Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
54977689
label
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Appeals [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
54977689
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Appeals [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Bethany Little's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
54977689
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367454-20130371S-008-010-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f8e29b4dd437e4ee
ocrText
12/19/13 THU 22:45 FAX
0
001
SPELMAN CHRIST COLLEGE
SECURITY
CC: Bruce Reed
BRIOF
1881
Office of the President
October 19, 1999
350 Spelman Lane, S.W.
Adanta, Georgia 30314-4399
Phone 404-223-1400
Fax 404-215-7929
Mr. John Podesta
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
1st Floor, West Wing
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. Podesta:
On behalf of Spelman College and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education (NAFEO), I am writing to respectfully request your support and immediate assistance
during your work on the final stages of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill. During
your congressional deliberations, Spelman College and NAFEO ask that you:
Provide increased funding for Title III, Part B--$165 million is requested for the
undergraduate program and $40 million is requested for the graduate program (Section
326). Please support any efforts to increase funding for this critically needed program;
Provide $4 million in funding and encourage the Department of Education to fund a
technical assistance and resource center to serve the HBCU community. The center
would assist our schools with student financial aid management, grant writing, research,
replication of best practices, reaccreditation, information dissemination and other capacity-
building efforts;
Encourage the Department of Education to provide $8 million to fund an HBCU GEAR-
UP Demonstration, should funding for the GEAR-UP program be provided. The project
will involve a consortium of four HBCUs and four school districts. The project would
evaluate the efficacy of HBCUs in mentoring, enrolling and graduating students from both
rural and urban areas;
Provide $17.8 million, the fully authorized remaining balance for historic preservation
efforts at HBCUs, and include budget neutral report language that encourages the
National Park Service to develop a plan to address the historic preservation needs of
HBCUs and to report its recommendation to Congress.
12/19/13 THU 22:46 FAX
I
002
Page 2
October 19, 1999
I am encouraged by the interest that you and others have shown in issues affecting predominantly
and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Now, we are at a point where the
appropriations process is coming to a conclusion. Thus far, our successes have been modest.
While we appreciate the proposed increases for the Pell Grant and TRIO Programs and the fact
that our priority programs have not been cut, none of our top initiatives have been funded at the
level requested by the President. Moreover, the House funding recommendations for the Work-
Study Programs cause great concern, as well as lower funding levels for other critical education
programs. Therefore, continued support for an increased investment in education is needed now
more than ever when the economy of the new millennium will require an educated workforce.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. Spelman College and the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education thank you for all you do in "keeping the
doors of opportunity open."
Sincerely,
Anary Marley Audrey Manley
President
OCT 27 '99 18:16 FR SEN JEFF BINGAMAN
202 224 2852 TO 94565581
P.02/02
NATIONAL
Michael O. Leavice
Raymond C. Scheppach
GOVERNORS
Governor of Utah
Executive Director
Chairman
ASSOCIATION
Hall of the States
Parris N. Glendening
444 North Capitol Street
Governor of Maryland
Washington. D.C. 20001-1512
Vice Chairman
Telephone (202) 624-5300
http://www.nga.org
October 7. 1999
The Honorable Senator Jeff Bingaman
703 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bingaman:
On behalf of the nation's Governors. I write to express our strong support for your amendment to
provide states with additional funds to help turn around schools that arc failing to provide a quality
education for Title I students.
As you know, under current law, states are permitted to reserve one-half of one percent of their Title I
monies to administer the Title I program and provide schools with additional assistance. However.
this small setaside does not provide the states with sufficient funds to improve the quality of Title I
schools. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education noted that the "capacity of state school
support teams to assist schools in need of improvement of Title I is a major concern." The programs
authorized to fund such improvement efforts have not been funded. As a result, states have been
unable to provide such services. According to "Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final
Report of the National Assessment of Title I." in 1998, only eight states reported that school support
teams had been able to serve the majority of schools identified as needing improvement. In twenty-
four states, Title I directors reported more schools in need of school support teams than Title I could
assist.
Earlier this year, the National Governors' Association (NGA) adopted an education policy that
recognizes the important role of the states in providing technical assistance to local school districts to
help them implement federal education programs. In addition, the policy calls for full implementation
of the current Title I accountability provisions, including the requirements that states intervene in low
performing schools. However, the policy calls on the federal government to provide states with
sufficient funds to enable states to provide school districts with the tools to meet federal program
requirements. Your amendment would provide such funding. Therefore, NGA supports your
amendment and will urge other Senators to support the adoption of it.
We look forward to working with you towards the enactment of this and other provisions that will help
states improve the quality of services provided to Title I students.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Scheppach
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINAhouse.gov/WH/New/htm1/19991022.html
But it's not enough. I am glad that we have virtually opened the doors of college to all
people with the HOPE Scholarships and the expanded Pell grants. I am glad we probably
will succeed in connecting all of our classrooms to the Internet by 2000, except in the places
where the school buildings are literally too decrepid to accept the wiring. I am glad that we
have dramatically increased our investment in after-school programs. But there is more to
do.
I am very proud that the idea of standards is now taking root around the country. In 1996
listen to this -- in 1996, there were only 14 states in the country that had measurable
standards for student performance. Today there are 50. But there are still only about a dozen
that have genuine accountability measures when the standards aren't met, and aggressive
strategies to identify failing schools and to turn them around. North Carolina does; that's
one of the reasons they've had the best increases in student performance in the country. But
all over the country, you see test scores going up even in the poorest inner-city and rural
schools.
Now, I say that -- and I gave you all this introductory information -- to try to set the proper
context for the present budget debate. To most Americans, it's a lot of numbers and a lot of
noise. To most Americans, it's the Republicans making the absurd claim that the Democrats
want to spend the Social Security surplus -- which has nothing to do with anything that's
really going on up there.
But there are things going on in the budget debate, which are, in some ways, different from
the ones we've had in the past, but still very important. When it comes to education, the
debate is not so much about money anymore, as it is about values, priorities, and direction.
Not just about how much we spend, but how we spend it. And a big part of this debate is
about honoring our obligation to our children and our future. I was glad that you said your
classes were smaller, but still not small enough. (Laughter.) There are many, many tens of
thousands who can make that statement because we had the biggest class, biggest student
load in history.
So last year, right before the election when everybody said you know, there was so much
acrimony in Washington, we can never get anything done, we passed this remarkable
education budget that provided more funds for after-school programs and a big down
payment on my commitment for 100,000 more teachers to lower class sizes -- first in the
early grades and then, when those class size numbers are met, the districts can have the
money to use it elsewhere.
And it was wonderful. The money we appropriated was enough for about 30,000 of those
100,000 teachers, which is a lot in one year. It took us, for example, five years to get to our
goal of 100,000 police officers. So I look forward to coming back this year and taking the
second tranche. And imagine my surprise when the leadership of the Republican Congress,
who had gone home and happily campaigned on this, and how it might have been a
Republican program because there was no bureaucracy, we just gave the school districts the
money and they hired the teachers, all of a sudden voted to do away with it. Not only not to
expand it above 30,000 but to take away the requirement that the money that was going to
the teachers, go to them.
Now, I don't understand exactly what's going on, but I do intend to stop it if I can because I
think that's a mistake. That's bad educational policy. We need to help the school districts
hire more teachers. Last year we agreed and we should do it again. So one of the things the
budget debate is all about is whether we will continue our commitment to help our schools
hire 100,000 well-qualified teachers. And we have to reject the idea that we can't raise both
the numbers of teachers in the classroom and the standards we hold them to.
Our budget invests in improving teacher quality. We know one of the most important
4 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINGADShouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991022.html
factors in a child's educational success is a trained, dedicated, talented teacher. And through
your good work, we're adding more and more, and I intend to keep supporting you in every
way I can. (Applause.) And I hope that as time goes on we'll get more explicit support from
the majority in Congress for this program, because it's so important.
For all the good work you're doing, the fact is a quarter of all secondary school teachers
don't have college majors or even minors in the subjects they teach. Students with the
highest minority enrollment have less than a 50-50 chance of having a math or science
teacher with a license or degree in the field. Now, we can do better than that. And we have
to.
I think we should require states and school districts receiving federal funds to stop the
practice of allowing children to be taught by uncertified teachers -- school districts should
do that. (Applause.) So when we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
one of the things we ought to do is to say, if you want the federal money, this is one of the
things you have to do. I think it's important. That's one of the things that our debate is all
about.
But we also have to invest. I've asked Congress to invest in recruiting, training and
supporting high-quality teachers in high-poverty areas. We have offered scholarships to a
number of people that go to school and then, in effect, wipe off the cost of their education if
they will go into areas where there is a high need. I have asked for an expansion of the
Troops for Teachers Initiative, which has already helped 3,000 active duty soldiers, who
were planning to leave the military anyway, find rewarding second career in teaching in our
public schools.
The budget bill, even though it has quite a lot of money in it -- for reasons I don't
understand -- underfunds the teacher quality initiatives and doesn't provide a single penny
for the Troops for Teachers program. We need more and better teachers. The skills that a lot
of these career military people have are desperately need and a lot of the places where there
is a significant teacher shortage. So that's what I am fighting for. It's not about money; it is
about things that we know will work that will help our kids. That's one of the things this
debate is all about.
It's also about accountability. Where there is rising accountability to go with rising
standards and a strategy to help people meet the standards, not just define them as failures,
we have seen progress. Two years ago, North Carolina sent assistance teams to their 15
lowest performing schools. A year later, 14 of them had met their goals and were taken off
the list one year. We have seen the same kind of improvement in Chicago, Dade County,
many other places. I was in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago, in the large
Robert Taylor Homes project, where they had an elementary school with terrible
performance. In two years two years -- they doubled their math scores and tripled their
reading scores.
So we can -- by the same sort of concentrated effort -- remember, if we're 99.9 percent the
same genetically, we owe it to these kids to give them their chance at the brass ring of their
life. (Applause.)
Our budget has $200 million to help states and school districts identify, turn around or shut
down the lowest-performing schools. For example, districts could send board-certified
teachers to help students and teachers get their schools back on track. Unfortunately, this
Republican budget bill doesn't put a dime into the strategy of turning around
low-performing schools. This is not just about saying, well, I put that money up there, and
they'll figure out how to spend it. If you know what works -- based not on what somebody
in Washington thinks works, but based on what you proved works at the grassroots level
we have an obligation, in a world of limited resources, to spend the money on what you
have told us, and what you have demonstrated to us, works. That's what this budget debate
5 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINDARDShouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991022.html
is all about. (Applause.)
That's why we've invested in after-school and summer school programs, providing extended
learning time so that school districts can say, okay, we're ending the practice of social
promotion, but we're not branding the kids failures; we're giving them a chance to succeed.
And let me say another thing that I think will be increasingly important as we try to come to
grips with the drop-out rate and the consequences of it, is to reach young people at an early
age to get them excited about academic achievement and to give them the sense that they
have a personal possibility in the future.
That's why we have worked hard to establish last year this Gear Up mentoring initiative
which allows college students and others to go into middle schools and show young people
that if they do their work and they learn their subjects that they can all go on to college.
Explain to them the HOPE Scholarship. Explain to them the Pell Grant; show them, let
them take home to their families exactly what kind of assistance they'll be able to get, so
that they will know it is actual reality. It isn't enough to open the doors of college to all
Americans. People have to know they've been opened. They have to be aware of these
things.
We do things in Washington, I sign a bill, we just assume everybody knows about it. That is
the beginning, not the end. If nobody knows about these things they might as well have not
have been done. So that's a big part of what this budget is all about.
We also have to ensure greater access of all kinds of students to a successful and complete
high school education. That's what our Hispanic Education Action Plan is all about. That's
our fastest growing student group. And the Hispanic drop-out rate exceeds 30 percent. It's a
big problem. Last year, for all practical purposes, the African-American and white majority
high school graduation rates were identical. There was a smidgen of a difference, for the
first time ever in our history. That's very good. (Applause.)
I might say that I don't think either one of them were quite high enough, but they're good,
they're up in the high 80s percent. Our national goal that we set 10 years ago was 90 percent
on-time graduation. But that's good. But the Hispanic drop out rate -- I think largely rooted
in the fact that you've got a lot of first generation immigrant families whose first language is
not English, compounding the fact that a lot of those kids may think they can get out and
work for their families because they all just got here. And all first generation immigrant
families, going back 100 years or more, have had a heritage of people of all ages in the
family working.
But the point is that long-term economic consequences to these children, and therefore to
their families, are far more adverse and far more severe now than they would have been 30
years ago to dropping out. And a 30 percent dropout rate is simply too high.
So one of my problems with this budget bill is that it underfunds the after-school programs,
the summer programs. The House bill actually would have shut down the Gear Up Program
that they created last year and bragged about in the election, and it's way short on the
Hispanic Education Priority. So we've got to give people the tools they need to succeed.
Finally, this was mentioned earlier, but I am still fighting for our bill to build and modernize
6,000 schools. (Applause.) There are too many kids in old school buildings that can't be
wired, too many kids in house trailers and too many school districts that can't undertake the
costs of the building program all by themselves. So here is where we are. The good news is
that we have, I think, an appropriate amount of money that has been set aside for education.
The good news is yesterday we had our voucher debate and the public school side won.
(Applause.)
6 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINtDARDnouse.gov/WH/New/htm1/19991022.html
That's the good news. But we do not have anything like having -- because at this moment
we have this surplus and we're at a moment of prosperity, we were able to agree generally
on what I think is an adequate increase in funding. But there is no commitment yet for more
and better teachers, for smaller classes, for increased accountability, for higher standards,
for giving the tools out there that we know that you know work.
So the good news is that the debate is not about dollars. But the more important news is it is
very much about direction. It is very much about direction. And just as I fought to get a
modest amount of federal money to support your program, because I do believe that when
you are certified and you go through this process, it is not only good for you and good for
your students, it's good for everybody that you come in contact with in your school.
(Applause.)
We were talking about, now you can see on the near horizon 25,000 of them. The reason
that I said 100,000 -- that I want at least 100,000 board-certified teachers is, I do believe
when you are dense enough -- when there is one of you in every school building in America
-- there will be an exponential increase in your impact, that it will change the whole culture
of virtually every school. And your skills, and what you learn, and how you will impart it to
your colleagues, will then be exploding, echoing across the country in a way that will
embrace all the children in all our schools.
But if you believe in what you've done, then I ask you to also believe in this, and help us
say, okay -- to the Congress -- thank you very much for not trying to cut out the money
anymore. That's a big first step. But it does matter how you spend it.
And we're not trying to micromanage the schools. Dick Riley has gotten rid of two-thirds of
the paperwork requirement on states and local school districts. We have scrapped more rules
and regulations than all the previous administrations who railed about the federal
government put together. But what we have not done is to abandon our responsibility to
take the research and the reports from the grassroots level and say, if we're going to spend
this money, since it's limited, we have to spend it in ways that it will have the highest
impact -- more teachers, higher standards, the tools that you need to do what you're out there
trying to do. (Applause.)
So I ask you to support it and help us and I think we will prevail. Thank you and God bless
you. (Applause.)
END 10:55 A.M. EDT
To comment on this service,
send feedback to the Web Development Team.
Read our Privacy Policy
7 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Hyatt Regency Washington
Washington, D.C.)
For Immediate Release
Friday, October 22, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS
10:25 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
I was thinking how much help I need in trying to get what I say to certain people in the
Congress not to go in one ear and out the other. (Laughter.) And that maybe I should go
through this training program. (Laughter.) I believe everything Carole Moyer said, except
the part about having been a teacher for 32 years. She looks like she was about 12 when she
started. (Laughter.)
I want to thank Carole and your Chair, Barbara Kelley. Thank you, Jim Kelly and Bob
Wehling and Betty Hastert and all the others that are involved with the Board. I'm glad to
see the President of the National Education Association, Bob Chase, here. Thank you for
coming, sir, for your support.
And I have been honored to support this endeavor, since before I was President, as has been
said. But the person who deserves all the credit, in my view, without whom none of us
would be here today, is Governor Jim Hunt from North Carolina. Thank you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
I've told this story before, but I probably wouldn't be here today, either, because in 1979,
Jim Hunt -- who was a far senior governor to me, then -- decided that I should become the
Vice Chair of the Democratic Governors' Association. And then I became the Chair. Then I
became the youngest former governor in history, but that wasn't his fault. (Laughter.) But it
was sort of my board certification in national politics that Jim Hunt gave me. So I might not
be here as President today if it weren't for him, either.
This has been a great week for me and for our Administration. We celebrated the fifth
anniversary of AmeriCorps, our national service program. And we've now had 150,000
young people serve and earn credit for going to college. It took the Peace Corps about 23
years to have that many volunteers. So that's been really great. And we also might say we've
been able to get from the Congress the largest expansion in the Peace Corps in a generation,
as well. That's been a very good thing. (Applause.)
Today Hillary and I are sponsoring a White House conference on philanthropy. And we're
going to try to find ways not only to increase the aggregate level of private giving in the
aftermath of the vast amounts of wealth that have been generated in our country in the last
seven years, but to target it in the right way. In ways that I hope it will help your children
and your concern.
1 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINARShouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991022.html
I even had a pretty good meeting with the Congressional leadership. (Laughter.) We're
actually working to try to work through our differences on the budget, and I'll have more to
say about that in a few moments. A couple of them who weren't there persist in trying to
accuse us of what they have done on the Social Security surplus. But I'm committed to turn
the other cheek until we see if we can work it out together. I guess it's easier when you're
not running for anything to do that. (Laughter.)
