Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman again for his participation. I think this is what we have to do, exactly what the gentleman has done, which is to show how in various districts around the country efforts have been made to improve the public schools, whether it is basic skills or some of the other things we discussed tonight, and that is the direction in which this Congress and this House of Representatives should be going, clearly, not in the direction of taking the resources away for vouchers or other types of plans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I expect to be joined in a few minutes by one of my colleagues. This evening I would like to talk about the efforts that have been made by the Republican leadership to move various legislation which I consider essentially an attack on public education in this country. Democrats, for a long time, certainly throughout this Congress, have stressed the need for this Congress to address education in various ways. We started out during the debate on the Balanced Budget Act this summer stressing the need for better access to higher education. In fact, as a result of President Clinton's efforts and the efforts of the Democrats joining with him, we were able to include in the Balanced Budget Act, when it passed, some significant measures that would provide more access to higher education for the average American in terms of expanding student loan programs, providing tax deductions or tax credits that make it easier for the average American, the working American, to pay for college education or graduate education. But now, after the Balanced Budget Act was passed, and certainly starting this fall, we have talked increasingly about the need to address the problems in our public schools, but in a very positive way. Our feeling is that the public schools in America are in pretty good shape but they certainly need improvement and that there are various ways to go about improving them. One of the areas that we have talked about the most is the need to address the public school infrastructure. The fact of the matter is there are many public schools that have great need for repairs or even new construction because of expanded enrollment but do not have the ability within their school district to pay for those school construction or renovation needs. In addition, there is the whole issue of basic skills; that more needs to be done to improve learning with regard to basic skills in the various public schools. And the Democrats have actually come up with a whole series of ideas about ways to improve public education, which I may get into this evening with some of my colleagues. But before I do that, I wanted to talk about the fact that instead of emphasizing the need to improve the public schools, where better than 90 percent of America's students are enrolled, the Republican leadership, at least in the last few weeks, has instead embarked on an effort to try to take away resources, taxpayer dollars, from the public schools and use them, or credit them, to private or religious school initiatives. Now, the best example of that was 2 weeks ago, before we adjourned for the district work period, the Speaker actually brought to the floor as part of the D.C., District of Columbia, appropriation bill a private school voucher program. It was a provision that would basically have provided funding to a very limited number of students within the District of Columbia, I think 2,000, approximately, which is really a drop in the bucket in terms of the number of students in the D.C. Public schools, and allowed them to take that voucher and use it for private schools either in the District of Columbia or in surrounding States. This provision initially failed to pass the House, and the reason it failed to pass was essentially because most Members, and I am one of them, do not believe that it makes sense to take resources that could be used for things like school construction in the District of Columbia, which has a great need for school construction and renovation, and instead use that money to pay for private education. The Speaker did not have the votes, actually, for the D.C. appropriation bill, in part because of the voucher provision, but what he did was he held the vote open and he twisted some fellow Republican arms to change their votes so he finally got a majority of one to pass the bill. Despite this near failure, and I say near failure, because the way it was done it was clearly an indication that this was not a measure that had the support of a majority within this House of Representatives, but nonetheless, even with that, keeping that in mind, the Speaker is now once again, and the Republican leadership is now once again taking another step in this same direction, taking resources that could be used for public education and using them to pour taxpayer dollars into private and religious schools. This was a provision that was originally proposed in the Senate by Senator Coverdell. He has called it an education savings account but, essentially, it primarily benefits wealthy families. It allows them to basically provide tax-free funds that would be used to pay for private education. Now, Democrats, and I believe this is coming up tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but Democrats basically will put forth an alternative that will use this money for school construction bonds to help public schools that are in disrepair or in need of new construction. Without getting into the specifics of this provision, which I oppose, I am trying to make the point, and I think we as Democrats are making the point, that we need to improve the public schools rather than siphon Federal dollars for private schools. We should not be giving up on the public schools. The public schools are where most of our children are