget. During the negotiation they reached a compromise figure of $1.2 billion. I had proposed $10 billion per year for 10 years. So you can see there is a great difference between what is the need, which is $320 billion over many years, and what I proposed, which was $10 billion over 10 years, which would be $100 billion, and the actual compromise. We start with $1.2 billion. But we celebrated. We celebrated because of the fact that it was a breakthrough. We had broken through the barrier. And now the Federal Government, according to the budget that we completed last December, and it is important to go over this education budget now because it was completed so late in the year. Most people do not know what we finally came out with, and I will talk about that a little bit later, but we did come out with $1.2 billion. Now that is jeopardized. That $1.2 billion would provide new grants to make urgently needed repairs and renovations in the schools. We are talking about items which relate to the health and safety of young people. Now the new administration is saying they will not go forward and spend this money for the purposes for which it was negotiated last time. They are going to fold it into some other programs, and we will not have any school construction, any infrastructure initiative. That is a great step backwards, and it needs the help of everybody to cry out and let it be known, let it be known that this is an outrage. It is going backwards, it is counterproductive, and it runs counter to the vision that has been expressed by the new administration. You cannot have improvements in education if the basic vessel, the basic structure, the infrastructure, the concrete, the bricks and the mortar, if that is crumbling around you, many of the other things that are being proposed begin to look ridiculous. And it certainly looks ridiculous through the eyes of young people. You tell young people you care about education and you are going to do everything to guarantee that they get the best opportunities available and they look out of their eyes and see that there is a crumbling building there, there is a coal-burning furnace in the school threatening their health, exacerbating asthma conditions, the roof leaks and all the rooms on the top floor of the school have crumbling walls because of the leaking roof, windows that needed replacement now have wood pasted over, there is plastic on the windows because you need to stop the draft from coming in. They can see how much is the value of education, how much value these adults who are making decisions are placing on education if they send us into these kinds of conditions. There are trailers in the school yards that were temporary trailers 25 years ago. I remember the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) stating on the floor of the House that she had gone back to visit one of her old schools, junior high schools, and the same trailers that were there when she was there are still there in the school yard. However, when they were put there, they were supposed to be temporary, for 2 or 3 years. The same thing is true in most of our big cities and in many rural communities. The trailers have become not a temporary emergency solution but they are there permanently because that is what adult decisionmakers-- that is the value they have placed on education. No amount of vision statements and no amount of rhetoric can get past the common sense of our young people who look and see with their eyes that there is something wrong with this commitment. There is a commitment to take us into the 21st century with the best possible opportunities for education, and yet there are only a handful of computers in the classroom, if it is lucky enough to be wired and have computers. The library has books that are 30 years old, some of them geography and history books. I am not going to go through that litany. I have gone through it many times before. But the thing is, here we are with a new administration and we are looking forward to one area where there could be bipartisan cooperation, one area where both parties would respond to the overwhelming desire of the American people to see that there is some improvement in education. That is an overwhelming desire that has been expressed again and again in the polls. The polls for the last 5 years have consistently placed education as one of the top five priorities. In the last 2 years it has been the number one priority. So why are we discussing a proposal to roll back progress and refuse to spend the tiny $1.2 billion that was appropriated on December 18 of last year for school repairs and renovations? Why are we contemplating that? What kind of madness is this? They were also going to reduce class sizes. I have a summary of the December 18 budget, and I am going to take a few minutes to just go through it because it came out so late until very few people have had a chance to see it. Most citizens in the country do not know the difference between this year's budget and last year's budget because last year's budget came out so late. However, we did make some progress last year. It is important to note and understand, all players, whether they are decision-makers here in Congress or students out there in school, and they have to understand that they made a big breakthrough last year with a $6.5 billion increase. Education expenditures were increased last year by $6.5 billion. That is quite an achievement. That is quite an achievement, as my colleagues know. It is not nearly as much as I think we should have had. We could spend that much on school construction alone using the surplus, but it is a great step forward using none of the surplus. This was in the regular budgeting process. Why is it the case? Because both Republicans and Democrats understand that the polls show that the American people want improvements in education, and they can read the polls and understand that they must show some movement forward. Now we have had a movement forward in an area like reducing class sizes. We had the third installment in reducing class sizes in grades one to three. This is a nationwide program, trying to bring down the average in the classroom to 18 students in the first three grades. We increased that program by $323 million last year. There was a plus of $323 million, and that increase added approximately 8,000 new highly qualified teachers to the already 29,000 that were there before. The total appropriation for reducing class sizes went from $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion in the December 18 budget. Mr. Speaker, 8,000 new qualified teachers will be added to the already 29,000 that have been hired under this program. The administration that went out previously, of course, as my colleagues know, was shooting for a goal of 100,000. 