You might find this interesting, as a sort of a prelude to what I want to say. Hillary had this
great idea that we should do some special things for the millennium, that we shouldn't build
a big building or anything like that; we should try to preserve as many of our big, national
treasures as possible, like the Star Spangled Banner and the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all of which are in danger -- and so we
have been working to raise the funds to do that -- that we should go around the country and
help people in every community preserve their own piece of our national heritage; that we
should have a big -- then we should think about the future we want and make a big effort to
increase research dollars, which we have done; and that we should sponsor at the White
House an unusual set of what she called Millennium Evenings, where we would talk about
topics that were either important to the last century, the one we're leaving, or important to
the next century.
It has been an amazing experience, an amazing educational experience. C-SPAN covers all
of these. Sometimes, CNN takes a big chunk. But the main way by which we communicate
with the rest of the country and the rest of the world is through the Internet and at the end of
our little programs, we take Internet questions. They always come in from all over the
world. It's just an amazing experience.
We started out with the great professor of American history and constitutional history,
Bernard Bailyn, from Harvard who talked about our past and our institutions and how we
got started and how that will be relevant to the 21st century. We've had all kinds of other
fascinating topics. We had the three last poet laureates of America come with inner-city kids
from Washington and just ordinary citizens, read poetry and talk about what it meant. We
had the great Wynton Marsalis, the only living musician from New Orleans, he is the only
living musician who is both the best classical and the best jazz musician in his instrument in
the world, come and talk about the history of jazz as a uniquely American art form in the
20th century.
We had the great British scientist, Steven Hawking, who has lived longer with Lou Gehrig's
disease than anyone else, come and talk about black holes and undiscovered galaxies in
space, and how our notion of time will alter, and our understanding of it will alter in the
21st century. Elie Wiesel came and talked about the price of indifference, from the
Holocaust forward, and all the racial and ethnic turmoil we've had. It's been amazing.
But last week, we had a man named Vince Cerf there, who was sort of the creator and the
architecture of the Internet, who sent the first e-mail, 18 years ago, to his profoundly deaf
wife, who had been deaf from early childhood, and so deaf that no hearing aids would help
her. So the e-mail got started as a way of communicating. He was there, along with a
professor from Harvard of genomics, named Lander, who was talking about our efforts to
complete the Human Genome Project, to break down all the secrets of the gene.
Now, what they did was, they talked about the interconnection of the computer revolution to
the genomics revolution. And both said, look, we couldn't be unlocking the mysteries of the
gene if it weren't for computer advances, because that's really what enables us to map out
the gene, chart it, and see what's going on. And it will also enable us to actually find
practical applications for the challenges we find when we look at the human gene structure.
And then Mr. Cerf, who was the Internet fellow who did the e-mail 18 years ago to his wife
2 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NA OR PROFESSIONAL TEACHINAnouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991022.html
said, now, for example, my wife was profoundly deaf for 50 years. And a very small digital
device has now been inserted deep within both her ears, and she can hear after 50 years of
total deafness. And he introduced her, and she stood up, and she talked about what it was
like. She said, I went to a James Taylor concert the other night -- (laughter) -- some of you
are too young to appreciate this. (Laughter.) And she said, I'm quite sure I'm the only person
who heard "Fire and Rain" for the first time in the late '90s. It was an amazing thing. She
talked about what it was like to hear the birds sing in the morning.
But the point is, digital technology combined with medical science, made this possible. And
they speculated that -- we've been spending a lot of time in the medial research trying to
help people with spinal cord injuries. And last year we had a nerve transplantation in a
laboratory animal from the legs to the spine in a way that for the first time ever in the lab
with an animal allowed an animal with a severed spine to recover movement in its lower
limbs. Stunning. These people were saying what we may be able to do now is to develop
digital technology, key to the genetic breakdowns in the nerves, that we can insert -- we can
actually insert a device in the spine that will replicate the normal spine and give people
movement without having to figure out whether the nerve transplants will take.
What does all that have to do with you? First of all, it means that it's important that all of
our children learn, and that we develop a level of comfort with basic technology and basic
scientific concepts that most people didn't need in times past.
The second point I want to make to you, which will be important to you because you know
we have the largest and most diverse student population in history, is the genomist said -- a
fascinating thing -- he said we've got these 100,000 genes and billions of possible
permutations; but what you should know is that all human beings, genetically, are literally
99.9 percent the same.
He said the second thing you should know, which he said was to him even more amazing, is
if you take any given racial group; let's say you had a bunch of Hispanics here and a bunch
of Asians here and you had people from the Mediterranean countries and Europe here, and
people from an African country over here. He said, if you get 100 people in each of these
separate racial groups, the genetic differences of the individuals within the group would be
greater than the genetic differences from group to group.
Very interesting -- providing scientific support for what you try to do every day, which is to
convince your kids that all children can learn, that there is no reason for us to fight with one
another because of our differences, that all these troubles that are gripping the world, all
over the world, the racial, the ethnic, the tribal, the religious differences have to be
somehow overcome by understanding and teaching people that our common humanity is
more important than the differences and that once you accept that, then the differences
become interesting and make life More fun. But it is a very important thing and it shows,
again, the importance of learning to our common progress on this Earth.
Now, that's why I think what all of you have done with the board certification is so
important. I remember when you came to the White House with only 177 board-certified
teachers. Some of you were there then. Now there's not enough room to keep you all in the
White House, and the next time we might have to use RFK Stadium to have a meeting of all
of you, and I would like that very much. (Laughter.)
I am very grateful for the progress that our country has made economically, socially and in
education. I am grateful that we've got the longest peacetime expansion in history and
19-and-a-half million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate in 29 years, the lowest
welfare roles in 30 years, the lowest poverty rates in 20 years, the lowest crime rates in 26
years, lowest murder rate in 31 years, first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years and the
government is the same size it was when John Kennedy was here in 1962, 37 years ago. We
have worked at this.
3 of 7
10/22/1999 5:13 PM
DEPARTMENT OF
IMPACT OF HOUSE & SENATE ALLOCATIONS
ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY2000 EDUCATION REQUEST
UNITED STATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
October 1, 1999
"We need more funding for reading and writing. We need to help schools achieve smaller classes and modern facilities. We need to make sure
that there is a quality teacher in every classroom. The Congress needs to recognize that we can go forward only if we have the whole package. You can't
pick and choose and then say you are pro-education. All the pieces have to come together.' Secretary Richard W. Riley
(IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Current
President's
FY2000
Difference
Difference
FY2000
Difference
Difference
Funding
FY2000
House
From
From
Senate
from Current
From
Committee
Current
President's
Committee
Request
Funding
President's
Selected Education Programs
Funding
Request
Request
Reducing Class Size. Second installment in reducing
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$0
(-$1,200,000)
(-$1,400,000)
*
(-$1,200,000)
(-$1,400,00)
class sizes in grades 1-3 to a nationwide average of 18 to
give children more personal attention and get them on
the right track.
Goals 2000: Helps schools raise academic standards,
$491,000
$491,000
$0
(-$491,000)
(-$491,000)
$494,000
+3,000
+3,000
improve teaching, expand the use of technology and
increase parental involvement.
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants;
$335,000
$335,000
$0
(-335,000)
(-335,000)
$335,000
--
--
Improves teachers' skills in core academic subjects.
21st Century Community Learning Centers. Funds
$200,000
$600,000
$300,000
+$100,000
(-$300,000)
$400,000
+$200,000
(-$200,000)
school-community partnerships to keep schools open
after regular hours as safe havens for enhanced learning.
Reading Excellence Act. Helps children learn to read well
$260,000
$286,000
$200,000
(-$60,000)
(-$86,000)
$260,000
--
(-$26,000)
and independently by the end of the third grade.
Extra Help in the Basics (Title LEA Grants). Helps
$7,732,397
$7,996,020
$7,732,397
--
(-$263,623)
$8,052,397
+320,000
+$56,377
disadvantaged students learn the basics.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Helps schools become
$566,000
$591,000
$566,000
--
(-$25,000)
$611,000
+$45,000
+$20,000
safe, drug-free learning environments.
Teacher Quality Enhancement (HEA Title II). Helps
$75,000
$115,000
$75,000
-
(-$40,000)
$75,000
--
(-$40,000)
recruit and prepare excellent and diverse teachers for
America's classrooms.
Teacher Training in Technology. Helps train new
$75,000
$75,000
$0
(-$75,000)
(-$75,000)
$75,000
:
--
teachers to use technology in the classroom.
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. Helps provide
$425,000
$450,000
$325,000
(-$50,000)
(-$75,000)
$425,000
--
(-$25,000)
students and teachers with computers, educational
software, telecommunications, and technology training.
*
$1.2 billion is eliminated for the current class size reduction program. The decision on where funds will go is delayed until July 1st jeopardizing funds for the 30,000 new
teachers hired this year
Current
President's
FY2000
Difference
Difference
FY2000
Difference
Difference
Funding
FY2000
House
From
From
Senate
from Current
From
Committee
Current
President's
Committee
Funding
President's
Request
Selected Education Programs
Funding
Request
Request
Community-based Technology Centers. Funds
$10,000
$65,000
$10,000
--
(-$55,000)
$10,000
:
(-$55,000)
technology learning centers in low-income communities.
Special Education State Grants. Helps schools & States
$5,054,685
$5,106,435
$5,554,685
+$500,000
+$448,250
$5,754,685
+$700,000
+648,250
provide special education and early intervention services.
Bilingual Education. Helps school districts operate high-
$224,000
$259,000
$224,000
(-$35,000)
$234,000
+$10,000
(-$25,000)
--
quality instructional programs to help children learn
English.
Adult Education and Literacy. Provides adult and family
$385,000
$575,000
$378,000
(-$7,000)
(-$197,000)
$488,000
+$103,000
(-$87,000)
literacy, English as a second language, and other
educational programs.
Pell Grants. Provides grant assistance to low-income
$3,125
$3,250
$3,275
+150
+$25
$3,325
+$200
+$75
undergraduate students.
max grant
max grant
max grant
max grant
Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGs).
$619,000
$631,000
$629,000
(-$10,000)
(-$12,000)
$631,000
+$12,000
:
Provides grant assistance to low-income undergraduate
students.
Work-Study. Helps undergraduate and graduate
$870,000
$934,000
$880,000
+$10,000
(-$54,000)
$934,000
+$64,000
:
students pay for college through part-time work
assistance.
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP).
$25,000
$25,000
$0
(-$25,000)
(-$25,000)
$25,000
--
:
Provides Federal matching funds for States to support
need-based postsecondary student grant assistance.
GEAR UP. Gives disadvantaged students and their
$120,000
$240,000
$0
(-$120,000)
(-$240,000)
$180,000
+$60,000
(-$60,000)
families pathways to college by partnering middle and
high schools with colleges and universities or through
-
state-administered programs
TRIO Programs. Provides education outreach and
$600,000
$630,000
$660,000
+$60,000
+$30,000
$630,000
+$30,000
:
student support services designed to encourage
disadvantaged individuals to enter and complete college.
Strengthening HBCUs. Helps provide equal opportunity
$136,000
$148,750
$136,000
--
(-$12,750)
$141,500
+$5,500
(-$7,250)
and strong academic programs.
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Helps
$28,000
$42,250
$28,000
--
(-$14,250)
$42,250
+$14,250
--
strengthen colleges with large Latino populations.
Strengthening Tribally-Controlled Institutions (HEA Title
$3,000
$6,000
$3,000
--
(-$3,000)
$6,000
+$3,000
--
III). Supports institutions that serve Native Americans.
Current
President's
FY2000
Difference
Difference
FY2000
Difference
Difference
Funding
FY2000
House
From
From
Senate
from Current
From
Committee
Current
President's
Committee
Funding
President's
Request
Selected Education Programs
Funding
Request
Request
Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need.
$31,000
$41,000
$31,000
--
(-$10,000)
$51,000
+$20,000
+$10,000
Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships. Supports
$10,000
$20,000
$0
(-$10,000)
(-$20,000)
$10,000
--
(-$10,000)
access to quality postsecondary education for
underserved populations through the use of technology.
Cost of Student Borrowing for College Loans. Reduced
Fee: 3%
Fee: 3%
Fee: 4%
Fee: +1%
Fee: +1%
Fee: 3%
-
--
origination fees paid by students for college programs.
Of Loan
Of Loan
Of Loan
Of Fee
Of Fee
Of Loan
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Principal
Student Loan Administrative Funding. Supports systems
$617,000
$735,000
$617,000
--
(-$118,000)
$735,000
--
:
that award over $50 million in student loans to over 8
million students.
School Modernization Bonds and Qualified Zone.
NEW
$3.7 billion
$0
--
The House
$0
The Senate
Provides new bonds with interest paid by Federal tax
to help pay
has not
has not
credits to help local communities go much further in
interest on
provided any
provided any
renovating and building needed schools and address
$25 billion of
funds in any
funds in any
overcrowding
new bonds.
bill towards
bill towards the
the
President's
President's
proposal for
proposal for
$3.7 billion to
$3.7 billion to
help pay
help pay
interest on $25
interest on
billion of new
$25 billion of
bonds
new bonds.
Class Size Reduction
Both research and common sense show that reducing class sizes in the early grades (1-3) is an
effective strategy to raise student achievement and help students master challenging academic
material. Last year Congress made a bipartisan down payment on President Clinton's plan to
reduce class-size in the early grades.
The education appropriations bill in the House provides no money for class size reduction
undermining both the bipartisan agreement and this effective program. The Senate bill provides
$1.2 billion ($200 million less than the President's budget request) for undefined "teacher
assistance" but does not reauthorize the class size program meaning that none of the money could
ultimately be spent on reducing class size. Essentially both bills eliminate the program. Current
funding for class size reduction is $1.2 billion.
After-School and Summer School Programs
After-school and summer school programs are key strategies to raise student achievement by
extending learning time. States and school districts are using these programs as a way to end
social promotion the right way-by helping all students meet challenging standards.
The House education appropriations bill provides $300 million less for these programs than the
President's budget request meaning that 850,000 fewer children would benefit from after school
and summer school programs than under the President's plan. The Senate bill provides $200
million less than the President's budget for after-school and summer school programs. Current
funding for the program is $200 million.
Turning Around Failing Schools
As part of his accountability agenda, the President proposed setting aside $200 million from Title
I to help states and localities turn around failing schools. Too often states and localities lack the
resources to effectively intervene in schools that are identified as failing.
Neither the House or Senate bill contains the $200 million to help fix failing schools. Senators
Bingaman, Reed, and Kerry offered an amendment on the Senate floor to include this funding in
the Senate bill but it was rejected on a party line vote.
Gear-UP
The Gear-Up program gives disadvantaged students and their families pathways to college
success by partnering middle and high schools with colleges and universities to ensure that
students and their families have information on how to prepare for and finance higher education.
The House bill eliminates the Gear-Up program completely. The Senate bill provides $60 million
less than the President's budget for Gear-Up. Current funding for the program is $120 million.
OCT 04 '99 10:50 FR SEN JEFF BINGAMAN
202 224 2852 TO 94565581
P.02/02
AMENDMENT NO.
Calendar No.
Purpose: To ensure accountability in programs for disadvantaged students.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES -- 106th Cong., 1st Sess.
S.
Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on
and ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
Mr. Bingaman for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Kennedy
Viz:
1
On page 52, line 8, after "section 1124A", insert the following:
2
3
Provided further, That $200 million of funds available under section 1124 and
4
1124A shall be available to carry out the purposes of section 1116 (c) of the Elementary
5
and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
53 45
401-1438
andirg
Attn:Scott
AMENDMENT NO.
Ex.
Calendar No.
Purpose:
AMENDMENT No.
1805
IN THE SEN.
By Gorton
Sess.
S.
To:
S.1650
H.R.
)
SHORT TITLE
I
Page
(title)
/
OPO 1994 52-517 (mac)
() Referred to the Committee on
and ordered to be printed
() Ordered to lie on the table and be printed
Intended to be proposed by GORTON
Viz: On page 55, line 2, strike all after "Provided further," to the period on line 5 and insert the
following:
1 $1,200,000,000 is appropriated for a teacher assistance initiative pending authorization of that
2 initiative. If the teacher assistance initiative is not authorized by July 1, 2000, the
3 1,200,000,000 shall be distributed as described in Sec. 307(b)(1) (A and B) of the Department
4 of Education Appropriation Act of 1999. School districts may use the funds for class size
5 reduction activities as described in Sec. 307(c)(2)(A)(i-iii) of the Department of Education
6 Appropriation Act of 1999 or any activity authorized in Sec. 6301 of the Elementary and
7 Secondary Education Act that will improve the academic achievement of all students. Each
8 such agency shall use funds under this section only to supplement, and not to supplant, State
9 and local funds that, in the absence of such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under
10 this section.