educated. We have had an historic commitment to public schools in this country and, if anything, and I feel very strongly, we should be moving a Democratic initiative, which we have discussed and which our Democratic task force has put forward, that would provide improvements for public education rather than siphoning off this money for private and religious schools. I see one of the cochairs of the Democratic education task force, which has taken the initiative to put forward these principles for America's public schools, my colleague from North Carolina, is here. I was going to briefly, if I could, just outline some of the principles that the gentleman and his task force have put together, just to juxtapose those to what the Republican leadership has been trying to do in the last couple of weeks, and if I could just mention six very briefly. These are the principles for America's public schools. First, an emphasis on academic excellence in the basics; second, well-trained, motivated teachers to help children achieve high standards; third, using public dollars to improve public schools rather than private school vouchers at public expense, which we have discussed; fourth, the Federal role in education that supports local initiatives for strong neighborhood public schools; fifth, empower parents to choose the best public school for their children; and, sixth, every child should have access to a safe, well-equipped public school. Again, the task force does not take the position they are opposed to choice, but the choice should be in the public schools. We do not want to take taxpayer dollars and use them for private education. I would like at this time to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge], who has taken the lead on this and who has been so well-spoken because of his background and experience on the issue of public education.

Mr. PALLONE. What the gentleman has laid out there I think is very impressive and it really shows what can be accomplished in just a few years. I think that that is what we need to do. We need to emphasize here on the floor of the House how certain school districts have been very effective in improving basic skills and improving other aspects of public education. Because my whole point is that there are some really excellent examples of what can be done in the public schools and that I think generally most people are satisfied with the public school system but they would like to see some improvements. Our point as Democrats has been throughout this debate, and it will continue throughout this session of Congress, that you should not be spending resources for private education when you can actually do things with some Federal help, if necessary, that would improve significantly education in the public schools. I think this is a very good example of that. The gentleman was very much involved in putting forward this Democratic agenda for first class public schools. I just mentioned briefly some of those points that the task force brought together. But just to provide a little more detail, and maybe we can go back and forth and talk about some of these things, with regard to just the two issues of early childhood development, Basics by Six, and well- trained teachers, the task force, Democratic task force, mentioned a couple of things. First of all, they said there should be the opportunity for every child to be ready to learn by the time he or she enters kindergarten, invest in early intervention, community-based programs such as Early Start, Head Start, engage parents and community stakeholders in the needs of at-risk children, use schools all day as the center of the communities for the services children need, including before and after school. Then for well-trained teachers, that was the second point, help communities recruit and train well-qualified teachers who are certified in the subjects they teach, hire enough qualified teachers to bring down student-to-teacher ratios, incentives for qualified teachers to teach in high-need areas and strengthen parents' rights to know about teacher qualifications. I think the point here is, because the last chart, and I think the one before, this certainly was from grades three to eight in both cases. That is eighth grade there, is that if you were able to get these kids even before they get to the third grade ready to learn, so to speak, it would make a big difference. But, again, the teachers, and having qualified teachers is an important part of this, and particularly bringing down that teacher-student ratio, because I would assume it is very difficult to improve basic skills if you have huge classrooms and because of the problems that result from having a very high level of students versus the number of teachers.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could quote from today's Washington Post editorial: This bill shows the House at its worst. The bill has been loaded down with heavy ideological and political baggage that ultimately may doom the city's $4.2 billion budget if it reaches the White House. There is a good chance that the school voucher add-on to the appropriations bill will invite a Presidential veto. The House of Representatives need not do this to the Nation's Capital or to itself. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have made education a top priority this Congress, and our emphasis has been on improving public schools, including raising educational standards and addressing infrastructure needs. My concern is that the Republican leadership, after trying to make the deepest education cuts in history last year, are now emphasizing vouchers to pay for private schools as a way to reform our education system. In my opinion, vouchers will not help public schools; just the opposite. They will drain away resources that could be used to improve public school standards and rebuild crumbling or overcrowded schools. The Republican leadership's latest experiment with vouchers will be considered today as part of this bill. As much as $45 million in Federal funds will be made available for pay for private education for only 3 percent of the District of Columbia students. This GOP voucher plan provides a select few D.C. public school students, about 2,000, with vouchers, while providing no answers for the 76,000 students left behind in the D.C. public schools. The D.C. public schools, like all of America's schools, need to be improved, not abandoned. The GOP voucher plan is nothing but a strategy of failure, of giving up on the Nation's public schools here and throughout this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the Moran substitute. Let us take out the voucher program and all of the other ideological and political baggage that hurts the District of Columbia and will delay passage of this appropriation bill that is so vital to the city of Washington's future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing that I think is so crucial is that a lot of people are not even aware of the fact that right now we are not providing the funding even for Head Start. My understanding is that only about even less than half of the kids that are eligible for Head Start, which basically goes from 4 to 5, are now in a program. So even if we were just able to expand the amount of money available for Head Start and allow those eligible kids to be participating in that, that would go far. Early Start, less than 2 percent who are eligible are being cared for. So the gentleman, and my colleague also, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, they are talking about, really, trying to make a major investment here that we need to make, but it is not being made. I do not want our constituents out there to think that right now Head Start is fully funded, because it is not. There are long waiting lines. I know in my district a lot of these Head Start programs, they have long waiting lines for the kids to get in, and they have not been able to accommodate even half of the kids that want to participate and are eligible.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, the other thing I wanted to mention, I know that my colleague from North Carolina touched upon it as well, is that Head Start now and Early Start and the legislation that the gentleman has proposed for expanding Early Start, basically it is not just a situation where we are providing child care; we are also providing parents with parenting skills and families with support skills. I have seen in the Head Start programs where they try to get the parents involved. It is amazing to me sometimes how little some parents know about basically raising kids or doing certain things. I remember when I was, going back to my own experience again, I remember when I was in the hospital when my first child was born, my daughter Rose Marie. And at that time they had not changed the insurance yet so you were able to stay a few extra days in the hospital and then, of course, we got into the whole thing with the HMOs and the managed care tried to cut back on that. We had to pass a law to extend the days again. But they would have programs with the mothers and some fathers, too, where they would teach you how to bathe the child or do different things. I was surprised because a lot of people really did not know how to do some of these things. One of the nice things about the Head Start program and Early Start is not that we are just talking about bathing skills, but they really do try to get the parents involved and teach them skills so it is not just a question of just providing funding for child care. This is a way of providing support and getting people together so that they become more self-sufficient ultimately. There are even programs involved in some of the Head Start programs where they will get involved in employment and help people find jobs, that type of thing. So it is a whole, there is a lot involved. I just think it is so wonderful that you are talking about expanding this. I just wish that it were possible one day that every child who was eligible for Head Start and every child who is eligible for Early Start was able to take advantage of it. We know how successful it is, not only for the child but also for the whole family experience.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just interrupt for a moment, one of the things that I often notice with little kids, and I do not know how young we can go, but obviously very small kids, is if the parents are bilingual, or if they know one, two, three or more languages, that the kids very easily go back and forth between the languages. Yet if you go a few years later, you cannot learn the language. It is much harder. Is that basically the explanation for that?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to keep using my own experience, but I cannot help it. When I listen to my colleague, the gentleman from Maine, talk about the interaction, he pointed out how it is important for kids at that age not only to interact with their parents, but even to interact with other kids. One of the things that I notice with my son, who is 2\1/2\ now, is how much he has learned from just interaction with his older sister, who is 4. And she did not have that advantage because she was by herself. She was not able to have somebody who was teaching her. But it is just constant. She will pick up a book and she will say, can we read? And neither one of them can read, but they sit there and try to make up the stories as they look at the pictures, and just the advantages that some kids have. Obviously we can buy them the videotape and they will learn something from the videotape. We have books we can provide them. If a kid is at home and does not have the books and the opportunity, maybe if they go and spend some time in child care, where there is someone who provides them with the educational materials and has other children there who will interact with them, it makes such a difference. I can just see it myself. I just want to stress that, because it is really crucial.