100,000 new teachers over 7 years to reduce class sizes in the early grades. Now, we are being told that this program too, the Class Size Reduction Program, will be altered and phased out, combined with some other program; and that is a step backwards also. We expanded after-school opportunities in this budget of December 18, last year's budget. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers that provide after school learning programs in drug-free environments, and also some support for lifelong learning for the parents of the students who are involved, went from $453,000 million to $845 million. That was an increase of $392 million. The program was almost doubled. It is now in a position to provide for 650,000 additional school-age youngsters as a result of the increase. So we have something like 1.3 million youngsters being served by the total program. Everybody has applauded the after-school programs, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers as being successful. Everybody has said, this is what we need: longer school days, some help for kids on the weekend and also summer school help. Unfortunately, this amount of money only serves a tiny percentage of the youngsters who are eligible and who need the help, but it is there. Now we have been told that that, too, may be altered. So I do not want to belabor the point. The point is that we have heard that the new administration places education as a top priority, but the actions that have started already show that we are going to have to look very closely. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are looking for an opportunity to cooperate. We are looking for an opportunity to make bipartisanship a reality. The one place where there is a clear opportunity is in education; and, therefore, it is particularly disturbing that these proposed roll-backs of good programs, the wiping out of the construction program totally, these proposals are being made at this point because it is going to create a roadblock to any possible bipartisan cooperation for the benefit of the children of America. The hiring and retaining of qualified teachers, we increased that by $150 million; the total program is $485 million. We are doing in that program one of the things that has been pinpointed as a major need. We need more qualified teachers; we need more certified teachers. That program would do it. The Eisenhower National Activities Program is a complement to that. Preparing teachers for use of technology, that program was increased from $75 million to $125 million. Mr. Speaker, we have been on target in education leadership. Some of the leadership, or most of the leadership, came from the previous administration; and certainly, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for 18 years, I have seen these proposals introduced year after year, finally brought them to fruition; and we did make some real headway in the budget that passed last year. But the problem is, and the question is, are we really going to sincerely and seriously go forward and build on what exists already, like the e-rate and the school construction program, and the after-school program. We had a program-funding increase for extra help in the basics, helping disadvantaged students learn the basics and achieve high studies. That is under title I. That program was increased by $569 million, and disadvantaged students can be helped as a result of that increase. Now, that is in harmony with what President Bush has proposed. We have the President's proposals in outline form. We do not have a bill yet. We cannot talk about a budget with clear sections; but we do have an outline, and one of the things he stresses in his outline is that he wants to focus on the pupils who have the greatest needs. The first dollars should be focused on the pupils that have the greatest needs, and any increase in the budget should go in that direction. So I am glad to report that there is one area where I heartily agree with the administration. Let us do that. Let us focus where the greatest need is and target the Federal funds in that direction. The unfortunate thing is that the administration will have to deal with the members on the Committee on Education and the Workforce who are on the majority. Their thinking in the past few years has gone in the opposite direction. The Republican majority of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Republican majority in the House as a whole, has consistently insisted that the existing funds be utilized in a broader way. They want greater flexibility. They want to take the dollars that do exist and spread them out to more schools, not the poorest schools; but some schools that have less poverty and some schools that have almost no poverty would be eligible for the funding if we had the flexibility that they talk about. Going even further beyond just flexibility, the members of the President's party here in Congress are proposing block grants. Block grants mean that we take the dollars and we give them to the States with minimum guidelines and the States then proceed to do what they feel is best. The problem with giving States that kind of authority is that the States have a constitutional responsibility for education. Every State has in their constitution a clear statement of responsibility for the education of all of the children of the State. If they had done their job in accordance with their constitutions all of these years, the Federal Government would not need to be engaged in this problem of education at all. We would not have to be trying to catch up, trying to maintain high standards of education. So, Mr. Speaker, because it was clearly demonstrated in World War II, if not before, that education is a matter