11
12
388
(B) a description of the achievement levels and report
ing methods to be used in grading any national test. 498
loc
The report shall be submitted to the White House, the Commit
dre
tees on Education and the Workforce of the House of Represen
su
atives, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of th
the
Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House
Bu
Representatives and the Senate not later than September 30
of
1999.
ap
(2) RESPONSE TO REPORT.-The National Assessment Gov-
fis
erning Board shall develop and submit to the entities identified
the
in paragraph (1) a report, not later than September 30, 1999,
tri
that addresses and responds to the findings reported by the Na
for
tional Academy of Sciences in the report entitled "Grading the
Nation's Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the
los
Assessment of Educational Progress" that assert that the
ro.
achievement levels of the National Assessment of Educational
pr
Progress (NAEP) are fundamentally flawed.
of
(3) TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY.-The National Academy of
(2
Sciences shall conduct a study regarding the technical feasibil-
cation
ity, validity, and reliability of including test items from the Na
for a
tional Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 4th
award
grade reading and 8th grade mathematics or from other tests
tium l
in State and district assessments for the purpose of providing
pose o
a common measure of individual student performance. The Na-
(c
tional Academy of Sciences shall submit, to the entities identi-,
this S
fied under paragraph (1), an interim progress report not later
:o red
than June 30, 1999 and a final report not later than September
cation
30, 1999.
with
SEC. 306. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any in-
early
stitution of higher education which receives funds under title III of
size n
the Higher Education Act, except for grants made under section 326,
(2
may use up to 20 percent of its award under part A or part B of
of red
the Act for endowment building purposes authorized under section
331. Any institution seeking to use part A or part B funds for en-
S
a
dowment building purposes shall indicate such intention in its ap-
n
plication to the Secretary and shall abide by departmental regula-
tions governing the endowment challenge grant program.
a
SEC 307. (a) From the amount appropriated for title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in accordance
with this section, the Secretary of Education-
(1) shall make available a total of $6,000,000 to the Sec-
retary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs)
and the outlying areas for activities under this section; and
(2) shall allocate the remainder by providing each State the
of 15
greater of the amount the State would receive if a total of
desci
$1,124,620,000 were allocated under section 1122 of the Ele-,
mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or under section
size
2202(b) of the Act for fiscal year 1998, except that such alloca-
ceive
tions shall be ratably increased or decreased as may be nec-:
essary.
(b)(1) Each State that receives funds under this section shall;
distribute 100 percent of such funds to local educational agencies,
of which-
389
report-
(A) 80 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
local educational agencies in proportion to the number of chil-
Commit-
dren, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district served by
Represent-
such local educational agency from families with incomes below
of
the
the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
House
of
Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2)
tember
30,
of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)))
applicable to a family of the size involved for the most recent
Gov-
fiscal year for which satisfactory data is available compared to
identified
the number of such individuals who reside in the school dis-
30,
1999,
tricts served by all the local educational agencies in the State
by
the
Na-
for that fiscal-year; and
rading
the
(B) 20 percent of such amount shall be allocated to such
the
local educational agencies in accordance with the relative en-
that
the
rollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and private non-
lucational
profit elementary and secondary schools within the boundaries
of such agencies;
ademy
of
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the award to a local edu-
feasibil-
cational agency under this section is less than the starting salary
the
Na-
for a new teacher in that agency, the State shall not make the
for
4th
award unless the local educational agency agrees to form a consor-
tests
tium with not less than 1 other local educational agency for the pur-
providing
pose of reducing class size.
The
Na-
(c)(1) Each local educational agency that receives funds under
identi-
this section shall use such funds to carry out effective approaches
not
later
to reducing class size with highly qualified teachers to improve edu-
September
cational achievement for both regular and special-needs children,
with particular consideration given to reducing class size in the
any
in-
early elementary grades for which some research has shown class
III
of
size reduction is most effective.
326,
(2)(A) Each such local educational agency may pursue the goal
B
of
of reducing class size through-
section
(i) recruiting, hiring, and training certified regular and
for
special education teachers and teachers of special-needs chil-
en-
its
dren, including teachers certified through State and local alter-
ap-
regula-
native routes;
(ii) testing new teachers for academic content knowledge,
VI
of
the
and to meet State certification requirements that are consistent
cordance
with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
(iii) providing professional development to teachers, includ-
the
Sec-
ing special education teachers and teachers of special-needs
children, consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of
Affairs)
1965.
and
State
(B) A local educational agency may use not more than a total
the
total
of 15 percent of the award received under this section for activities
of
described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A).
the
Ele-
(C) A local educational agency that has already reduced class
section
size in the early grades to 18 or less children may use funds re-
alloca-
ceived under this section-
be
nec-
(i) to make further class-size reductions in grades 1 through
3;
shall
(ii) to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades; or
gencies,
(iii) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality, in-
cluding professional development.
380
in the fenced security perimeter of the military facility uponiwhi
such housing is situated: Provided further, That if such property
not owned by the Federal Government, is subject to taxation byrd
For C
State or political subdivision of a State, and thereby generates reve
foreign la
nues for a local educational agency which received a payment from
parts A a.
the Secretary under section 8003, the Secretary shall-
Secondary
(A) require such local educational agency to provide certifi
$380,000,00
cation from an appropriate official of the Department of Defense
all, or an:
that such property is being used to provide military housing
local educ
and
(B) reduce the amount of such payment by an amount
equal to the amount of revenue from such taxation received in
For c
the second preceding fiscal year by such local educational agen-
Act, $5,12
cy, unless the amount of such revenue was taken into account
for obligar
by the State for such second preceding fiscal year and already
September
resulted in a reduction in the amount of State aid paid to such
The Orga:
local educational agency: Provided further, That of the funds
Summer
available for payments under section 8002, the Secretary shall
pended, s/
pay the San Diego, California, Centennial, Pennsylvania, and
ed to The
Hatboro-Horsham, Pennsylvania, local educational agencies the
World Wi,
sum of $500,000 each, in addition to their regularly calculated
the Early
payments, except that the total funds these agencies receive
Seal Socie
under this section may not exceed 50 percent of their maximum
used to pr
section 8002 payments.
to address
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
RE
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by ti-
For ca
tles II, IV, V-A and B, VI, IX, X, XII and XIII of the Elementary
bilitation
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Stewart B. McKinney
viduals wi
Homeless Assistance Act; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and part
Keller Nat
B of VIII of the Higher Education Act; $2,811,134,000, of which
$2,381,300,000 shall become available on July 1, 1999, and remain
SPE
available through September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, $335,000,000 shall be for Eisenhower profes-
sional development State grants under title II-B of the Elementary
For CO
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and $1,575,000,000 shall be
U.S.C. 101
for title VI, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be available, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, to carry out title VI of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in accordance with
For th
section 307 of this Act, in order to reduce class size, particularly in
and II of i
the early grades, using highly qualified teachers to improve edù-
seq.), $45,
cational achievement for regular and special needs children.
Institute n
READING EXCELLENCE
as authori
For necessary expenses to carry out the Reading Excellence Act,
$260,000,000, which shall become available on July 1, 1999, and
For the
shall remain available through September 30, 2000.
Secondary
INDIAN EDUCATION
University
1986 (20 [
For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not otherwise
amount au
provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-:
the endow
cation Act of 1965, as amended, $66,000,000.
390
(3) Each such agency shall use funds under this section only
supplement, and not to supplant, State and local funds that,oin
absence of such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities
DOME
this section.
For
(4) No funds made available under this section may be used to
increase the salaries or provide benefits, other than participation in
Commu
professional development and enrichment programs, to teachers who
unteer
are, or have been, employed by the local educational agency.
(d)(1) Each State receiving funds under this section shall report
on activities in the State under this section, consistent with section
For
6202(a)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
thorizec
(2) Each school benefiting from this section, or the local edu-
shall b.
cational agency serving that school, shall produce an annual report
fiscal )
to parents, the general public, and the State educational agency, in
availab
easily understandable language, on student achievement that is a
shall be
result of hiring additional highly qualified teachers and reducing
tertainr
class size.
That ne
(e) If a local educational agency uses funds made available
able or
under this section for professional development activities, the agency
shall ensure for the equitable participation of private nonprofit ele-
any per
mentary and secondary schools in such activities. Section 6402 of
against
Provide
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall not
apply to other activities under this section.
$15,000
(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.-A local educational agency
tzed by
that receives funds under this section may use not more than 3 per-
cent of such funds for local administrative costs.
(g) REQUEST FOR FUNDS.-Each local educational agency that
desires to receive funds under this section shall include in the appli-
cation required under section 6303 of the Elementary and Second-
For
ary Education Act of 1965 a description of the agency's program to
tion Se
reduce class size by hiring additional highly qualified teachers.
Manage
This title may be cited as the "Department of Education Appro-
cluding
priations Act, 1999".
the Lat
and for
TITLE IV-RELATED AGENCIES
vested i
U.S.C.
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
able the
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Labor-N
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's
vided, :
Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid from funds
full-cost
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
services
$70,745,000, of which $15,717,000 shall remain available until ex-
shall re
pended for construction and renovation of the physical plants at the
for arbi
United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home and the United States
ing, and
Naval Home: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
further,
of law, a single contract or related contracts for the development
use on
and construction at the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home,
sonal, 0
to include construction of a long-term care facility at the United
in the L
States Naval Home and conversion of space in the Scott building at
the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, may be employed
FE
which collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided fur-
ther, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the clause
"availability of funds" found at 48 CFR 52.232-18 and 252.232-
For
7007, Limitation of Government Obligations.
Review
10/07/99 THU 18:27 FAX
001
ED
FAX
SENATE
U.S. SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
To:
ANDY ROTHERHAM 456.5581
DATE:
FROM:
GREG WILLIAMSON
4.2415
PAGES SENT (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
5
PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE IF YOU ARE MISSING PART OF THIS TRANSMISSION.
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BLDG.
2930 WETMORE AVENUE
2988 JACKSON FEDERAL BUILDING
601 W. MAIN
140 FEDERAL BUILDING 402 E. YAKIMA AVENUE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
SUITE 9()3
915 2ND AVENUE
SUITE 1213
500 W. 12TH STREET
SUITE 390
(202) 224-2621
EVERBTT, WA 98201
SEATTLE, WA 98174
SPOKANE. WA 99201
VANCOUVER, WA 98660
YAKIMA, WA 98901
FAX (202) 224-0238
(425) 259-6515
(206) 553-5545
(509) 624-9515
(360) 696-7797
(509) 453-7462
[email protected]
wwwhtp://www.senate.gov/-murray/
10/07/99 THU 18:27 FAX
002
Patty Munay
MRS. MURRAY. Mr. President, this evening we voted on what is arguably
the most important of our 13 appropriations bills, the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education Appropriations Act. When it comes to funding for
education, the Congress has fundamentally ignored the messages of the American
people. In this bill, education spending remains in the neighborhood of 1.6
percent of overall federal spending, a very poor neighborhood indeed. The
American people cannot understand why, if education is their first priority,
it is the last bill passed and the lowest funding priority of their Congress.
They cannot fathom why, in a year when school districts across the country are
hiring highly-qualified teachers to reduce class size, the Congress is walking
away from its commitment.
The House, regrettably, has done far worse by education than any of us
could have imagined. The drastic cuts to education that would take effect
under the House bill would send America back into the 19th century, not
forward into the 21st. The House bill would cause 142,000 fewer children to
be served in Head Start, would keep 50,000 students out of after-school
programs, and would deprive 2.1 million children in high-poverty communities
of extra help in mastering the basics of reading and math.
The Senate has done better by our schools, but only through smoke-and-
mirrors budgeteering that should give our school communities no long-term
confidence. Advance funding is not without effect on the local school budget,
which demands consistency and predictability.
The numbers in the Senate bill are a better level from which to
negotiate in the conference committee, but even these funding levels ignore
the grim reality that our schools face a fundamentally tougher job than they
did even five years ago, with skyrocketing enrollment, of students who are
more expensive to educate, and who have less support at home and in the
community.
Despite all this, at least the Senate provides current funding for most
educational services, makes some effort toward meeting the higher needs in
others, and does a good job of providing new investments in a few areas.
Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is increased by
more than $900 million, a good start toward meeting our national commitment to
fund forty percent of a local school district's costs of educating a disabled
child.
The $200 per student increase for Pell grants is a good investment, but
only about half of what is needed this year. I'm particularly proud that we
were able to increase funding for adult and family literacy, by increasing the
adult basic education program by more than $100 million. This means that
thousands more adults and their families will be able to take the first steps
towards increased viability in our changing economy.
The failures in this bill are many, however. As an example, let's look
at funding for vocational and technical education. Current funding or freezes
in funding are not sufficient in a world where the economy changes as rapidly
as ours is changing. Young people need the skills not only to survive but to
thrive. All young people need access to applied skills as well as theoretical
ones, in order for them to succeed in the workplace, the classroom, and in
life. And yet, we do not make the significant investments needed.
The largest failure of all, of course, is the backward step the majority
is taking on class size reduction. Reducing class size by helping school
districts hire 100,000 high-quality teachers nationwide is an investment in
our schools that is paying dividends right now. The first 30,000 teachers are
in the classroom, and what a classroom it is. To walk from a class with 25 or
28 first graders into one of the smaller classes I've been visiting this fall
003
10/07/99 THU 18:28 FAX
is a stark contrast. Improved achievement, increased time on task, more
individual attention, and a lack of discipline problems are obvious in the
smaller class. The teacher in the larger class looks as if he is running to
catch up, and the student must keep her hand in the air for too long a time.
This is a very real, tangible investment we have made in our schools. The
Senate and the House, on a completely partisan basis, are reneging on the most
common-sense investment in school improvement made in recent history. The
reason that the Republicans are so afraid of these 30,000 teachers is that
this program is actually working.
Pili Wolfe, Principal at Lyon Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington,
where federal class size funds are being used to dramatically reduce class
size in first grade, and to provide high-quality professional development for
teachers through a program called Great Start, says: "Children in our first-
grade Great Start classrooms have shown more growth within the first month of
school than any previous first-grade class."
Andrea Holzapfel, a first-grade teacher at Lyon, says: "Smaller numbers
allow me to spend significantly more time in individual and small-group
instruction. Having fewer children allows more participation by the kids in
discussion and classroom activities."
The program works. The one-page, on-line application form means no
paperwork, no bureaucracy. Two-hundred and sixty-one of Washington state's
two-hundred and ninety-six school districts have already put class size
reduction and teacher professional development into effect in their schools.
The accountability is to the local community, through a school report card
describing how many teachers were hired and in which grades. Improved student
achievement will be the ultimate measure of the success of this year's
investment.
But the investment cannot stop here.
The President has said that this bill is headed for a veto, because of
the lack of continued investment in class size reduction, and other key
education efforts.
One such effort is GEAR UP, which enables low-income schools and their
neighboring colleges to form partnerships to get mentors to help students
study hard, stay in school, and go on to college. Funding for this program is
only $180 million, not the $240 necessary to get this important investment to
the communities where it is needed most.
Increased funding for after-school programs was given short shrift,
despite what the research shows about the link between young people having no
positive pursuits in the afternoon and evening, and the related increase in
crime.
Education technology has been cut by the House, and the Senate numbers
are not sufficient to meet the growing need in an area where the federal
government is the primary funding source in most schools and communities, far
beyond the investments made by states and localities.
When it comes to education, this Congress has not stepped up to the very
challenge we are asking the educators, students, families and communities
across America to meet. When the expectations on Congress increased, the
level of commitment and vision decreased.
I am voting for this bill to move the process along. If class size
funding and other key investments are not restored, the conference report will
be vetoed. If it is vetoed, I and many of my colleagues will vote to sustain
that veto. This bill in its current form is only a vehicle through which we
may negotiate higher numbers in conference.
The American people have a stake in this battle. We need to hear their
004
10/07/99 THU 18:29 FAX
voices now.
This has been a difficult vote for me. While the bill does provide a
significant investment in public health and safety, it does so on the backs of
our children and retreating from our commitment to improve class size. This
bill cannot survive in its current form.
I do want to point out what I believe are positive aspects of this bill.
I applaud the efforts of Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin in preparing an
appropriations bill that meets important public health priorities. I know how
difficult this appropriations process has been and know their job was not easy.
As a member of the Labor, Health & Human Services & Education Subcommittee, I am
pleased that our product does maintain our commitment and investment in public
health.
The additional $2 billion investment for NIH alone will bring us that much
closer to finding a cure for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, cardiovascular,
Alzheimer's, MS and AIDS. Every dollar invested in NIH reaps greater savings in
health care dollars as well as greater savings in human lives. This additional
investment will ensure that we remain on a course to double NIH funding. I know
how important this funding is and am proud to represent outstanding research
institutions like the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center who receive significant research funding from NIH.
I am also pleased that we have provided funding for trauma care planning
and development for the states. This is an essential program that assists the
states in efforts to effectively develop trauma care strategies. We have
neglected trauma care and we have lost ground in life saving delivery of critical
care. I was pleased that the Subcommittee recognized the importance of trauma
care planning.
As many of my colleagues know, I have been pushing for federal funding to
establish a national poison control plan. My allegiance to "Mr. Yuk" is well
known within this chamber, as well as within the HELP Committee. It was only two
years ago that I offered an amendment during FDA reform to protect voluntary
poison control labeling like Mr. Yuk from possible elimination. I have used my
position on the Appropriations Committee to push for funding for poison control
centers and for a national 1-800 hotline. I am pleased that this legislation
includes $3 million for poison control efforts. This line-item within HRSA is
a major victory for children and their parents. We have taken a huge step
forward in developing a national poison control plan that builds on successful
efforts in all of the states, like those made in Washington state.
As one of the most vocal women's health care advocates in the Senate, I am
pleased that the Committee report to accompany this Appropriations bill addresses
several women's health issues and enhances programs to eliminate gender bias or
discrimination. I want to thank the Chairman for his support of funding for the
CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program for low income women. This
continued commitment will save lives and improve survival rates for women who
often have little or no access to cancer screening. We know that early
dedication offers the greatest hope of survival.