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman. I listened to what the gentleman said, and I have watched this amazing development with the 3 children, in Celeste's case, only 10 days now, and what the gentleman said is true. I feel bad because I am not always there and my wife has to do the interaction most of the time, because we are down here in Washington and they are back in New Jersey. But it is amazing how they begin to learn from the very beginning, and the environmental factors are so important. I watch my wife, who just insists on reading to them and having books around all the time, and stressing the importance of learning the alphabet and watching programs on TV that provide instruction in pre- reading skills, and it is just so crucial. We can just see that they are absorbing everything every day, and if they are not constantly involved in some way in an effort to learn, they will not learn as quickly. So that really has brought home to me the value of what we are trying to do by expanding Head Start to reach out to children from zero to 3. I think it is so crucial. It is just one of the most important things we can do in terms of investing in education, and in the long term providing children as they are growing up with a really good start, so to speak, so that they learn and they can become valuable members of society. I have a lot more to say about the gentleman's bill, but there are other Members here, and maybe I can defer to them and come back to some of the other things that I wanted to point out.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, there is no question about that. Not to keep being partisan, because I do not want to just say bad things about our Republican colleagues, but the bottom line is that the Republican leadership in the last few years has repeatedly tried to cut back or even eliminate some of the education programs that impact the secondary schools, impact the kindergarten-through-12 grade level. For example, Goals 2000, which provides a small amount of money to local school districts to try innovative programs in the public schools, they have repeatedly said that they did not want to fund any more. But tonight, as part of this education agenda, we are stressing early childhood development. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Allen] has been a leader. The bill that he mentioned, the Early Learning and Opportunity Act, is a tremendous piece of legislation, and if we do manage to get it passed in this Republican Congress, I think it will go far towards helping basically low-income families, primarily, but a lot of people, get an early start in teaching their children to read, speak and interact with others. It basically dovetails with the existing Head Start program, but starts the kids at an earlier age. Head Start, from what I understand right now, is strictly above 3 years old. There is the Early Start program that the gentleman mentioned which deals with kids under 3, but that is a very small program. I think the statistics show that Early Start impacts or enrolls less than 2 percent of the eligible kids, whereas Head Start reaches about half of the eligible kids. So both programs need to be expanded, but the gentleman is zeroing in on the zero-to-3. I just wanted to say from my own experience, right now I have a 4- year-old, a 2\1/2\-year-old, and a baby that was just born 10 days ago, my daughter, Celeste.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for leading this special order tonight, because as he mentioned, the topic is early childhood development, but this is really part of the overall Democratic education agenda. As Democrats, we as a party from the very beginning of this Congress, and even before this Congress, have said that it is important that we prioritize education. I know our colleagues before were talking about the budget, and the gentleman and I and my colleague here from Maine and others were all very insistent that during that balanced budget debate, that education, primarily higher education, be prioritized. We managed to basically tell the Republicans on the other side that if they did not put in programs so that there would be more money available for higher education, we would not agree to the budget, the proposal that they put forward.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats strongly oppose spending taxpayer dollars on private and religious schools and have argued for making the necessary improvements in public schools instead. This week the Republicans hope to pass a bill that would make Washington, DC the first victim in a grand scheme to undermine public schools through taxpayer funded vouchers for private or religious schools. As much as $45 million in Federal funds would be made available to pay for private education for about 3 percent of the District of Columbia's students. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it makes no sense to take away $45 million that could be made available to the city of Washington to improve basic skills or to fix deteriorated buildings in the public schools and instead use this money for private schools. With 9 out of 10 children in America attending public schools, Democrats understand that we need to rebuild and reform public schools, not destroy them and waste public funding on private schools. I hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in moving a positive agenda for public education rather than wasting our time on vouchers.