of national security, we cannot afford to have an uneducated, ill-informed population and expect to be able to defend ourselves in war, even a less complicated war, such as World War II. Now, with high-tech weapons and an atmosphere which requires much more learning to deal with a much more complex peacetime economy and also to deal with any defense efforts, we know we need an educated population; it is a matter of national security. It is not something we can afford to leave to the States, even though the Federal Government is only responsible at this point for a very tiny percentage. Our expenditures, Federal expenditures for education, are still less than 8 percent of the total. States and localities are still spending 92 percent to 93 percent of the total education budget, higher education, elementary and secondary education, et cetera. We should be going toward 25 percent. We should understand that the number one item in terms of the defense of the country, in terms of competitiveness of our economy in a global economy, is our being able to compete. In terms of the greatness of the Nation, the future of the Nation, education is a number one priority. We ought to be spending at least 25 percent of the expenditure for education. The Federal expenditure should be 25 percent, not 8 percent or 7 percent. We have other items that were in the budget last year that I just want to note. Gear-Up and TRIO are programs for helping poor students get ready for college. We understand that it is great to graduate from high school, and one of our first targets was getting everybody to graduate from high school, and we have improved greatly over the years in getting rid of a large percentage of high school dropouts. But beyond that, if one does not go to college, there is a limited future; there is a limited amount you are going to earn in terms of income; there is a limited amount of help one is going to be able to provide for the economy in general, and one's own family; there is a limited contribution that one is going to be able to make to society if one does not go on to college and fully develop one's capacities. So Gear-Up and TRIO are very important. The TRIO program has been in existence for some years. It has proven itself, and I am happy to see they have an $85 million increase. It has moved from $645 million to $730 million in the December 18 budget last year. What is going to happen this year I do not know, but I hope that the administration this year will have the good sense to follow the leadership of the Republican Congresses over the past few years who have increased the program and not cut it. TRIO would help 765,000 disadvantaged students, 40,000 more than they do now as a result of the increases that we provided last year. It is a magnificent program, and we certainly do not want to see an attempt to roll back the clock on that. Pell grants we increased from $3,300 to $3,750 per student last year, a total increase overall from $7.6 billion to $8.7 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion for Pell grants. That allowed a $450 increase in the Pell grant over what it was before; but Pell grants are consistently behind inflation, way behind the cost of a college education, and Pell grants to our poorest students need to be greatly increased. I hope that there will be no rollback on Pell grants in the coming development of the administration's education budget. We do have some information which shows that there are problems. I said before that the present administration is proposing to zero-out school modernization, the construction program; they are going to do something else with that, put it into technology and special education. That is most unfortunate. About 1,000 schools that could be renovated will not be renovated. The new budget eliminates the class-size reduction initiative; I mentioned that that is on the chopping block. The class-size initiative has already helped schools hire 37,000 teachers and provide smaller classes to 2 million children. That will be a great loss if it is rolled back. The Pell grant increase that we passed last year, it was a 14 percent increase in Pell grants. The increase that is being proposed by the present administration, not through its budget, because we do not have the full budget, but through its outlines and discussions, is about 4 percent. Instead of 14 percent, they talk about a 4 percent increase in Pell grants. Minority-serving higher education institutions have certainly benefited greatly over the past 6 years. We have had bipartisan cooperation in the funding of the minority-serving institutions. There are three categories, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Hispanic-serving institutions, as well as the tribally controlled colleges. They have had increases over the last 6 years. We have gotten about a 25 percent annual increase over the last 3 years under the previous administration. They have been well served. We think that they have a key role to play in improving education in America. Minority- serving institutions will be producing most of the teachers. A large percentage of the qualified teachers that we need in our schools will come from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- serving institutions, and tribally controlled colleges. As Members know, we have a controversy here over the fact that the Committee on Education and the Workforce has already chosen, in its structure and formatting for business in the next 2 years, they have structured the committee so that there is a Subcommittee for 21st Century Competitiveness. That subcommittee is very much on target. They call it that, and that is a new concept where at the core of the Subcommittee of 21st Century Competitiveness are the programs that fund our higher education institutions. That is at the core. There are other programs that are related to technology, development and research, a number of things related to competitiveness. But certainly at the core is the funding for higher education institutions. For some reason that we are not clear on, the majority Republicans on the Committee on Education and the Workforce chose to take these minority-serving institutions, the historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and the