I am pleased that we have been able to provide additional funding to expand
the WISE WOMEN program to screen for cardiovascular disease as well as breast and
cervical cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of American
women. Twice as many women die from cardiovascular disease than breast and
cervical cancers combined. I was disappointed that we could not find additional
monies to expand this program in all 50 states, and will continue to work to
secure additional funding for FY200.
There are many reasons why I consider the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill
one of the most important appropriations bills and the one piece of legislation
005
10/07/99 THU 18:29 FAX
that truly effects all Americans and offers hope to the most vulnerable. But,
perhaps one of the most critical programs funded in this appropriations bill is
funding for battered women's shelters. This funding does save lives. This
funding is the life line for battered and abused women and children. I am proud
to have worked with the Chairman of the Subcommittee to increase our investment
in battered women's shelters. I am working for the day when we need no more
battered women's shelters. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go. But, by
increasing the funds available by $13.5 million for FY2000, we have offered
communities more resources to assist victims of domestic violence find a vital,
life-saving safe shelter.
I am hopeful that these important public health investments will survive
what will likely be a difficult conference with the House.
Barbara Chow
09/22/99 07:36:24 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
Jacob J. Lew/OMB/EOP@EOP, Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP, Bruce N. Reed/OPD/EOP@EOP,
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP@EOP
CC:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: Labor/HHS Appropriations
As far as we know (as of 7:20), the House subcommittee on Labor/HHS still plans to markup tomorrow at
10:00.
Education Highlights include the following:
The bill is $2.8 billion below the President's request on a gross basis for key education priorities:
Class size/Goals 2000/ Eisenhower grants are folded into a single block grant
subject to
authorization (presumably the Teacher Empowerment Act). Interestingly
enough, the sum of
these three programs is $200 million lower than the authorization in the Teacher Act.
Education Technology is reduced by over $250 million below the President's request ($148 million
below 99).
Afterschool programs are cut by $300 million below the POTUS request (although they are increased
by $100 million above 99 levels).
Safe and Drug free schools are frozen and reduced by $25 million below the POTUS request.
Charter Schools are provided $130 million (POTUS request).
America Reads is funded at $200 million ($86 million below POTUS and $60 million below 1999
GEAR UP is terminated (cut of $240 million)
Learning Anywhere/Anytime is terminated.
Head Start is funded at $507 million below the POTUS request ($100 million above 99).
In addition, Impact Aid, Title VI (block grant), Special Education (+$383 million), Pell Grants (+$25 in the
maximum award) and TRIO are increased above the POTUS request.
Other non-education highlights include relatively deep cuts in labor programs including elimination of the
Youth Opportunities Grants and School to work, cuts in dislocated workers, youth activities and worker
protection programs.
In addition to all of the aggressive advance appropriations we have previously discussed, It is my
understanding that the subcommittee plans to rescind and reappropriate (in 2001) $3 billion in TANF
balances as well.
We have prepared and will have available for distribution an analysis of the effects of these reductions.
Message Copied To:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE SENATE LABOR/HHS/EDUCATION
APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Today the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations committee
passed a spending bill that fails to invest in key initiatives to raise student achievement. While
its funding levels are better than those of the House version, the Senate bill still falls short of
what we need to strengthen America's schools. It does not guarantee a single dollar for our
efforts to hire quality teachers and reduce class size in the early grades. It cuts funding for
education technology, and underfunds such efforts as GEAR UP and after-school programs.
And it does not provide funding to turn around failing schools.
To develop world-class schools, we need to invest more and demand more in return. We need
accountability from our schools -- and from our Congress too.
In addition, the bill's cut to the Social Services Block Grant could severely undermine state and
local efforts to provide child care, child welfare programs, and services for the disabled. By
failing to fund the Family Caregiver initiative, the bill also withholds critical aid to families
dealing with the elderly and ill. The legislation also shortchanges public health priorities in
preventive and mental health, and underfunds programs that would give millions of Americans
improved access to health care.
If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would have to veto it. I believe, however,
that we can avoid this course. I sent the Congress a budget for the programs covered by this bill
that provided for essential investments in America's needs, and that was fully paid for. I look
forward to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that this bill strengthens public
education and other important national priorities.
Title I: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ESEA/prospectus/title1-a.html
requirement that states develop assessments aligned with their standards by the 2000-01 school
year.
Almost every state has established challenging content standards describing what all students,
including Title I students, should know. States are now working on completing performance
standards describing what students should be able to do. Soon all states will be administering
assessments that measure student progress toward those standards.
To see meaningful gains in student learning, states and school districts must now translate state
standards from policy documents into classroom practices. State standards and assessments will
help teachers and schools focus instruction, curriculum, and professional development for school
staff and enable them to determine how their students are doing and how they can improve.
Standards and assessments will also help states and districts better identify schools in need of
help.
Strengthen accountability for districts and schools. Our proposal would encourage states to
develop one rigorous accountability system that holds all schools, including Title I schools,
accountable for making continuous and substantial gains in student performance. States will have
the flexibility to use either a model outlined in the statute or an alternative that is at least as
rigorous and effective. States without a single statewide accountability system would be required
to develop one for their Title I schools.
Reward improvement and success. Our proposal would require states to establish criteria for
recognizing distinguished districts and schools. For example, these criteria might lead states to
recognize districts and schools that have shown substantial gains for three consecutive years, have
helped virtually all of their students meet the state's advanced level of performance, or have raised
student achievement across gender and racial groups to promote equity in achievement.
Acknowledging high-achieving and improving schools and districts helps them sustain their
momentum and identifies lessons for other schools.
Increase funding to help low-performing schools implement sound programs that improve student
performance. Each state would be required to set aside 2.5 percent of its Title I allocation to
strengthen state and local capacity to turn around low-performing schools. This set-aside would
THIS
increase to 3.5 percent in the 2003-04 school year. At least 70 percent of these funds would go to
districts to turn around low-performing schools. The remainder would be used to fund a state
support system to improve schools and districts.
This set-aside would provide more funds for swift, intensive intervention such as expert
consultation and in-depth teacher training in schools and districts identified as being in need of
improvement, and for stronger corrective actions in schools and districts that fail to show
improvement after initial interventions.
Funds would be used, first, in consistently low-performing schools and school districts to
implement strong corrective actions that dramatically alter the structure of schools and the
instructional strategies to help students in the school or school district. Districts would take at least
one of the following corrective actions: (1) implementing a new curriculum that research has
shown offers substantial promise of improving student achievement; (2) redesigning or
reconstituting the school, including reopening it as a charter school; or (3) closing the school and
allowing its students to transfer. In all instances of corrective action, districts may also allow
students the option of transferring to a new school.
Funds would then be used in low-performing schools or districts that have been identified as being
in need of improvement to provide support and interventions, such as expert consultation and
in-depth teacher training.
Emphasize high-quality teaching. Teacher quality is the greatest single in-school factor in
determining student success. 37 To enable teachers in our poorest schools to teach to challenging
8 of 14
9/28/1999 8:42 PM
Title I: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ESEA/prospectus/titlel-a.htm.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, unpublished tabulations from the Follow-Up Survey of Education Reform.
Almost all Title I funds go to local school districts to support instruction.
Approximately 99 percent of Title I dollars go to local school districts. School districts, in turn, use 90 to
93 percent of their Title I funds for instruction and instructional support, most often in reading and
math 13
Title I provides flexible funding that may be used for supplementary instruction, professional
development, after-school or other extended learning time programs, and other strategies for raising
student achievement. For example, Title I funds used for professional development amounted to about
$191 million in 1997-98, about 27 percent of total federal support for teacher professional
development 14
Accountability systems tied to standards and assessments provide focus for schools.
Accountability systems for school quality, including student performance, can help schools and districts
use data to identify student needs and make improvements. Recent research on accountability systems in
14 districts found that decision-making relied heavily on performance data. The study found that many
districts were going beyond requirements of Title I to use performance data to identify and develop
strategies for staff development and curriculum improvement to address gaps in performance 15
Even though Title I accounts for a relatively small portion (about 3 percent) of total federal, state, and
local spending on elementary and secondary education, some evidence suggests that Title I
accountability provisions are having a significant effect in driving reform in high-poverty districts. For
example, a recent study of accountability in large urban districts found that Title I has been "a model and
an instigator" for standards-based reforms and efforts to track student progress and improve schools 16
Nationally, 50 percent of small, poor districts and 47 percent of large, poor districts report that Title I is
driving reform to a great extent. Fourteen percent of all districts report that Title I is significantly driving
reform to a great extent in their districts as a whole 17
States are making progress in implementing the accountability provisions of Title I, although the law
does not require full implementation of accountability systems until final assessments are in place in the
2000-01 school year. But states are also facing new challenges as they transform their educational
systems into higher-performing, results-based systems 18 For example, although there is considerable
overlap between schools identified for improvement under Title I and those identified through other state
or local mechanisms, states report that they are having difficulty integrating the Title I requirements with
their own systems. Only 23 state Title I directors report that the same accountability system is used for
Title I schools as for other schools in their state 19
States and districts lack the capacity to turn around schools in need of improvement.
State school support teams, authorized in 1994, were intended first to provide support for schoolwide
programs in their planning process and, as a second priority, to provide assistance to schools in need of
improvement through activities such as professional development or identifying resources for changing
instruction and organization. The lack of capacity of state school support teams to assist schools in need
of improvement under Title I, however, has been a major concern:
The State Improvement Grants, designed to provide additional resources for the operation of
school support teams, have not been funded in the past four years. Although state school support
teams have primarily assisted schoolwide programs, their charge also includes providing
assistance to other schools in need of improvement. In 1998, only eight states reported that school
support teams have been able to serve the majority of schools identified as in need of
improvement.
4 of 14
9/28/1999 8:42 PM
Title I: Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards
http://www.ed.gov/ofices/OESE/ESEA/prospectus/titlel-ahtml
Fewer than half (47 percent) of schools that reported in 1997-98 that they had been identified as in
need of improvement also reported that this designation led to additional professional
development or assistance 20
Agua Fria Union High School Avondale, Arizona
Agua Fria High School enrolls about 1,700 students in grades 9 through 12. Half of its students
are white, and almost 40 percent are Hispanic. Twenty-eight percent of the students receive free or
reduced-price school lunches. The school's Title I targeted assistance program serves 525
students, most of whom are freshmen. For the first time in many years, Agua Fria's scores on
standardized tests exceeded those of other high schools in the western suburbs of Phoenix.
Every academic department at Agua Fria has aligned its curriculum with the Arizona Academic
Standards and raised its graduation requirements. Each academic department must now create a
written plan to indicate how its teachers will use the standards in all of their classes. The school
requires that students read, at a minimum, at the ninth-grade level before they graduate, a
requirement the state dropped several years ago.
The Title I program supports the school's commitment to maintaining high standards and
preparing students for work. The lowest-performing Title I students take a direct instruction
reading class, which is offered as an elective. The course's curriculum is also aligned with state
reading objectives and uses computer-aided instruction, worksheets, and writing journals. Other
Title I students can use the Title I reading lab during their prep period or attend tutorial sessions
available before, during, and after school. Some receive reading assistance from Title I aides in
their regular English classes. During the summer, about 40 incoming Title I students take a
six-week math immersion course.
A focus on high standards at the classroom level can make a difference in student achievement
There is evidence of progress for students in high-poverty schools where staff members focus on
challenging standards and strategies to help students achieve them. Preliminary findings from the
Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP), a study of instructional practices
in 71 high-poverty schools, found that students whose teachers used a curriculum that reflected the
standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics recorded higher gains in mathematics
than did other students 21
Another study found that in high-performing, high-poverty schools, 94 percent of the principals reported
using standards to assess student progress and 80 percent reported using standards extensively to design
curriculum and instruction 22 Nationally, the proportion of Title I principals who reported using content
standards to guide curriculum and instruction to a great extent has increased from approximately half in
1995-96 to three-quarters in 1997-98.23
Teachers need more preparation to implement standards in the classroom.
Despite reported use of standards, most teachers do not feel very well prepared to implement them in the
classroom. In 1998, only 35 percent of teachers in schools with 60 percent poverty or greater reported
that they felt very well prepared to implement state or district curriculum and performance standards 24
Teachers' sense of preparedness is a key factor in predicting student outcomes, according to the LESCP
study of 71 high-poverty Title I schools. The LESCP found that teachers' reported preparedness in both
subject matter and instructional strategies had a positive relationship to student progress 25 Current
teacher training seems insufficient:
5 of 14
9/28/1999 8:42 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
FY 2000 Budget Summary - February 1999
Section A - Elementary and Secondary
Education
Overview
School Construction
Goals 2000: Educate America
Class Size Reduction
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged
Demonstrations of Comprehensive School Reform
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program
Reading and Literacy Grants
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants
Innovative Education Program Strategies State Grants
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Charter Schools
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers
Magnet Schools Assistance
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
Inexpensive Book Distribution
Arts in Education
Women's Educational Equity
Training and Advisory Services (Title IV of the Civil Rights Act)
Education for Native Hawaiians
Alaska Native Education Equity
Advanced Placement Incentives
Ellender Fellowships
Indian Education
Impact Aid
A. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TOP
Overview
The 2000 budget for elementary and secondary education includes significant increases for priority
programs. Combined with "tax expenditures" for the President's School Construction proposal, the
request demonstrates the continued Administration commitment to school reform and improvement by
helping States and localities to reduce class sizes, build and renovate schools, ensure that every student
is taught by a well qualified teacher, and enable every child to learn to challenging academic standards.
The total request for discretionary elementary and secondary education programs is $14.5 billion, an
increase of $697 million or 5.1 percent over the 1999 level. Highlights of the request for elementary and
secondary programs include:
$8 billion for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, an increase of $320 million, with $200
million of the increase focused on efforts to hold schools accountable for results. The requested
funds will give States and school districts additional resources to turn around failing schools,
provide incentives for greater school success, and ensure that all students achieve to the standards
at their grade level before going on to the next level. The request also would direct a greater share
of Title I funding to school districts with high concentrations of poor children by distributing
1 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
$756 million through the Targeted Grants formula.
$1.4 billion, a $200 million increase, for the second year of the Class Size Reduction initiative,
which helps schools improve educational results by reducing class sizes with well-qualified
teachers in the early grades. The 1999 appropriation will support the hiring of some 30,000 new
teachers, as the first step toward the President's goal of hiring 100,000 over seven years. The 2000
request will support hiring more than 38,000 teachers. To sustain momentum for this initiative,
and to ensure that class-size reduction is a joint Federal, State, and local effort, the Department
will propose that a portion of the 2000 Federal contribution be matched by States and localities.
$450 million for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, a $25 million increase, to help schools
integrate technology into the curriculum and, in particular, to ensure that teachers are trained to
use educational technology effectively.
$30 million for a new Middle School Teacher Training initiative, which would help train a
technology teacher leader in every middle school who would work to integrate technology literacy
into academic curricula.
$402 million, a $34 million increase, for three programs that serve the children of migrant
agricultural workers: the Title I Migrant program, the High School Equivalency program, and the
College Assistance Migrant program. This request is part of the Administration's overall policy of
focusing budget resources on programs that can help Hispanic Americans and other limited
English proficient individuals succeed educationally and enter the economic mainstream.
$286 million, a $26 million increase, for the new Reading Excellence Act, for local literacy efforts
aimed at ensuring that every child can read well and independently by the end of the 3rd grade.
$175 million for Comprehensive School Reform Demonstrations, a $30 million increase, to
support a second round of grants and allow more schools serving low-income populations to
implement comprehensive, research-based educational reforms. The program receives funding
under Title I ($150 million) and in the Fund for the Improvement of Education ($25 million), with
technical assistance provided through the Department's Regional Education Laboratories.
$130 million for Charter Schools, to support the start-up of some 1,700 new or redesigned schools
that offer enhanced public school choice and have the flexibility to offer innovative educational
programs, in exchange for greater accountability for student achievement.
$114 million for Magnet Schools, including a $10 million increase to support inter-district magnet
programs.
$591 million for Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, an increase of $25 million over 1999. The
request includes a $15 million increase for the Coordinator Initiative, which will place 1,300 drug
coordinators in middle schools across the Nation, and $12 million for the "Project SERV"
proposal, under which the Department will partner with other Federal agencies in assisting
communities affected by violence or other traumatic incidents.
$20 million for the Advanced Placement Incentives program, a $16 million increase to launch a
three-year effort to expand AP or other challenging courses to every high school in the Nation
through such activities as curriculum development and teacher preparation.
$77 million for Indian Education, an $11 million increase, primarily to support a $10 million
"American Indian Teacher Corps" initiative, which will train 1,000 new Indian teachers over a
five-year period for positions in schools that have concentrations of Native American students.
TOP
School Construction
2 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
In response to the urgent need for school renovations and additional classrooms in communities across
the Nation, the President's budget includes a program of Federal subsidies for school construction bonds
used to pay for new construction and for repair and renovation of existing facilities. This program would
provide tax credits to eliminate the interest costs of such bonds. The Federal Government would
subsidize the issuance of $22 billion in special 15-year bonds over the next two years-$11 billion in
2000 and $11 billion in 2001.
One-half of this bond authority would be allocated, by formula, to the States and one-half to the 100-125
local educational agencies with the largest number of children living in poverty. In addition, the
Secretary of the Interior would allocate $200 million in bond authority each year to tribes, for
renovations and repairs to Indian schools.