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I will not go on too long, because I know my colleague from Texas would like to speak as well, but what I see the Republican leadership trying to do is to sort of give the impression that the public school system has failed and we need to look for alternatives now. And that is not what I am getting from my constituents. They believe that the public school system is generally doing OK. It needs improvement, but they do not want to sacrifice it at the expense of or in order to fund a voucher program that primarily sends resources to private schools. They have a sense of community. They like their public school. They want to see it improved. So let us not just throw it to the wind and say, look, it cannot be repaired. The bottom line is that if we spend some money and spend some Federal dollars the way the Democrats and the way the gentleman's task force has proposed on emphasizing academic excellence, better training of teachers, and there are a whole slew of things, we have not even talked tonight about the safe and well-equipped schools as well, if we spend money on those things and we improve the public schools, then I think that is money well spent. And that is where our constituents are saying they would like to see the dollars spent. I wanted to briefly say, and I know we have talked about this, but again when we talk about the magnitude of the problem in terms of school overcrowding and the needs because of dilapidated schools, it is really overwhelming. Just some general statistics here. The General Accounting Office has said that approximately one-third of all schools serving 14,000,000 students are in need of substantial repair or outright replacement. School enrollment, 1996-97 school year. Elementary and secondary school enrollment was a record 51.7 million. That has been broken by this year's high enrollment of 52.2 million. So the number of kids entering the system is increasing rapidly and the demand for more schools is there. And it is not even repairing the infrastructure, but it is also the high-technology needs. As we move into the high-technology era, the computers, the ability to access the Internet. Very few schools have the ability, have the needed infrastructure to access the Internet. They do not have the money to buy the computers. All we are really saying, I think, is that if the Federal Government was able to spend a small amount of money and leverage, most of the time, in terms of infrastructure need, the gentleman mentioned it before, local school districts bond for infrastructure needs. But what the President has talked about and, unfortunately, as the gentleman mentioned, was not included in this budget, was the fact that we should use Federal dollars to leverage and pay the interest costs on a lot bonding, it allows more school construction and repairs to take place, and it allows the local school districts to make those kinds of investments at less of a cost over the long term. So that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about anything that is going to violate the basic concept that funding and control is still local with regard to our education system. Because that is what America has always been about: Local education. But there is no reason, just like we do with sewage infrastructure or roads or everything else, why not have some Federal dollars to help the local municipality pay some of these costs.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green] said, in particular with regard to the effects of overcrowded classrooms or decaying schools. There is no question that it affects the quality of education provided to students. It is much more difficult, and I know my colleague from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] mentioned, as well, it is much more difficult to learn in an environment where the building is crumbling around you or the situation where there are too many students in the classroom. Of course it is true, as my colleague said, that some teachers can teach in the worst situation in the world and some students can learn in the worst situation. But, unfortunately, those are often exceptions, and the reality is, we have to see how the average student is impacted. The one thing that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green] mentioned, though, that I particularly want to draw attention to is, it is really ironic that this week, I think it is either Wednesday or Thursday of this week on this floor, we are going to be considering this Republican amendment that would adopt a voucher system in the District of Columbia. I do not know if it was the last time, but certainly in early September, when the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge] and I, and I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green], we were all here and we were talking about how the schools in the District of Columbia were closed, I believe, for at least 3 weeks, in some cases maybe even more, because the Federal judge in the District of Columbia had ruled that the conditions in the schools were so bad, that the infrastructure conditions were so bad that she, I think it was a woman judge, insisted that the schools be closed until the money was spent to repair the schools. Now, we have been talking about infrastructure and we have been talking about vouchers all night. But here we have a situation where probably the infrastructure problem in the District of Columbia is one of the worst in the Nation, to the point where they could not even open the schools. I am sure the judge was motivated by the fact that it was going to be a bad learning experience for these kids and it was going to be hard for them to learn, given these buildings and the shape they were in. And here, where there is such a great need for money to repair schools, we are proposing a voucher system, which I do not know how many, I think there are a few thousand kids that are going to be impacted by it. Why not spend that money on the infrastructure needs when the court has actually had to step in and close the schools for that reason? Again, it points at directly how the need is there and yet we are wasting the resources. In fact, in some cases, I understand these kids might not even be in the District, they might actually be going to Virginia or Maryland or some other places for their education. I am not here to defend the District of Columbia and its school system. I am sure there are bad conditions and there are problems, and they have been documented. But it does not make any sense to me to say, okay, forget about that; Let it continue to deteriorate, and we will just set up this voucher system.