tribally- controlled colleges, and put them in another committee; not in the subcommittee, but in another subcommittee. Instead of the Subcommittee for 21st Century Competitiveness being the committee where all higher education institutions are placed, they chose to put the minority institutions in a subcommittee called the Subcommittee on Special Education. The Subcommittee on Special Education is a committee which has a large number of other programs related to higher education, and many not related to education. That is where we fund the programs for adoptions, programs for child abuse education and prevention, programs for domestic abuse and prevention, juvenile delinquency prevention. Why do we put the minority-serving higher education institutions in a subcommittee which mainly deals with social problems? All of those social problems are important and they need to be confronted, but why do we take the minority-serving institutions out of the mainstream discussion of what it takes to remain competitive in the coming 21st century? They are not going to be there when we discuss new authorizations, new appropriations to meet the competitive world of the cyber civilization I talked about at the beginning of my discourse this evening. If we are going to have a new approach to how we go into the 21st century, how we meet the competition of the 21st century, how we meet global competition, then we certainly do not want to leave out the minority-serving institutions when we are making those plans and having that discussion. Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce have decided that we protest. I offered an amendment to correct this oversight. We thought it was an oversight and that there was no malice involved, and that if we brought it to the attention of the majority, it would be corrected. We spent about 3 hours debating the issue. It just so happens that on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, among the Democrats on the committee there are four people who are African Americans, there are three people who are Hispanic-Americans, there are two Asian- Americans, and there is one Native American. Probably few committees have that kind of concentration of minorities. We all expressed outrage and fear, because we know what separation does. We have lived with separate but equal doctrines for too long to not know what eventually happens when we separate out things. They do not remain equal. The weaker party in the separation is going to be neglected, abandoned, and in very subtle ways, probably, very subtle ways, the minority-serving institutions will find themselves outside the parameters of a full and moving discussion about what it takes to be competitive in the 21st century. They will be outside the parameters of a discussion about how higher education institutions must operate and relate to the crisis in elementary and secondary education. They will be outside of a serious discussion on the relationship between corporations, industry, and higher education institutions if they are out of the loop in terms of the way the committee is structured. We have protested. All the Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce have refused to accept their assignments on subcommittees. There is an ongoing dialogue, and we hope that this will be resolved, but it is an example of a blunder that, when we add to the other kinds of proposals that are being made, the zeroing out of the construction appropriation, the rollback of the class size reductions, when we add all of these blunders and new backward moves, including the threat to the e-rate, danger signals must be sent forth. We must send up flares. We must get involved in reexamining what are the possibilities of bipartisan cooperation, what are the dangers to the progress that we have made. Everybody has to get involved in making certain that their voices are heard and that education, which has clearly been indicated to be the top priority of the American voters, not be given a public relations job. We do not want a public relations program. Many speeches are made about improving education, but the substance of what has to be done in terms of the way legislation is set forth and the way the budget is developed, that substance is not there. We do not want to fool the American people. We do not want a public relations gimmick instead of real improvements in education. Democratic education proposals are proposals for making real investments in education. Whereas President Bush proposed $1.6 billion for elementary and secondary budget programs increase, our program, as reflected in the Excellence and Accountability in Education Act, this is an act that is already been introduced. We have a piece of legislation already introduced. The Excellence and Accountability in Education Act, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and has all of the other Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce as cosponsors, proposes a $9.7 billion increase. So $1.6 billion increase is proposed by the President, we propose $9.7 billion, and we lay out where the money should go. The Excellence and Accountability in Education Act is H.R. 340, a comprehensive K through 12 education reform bill. It would hold schools accountable to high standards, and place particular emphasis on closing the achievement gap between different groups of children. Schools that continue to fail after 3 years, under our act, and we are in harmony with the President on that one, would receive special help and be subject to changes in terms of their students being able to make choices and go to other public choice schools, or the schools might be closed and converted to charter schools. Unlike the majority, we oppose any movement toward vouchers. This was a clear disagreement in the past and remains a clear disagreement between the two parties. We are not in favor of the wasteful, cumbersome approach to improving education through giving families vouchers. We propose to double the Title I funds over a 5-year period. Do Members want to know where our great increase will go? We will double the Title I funds, and those are the funds that are targeted to the disadvantaged areas and the schools that need help the most, the failing schools. We are in harmony with the