This new initiative would be modeled after the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds program enacted by
Congress in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. That program subsidizes bonds issued by school districts
for the purpose of school renovations and repairs, as well as equipment purchases and both curriculum
and professional development. The bonds can be used for schools that are in Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities, or in which at least 35 percent of students are eligible to participate in the
school lunch program. The total amount of bonds issued under the Qualified Zone Academy program is
currently capped at $400 million in each of calendar years 1998 and 1999. The Administration is
proposing to extend the Qualified Academy Zone Bonds by authorizing an additional $1 billion in
bonding authority in 2000 and $1.4 billion in 2001.
TOP
Goals 2000: Educate America
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
State and Local Education Systemic Improvement
$466.0
$461.0
$461.0
Parental Assistance
25.0
30.0
30.0
Total
491.0
491.0
491.0
Goals 2000 helps schools, communities, and States develop and implement their own strategies based on
standards of excellence for improving elementary and secondary education. These strategies center on
the creation and implementation of high standards and challenging assessments in core academic
subjects that define what all students should know and be able to do at various grade levels.
With the help of Goals 2000, States are establishing academic standards and coordinating their
curriculum frameworks, student assessment programs, teacher preparation and licensure requirements,
parental and community involvement activities, and other aspects of their education systems to achieve
the State standards. In this way, schools can measure progress through the new assessments, and parents
and the public can get information about how well schools assist all children in reaching the standards.
A recent General Accounting Office report found that, according to State officials, Goals 2000 "has been
a significant factor in promoting their education reform efforts and, in several cases, was a catalyst for
some aspect of the State's education reform movement." GAO also reported that "State and local
officials said that Goals 2000 funding provided valuable assistance and that, without this funding, some
reform efforts would not have been accomplished or would not have been accomplished as quickly."
In addition, a recent report of the National Education Goals Panel found that sustained, consistent reform
policies (of the type financed by Goals 2000), backed by political leadership and business support in the
State, was the clearest explanation for the gains by the two States, North Carolina and Texas, that have
posted the largest advances in student achievement in recent years.
With 1999 State grant funds, Goals 2000 will help an estimated 12,000 schools across the Nation
3 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.hm
mobilize to design common-sense approaches to improve teaching and learning. The 2000 budget would
sustain this program with level funding of $461 million.
In addition, the request includes level funding of $30 million for the separately authorized Goals 2000
Parental Assistance program. This program supports centers that provide parents with training,
information, and support they need to help their children achieve to high standards. Centers are now
operating in all States and Territories.
TOP
Class Size Reduction
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
-
$1,200.0
$1,400.0
The new Class Size Reduction program will help school districts improve education in the early
elementary grades by providing funds to hire highly qualified teachers and reduce class sizes. The
initiative responds to recent research documenting the learning gains produced by smaller classes in the
early grades. For example, in the most extensive research, students in smaller classes in Tennessee
outperformed their peers on every achievement measure in every year of the study. These gains were
particularly strong for minority and inner-city students (although all types of students in all types of
communities benefited).
Class Size Reduction was first funded in 1999 under Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Each State receives a formula allocation and, in turn, distributes the money to local
educational agencies (LEAs) by formula. LEAs use the funds to recruit, hire, and train new teachers, and
may also use up to 15 percent of their allocations to test and provide professional development to
teachers. An LEA that has reduced class size to no more than 18 students per class in grades 1-3 may use
its funds to make further reductions in those grades, to reduce class sizes in other grades, or to carry out
additional testing and professional development activities.
The President has set a goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers by fiscal year 2005. The 1999 appropriation
will pay for more than 30,000 teachers. The request would sustain momentum toward the 100,000 goal
with a $200 million increase and by requiring-through proposed appropriations language-that school
districts provide a 35 percent match for any funds they receive in excess of their 1999 allocations. The
funding increase and the match would combine to support the hiring of more than 38,000 teachers in the
coming year. Districts with a high child poverty count would be exempt from the matching requirement.
TOP
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$425.0
$425.0
$450.0
The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund helps States put into practice strategies to enable all schools to
integrate technology into school curricula, so that students can become more technologically literate and
master the communication, math, science, and other core subjects needed to succeed in the Information
Age. The Challenge Fund program is intended to achieve the following four goals by 2001:
All teachers in the Nation will have the training and support they need to help all students learn
through computers and through the information superhighway;
All teachers and students will have access to modern multimedia computers in their classrooms;
Every classroom will be connected to the information superhighway; and
4 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sun-a.html
Effective and engaging software and on-line learning resources will be an integral part of every
school curriculum.
The program provides formula grants to States based on their share of ESEA Title I allocations; States
then award competitive grants to local school districts. States have a great deal of flexibility in
determining how to accomplish program goals.
The 2000 request of $450 million would provide the fourth installment in a planned five-year
commitment in this area. As in 1999, the Department will encourage State and local recipients to use at
least 30 percent of their grants for educator professional development in the use of technology. Since a
growing number of classrooms now have computers connected to the Internet, experts have emphasized
the importance of ensuring that teachers are well trained to use technology to improve instruction. The
requested $50 million increase will help States and school districts respond more quickly to this need for
technology-related professional development.
The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund has supported major advances in access to technology in
schools in recent years. Between 1994 and 1997, the percentage of schools connected to the Internet rose
from 35 percent to 78 percent, and the proportion of classrooms connected rose from 3 percent to 27
percent. The 2000 request would help sustain these advances.
TOP
Title I: Education for the Disadvantaged
(dollars in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Grants to LEAs
$7,375.2
$7,676.0
$7,996.0
Capital Expenses for Private School Children
41.1
24.0
-
Even Start
124.0
135.0
145.0
State Agency Programs:
Migrant
305.5
354.7
380.0
Neglected and Delinquent
39.3
40.3
42.0
Subtotal
344.8
395.0
422.0
Evaluation
7.0
7.5
8.9
Total
8,012.1¹
8,357.51
8,721.9¹
1
Total includes funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program.
Title I provides supplemental programs to enable educationally disadvantaged children, particularly
those attending schools in high-poverty areas, to learn the core subjects to high standards. With Title I,
low-achieving children have the benefit of more individualized instruction, fundamental changes in the
school to improve teaching and learning, and preschool education. Children of migrant agricultural
workers, and students in State institutions for neglected and delinquent children and youth, also benefit
from Title I services.
The 1999 request includes $8 billion, a $320 million increase, for Grants to Local Educational Agencies.
The number of children served by this program has increased rapidly in recent years, as more schools
have elected to establish schoolwide Title I programs. The Department estimates that in 2000 these
grants will serve as many as 12 million students in 44,000 schools. The budget will help these schools
continue to implement major reforms intended to help reduce the gap between the educational
5 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
achievement of disadvantaged children and that of their more advantaged peers.
Reflecting the Administration's commitment to helping States and local educational agencies turn
around low-performing schools and put into place measures to ensure that all students meet academic
standards before advancing to the next grade, the 2000 request for Title I puts a special emphasis on
educational accountability. The budget would provide States with approximately $200 million in new
resources for identifying and taking action to improve weak schools through such actions as intensive
teacher training, support to improve school discipline, and the implementation of proven approaches to
school reform. If these actions do not result in improved student achievement within two years, States
would take additional corrective actions.
In addition, in order to channel Title I funds to the schools where those funds are most needed, the
Department is proposing to allocate $756 million through the "Targeted Grants" formula. This formula
provides more funding per child than the "Basic Grants" formula to school districts that have higher
percentages or numbers of children from low-income families.
In addition to Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Title I includes several other programs:
Even Start supports local projects that blend early childhood education, parenting instruction, and adult
education into a unified family literacy program. The request includes a $10 million increase to make
these services available to more eligible families.
The budget includes a $25 million increase for Migrant Education to meet the unique needs of the
children of highly mobile migrant agricultural workers and bring about better coordination of the
resources available for serving migrant students. In particular, the increase will help States expand their
efforts to identify migrant children, pay the higher costs often associated with serving those children,
and employ methods, such as distance learning, to reach migrant farmworker communities. In total, the
request will support services to some 640,000 migrant students, up from 624,000 in 1999. The Title I
Neglected and Delinquent (N&D) program would also receive a small increase to improve services to
children and youth in State-operated institutions.
The Department is proposing a $1.4 million increase for Title I Evaluations, which measure the impact
of the LEA Grants and Migrant and N&D programs on the education of disadvantaged children. The
Department will release a major national assessment of the Title I programs in February 1999. The 2000
appropriation would be used for continuing studies and analyses of longitudinal surveys, State-reported
data, and other sources.
Finally the Department is requesting no funding for Capital Expenses for Private School Children. This
program has helped school districts meet the extra costs of including private school children in Title I
programs, under the terms mandated by the original (1985) Aguilar V. Felton decision, which prohibited
provision of services at religious schools. Funds were used to pay for portable vans, leasing of neutral
sites, and other costs of off-site services. In 1997, however, the Supreme Court reversed its original
decision, and districts are now allowed to provide on-site instruction at religious schools. Subsequent
appropriations then helped districts and private schools make the transition back to on-site services, for
instance by funding the remaining costs of long-term leases. By 2000, however, this transition should be
complete.
TOP
Demonstrations of Comprehensive School Reform
(BA in millions)
6 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sun-a.html
2000
1998
1999
Request
Title I Demonstrations
$120.0
$120.0
$150.0
Fund for the Improvement of Education
30.0
25.0
25.0
Total
150.0
145.0
175.0
This program, first funded in 1998, helps schools develop or adapt, and implement, comprehensive
school reform programs that are based on reliable research and effective practices. The $30 million
increase requested under Title I for 2000 will expand the program to an additional 560 schools while
continuing awards to the approximately 2,700 funded in 1998 and 1999.
In launching this program, the Congress recognized that a number of schools across the country are
achieving impressive gains in student achievement by using new, comprehensive models for schoolwide
change, rather than a piecemeal, fragmented approach to reform. The Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstrations (CSRD) initiative gives more schools the opportunity to examine successful models of
reform and adapt them to their own needs. Projects in individual schools must: (1) employ innovative
strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and school management that are based on
reliable research and effective practices, and have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse
characteristics; (2) have measurable goals for student performance and benchmarks for meeting those
goals; and (3) obtain high-quality technical assistance from those with expertise in schoolwide reform
and improvement.
Title I CSRD funds are allocated by formula to States on the basis of each State's share of prior-year
Title I Basic Grants. The States then make three-year competitive subgrants to schools participating in
Title I programs. States are encouraged to give a priority to low-achieving schools that are in Title I
"school improvement" status. Funding provided through the Fund for the Improvement of Education
(FIE) provides additional State allocations based on each State's share of school-aged children. States
may subgrant their FIE allocations to any school in the State.
The Department is conducting a three-year evaluation of CSRD that includes an electronic database on
all participating schools, a longitudinal study of CSRD implementation and student achievement,
focused studies of comprehensive school reform in several States and districts, and extensive site visits
to help disseminate information on the early experiences in implementing CSRD in schools and districts.
TOP
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
High School Equivalency Program
$7.6
$9.0
$15.0
College Assistance Migrant Program
2.0
4.0
7.0
Total
9.7
13.0
22.0
The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) funds projects to help low-income migrant and seasonal
farm workers gain high school diplomas or equivalency certificates. The College Assistance Migrant
Program (CAMP) provides stipends and special services such as tutoring and counseling to migrant
students who are in their first year of college. Both programs have demonstrated high success rates. In
1993-94, approximately 69 percent of HEP participants completed their GED and 96 percent of CAMP
students completed their first year of college in good standing; almost 74 percent of CAMP participants
eventually graduate from college.
7 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/otfices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-ahtml
In light of these successes, the Department proposes a $9 million, or 69 percent, increase for the HEP
and CAMP programs. The request would enable the programs to serve almost 6,000 HEP participants
(up from 4,050) and 1,150 CAMP participants (instead of 700).
TOP
Reading and Literacy Grants
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
-
$260.0
$286.0
In October 1998, Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act, in response to the President's proposal
for a new program to help States and communities ensure that all children can read well and
independently by the end of the third grade. Under this new authority, the Department will make
competitive grants to States that have established statewide literacy partnerships and have strategies in
place for improving reading instruction. Winning States will then make subgrants to communities for
activities to provide children with the skills and support they need in early childhood so that they can
succeed in learning to read once they enter school. Activities include extra support in reading to children
in the early elementary grades and improving reading instruction in elementary schools. The States will
also use up the 15 percent of their grant funds to make "Tutorial Assistance Grants" that support
after-school tutorial programs for children in need of assistance in reading.
The authorizing legislation for this program permits a State to receive a single, three-year competitive
grant. With the 1999 appropriation of $260 million, the Department expects to make 20-22 State grants.
The 2000 request of $286 million will support grants to 22-24 additional States and more than double, to
almost 1.1 million, the estimated number of children served.
TOP
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in million
$335.0
$335.0
$335.0
Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants is the largest Federal effort dedicated to helping
ensure that there is a talented and dedicated teacher in every American classroom. The program is
designed to provide the high-quality, intensive professional development needed to give educators the
knowledge and skills necessary to teach children to standards of excellence. The program emphasizes
improvement of instruction in mathematics and science-the first $250 million of each year's
appropriation must be used in that area-but also allows States and districts to use Federal funds to
improve teaching in all of the core academic subjects. The emphasis is on sustained and intensive,
high-quality development experiences that are tied to the everyday life of a school and that support
continuous improvement in teaching and learning. The program gives schools the flexibility to set their
own staff training and development priorities.
Level funding in 2000 would enable States, school districts, and institutions of higher education to
continue their current efforts to upgrade the quality of instruction in the American classroom.
TOP
Innovative Education Program Strategies State Grants
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$350.0
$375.0
-
The request includes no funding for the Title VI block grants because the program is not well designed
8 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumn/sum-a.html
to support the kinds of State and local efforts most likely to result in real improvements in teaching and
learning. The evaluations of the antecedent Chapter 2 program concluded that the overall purpose of the
program-supporting school reform-was not achieved because of the broad, vague, and overlapping
nature of the activities eligible for funding. Fewer than half of the States, and very few districts, used
Chapter 2 funds for such reform activities as developing or revising educational standards, developing
improved student assessments, or entering into public-private partnerships. These evaluations also
determined that the majority of the activities supported by Chapter 2 received only a small percentage of
their funding from the program and, thus, would be likely to continue in its absence. The Department,
therefore, believes that these funds would be better spent on programs that are truly focused on
comprehensive educational improvement and reform.
TOP
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
State Grants
$531.0
$441.0
$439.0
National Programs
25.0
90.0
90.0
Coordinator Initiative
-
35.0
50.0
Project SERV
-
|
12.0
Total
556.0
566.0
591.0
America's students cannot be expected to learn in schools where they are threatened by drug abuse and
violence. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program is designed to help make our
schools safe and drug-free by supporting comprehensive, integrated approaches to drug and violence
prevention. The program provides significant resources to motivate our youth to reject illegal drugs as
well as the use of alcohol and tobacco, which is Goal Number 1 of the National Drug Control Strategy.
Toward this end, the request would provide $591 million for this program, a $25 million increase over
the 1999 level.
The request includes $439 million for State Grants, which are distributed by formula to State educational
agencies (SEAs) and Governors and then subgranted to local educational agencies (LEAs) and other
entities. To improve the effectiveness of this program, the budget would require SEAs to distribute 30
percent of their funds as competitive grants to a limited number of LEAs on the basis of district need and
program quality. This recommendation reflects findings that funds under the program do not always
flow to the districts with the greatest need, in amounts sufficient to make a real difference or for
activities that research indicates are most effective. The proposed allocation rules, along with "principles
of effectiveness" governing program expenditures that the Department published last July, should have a
significant impact on program results.
The 2000 request would also provide new resources for two major initiatives. The Coordinator Initiative
would receive a $15 million increase for a total of $50 million in 2000. This initiative will help place
drug and violence prevention coordinators in middle schools with significant drug and violence
problems. Coordinators will help schools analyze their crime and drug problems, select and implement
the most appropriate and effective interventions to address those problems, and work with the outside
community to ensure that school programs are linked with all available community resources. The 2000
request would permit support of some 1,300 coordinators to work in 6,500 middle schools, almost
one-half of middle schools nationally.
The second new initiative is Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence). Under this
program, the Department will partner with other Federal agencies in providing emergency assistance to
schools affected by serious violence or other traumatic incidents. The funds would support counseling of
9 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.hml.
students, school staff, and other community members; provision of additional school security personnel;
and other services that help schools and communities prepare for or respond to crises.
The budget request would level-fund Safe and Drug-Free Schools National Programs at $90 million.
With the significant increase appropriated for this program in 1999, the Department, along with other
agencies, is launching the "Safe Schools/Healthy Students" initiative. This activity will assist school
districts and communities to develop and implement comprehensive, community-wide strategies for
creating safe and drug-free schools and for promoting healthy childhood development, so that students
can grow and thrive free from violence or other destructive behaviors. The 2000 request includes $60
million to continue Safe Schools/Healthy Students projects, and $30 million for other discretionary
activities funded under National Programs.
TOP
Charter Schools
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$80.0
$100.0
$130.0
The Charter Schools program stimulates comprehensive education reform and public school choice by
supporting the planning, development, and initial implementation of public charter schools. Charter
schools are public schools that are exempted from most education rules and regulations so as to permit
more flexible and innovative methods of achieving educational excellence. In exchange for this greater
independence, charter schools are held accountable for improving student performance. A total of 34
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico now have charter schools laws, and the number of
charter schools has increased from 250 to almost 1,000 in the past three years.