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think we are running out of time, but I just wanted to, if I could, follow up on what the gentleman from North Carolina said. The gentleman from Texas mentioned earlier about Goals 2000, and we know that the Republicans have many times opposed Goals 2000 and asked that it not be funded. But in my home State of New Jersey we have received funding from Goals 2000. And one of the things that we have done with that funding, and it has been very successful, is not only do testing statewide, but also use the results of that testing to develop core curriculum. One of the goals of the Democratic education task force that the gentleman cochairs is to emphasize academic excellence in the basics. I think that across the country people understand that we need to have excellence in the basics. Obviously, curricula will vary from one school district to the next, or one State to the next. That is the way it should be. That is the American way. But the basics, students need to learn how to read and write. They need basic science courses. These are the kinds of things they need if they are going to be successful. There is absolutely no reason why the Federal Government cannot provide money to the States to help develop core curriculum, in some cases do testing, to do what the States think needs to be done on a voluntary basis to improve basic skills. I do not think anybody is against that. If they are, I do not care, because I think they are wrong. We need basic skills.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again, this proposal, the one that the Republicans knocked down, was very flexible in how the money could be used. I know the gentleman from Texas talked about computers or technology infrastructure, whatever. I just have a list here. It can be used just for basic building purposes, but it also can be used for health and safety problems, with plumbing, heating and lighting; it can be used to improve energy efficiency; it can be used for all kinds of educational technologies, such as communications, closets, electrical systems, power outlets, all of that goes to the computers; and also for after school learning centers, community projects that are linked to the schools. I know the gentleman from North Carolina has mentioned in the past in different special orders how increasingly schools are learning centers for all kinds of activities, not only during the school day but after school, for extracurricular programs, sports, adult education. So this is a very flexible proposal that can be used for all of those different things.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for initiating this special order tonight. I know he is probably the most knowledgeable person in the House of Representatives on education issues, primarily because he has lived through it and he knows what he is talking about. He is dealing with these situations firsthand, which is what we really need when we are dealing with education and other issues here in the House of Representatives. A couple of things the gentleman mentioned here this evening I want to sort of reiterate or go into a little more. First of all, I did listen to some of our Republican colleagues a little earlier when they were talking about the budget and taking credit for achieving or at least trying to achieve a balanced budget. It is certainly good we did pass the balanced budget proposal, and I do believe that it will achieve a balanced budget, but I would mention that the Democrats fought very hard not only to achieve a balanced budget but also to make sure that there was funding in that budget bill for education priorities. And we made a point, as did the President, that we were not going to go along with the bill unless the Republicans changed their policies and provided a significant amount of funding for education priorities. A lot of the money that was targeted by the Democrats in that bill went to higher education, because, as the gentleman knows, the cost of higher education has skyrocketed in recent years, in the last decade, or even the last 20 years. And what we were trying to do was to provide programs, tax credits, ways to provide additional funding to students through their parents or through their own families so that they would have access to quality higher education. I think we succeeded. I am not saying we totally succeeded, because costs are still going up, but we have at least provided some tax credits and some deductions and some scholarship and some expansion that makes more money available for those who do not have it; primarily middle-class students. But what we need to turn our attention to now, and what the gentleman from North Carolina described, is primarily before a person goes to college, secondary schools, grammar school, kindergarten, even preschool. That is where the Democrats now are prioritizing what we think this Congress should do. I know the gentleman in particular has cochaired the Democratic Task Force on Education, which has come up with a number