President on that one. He wants to target additional resources to the schools that need it most. We are not in harmony with the amount. We propose to double the Title I funding in order to do that, and not to have the small increment that he proposes. We propose to institute strong accountability for results and actions. The Title I schools will be held accountable. Administrations and local education agencies and the States will be held accountable. We are in agreement with the President on that. But each one of these schools must have the resources they need to provide the opportunity to learn. Opportunity-to-learn standards must be met. These are the standards that Governors and bureaucrats do not like to talk about, but if we are going to judge schools and declare that they have failed, before we make a judgment that they have failed, provide them with the money they need to provide a decent physical infrastructure. Provide them the money they need for libraries, for gyms, for teachers, for certified teachers. They have to meet certain standards themselves before they hold the students and schools to standards. Both the State governments and the Federal government must not run away, as they have been, from opportunity-to-learn standards coming first. Teacher quality must be strengthened. We all agree on that. We must understand that the context in which we go forward to improve our schools is greater than the programs that relate to education. I started by saying I want to set the discussion of education in the proper context. I talked about the tax bill and how, in the context of a huge tax cut, we can look forward to only rhetoric for education because there will be no money for the kinds of increases that we need. In the context of a big tax cut, most social programs, most human investment programs, will suffer greatly. So the tax cut needs to be whittled down to size. I am in favor of a tax cut. Generally the Democrats are in favor of tax cuts. They want smaller tax cuts. They want tax cuts targeted toward the middle class and the working families. They want tax cuts which reach down and even get people who supposedly do not pay taxes. People who are working and pay Social Security, they have Social Security taken out and Medicare funding taken out, they are paying taxes. It is a payroll tax. Any time we are forced to give money to the government, it is a tax. It is not an option. We cannot voluntarily say, we will pay this fee, or not. It comes out of our paychecks. So Social Security funding means those people need help, too. The greatest-percentage increases in taxing over the last 20 years have been an increase in the Social Security and related payroll taxes. They have gone up more than anything else. So we want the tax cut, one aimed at the middle class; we want a tax cut aimed at working class families; we want a tax cut to get to the people at the very bottom; but we do not want such a huge tax cut that there is no money for human investment, or that there is no money for education, in particular. We want those parameters to be understood: Stop the reckless tax cut or there will be nothing left for education. Let that message go out: Stop the war on working-class families. Working-class families are the families that use the public school system. When we talk about education, we are talking about the fact that the primary means for upward mobility in America has been the public school system, the primary means of upward mobility; public schools, public libraries. Check the biography or autobiography of any great American who rose from poverty to success and they will tell us about schools and libraries that were free to them and were quality schools in terms of the kinds of help they provided. That is a story that is repeated over and over again, so working families will suffer if we do not improve America's schools. The majority party, the Republicans, should understand that they are declaring war on working families when they roll back the clock on the items related to improvement of education. They roll back the clock on e-rate, and that means that working families will not have access to computers, working families will not have access to the Internet that is provided at a great discount through the e-rate. If we take away the school or class size reduction program, it means that working-class families will be crowded into classrooms of up to 30 and 35 students, and will not have the kind of attention which students in the first to third grade need. Studies have shown over and over again that the attention children get at a very early age and the class size is very important. So they are attacking working families when they take away that benefit or zero out construction and do not provide decent schools for them. The attack on working families continues in other ways. The context is important, because the way children go to school, the families they come from, the conditions in the home are all-important in terms of their ability to relate to their schooling. Whereas I do not believe in blaming the homes and parents for all the problems that children have in learning, as some people do often, but understand that the stability in the home, whether or not they have decent health care, are important in terms of the way the child comes to school and is able to take advantage of the opportunities there. The minimum wage that we have ignored is not an attack on working families when we do not even allow it on the floor; we do not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour as we proposed in the last Congress to $6.15 an hour; we are attacking working families. Mr. Speaker, the biggest attack on working families probably is the refusal to recognize that the floor of wages in America ought to at least be $6.15 an hour and not $5.15 an hour, which is now more than 3 years old, that floor in terms of minimum wage. The majority party would not even let it be discussed. Working families on minimum wage, a family of four, is in dire poverty even if you increase it to $6.15. It is a tiny percentage of what they need in terms of survival, but the minimum that we could do is to accept the Democratic proposals of a 50 cent increase over a 2-year period which would raise the minimum wage. If