The Department's Public Charter Schools program provides financial support for the planning and initial
implementation of charter schools, primarily through grants to States (which then make subgrants to
charter school developers). Amendments to the statute enacted in 1998 strengthen the focus on
educational accountability and give a priority to States that have multiple chartering agencies and allow
charter schools a high degree of autonomy over their budgets. They also permit States to use a limited
amount of their funds to support dissemination of information on successful charter school programs.
The $130 million request would assist the continued growth of this promising educational reform by
funding new and continuing awards for some 1,700 charter schools. The Administration's objective is to
stimulate the creation of 3,000 schools by early in the next decade.
TOP
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$27.1
$28.0
$32.0
Under this program, a network of 15 university-based or non-profit centers offers comprehensive
technical assistance that cuts across programs and addresses the needs of schools and school districts for
help in integrating the various ESEA programs in support of State and local education reforms. Each
center provides support, training, and assistance-in areas identified by the States and LEAs in their
regions as most critical-on such topics as curriculum, instruction, assessments, professional
development, program evaluation, meeting the needs of at-risk populations, creation of a safe and
drug-free school environment, and implementing educational technologies.
The $32 million request, a $4 million increase, will enable the centers to meet a higher proportion of the
requests they receive from clients and, in particular, to offer more intensive, on-site services to
individual districts and schools.
10 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
TOP
Magnet Schools Assistance
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Magnet schools program
$97.0
$98.0
$98.0
Innovative programs
3.0
5.0
5.1
Inter-district programs
0.0
0.0
10.0
Evaluation
1.0
1.0
0.9
Total
101.0
104.0
114.0
The Magnet Schools Assistance program makes grants to local educational agencies to operate magnet
schools that are part of a court-ordered or federally approved desegregation plan to eliminate, reduce, or
prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools. Magnet schools address their
desegregation goals by providing a distinctive educational program that attracts a diverse student
population.
A separate authority supports "Innovative Programs" carried out under local desegregation plans that do
not involve magnet schools. Innovative Programs may include neighborhood or community school
models that are organized around a special emphasis, theme, or concept and that involve extensive
parent and community involvement. Grants for both Magnet Schools and Innovative Programs run for
three years.
The 2000 budget would support continuation of 58 Magnet Schools awards first made with 1998 funds
and of approximately 14 Innovative Programs grants that will be awarded with 1999 funds. In addition,
the Department is requesting a $10 million increase to make new awards that will support inter-district
approaches to school desegregation. Inter-district programs generally bring together students from urban
and suburban districts to attend schools with special emphases or themes. They can thus be an effective
desegregation mechanism, particularly for urban districts that, because of the demographics of the
student population, have difficulty desegregating on their own. The request for funding for a special
competition for inter-district magnet programs is also part of the Administration's broader strategy of
supporting creation of additional choices for students and parents within the public school system.
TOP
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$28.8
$28.8
$31.7
This program provides formula grants to States to carry out activities to ensure that all homeless children
have access to a free, appropriate public education. States also make subgrants to local educational
agencies for tutoring, transportation, and other services that help homeless children to enroll in, attend,
and succeed in school.
Since this program began in 1988, nearly all States have revised their laws, regulations, and policies to
improve educational access for homeless students. States have typically eased residency requirements,
and some have made great strides in changing transportation and immunization policies to ensure greater
access for the homeless. Nevertheless, homeless children and youth continue to be a population at
significant risk of educational failure and, because of their mobility, are often underserved by programs
that are designed to prevent that failure, such as Head Start, special education, and bilingual education.
The $31.7 million request for this program, a $2.9 million increase, would allow States to focus both on
11 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-alhtm.
improving services to homeless children and on increasing the number of students served.
TOP
Inexpensive Book Distribution
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$12.0
$18.0
$18.0
This program is administered through a contract with Reading Is Fundamental, Inc. (RIF), a nonprofit
organization affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. RIF allocates funds to local community
associations that select and distribute inexpensive books to children free-of-charge. RIF currently
reaches more than 2.2 million children through 4,000 local projects. Since 1994, legislation has required
RIF, in selecting new local projects, to give priority to those that will serve children who are
low-income, disabled, homeless, or have other special needs.
TOP
Arts in Education
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$10.5
$10.5
$10.5
This program supports student competency in the arts, a component of the National Education Goals, by
encouraging the integration of arts education into elementary and secondary school curricula. The
Department awards funds to the Very Special Arts (VSA) organization, which develops programs that
integrate the arts into the general education of children with disabilities and the lives of adults with
disabilities, and to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts education program, which
supports a variety of arts education activities with States and schools.
TOP
Women's Educational Equity
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$3.0
$3.0
$3.0
The Women's Educational Equity program promotes educational equity for girls and women through
grants to public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and individuals. By law, at least two-thirds of
funds support local implementation of gender-equity policies and practices through such activities as
teacher training to ensure gender equity in the classroom and guidance and counseling to increase
opportunities for women in fields in which they are traditionally underrepresented. The remaining funds
support dissemination through a national resource center and research and development grants. Level
funding in 1999 would make available about $2.1 million for new awards.
TOP
Training and Advisory Services (Title IV of the Civil Rights Act)
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$7.3
$7.3
$7.3
This program supports 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers that provide services to school districts on
issues related to desegregation based on race, gender, and national origin. Typical activities include
disseminating information on successful practices and legal requirements related to nondiscrimination,
12 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
providing training to educators to develop their skills in specific areas, such as identification of bias in
instructional materials, and technical assistance on selection of instructional materials.
TOP
Education for Native Hawaiians
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Family-Based Education Centers
$6.0
$7.2
$7.2
Higher Education
2.7
2.7
2.7
Gifted and Talented
2.0
2.0
2.0
Special Education
2.0
2.0
2.0
Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, and
Recruitment
4.0
4.8
4.8
Community-Based Centers
1.0
1.0
1.0
Native Hawaiian Education Councils
0.3
0.3
0.3
Total
18.0
20.0
20.0
These programs provide educational services for Hawaiian Natives, many of whom continue to perform
below national norms on achievement tests of basic skills in reading, science, math, and social science.
Hawaiian Natives also experience higher than average rates of absenteeism and grade retention, are
disproportionately identified as disabled, and have a low rate of postsecondary participation. The
Education for Native Hawaiians programs address each of these issues, and have demonstrated
significant progress in such areas as early childhood education and higher education. In recent years, at
the instruction of Congress, the Department has funded new projects in such areas as aquaculture
education, Hawaiian language revitalization, and prisoner education. These and other activities would
continue under the 2000 budget.
TOP
Alaska Native Education Equity
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Educational Planning, Curriculum Development,
Teacher Training, and Recruitment
$4.0
$5.1
$5.1
Home-based Education for Pre-School Children
3.2
3.8
3.8
School Enrichment
0.8
1.1
1.1
Total
8.0
10.0
10.0
These programs provide educational services to meet the special needs of Native Alaskan children.
Recent studies have shown that 60 percent of Alaska Natives entering high school in urban areas do not
graduate, and Alaska Natives trail other students on tests of educational proficiency. The 2000 request
includes level funding for continuation of projects that address the barriers preventing Alaska Native
children from achieving to higher academic standards.
TOP
Advanced Placement Incentives
13 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-ahml
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$3.0
$4.0
$20.0
This program awards grants to States to enable them to cover part or all of the cost of advanced
placement test fees of low-income students who are enrolled in an advanced placement course and
intend to take an advanced placement test. The program thus provides an incentive for districts serving
low-income students to offer advanced placement courses and for students to take those courses. Passing
the AP tests can then result in students earning college credits and reducing their postsecondary
education costs.
As reauthorized in 1998, the program supports other activities to make advanced placement and other
challenging courses available to students from low-income families and, thus, upgrade the high school
curriculum available to those students. States in which low-income students pay no more than a nominal
fee to take AP tests can now use program funds for such activities as development of curriculum for
advanced placement courses and training of teachers to teach in those courses.
The significant increase requested for 2000 would take advantage of this new authority to launch a
three-year initiative to bring challenging course to all high schools. New funds would support State
efforts to make high-level, challenging courses more widely available. For example, States could use the
Internet or other technologies to bring physics and calculus courses to high schools that do not currently
offer them.
TOP
Ellender Fellowships
2000
1998
1999
Request
BA in millions
$1.5
$1.5
|
The Ellender Fellowships program, administered by the Close Up Foundation of Washington, D.C.,
provides financial aid to enable low-income students and their teachers to participate in week-long
seminars on government in Washington. A separate program is designed to increase understanding of
the Federal Government among older Americans, recent immigrants, and children of migrant parents.
A 1992 study of the Ellender Fellowship program found that, despite a pattern of increasing Federal
funding for the program and significant increases in private-sector support for the Close Up Foundation,
the number of fellowships had steadily declined. In 1996, at the request of Congress, the Department and
Close Up developed a plan for the Foundation to continue its activities without Federal support. Under
this plan, the Foundation pledged to expand its private development activities, including, for the first
time, reaching out to the nearly 500,000 Close Up alumni. The Department believes that these activities
make further Federal funding unnecessary.
TOP
Indian Education
(BA in millions)
2000
1998
1999
Request
Grants to LEAs
$59.8
$62.0
$62.0
Special Programs for Indian Children
-
3.3
13.3
National Activities
-
0.7
1.7
Total
59.8¹
66.0
77.0
14 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
I
Excludes $2.8 million in 1998 for administrative costs, which are included in the Program Administration account in 1999
and 2000.
The Department's Indian Education programs supplement the efforts of State and local educational
agencies, and Indian tribes, to improve educational opportunities for Indian children. The programs link
these efforts to broader educational reforms underway in States and localities to ensure that Indian
students benefit from those reforms and achieve to the same challenging academic standards as other
students.
Census, NCES, and other data document that American Indians continue to be disproportionately
affected by poverty and low educational achievement, although there has been progress in recent
decades. For example, in the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 48 percent of
Indian 4th graders and 63 percent of Indian 8th graders scored at or above the basic level in reading,
compared to 60 and 70 percent, respectively, for all students. In the 1996 NAEP mathematics
assessment, 52 percent of Indian 4th graders and and 50 percent of Indian 8ᵗʰ graders performed at least
at the basic level, compared to 64 and 62 percent for the general student population. In response to the
continuing need for programs that address the special needs of the Indian population, the total 2000
request for Indian Education programs is $77 million, an $11 million increase over the 1999 level.
On August 6, 1998, President Clinton signed an Executive Order on Indian Education. That Order
commits the Federal Government to developing a comprehensive response to the national need for better
education of Indians, particularly in such areas as reading, mathematics, and science, improving
postsecondary attendance and completion rates, and ensuring that Indian students have access to strong,
safe, and drug-free school environments. Specific, long-term strategies for meeting these objectives are
being developed by an interagency Federal task force.
The 2000 budget request for Indian education is an initial response to the Executive Order. In particular:
A $10 million Indian Teacher Corps initiative, under the Special Programs for Indian Children
authority, would train 1,000 Indian teachers over a five-year period to take positions in schools
that serve concentrations of Indian children. It would partner tribal colleges with other institutions
of higher education that offer teaching degrees, and help pay for tuition and living expenses for
participating students as well as program development and operational costs for the colleges. The
2000 appropriation would pay the first year of preservice training for an initial cohort of 500
students. In addition, a portion of the money would support in-service training for individuals
already teaching in Indian schools.
The Executive Order calls for the development and implementation of a comprehensive Federal
research agenda on Indian education. Under the terms of the Order, the agenda must be in place by
August 1999. The 2000 budget includes $1.7 million, under National Programs, to carry out the
research and evaluation tasks called for in that forthcoming plan and for evaluations of Indian
Education programs.
In addition to the above initiatives, which flow specifically from the Executive Order, the budget would
continue the Grants to Local Educational Agencies at $62 million. This program provides formula grants
to public and BIA-supported schools for activities that address the educational needs of Indian students.
These activities must be linked to student performance goals based on challenging State or local
standards, and the districts must report periodically to their communities on progress they are making
toward those goals. The request would also continue funding for early childhood demonstrations and
educator professional development projects that the Department is initiating, in 1999, with Special
Programs for Indian Children funds.
TOP
Impact Aid
(BA in millions)
15 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
2000
1998
1999
Request
Payments for Federally Connected Children:
Basic Support Payments
$662.0
$704.0
$684.0
Payments for Children with Disabilities
50.0
50.0
40.0
Payments for Heavily Impacted Districts
62.0
70.0
-
Facilities Maintenance
3.0
5.0
5.0
Construction
7.0
7.0
7.0
Payments for Federal Property
24.0
28.0
-
Total
808.0
864.0
736.0
The Impact Aid program provides support to school districts affected by Federal activities. The 2000
budget request would place priority on children whose presence in school districts poses a true financial
burden: children living on Indian lands and children who live on Federal property and who have a parent
on active duty in the uniformed services, in civilian Federal employment, or in the employ of a foreign
military service.
The $684 million request for Basic Support Payments, although $20 million less than the 1999 amount,
would provide a 6 percent increase in the payments on behalf of the categories of children listed above.
No payments would be made for the so-called "b" children (those who live on or have a parent working
on Federal property, but not both), because their presence does not place a significant burden on
districts.
The $40 million request for Payments for Children with Disabilities, while a $10 million reduction,
would increase the average per-child payment for the eligible categories of children by 5 percent. These
funds provide additional support for certain federally connected children who are eligible for services
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As under Basic Support Payments, no payments
would be made on behalf of "b" children.
The request would provide no funding for Payments to Heavily Impacted Districts. While this authority
was originally designed to assist school districts that have large concentrations of federally connected
children and limited fiscal capacity to educate those children, the funding rules recently adopted by
Congress do not target funds effectively to those districts.
The Department of Education owns and must maintain 53 school facilities that serve large numbers of
military dependents. The $5 million requested for Facilities Maintenance will fund essential repairs to
these facilities and allow the Department to continue to upgrade and transfer school facilities to local
educational agencies.
The $7 million request for Impact Aid Construction would help meet the school construction needs of
local educational agencies with large proportions of federally connected children.
No funds are requested for Payments for Federal Property, which are made to school districts without
regard to the presence of federally connected children. The majority of the districts funded under this
program have had sufficient time (approximately 50 years) to adjust to the removal of Federal property
from the tax base, and they should be able to compensate for the termination of separate funding for this
program.
Direct any questions to Martha Jacobs, Budget Service
-###-
16 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
FY 2000 Budget Summary - Elementary and Secondary Education
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget00/BudgetSumm/sum-a.html
[Summary of the 2000 Budget]
PREV
UP
NEXT
Section B - Bilingual and Immigrant Education
This page last updated February 9, 1999 (saw).
17 of 17
9/28/1999 9:22 PM
From: Ben Johnson, Assistant to The President and Date: 10-18-99
Director of The White House Office On
The President's Initiative For One America
TO:
Bruce Reed
Prepare reply for
Call me on this
Please return call
President's signature
Prepare reply for
For Your Action
Please file
Director's signature
Prepare reply for
For your approval
Set up meeting
my signature
on this
For your signature
For your comments
Draft scheduling
request
Reply directly-copy to me
For Your Information
Process special
letter
For your support
Set up tour
Remarks:
National Association For Equal Opportunity In Higher Education
8701 Georgia Avenue. Suite 200. Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone (301) 650-2440. Fax No. (301) 495-3306
www.nafeo.org/
October 15, 1999
Mr. Ben Johnson
Assistant to the President &
Director of the President's Initiative for One America
The White House
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On behalf of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), I am writing
to respectfully request your support and immediate assistance during your work on the final stages of the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. During your congressional deliberations, NAFEO asks that
you:
Provide increased funding for Title III, Part B L $165 million is requested for the undergraduate
program and $40 million is requested for the graduate program (Section 326). Please support any
efforts to increase funding for this critically needed program;
Provide $4 million in funding and encourage the Department of Education to fund a technical
assistance and resource center to serve the HBCU community. The center would assist our schools
with student financial aid management, grant writing, research, replication of best practices,
reaccreditation, information dissemination and other capacity-building efforts;
Encourage the Department of Education to provide $8 million to fund an HBCU GEAR-UP
Demonstration, should funding for the GEAR-UP program be provided. The project will involve a
consortium of four HBCUs and four school districts. The project would evaluate the efficacy of
HBCUs in mentoring, enrolling, and graduating students from both rural and urban areas; and
Provide $17.8 million, the fully authorized remaining balance for historic preservation efforts at
HBCUs, and include budget neutral report language that encourages the National Park Service to
develop a plan to address the historic preservation needs of HBCUs and to report its
recommendations to Congress.
I am encouraged by the interest that you and others have shown in issues affecting predominately and
historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Now, we are at a point where the appropriations
process is winding down. So far, our successes have been modest. While we appreciate the proposed
increases for the Pell grant and TRIO programs and the fact that our priority programs have not been cut,
none of our top initiatives have been funded at the level requested by the President. Moreover, the House
funding recommendations for the Work-Study programs cause great concern, as well as lower funding
levels for other critical education programs. Therefore, continued support for an increased investment in
education is needed now more than ever when the economy of the new millennium will require an
educated workforce.
Board of Directors
Chairman, Dr. Edward B. Fort, Chancellor, North Carolina A&T State University, North Carolina
Dr. James A. Hefner, President, Tennessee State University, Tennessee
Dr. Emest L. Holloway.
Past Chairman, Dr. William T. Keaton, President, Arkansas Baptist College, Arkansas
Vice
President, Langston University. Oklahoma
Dr. SeBetha Jenkins, President, Jarvis Christian College,
Chairperson. Dr. Joann R. G. Boyd-Scotland, President, Denmark Technical College, South
Texas
Dr. Charles C Kidd. President, York College, New York
Dr. Shirley A. R. Lewis.