of basic principles that I think really set the standard for what kind of legislation and what priorities we should have in this Congress on education issues. The gentleman mentioned a couple of those, but I wanted to zero in on two. One is, of course, the main purpose of our debate this evening, and that is the need to basically provide for the education infrastructure. We know that schools are overcrowded. We know that a lot of them need repair. We know a lot of local school districts need to build new schools because there is so much of an increase in enrollment. The gentleman also mentioned the fact that the Federal role here should be primarily to support public education and not take dollars away from public education through a voucher system that primarily supports private education. One of the things that I think needs to be stressed, and I know the gentleman mentioned it but I am going to stress it again, is that throughout this debate that will be occurring in the next few weeks, actually beginning this week with the D.C. appropriations bill, what needs to be stressed is not so much that many of us, including myself, are opposed to vouchers, but that we feel that vouchers take money away from public schools. In other words, if we had all the money in the world, we had money growing on trees, so to speak, around here, and we were able to say, OK, let us try a little experiment where we send a few thousand kids in the District of Columbia or in the State of New Jersey or North Carolina to try on an experimental basis a voucher system, I might say, OK, why not. That is a small experiment. A few thousand kids here or there. We will try it and see what the result is. But the problem here is that our public schools are strapped for funds. We know when we talk about the infrastructure problems how strapped for funds they are. So for us to talk in the context of that and say we are going to take resources away from these public schools, where it could be spent on good programs in these public schools, whether it is infrastructure or it is academic excellence or it is training teachers, whatever it happens to be, and we are going to take those dollars and we are going to spend them on voucher systems for private or parochial schools, I do not think that is fair. I think that is counter to the interests of the public school education that the overwhelming majority, I think it is better than 90 percent of the students are educated in public schools. So we need to stress to our constituents, and I explain this all the time, that the voucher system is not without cost and impact on the public schools, and that is the problem that I have with it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on some of the things that my colleague from Texas said about the way that we are talking about proceeding with this school construction Federal funding. I know the gentleman from North Carolina mentioned basically the legislative proposal. There have been various proposals, but essentially what we are talking about is to provide these intra subsidies, if you will, for new construction and renovation. When we were talking about the President's budget, the program that was actually negated, if you will, by the Republicans, that was a $5 billion Federal jump start that had a goal of increasing school construction by 25 percent over the next 4 years. But what the gentleman from Texas mentioned, and I think is so important, is that generally, my understanding, it is certainly true in New Jersey, I think in almost every State, is that in order to finance school construction through bonding, one usually has to go to a local referendum to do that. Part of the reason why local school districts have turned down the bond proposals is because of the exorbitant costs. They cannot necessarily get a good package or get financing at a low interest rate because of maybe the nature of the district, or I do not know how much State funding they get, or whatever. So we are not forcing anybody to do anything here. What we are saying is if there is a district that needs some help in terms of their putting together a package and doing the financing, the Federal Government is out there to help to provide an intra subsidy, and the idea would be then that the local school district and the voters would still have to approve the bond issue, but it would be more attractive to them because it would be at a lower interest rate and they would have some subsidy, if you will, coming from the Federal Government. So it is more likely that this is going to help those districts that are having problems getting the financing, because it will make it more attractive to the voters and make it easier to pass these bond issues, is my understanding. But again, it is strictly voluntary. Nobody is stepping in from the Federal Government telling them what to do. If one is willing to spend the money, and the school districts are still going to have to spend the majority of the money on this, it just makes it a lot easier for them to do that. To me, that is exactly what the role of the Federal Government should be doing, trying to help the school districts that want to help themselves. They have the need, they are having difficulty obtaining the financing, and we step in and we make it a lot easier to do so. But that can go very far in my understanding, just from my own experience in New Jersey, that kind of subsidy can go very far towards achieving the goal of having a lot more renovation, a lot of new schools constructed, just that little bit of Federal help, so to speak.