we refuse to do that, that is an attack on working families, the families of the pupils who go to our public schools. When we gut the health and safety rules to protect workers, as we did last week, in context, working families have to understand that what was done on the floor of this House last Wednesday, the vote to repeal the ergonomics standards was an attack on working families. Ergonomics is a big word. People do not want to deal with it. They stop listening when you mention it. So I will just say, ergonomics is all about ending the pain, the pain that is related to doing something with your muscles and your fibers over and over again. Ergonomics is a matter of taking steps to prevent, to prevent injuries that often incapacitate people. Ergonomics is not just about the guy who was out there lifting in the warehouse, lifting heavy loads and he gets his problem with his back. Ergonomics is about the secretaries and the clerks who type all the time or the people who sit in front of computers and may get eyestrain. There are ways to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome, another one of those big words. Carpal tunnel syndrome is simply you have repeated something so often and you use your fingers and your wrists in a certain way until it wears out and it is painful to do it. And beyond being painful, you reach the point where you cannot do it any more. Mr. Speaker, a person who earns his or her living by typing the motion over and over again can find themselves at a point where they do not have a way to earn a living, because of the fact that they can no longer use their wrists and their hands and their arms. It is as incapacitating as if you were on a construction job and some big load fell on your head. They are very real. Every Member of Congress has had exposure, I am sure, to people with carpal tunnel syndrome, because we have lots of people in that category who do that kind of work up here. Nothing new. Yet we voted last week to make war on the workers by removing a standard which required that employers take preventive measures to minimize the risk of people getting incapacitated as a result of repeated use, using certain muscles and fibers. We eliminated it with one stroke under what is called the Congressional Review Act. One of the first achievements of the Gingrich Congress, and it is no more, we do not have the ergonomics standard. It took 10 years. It took 10 years to reach the point where we issued some standards which said you should do things a certain way to protect the health of people, their muscles and their fibers from this kind of strain. And in one day, it was voted out of existence and is no more. We declared war on the working families of America in another way. The war comes from different directions. It is a war sometime of neglect and abandonment, but that is still war. It is sometimes a war of a denial, denying the minimum wage increase, but it is still war. These are the families from which the children who go to our public schools come, and we cannot have improvements in education while the attacks are being made on their livelihood in a manner in which their homes are able to exist free of incapacitation, health problems and deprivation. We think that what happened last week with the wiping out of the ergonomics standard through the Congressional Review Act is just a beginning, that the war on working families is going to continue in many ways. We are going to be gutting overtime pay again for workers. That has come up in the previous Congress, of course, and it failed to get through because the President at that time threatened to veto it. There is no veto power to prevent excesses. There is no veto power on extreme mix. We are waiting for the attack to go forward. We warn everybody listening to begin to make decisions about how we are going to deal with an attempt to gut overtime pay for workers. We had a bill on the floor, as my colleagues recall, those of my colleagues who have been in Congress for some time, a bill on the floor which said that overtime pay should no longer have to be given in cash. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that after you reach a certain point, 40 hours, you must pay workers in cash for the overtime. Workers who are not in that category, there are exempt workers, as we all know, but those who are in that category must be paid in cash. We had a bill which says the Fair Worker Labor Standards Act, that section would be repealed and employers could at their own discretion give workers time off, time off to compensate for your working overtime. The time off would come at the discretion of the employer. The majority party would gut overtime pay by expanding exemptions to overtime requirements by excluding employee bonuses from overtime pay, and this latter provision creates huge loopholes for employers, allows them to exempt certain portions of employee pay as exempt from overtime coverage. We can look forward to more of this kind of attack on working families. They are going to discourage all new health and safety laws. They are going to discourage the National Labor Relations Board from functioning in a fair and equitable way. There will be bills to discourage union organizing. All of those bills fall within the parameter of my committee. We must understand how they all interrelate to the war on working families.