Carolina
Vice Chairman, Dr. Joe A. Lee, President, Tougaloo College, Mississippi
President. Paine College, South Carolina
Dr. James E. Lyons, Sr., President. Jackson State
Secretary. Dr. Earl S. Richardson, President, Morgan State University. Maryland
Treasurer.
University, Mississippi
Mr. Eddie N. Moore, President, Virginia State University. Virginia
Dr.
Dr. Wesley C. McClure, President, Lane College, Tennessee
Dr. Talbert 0. Shaw, President,
Sammie Pous, President, Barber-Scotia College. North Carolina
Dr. Albert J. H. Sloan, II, President,
Shaw University, North Carolina
Dr. Calvin Burnett, President. Coppin State University,
Miles College, Alabama
Henry Ponder, CEO
&
President,
NAFEO
Wilma J. Roscoe, D Hu L.
Maryland
Dr. Lawrence A. Davis, Jr., Chancellor, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
Vice President, NAFEO
Arkansas
Dr. Leroy Davis. President, South Carolina State University. South Carolina
Dr.
John 1.. Henderson, President, Wilberforce University. Ohio
NAFEO
"KEEPING THE DOORS OF OPPORTUNITY OPEN""
October 15, 1999
Page 2
Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. The National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education thanks you for all you do in "keeping the doors of opportunity
open. "TM
Sincerely,
Dr. Henry Ponder
President & CEO
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 23, 1999
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations
subcommittee today passed a partisan bill that would seriously undermine our efforts to
strengthen public education, protect workers, and move people from welfare to work.
This bill is proof that America's highest priority - improving our schools - remains the
Republican Congress's lowest priority. The bill eliminates our effort to hire quality teachers
to reduce class size in the early grades. It denies hundreds of thousands of young people
access to after-school programs, fails to improve and expand Head Start, cuts the successful
America Reads program, cuts educational technology, and eliminates the GEAR UP program,
which helps young people prepare early for success in college. It fails to give public schools
the resources to succeed, and does nothing to demand accountability for results
The bill also terminates the successful School-To-Work program and Youth
Opportunity Grants, and makes deep cuts in programs that help dislocated workers, provide
worker protections, and ensure worker safety. It undermines America's efforts to move
people from welfare to work by reneging on our bipartisan commitment to the states on
welfare reform. It contains a range of unacceptable provisions, which would prevent the
government from effectively protecting the health and safety of the American people.
The subcommittee bill would also underfund public health priorities, including
preventive health, mental health and substance abuse, health care access for the poor, and our
efforts to reduce racial health disparities and the spread of AIDS worldwide. It would prevent
us from continuing to provide important patient protections for American workers, and
improving our nation's organ distribution system. It also would threaten our ability to manage
key entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I warned earlier today that the tax bill sent to me as part of the Republican budget plan
would lead to major reductions in key national investments in education and other programs.
The subcommittee's bill today is another step in the same misguided direction.
This bill is unacceptable. Our nation's children deserve much better. I sent the
Congress a budget for the programs covered by this bill that provided for essential investments
in America's needs, and was fully paid for. If this bill were to come to me in its current form,
I would veto it. Instead, I urge the House not to pass the subcommittee's bill, and to work on
a bipartisan basis with my Administration on acceptable legislation.
###
STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF LABOR ALEXIS M. HERMAN ON HOUSE
LABOR/HHS/EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION
"This is a bad bill for American workers. America must close skills gaps and open
doors of opportunity for a new economy and a new century. The Administration wants to
help Americans to be wage earners for a lifetime: The House Subcommittee won't even
give them severance pay. That is why I am alarmed with the bill reported out today. The
House slams the door shut on meeting these challenges, and takes a mean-spirited approach
- cutting efforts to help the neediest among us.
"At precisely the time when employers complain that they cannot find skilled
workers and with pools of untapped potential workers, the House Subcommittee wants to
devastate education and training programs both for young people struggling in poverty and
for laid-off workers who don't have the skills to start over. At the same time this bill would
drastically curtail our ability to improve the safety and health of American workers.
"The House Subcommittee bill would reverse progress on many fronts:
It would devastate efforts to help workers who are laid off from their jobs through
no fault of their own - and deny assistance to an estimated 176,000 workers;
It would betray last year's bipartisan commitment to needy youth who are trying to
land in rewarding careers, cutting training for almost 200,000 poor, at-risk youth,
defunding the Youth Opportunity Movement and eliminating the School-to-Work
initiative;
It would severely damage the Department's ability to ensure that our workplaces are
safe, that our workers are treated fairly by employers, and that the pensions of
American families are safe and secure. Despite the fact that there are 6 million
workers hurt on the job each year, this bill singles out OSHA for deep cuts, which
would require drastic cuts in the number of inspections of serious workplace
hazards.
It zeroes out a promising initiative to help disabled Americans find and retain jobs.
And the Subcommittee has thrown roadblocks in the way of important new worker
protection standards. The Subcommittee proposes to:
keep workers in the dark about why they are not getting the health care benefits
promised under their plans and how they can appeal and get a fair answer without
delay; and
stop the Department from proceeding with important regulations that would protect
the wages of construction workers.
"The House action also cuts all funding for the important initiative proposed by the
President to raise core labor standards globally, thereby leveling the playing field for
American workers. Again, just as the President helped secure unanimous vote by the
International Labor Organization this summer on its child labor convention, raising the
dialogue internationally on core labor standards, the Subcommittee takes a step backwards.
The House Subcommittee also cuts back funding for efforts to combat child labor, ensure
equal pay and educate Americans about their pensions.
"Our economy is strong. Our commitment to the workers of today and tomorrow
should be, too. America's working families deserve better."
###
SEP. 23. 1999 7:32PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 8194
P. 2
&
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NEWS
STATE of
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: David Frank (202) 401-3026
September 23, 1999
Statement by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley
On the vote by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education
At a time when federal investment in education is the highest priority for the American
public, the House Appropriations Subcommittee has taken the irresponsible action of
cutting our nation's investment in education and slashing the very programs that
Americans want. At a time when record numbers of students are enrolled in school, the
Republicans have actually cut education funding.
Investment in initiatives to reduce class size and important programs like GEAR UP, which
prepares disadvantaged children for college, all would vanish under this Republican
budget. Their indiscriminate cuts run from the new basics to the old - cutting everything
from education technology to the most basic of all, reading.
A
This bill also cuts in half the President's request for after-school programs, and it rejects
the President's proposal to increase accountability as called for in his State of the Union
Address.
On top of all this, the Republican majority has chosen - and let me say in по uncertain
terms, it is a choice - they have chosen not to invest a dime to help local communities build
and repair. schools to replace our aging overcrowded school-buildings.
You'll hear a lot of talk from Republicans about the importance of education. But talk is
cheap. When it comes to the end of the day - and that's where we are in terms of the
national budget and our investment in education - actions are what matter. By their
actions today, it is clear that the Republican majority has failed the American people.
The President today vetoed the tax bill sent to him by the Republicans because it was risky,
irresponsible and would force cuts of as much as 50 percent in education funding over the
next ten years. Today's budget action is just as irresponsible. I will urge the President to
veto this bill.
###
House I abor/HHS/Education Appropriations Bill Guts Essential Education and Training
Investments
September 23, 1999.
Today, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor/HHS and Education passed an Appropriations bill that
would devastate critical investments in education and training and other programs. The bill would seriously
undermine our efforts to strengthen public education, protect workers, and move people from welfare to work. This
bill is proof that America's highest priority - improving our schools - remains the Republican Congress's lowest
priority.
House Appropriations Bill Guts Critical Investments
House Bill Guts Investment in Accountability, Teacher Quality and Class Size Reduction The House bill
provides no funding for class size reduction and fails to address teacher training issues. Instead, the bill folds
three programs (Goals 2000, Eisenhower Professional Development and the President's Class Size Reduction
plan) into the Teacher Empowerment Act block grant and provides $1.8 billion, which is $396 million below the
President's request for the three programs. By failing to fund class size reduction this bill does not guarantee that
the more than 30,000 teachers hired last year can continue teaching in smaller classes and eliminates funding for
an additional 8,000 teachers that would be hired under the President's Budget for next year. The bill also fails to
invest in proven teacher professional development practices and undermines standards-based reform.
House Bill Guts Investment in Title I Grants The House bill provides $264 million less than the President's budget
for Title I. As a result, 400,000 fewer children in high poverty communities would receive additional educational
services. Title I funding is a key component of efforts to help disadvantaged students reach high standards. The
House bill fails to fund the President's plan to set aside $200 million of Title I funds to help states and localities
turn around or reconstitute failing schools using Title I resources.
House Bill Terminates GEAR UP GEAR UP is a nation-wide initiative to encourage more young people to have
high expectations, stay in school, study hard, and take the right courses to go to college. The House bill eliminates
funding, compared to $120 million last year and $240 million in the President's Budget. Over 260,000 low-
income students who received services in FY 1999 to help them succeed in school and prepare for college would
receive no such services in FY 2000. The President's Budget would extend GEAR-UP services to over 570,000
students in FY 2000.
House Bill Guts Investment in After School The House bill provides only $300 million of the President's $600
million request for After School programs, serving nearly 850,000 fewer students than the 1.8 million served in
the President's Budget. After-school programs are one of the most effective ways to help students reach high
academic standards and end harmful practices such as social promotion.
House Bill Guts Investment in Educational Technology The House bill provides $251 million less than the
President's request of $ for a variety of innovative educational technology programs. Funds to help all States
and thousands of school districts buy hardware and software, train teachers, and link up to the internet were cut by
$25 million. Seven programs are eliminated including programs supporting pre-service teacher training, training
for teachers in 4,700 middle schools, software development, Star Schools, and Ready-to-Learn Television.
House Bill Guts Investment in America Reads The House bill cuts the Reading Excellence program by $86 million
below the President's request of $ million, serving 330,000 fewer students and undercutting efforts to ensure
that all children can read independently by the end of the third grade.
House Bill Guts Investment in Work Study The House bill cuts Work Study by $54 million less than the
President's request of $ million, serving about 62,000 fewer students and not attaining the President's goal of
giving one million students the opportunity to work their way through college by the year 2000.
House Bill Cuts Head Start. The House bill funds Head Start at $507 million below the President's request. The
Head Start program has enjoyed bipartisan support for several years, and grown an average of 30,000 children per
year since President Clinton took office. Under the Subcommittee's mark, for the first time in over a decade
(1987), Head Start participation will not increase. The mark would freeze participation at its current level
House Bill Terminates Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants are an initiative to provide
comprehensive employment and training assistance to all out-of-school young people in high poverty areas. The
program was passed last year, as part of the bipartisan Workforce Investment Act. Eliminating this program will
deny essential support for up to 58,000 of the most disadvantaged young people in central cities and rural
communities across America. The President's budget provides $250 million for Youth Opportunity Grants,
which are a critical component of the New Markets Initiative
House Bill Guts Investment in Hispanic Education The House bill barely increases funding for the Hispanic
Education Agenda, providing only $53 million of the $444 million increase requested in key programs, such as
migrant, bilingual, and adult education, to raise achievement and reduce dropout rates in the Hispanic community.
House Bill Cuts Summer Jobs Program and Youth and Adult Training The House bill provides almost $200
million below the President's request of $ 1.96 billion for Youth and Adult Training. These cuts would result in
lost job training, summer employment, and education opportunities to some 60,000 disadvantaged youth, and
38,200 adults would not have access to essential job training and placement services.
House Bill Cuts Dislocated Worker Assistance The House bill cuts Dislocated Worker Assistance by $335 million
below the President's request of $ 1.6 billion. The Dislocated Worker Employment and Training program
provides core services, intensive services, training and support to help permanently separated workers return to
productive, unsubsidized employment. The President's Universal Reemployment initiative would put us on a
five-year path toward universal job training services to all dislocated workers. Instead of taking a step forward for
dislocated workers, the House is proposing a giant leap backward by proposing cuts that will deny 176,000
dislocated workers access to these vital services. The bill also cuts funding for One-Stop Career Centers and
Reemployment Services.
House Bill Threatens Enforcement of Labor Protections The House bill freezes or cuts all Department of Labor
domestic workplace enforcement programs at or below FY 1999 levels, resulting in a $112 million reduction
below the President's request. For example, OSHA is cut $51 million below the President's budget. As a result of
this cut, some 5,000 fewer OSHA compliance inspections would be performed.
House Bill Jeopardizes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) The bill delays the availability of $3
billion in TANF funds, sending the wrong message to states who have prudently set aside "rainy day" reserves,
and to states otherwise preparing to invest in new programs for welfare recipients with multiple barriers and for
those who have already begun the transition to work. Through the first quarter of FY 1999 states have obligated
88% of their TANF dollars and have met all maintenance of effort requirements. By cutting billions from the
program, the federal government would undermine the true goals of welfare reform and abandon its commitment
to provide a fixed level of funding to states who live up to their commitment to invest their own dollars in
assistance to needy families.
House Bill Cuts the Social Service Block Grant by $471 million below the President's Request SSBG provides
funding to states to support a wide range of programs including child protection and child welfare, as well as
services focused on the needs of the elderly and disabled.
House Bill Eliminates the President's Family Caregiver Support Program The House bill does not include funds
for the President's $125 million new initiative to support those who care for the over 5 million disabled Americans
who have long term care needs. The Family Caregiver Program is one piece of the Administration's four-part
Long Term Care proposal to provide comprehensive services to support caregivers.
House Bill Fails to Increase Funding for Home-Delivered Meals The House bill funds the widely supported home-
delivered meals program at $112 million, which is $35 million below the President's request. The President's
funding level would provide 27 million additional meals to at-risk older adults. These meals allow many of these
adults to remain in their homes and communities, avoiding or delaying the need for costly institutionalization.
House Bill Cuts Important Health Initiatives The bill cuts public health priorities, including preventive health,
mental health and substance abuse, health care access for the poor, and efforts to reduce racial health disparities
and the spread of AIDS worldwide. The bill would also threaten our ability to manage key entitlement programs,
such as Medicare and Medicaid. It would prevent us from continuing to provide important patient protections to
American workers, and improving our nation's organ distribution system.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
September 23, 1999
I am deeply disappointed that the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
appropriations subcommittee today passed a partisan bill that would seriously undermine our
efforts to strengthen public education, protect workers, and move people from welfare to work.
This bill is proof that America's highest priority - improving our schools - remains the
Republican Congress's lowest priority. The bill eliminates our effort to hire quality teachers to
reduce class size in the early grades. It denies hundreds of thousands of young people access to
after-school programs, fails to improve and expand Head Start, cuts the successful America
Reads program, cuts educational technology, and eliminates the GEAR UP program, which helps
young people prepare early for success in college. It fails to give public schools the resources to
succeed, and does nothing to demand accountability for results.
The bill also terminates the successful School-To-Work program and Youth Opportunity Grants,
and makes deep cuts in programs that help dislocated workers and provide worker protections. It
undermines America's efforts to move people from welfare to work by reneging on our
bipartisan commitment to the states on welfare reform. It contains a range of unacceptable
provisions, which would prevent the government from effectively protecting the health and
safety of the American people.
The subcommittee mark would also underfund public health priorities, including preventive
health, mental health and substance abuse, health care access for the poor, and our efforts to
reduce racial health disparities and the spread of AIDS worldwide. It also would threaten our
ability to manage key entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I warned earlier today that the tax bill sent to me as part of the Republican budget plan, would
lead to major reductions in critical national investments in education and training and other
programs for vulnerable Americans. The subcommittee's mark today is another Republican step
in the same misguided direction.
This bill is unacceptable. Our nation's children deserve much better. I sent the Congress a
budget for the programs in this bill that provided for essential investments in America's needs,
and was fully paid for. This bill is unacceptable and if it were to come to me in its current form, I
would veto it. Instead, I urge the House not to pass the subcommittee's bill, and to work on a
bipartisan basis with my Administration on an acceptable bill.
SEP. 23. 1999 37PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 8185
P.
2
NEWS
3
House Appropriations Committee
Show 0° dhathis
hat
Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)
"lotsell - all w
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Elizabeth Morra
September 23, 1999
(202) 226-5828
SUBCOMMITTEE PANEL MARKS UP FY00 SPENDING BILL FOR LABOR,
HEALTH, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Bill Highlights
Discretionary
Mandatory
Total
(billions)
FY00 Chairman's Mark
$89.376
$226.599
$315.975
FY00 Pres. Request
$91.592
$227.076
$318,668
FY99 Spending
$89.693
$209.041
$298.734
Continuing Our Commitment to High Priority Block Grants:
The Maternal and Child Block Grant is increased $105 million over FY99, bringing FY00
funding to $800 million, $105 million more than the President's request.
The bill fully funds the Teacher Empowerment Act at $1.8 billion to provide flexibility to
local districts to fund their education priorities.
The Preventive Health Block Grant is increased $2 million over FY99. bringing FY00 to
$152 million, $32 million more than the President's request.
The Substance Abuse Block is level funded at the FY99 level of $1.585 billion.
The Mental Health Block Grant is increased $11 million above FY99, bringing FY00
funding to $300 million.
The Social Services Block Grant is level funded at the FY99 level of $1.9 billion.
The Community Services Block Grant is funded at $510 million, $10 million over the
President's request and over FY99.