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Republican colleagues, and they use very sinister language. They try to give the impression that those of us on this side are the ones, that the people that voted for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Loretta Sanchez] are all illegals or criminals, I think I heard the term, or otherwise badly motivated people. This sinister language borders on racism. I have to say that, because it really concerns me. They claim, they claim to be so self-righteous, but they are the ones that are seeking to tear up the Constitution here tonight in this House of Representatives that we value so much. They know that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] was duly elected and certified by the State of California. What gives the Republican leadership the right to overturn her election? Because they are the majority here in Washington? If the majority here determines what happens in Orange County, CA, then we have the worst form of tyranny that the Founders of this country sought to guard against in the Constitution. This is an effort to intimidate voters, specifically Hispanic voters. Republicans want Hispanic and other minority voters to stay home at election time. I listened to what the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Sheila Jackson- Lee] said. I remember that election in New Jersey when those warnings were put up at the polling places, and I saw armed guards in camouflage and guns, I do not know if they were real guns, but they tried to give the impression that they had guns, because they did not want minorities to vote. Mr. Speaker, what is going on here is not right. It needs to end. Let us start right now by defeating this rule and defeating the underlying resolution. This resolution is nothing but a hoax to try to hide what they are really trying to do here, and that is steal this election from the voters of Orange County and the American people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I missed nine recorded votes while I was in New Jersey bringing my newborn daughter and wife home from the hospital today. If I had been present, my vote would have been cast as follows: Rollcall vote 465, motion to adjourn, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 466, the Journal, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 467, the rule for H.R. 2203 conference report, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 468, energy and water appropriations conference report, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 469, previous question for House Resolution 255, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 470, motion to rise, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 471, motion to rise, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 472, the Evans amendment to H.R. 1370, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 473, the LaFalce amendment to H.R. 1370, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, the motion to adjourn, and rollcall No. 461, the continuing resolution, I was unable to be present because of the birth, and I am very happy, the birth of my daughter, Celeste Teresa. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both of these rollcall votes.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] along the same lines. Even though this may sound a little bureaucratic, it is important. If we look at the proposed legislation, it says it will ensure that trade and environmental protection are mutually supportive, and it in fact even serves to limit consideration of the environment to foreign government policies and practices regarding the environment that are directly related to trade. It limits the ability of the United States to deal with environmental issues by requiring that negotiations take place through the World Trade Organization. My point is that if we look at the language of what is being proposed, not only does it not adequately protect the environment and guarantee that the environment is addressed directly in these subsequent agreements that are negotiated, but it may even limit the ability to do that. So it does not in any way satisfy our concerns.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what I think that the administration is telling us now is that they are willing to put negotiating objectives in the fast track legislation that would include specific references to the environment. But I do not believe that that is going to accomplish our goal because that will not require that environmental agreements actually be included as part of the treaties that we negotiate.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for all of the work that he has done in opposition to the fast track legislation and the way that it has been handled so far. I know that one of the concerns that the gentleman mentioned, too, and I was listening, is the need to protect the environment as well as the health and safety of American families. One of the concerns that I have had is that so far we are hearing mainly the suggestion that there would be additional environmental side agreements, that somehow the environment would be addressed in further trade agreements with other countries in the same way that it was with NAFTA as a side agreement to the initial treaty, and my concern is that that does not adequately protect the environment, that that is not the way to go about it. In fact, what we have learned is that in the case of NAFTA, the environmental side agreement, if you will, has basically resulted in the number of factories along this very heavily-polluted United States- Mexican border, the number of factories has actually increased by 20 percent, so pollution problems are getting worse. Also, little is being done to ensure that new facilities are complying with environmental standards. Something like 44 tons of hazardous waste that is illegally dumped by these border factories every day are not being cleaned up. In fact, there was a commitment to spend, I think, as much as $2 billion to do cleanup along the border, and none of that money has been spent.