Mr. OWENS. Is the Speaker saying that I cannot talk to the students of America?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use most of my time to talk about education, but I think it is important to begin by setting the discussion on education in the proper context, within the proper context of what is developing here in Washington and in the House of Representatives. Last week we voted, the majority voted, to begin the massive tax cut proposed by the President. This is a massive amount of money to be spent on tax refunds. A tax cut is a kind of expenditure. That is an important item to understand, put in place, because it is part of setting the parameters for any kind of action on education or any other program of the government. All other programs will have to respond to the fact that there is less money available if we have a huge tax cut. We have tried to set different parameters. Instead of a huge tax cut, the Congressional Black Caucus and the progressive caucus have proposed that at least 10 percent of the surplus be used for education. If we used 10 percent of the surplus for education, we would still have 90 percent left to use for other programs. So we propose that we use another 10 percent for housing, for social programs, for other kinds of programs that are important for human resource development. In other words, invest at least 20 percent in education and human resource development. There would still be 80 percent left of the surplus after that investment was made. So that additional 80 percent, we propose, should be used to pay down the debt and to give a tax cut. Tax cuts make a lot of sense. I am in favor of a tax cut, but the tax cut should be targeted, the tax cut should not be extravagant, and the tax cut should not jeopardize our budgeting process for the next 10 years. It should not throw us into a deficit. It should not throw us into a situation where, in order to balance the budget, we are forced to cut more and more programs. Education would be one of the programs that we would be forced to cut. Let me just start by saying also that it is an early hour. It is only 10 after 7, and I assume that large numbers of elementary school students and high school students are awake. I hope a few are listening, because on past occasions when I have had the opportunity to address the House early, I always send a special message to the children of America, to the students of America. All students out there, whether they go to public school or private school, although the great majority, more than 53 million children go to public schools, it is important for all young people to understand the kind of America we are going to live in; the kind of Nation that they are going to grow up in and provide the leadership in and begin their families in. That Nation will be determined mostly by the degree to which we address the problems related to education. It is not new. I think H. G. Wells said something, I am not sure I am quoting correctly, but Civilization is a race between education and chaos, or something similar to that. I would certainly endorse that idea. We live in a world where things are more and more complicated. And we want it that way, because as things get more complicated, we increase productivity. An individual worker can do so much more and groups can do so much more when we have highly automated systems. When we apply the digital science related to computers or mass communication, all of that creates the kind of better world that we want to make and are already in the process of making. It is what I call a cyber-civilization; a civilization that is going to be far more productive, and we can contemplate being able to actually meet the needs of all of the 6 billion people in the world. The capacity to do that is there if we fully develop the resources and educate all the people who can be educated. It is important we begin to apply the benefits of our technology, the benefits of our cyber- civilization on a widespread basis, whether that means the more efficient production of drugs that allow people to get better health care or whether it means new methods in education, automated methods, or methods using distance learning, making it possible to teach more people faster in all parts of the world. There is great possibility out there. It is a great new world that we are moving into. So it is important that the pupils, young people, students understand what we have at stake here. We are at a critical point where we have the resources now to do what is necessary to make a world-class education system, an education system which is fitted for the challenge that we face in this coming cyber-civilization. We have an education system now which is still lagging and very much mired in the old needs of an industrialized economy, when we did not have to educate everybody to the maximum degree because there was work available in the factories for people who did not know anything about computers or did not know math. Large numbers of people, in fact the vast majority 50 years ago, of the people who went to school, did not graduate from school. Most of them did not get past the 8th grade. But now we have a need for a highly educated population, and we need to think that way, we need to budget that way, we need more than the rhetoric of people who say they support education. We need to spend dollars the way we spend them on an activity like defense. We recognize that modern defense units or the modern defense systems that we have decided we need cost far more money than the old cavalry with the rifles and the wagons or the canons. Common sense says that these things cost much more money. But when it comes to education, we do not want to make the decision that we need to invest heavily in maximizing the kind of physical facilities we have; buildings, laboratories, and computers. We need to maximize that now. At this point where we have a huge budget surplus, now is the time to take those steps. Young people have to wake up and communicate with all the people in decision-making positions that they want the resources available right now to be used to invest in education. We certainly do not want to stagnate. We certainly do not want to go backwards. Young people need to tell their mayors that; tell their legislators in the State legislatures, tell their city council people and their Congress people and their Senators and the people in the White House that they do not want to go backwards and they do not want to stagnate. I apologize for even mentioning the word backwards, because that is what I am going to have to spend a little bit of time talking about. We are about to go backwards instead of going forward. We are about to go backward instead of stagnating. It is a terrible thing we stood still, but we are about to go backwards, and I want you to understand how serious that is. It is your world that is at stake. So take some action. As young people, take some action. I remember standing here on the floor at about this time, when I was able to get a 7 o'clock hour, and I invited all of you to take a drink, a toast with me. I said, young people of America, students, come out there, get a glass of milk and drink a toast, because we have just made a basic breakthrough on getting Federal funds for construction. We made a basic breakthrough on getting Federal funds for construction. It was not much, but we got agreement in the budget for $1.2 billion to be used for school renovations and building repairs. I wanted to celebrate that, so we drank a toast with a glass of milk, of fruit juice or whatever you have. I also remember congratulating the students of America for coming to our aid when we rallied to stop the rollback and the destruction of the e-rate. Remember the e-rate? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, tyrants in control of totalitarian countries like China, Serbia and Iraq consider control of the airwaves an absolute necessity. They ruthlessly enforce censorship of a kind few of us can imagine in America. Last Monday, however, I had the weird and frightening experience of being gagged by a radio station manager in my own home City of New York. It started with a routine request that I call in for a phone interview on a show hosted on Radio Station WBAI by Ken Nash which focuses on union and labor news and features. The name of the show which commences at 2 p.m. was Building Bridges. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I welcome the chance to appear on shows related to working families or unions. It is important to note that Radio Station WBAI is a nonprofit station. It runs primarily on contributions solicited from its mass of diverse listeners. Since last December, this station has experienced considerable turmoil internally and long-term producers and hosts have been fired or locked out of the station. Like many New Yorkers, I am concerned about the present and future of this vital outlet for free speech on the radio. Without knowing all of the specific tensions and confrontations within the station, I have indicated my interests in working towards the resolution of the problems hampering the continuation of the unique and robust programming of WBAI. It is important to note that I am presently seeking ways to get more avenues opened for radio free speech in my city in general. Five low-powered Haitian stations have been shut down. The survival of WBAI is vital for the entire movement seeking more access to the airwaves. The bully monopolies of commercial radio provide the continuing roadblocks to these stations. My knowledge of the reputation of certain recent appointments to the board of Pacifica Network, which is the parent nonprofit institution responsible for WBAI, leads me to conclude that there is a clear and immediate danger that attempts will be made to sell WBAI to a commercial owner. Such a sale would mean the loss of a vital voice for working families in New York City. My beliefs and point of view are considered heresy by Station Manager Utrice Leid. Without explanation or apology, she shut down the microphones and proclaimed that she had to intervene because it was her job to allow only the truth over the airwaves. The following is a summary of the statement I would have made had I not been censored and shut off: The situation at WBAI has implications far beyond this one station. Freedom of speech over the airwaves via radio, broadcast television and cable television is presently quite limited for the majority of Americans, and they are not aware of this. We have a problem of great magnitude that is not being appropriately addressed. The WBAI arrangement and structure offered one model to be emulated. As a listener supported station with a very diverse set of programs, procedures and guests, WBAI represents the optimum use of radio in the service of ordinary people. When I attended the memorial service of the late Samori Marksman, who is a former WBAI station manager, last year in the great hall of St. John's Cathedral, I saw at that funeral a more diverse assembly than I have seen anywhere in New York City. Folks from all races, religions, income levels, and political persuasions were there. There were intellectual snobs who support programs broadcasting esoteric operas mingling with radical, grassroots political activists. Indeed, as a politician, one immediate reaction I experienced as I contemplated all of the diversity and the solidarity was at that funeral I felt that some of the powerful people in powerful places would see WBAI as a threat and seek to destroy it. Mr. Speaker, WBAI represents radio freedom of speech that does not make profit for anyone. There are those who see profits being made via WBAI and other Pacifica stations. There are others in powerful stations who feel that only commercial stations should exist; or if there are public stations, they should be indirectly controlled by corporate grants and benign corporate advertisements. Some of the persons who have recently been appointed to the Pacifica Board represent such powerful commercial interests and, in my opinion, WBAI is an endangered station as long as such business predators are on the Pacifica Board. Persons far removed from the original ideals and philosophy of the founders of the Pacifica chain are not likely to promote the original intent of this very well conceived system. The basic question which must be tested as soon as possible in the courts is who owns a nonprofit entity? Who has a right to sell a nonprofit radio station? Does the original charter or licensing by the FCC permit any group of trustees or directors to treat Pacifica and WBAI as if they were commercial entities? While the Pacifica turmoil is raging, I strongly urge WBAI to seek to preserve its freedom by exploring the necessary steps to become independent of Pacifica. As a nonprofit entity, WBAI should use the university structure as a model. It should elect the board of trustees through a voting process utilizing its contributors and supporters as the voters. The trustees should be responsible for basic business operations while the producers and staff should be given a role similar to the faculty of a university. Basic freedom similar to academic freedom and tenure should be conferred upon the longstanding producers and long-term paid and unpaid staff participants. We want to preserve WBAI in New York City.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman like a new study?