Continuing Our Commitment to Children and Older Americans:
Special Education programs are increased $500 million over FY99, bringing FY00 to $5.6
billion, which is $448 million more than the President's request.
Maximum Pell Grants are increased by $150 over FY99, bringing the maximum award for
FY00 to $3,275. $25 more than the President's request.
Perkins loans are funded at the President's requested level of $130 million (total funding
available is $6 billion).
TRIO Program for minority and disadvantaged students is increased $60 million over FY99
bringing FY00 funding to $660 million, $30 million more than the President's request.
Substantially funds the Teacher Empowerment Act at $1.8 billion, which was approved
the House July 20, 1999, by eliminating funding for the Administration's 100,000.T
Initiative, Eisenhower Grants, and Goals 2000.
Work Study is increased $10 million over FY99, bringing FY00 to $880 million
Head Start is increased $100 million over FY99, bringing FY00 to $4.8 billion
Job Corps is increased $50 million over FY99, bringing FY00 to $1.4 billion, $12 million
over the President's request.
Impact Aid is increased $171 million over the President's request and $43 million over the
FY99 level, bringing FY00 funding to $907 million.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is frozen at the FY99 level
of $1.1 billion, plus provides $300 million in emergency funds (same as FY99). Total
A billian came se the President.
SEP. 23. 1999 2:38PM
DEPT ED/OFC OF SEC.
NO. 8185 P. 3
SEP.23.199912:01PM
NO.647
P.3
Older Americans Act programs are frozen at the FY99 level of $882 million.
Safe and Drug Free Schools is frozen at the FY99 level of $566 million, $25 million below
the President's request.
Taking Care of Health Services, Research and Preventive Health Programs:
Reflecting an ongoing commitment to biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health
is increased 9% in program levels. Total FY00 funding is $16.965 billion, compared to the
President's requested level of $15.9 billion and FY99's level of $15.6 billion.
Ryan White AIDS is increased $108 million over EY99, bringing FY00 funding to $1.5
billion, $9 million over the President's request.
Community Health Centers receive a $60 million increase, $40 million above the President's
request.
Disease prevention programs under the Centers for Disease Control are increased $44
million over FY99, bringing FY00 to $2.81 billion.
Rejects the President's proposal to cut Health Professions by $50 million. Instead, FY00
funding is frozen at the FY99 level of $302 million.
Holding the Line on Spending/Cutting and Terminating Programs:
Eliminates funding for the following programs: 100,000 Teachers in the Classroom ($1.2
billion); Goals 2000 ($491 million); Eisenhower Grants ($335 million); Health Resources
and Services Administration buildings and facilities ($65 million); GEAR UP ($120
million).
Does not fund new programs in the President's budget.
Given the low unemployment rate, Job Training is out 10% from the FY99 level, bringing
FY00 funding to $3.020 billion.
The National Labor Relations Board is cut $10 million from FY99, bringing FY00 to $175
million, $35 million below the President's request.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is cut $1.7 million from FY99,
bringing FY00 funding to $337 million, $51 million below the President's request.
Enforcement is cut $11 million from FY99, bringing FY00 funding to $123 million, $19
million below the President's request. Compliance Assistance is increased by $2 million
over the FY99 level of $87 million.
###
Committee on Appropriations, 105th Congress
http://www.house.gov/appropriations/members.htm
United States House of Representatives
106TH CONGRESS
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - MEMBERSHIP
C.W. Bill Young, Florida, Chairman
Ralph Regula, Ohio
David R. Obey, Wisconsin
Jerry Lewis, California
John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania
John Edward Porter, Illinois
Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Harold Rogers, Kentucky
Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
Joe Skeen, New Mexico
Julian C. Dixon, California
Frank R. Wolf, Virginia
Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland
Tom DeLay, Texas
Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia
Jim Kolbe, Arizona
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Ron Packard, California
Nancy Pelosi, California
Sonny Callahan, Alabama
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
James Walsh, New York
Nita M. Lowey, New York
Charles H. Taylor, North Carolina
José E. Serrano, New York
David L. Hobson, Ohio
Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma
James P. Moran, Virginia
Henry Bonilla, Texas
John W. Olver, Massachusetts
Joe Knollenberg, Michigan
Ed Pastor, Arizona
Dan Miller, Florida
Carrie P. Meek, Florida
Jay Dickey, Arkansas
David E. Price, North Carolina
Jack Kingston, Georgia
Michael P. Forbes, New York
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
Chet Edwards, Texas
Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi
Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., Alabama
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, California
Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas
Sam Farr, California
Zach Wamp, Tennessee
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois
Tom Latham, Iowa
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan
I of 2
9/27/1999 11:32 AM
Committee on Appropriations, 105th Congress
http://www.house.gov/appropriations/members.html
Anne Northup, Kentucky
Allen Boyd, Florida
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
John E. Sununu, New Hampshire
Kay Granger, Texas
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania
Roy Blunt, Missouri
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
Home Page I Committee Membership I Subcommittees and Membership I News Releases | Committee Letters to the
Administration I Fact Sheets and General Information I Schedule of Hearings I Schedule of Markups
2 of 2
9/27/1999 11:32 AM
SOMM- Seasons
Looss
- MCC us
Cary
the Rome Mins
Man
Committee on Appropriations
http://www.house.gov/appropriations/sub.htm.
Subcommittee on Interior
B308 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-6023
Ralph Regula, Ohio, Chairman
Norman Dicks, Wash.
Jim Kolbe, Ariz.
John P. Murtha, Penn.
Joe Skeen, N.M.
James P. Moran, Va.
Charles H. Taylor, N.C.
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., Ala.
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Wash.
Maurice D. Hinchey, N.Y.
Zach Wamp, Tenn.
Jack Kingston, Ga.
John E. Peterson, Penn.
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
2358 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-6024
John Edward Porter, III., Chairmant
David R. Obey, Wis.
C.W. Bill Young, Fla.
Steny H. Hoyer, Md.
Henry Bonilla, Texas
Nancy Pelosi, Calif.
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Okla.
Nita M. Lowey, N.Y.
Dan Miller, Fla.
Rosa DeLauro, Conn.
Jay Dickey, Ark.
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., III.
Roger F. Wicker, Miss.
Anne Northup, Ky.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Calif.
Subcommittee on Legislative
H147 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515-6025
Charles H. Taylor, N.C., Chairman
Ed Pastor, Ariz.
Zach Wamp, Tenn.
John P. Murtha, Penn.
Jerry Lewis, Calif.
Steny H. Hoyer, Md.
Kay Granger, Texas
John E. Peterson, Penn.
Subcommittee on Military Construction
B300 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-6026
3 of 5
9/27/1999 11:32 AM
HOUSE REPUBLICAN I ABOR/HHS/EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL GUTS
ESSENTIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING INVESTMENTS
September 23, 1999
Today, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor/HHS and Education passed an Appropriations bill that
would devastate critical investments in education and training and other programs. The bill would seriously
undermine our efforts to strengthen public education, protect workers, and move people from welfare to work. This
bill is further proof that America's highest priority - improving our schools - remains the Republican Congress's
lowest priority.
House Appropriations Bill Guts Critical Investments
House Bill Guts Investment in Accountability, Teacher Quality and Class Size Reduction The House bill
provides no funding for class size reduction and fails to address teacher training issues. Instead, the bill provides
$396 million less than the President's request for the three programs that it folds into an unfocused block grant.
By failing to fund class size reduction this bill does not guarantee that the more than 30,000 teachers hired last year
can continue teaching in smaller classes and eliminates funding for an additional 8,000 teachers that would be
hired under the President's budget for next year. The bill also fails to invest in proven teacher professional
development practices and undermines standards-based reform.
House Bill Guts Investment in Title I Grants The House bill provides $264 million less than the President's
budget for Title 1. As a result, 400,000 fewer children in high poverty communities would receive additional
educational services. Title I funding is a key component of efforts to help disadvantaged students reach high
standards. In addition, the House bill fails to fund the President's plan to help states and localities turn around or
reconstitute failing schools using Title I resources.
House Bill Terminates GEAR UP GEAR UP is a nation-wide initiative to encourage more young people to have
high expectations, stay in school, study hard, and take the right courses to go to college. The House bill eliminates
funding for GEAR UP, compared to $120 million last year and $240 million in the President's budget. Over
260,000 low-income students who received services in FY 1999 to help them succeed in school and prepare for
college would receive no such services in FY 2000. The President's Budget would extend GEAR UP services to
over 570,000 students in FY 2000.
House Bill Guts Investment in After School The House bill provides only $300 million of the President's $600
million request for After School programs, serving nearly 850,000 fewer students than the 1.8 million served in the
President's Budget. After-school programs are one of the most effective ways to help students reach high
academic standards and end harmful practices such as social promotion.
House Bill Guts Investment in Educational Technology The House bill provides $251 million less than the
President's request for a variety of innovative educational technology programs. Funds to help all States and
thousands of school districts buy hardware and software, train teachers, and link up to the internet were cut by $25
million. Seven programs are eliminated including programs supporting pre-service teacher training, training for
teachers in 4,700 middle schools, software development, Star Schools, and Ready-to-Learn Television.
House Bill Guts Investment in America Reads The House bill cuts the Reading Excellence program by $86
million below the President's request, thus serving 330,000 fewer students and undercutting efforts to ensure that
all children can read independently by the end of the third grade.
House Bill Guts Investment in Work Study The House bill cuts by Work Study by $54 million less than the
President's request, thus serving about 62,000 fewer students and not attaining the President's goal of giving one
million students the opportunity to work their way through college by the year 2000.
House Bill Cuts Head Start The House bill funds Head Start at $507 million below the President's request. The
Head Start program has enjoyed bipartisan support for several years, and grown an average of 30,000 children per
year since President Clinton took office. Under the Subcommittee's mark, for the first time in over a decade
(1987), Head Start participation will not increase. The mark would freeze participation at its current level
House Bill Terminates Youth Opportunity Grants Youth Opportunity Grants are an initiative to provide
comprehensive employment and training assistance to all out-of-school young people in high poverty areas. The
program was passed last year, as part of the bipartisan Workforce Investment Act. Youth Opportunity Grants are a
critical component of the New Markets Initiative. Eliminating this program will deny essential support for up to
58,000 of the most disadvantaged young people in central cities and rural communities across America. The
President's budget provides $250 million for Youth Opportunity Grants.
House Bill Guts Investment in Hispanic Education The House bill barely increases funding for the Hispanic
Education Agenda, providing only $53 million of the $444 million increase requested in key programs, such as
migrant, bilingual, and adult education, to raise achievement and reduce dropout rates in the Hispanic community.
House Bill Cuts Summer Jobs Program and Youth and Adult Training The House bill provides almost $200
million below the President's request for Youth and Adult Training. These cuts would result in lost job training,
summer employment, and education opportunities to some 60,000 disadvantaged youth, and 38,200 adults would
not have access to essential job training and placement services.
House Bill Cuts Dislocated Worker Assistance The House bill cuts Dislocated Worker Assistance by $335
million below the President's request. The Dislocated Worker Employment and Training program provides core
services, intensive services, training and support to help permanently separated workers return to productive,
unsubsidized employment. The President's Universal Reemployment initiative would put us on a five-year path
toward universal job training services to all dislocated workers. Instead of taking a step forward for dislocated
workers, the House is proposing a giant leap backward by proposing cuts that will deny 176,000 dislocated
workers access to these vital services. The bill also cuts funding for One-Stop Career Centers and Reemployment
Services.
House Bill Threatens Enforcement of Labor Protections The House bill freezes or cuts all DOL domestic
workplace enforcement programs at or below FY 1999 levels, resulting in a $112 million reduction below the
President's request. For example, OSHA is cut $51 million below the President's budget. As a result of this cut,
some 5,000 fewer OSHA compliance inspections would be performed.
House Bill jeopardizes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) The bill delays the availability of $3
billion in TANF funds, thus sending the wrong message to states who have prudently set aside "rainy day"
reserves, and to states otherwise preparing to invest in new programs for welfare recipients with multiple barriers
and for those who have already begun the transition to work. Through the first quarter of FY 1999 states have
obligated 88% of their TANF dollars and have met all maintenance of effort requirements. By cutting billions
from the program, the Federal Government would undermine the true goals of welfare reform and abandon its
commitment to provide a fixed level of funding to states who live up to their commitment to invest their own
dollars in assistance to needy families.
House Bill Cuts the Social Service Block Grant by $471 million below the President's Request SSBG
provides funding to States to support a wide range of programs including child protection and child welfare, as
well as services focused on the needs of the elderly and disabled.
House Bill Eliminates the President's Family Caregiver Support Program The House bill does not include
funds for the President's $125 million new initiative to support those who care for the over 5 million disabled
Americans who have long tern care needs. The Family Caregiver Program is one piece of the Administration's
four-part Long Term Care proposal to provide comprehensive services to support caregivers.
House Bill Fails to Increase Funding for Home-Delivered Meals The House bill funds the widely supported
home-delivered meals program at $112 million, which is $35 million below the President's request. The
President's funding level would provide 27 million additional meals to at-risk older adults. These meals allow
many of these adults to remain in their homes and communities, avoiding or delaying the need for costly
institutionalization.
House Bill Cuts Important Health Initiatives The bill cuts public health priorities, including preventive health,
mental health and substance abuse, health care access for the poor, and efforts to reduce racial health disparities
and the spread of AIDS worldwide. The bill would also threaten our ability to manage key entitlement programs,
such as Medicare and Medicaid. It would prevent us from continuing to provide important patient protections to
American workers, and improving our nation's organ distribution system.
House Bill Cuts Head Start. The House bill funds Head Start at $507 million below the
President's request. The Head Start program has enjoyed bipartisan support for several years, and
grown an average of 30,000 children per year since President Clinton took office. Under the
Subcommittee's mark, for the first time in over a decade (1987), Head Start participation will not
increase. The mark would freeze participation at its current level.
Head Start. The Senate provides $5.267 billion for Head Start, $607 above FY 1999, and equal
to the Budget. The Senate advance appropriates $1.9 billion of this amount. This exceeds by
$370 million the 29% threshold HHS has preliminarily indicated could be advance appropriated
without affecting participation.
NOV. 1.1999
4:59PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.898
P.3/3
voucher programs present enormous difficulties with respect to ensuring public
accountability for educational results. A more sensible approach to increasing
competition within school systems-one that we have supported with federal funds for
several years-is the development of public charter schools. Such schools remain
accountable for public funds, even as they help stimulate school improvement.
The main point is that the only way to fix the public schools is to fix the public schools,
not to abandon them. The class size reduction initiative is an important step in this
direction, as a recent report of the Council of Great City Schools confirms. This report
found that 3,558 teachers have been hired in 40 of the nation's largest urban school
districts under the class size reduction program enacted by Congress last year; that these
teachers are working in areas of highest need; and that the program is enhancing teacher
quality. Strong experimental research shows that class size reduction in the early grades
is an effective way to boost student academic achievement and to build a solid foundation
for further learning. The conference report completely undermines the purpose of this
program, which is to target federal funding to class size reduction. Congress should keep
the focus of this program on smaller classes in the public schools and not divert the funds
to private school vouchers.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you would like to discuss
it further.
NOV. 1.1999
1:58PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.898
P.2/3
STATE OF INFORMATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SAMPLE
UNITED STATES of
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
November 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Podesta
White House Chief of Staff
FROM:
Marshall S. Smith
smith
Deputy Secretary (A)
Mil
RE:
Conference Report for the Department's FY 2000 Appropriations Act
Having read the conference report for the Department of Education's FY 2000
appropriations act, I wish to call your attention to a serious problem. The conference
report, which would appropriate $1.2 billion to support "a class size/teacher assistance
initiative," permits but does not require school districts to use such funds to carry out
"class size reduction activities." Included in the report is the following proviso:
Provided, That, if the local educational agency determines that they [sic]
wish to use the funds for purposes other than class size reduction as part of
a local strategy for improving academic achievement, funds may be used
for professional development activities, teacher training or any other local
need that is designed to improve student performance.
This extraordinarily broad proviso appears to authorize the use of appropriated funds for
vouchers or similar arrangements. This back-door effort to allow and promote vouchers
comes just one week after the House voted against a voucher provision in Title I. No
other Department program, including Titles I and VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, contains such broad authority.
For reasons the Secretary and I have articulated on many occasions, I strongly oppose
allowing federal funds to support private school vouchers. Contrary to the assumption of
voucher advocates, there is no parallel universe of private schools ready, able, and willing
to take on the job of educating 48 million public school students. Moreover, research
does not confirm that private schools offer a better education than public schools; indeed,
there is evidence that once family educational background and income are taken into
account, students in public schools perform as well or better than students in private
schools. Finally, precisely because private schools are designed to provide alternatives
(in purpose, student composition, and curriculum) to publicly supported education,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-0500
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.
(Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.)
November 2, 1999, 10:28 AM
BILL NO.: H.R.3064
TITLE: Conference Report H.R. 3064
REQUIRED FOR MAJORITY: 1/2
RESULT: Conference Report Agreed to
YEAS---49
Allard
Gorton
Nickles
Bennett
Gramm
Robb
Bond
Grams
Roberts
Brownback
Grassley
Roth
Bunning
Hagel
Sessions
Burns
Hatch
Shelby
Byrd
Helms
Smith (NH)
Campbell
Hutchinson
Smith (OR)
Cochran
Hutchison
Snowe
Collins
Inhofe
Specter
Coverdell
Jeffords
Stevens
Craig
Kyl
Thomas
Crapo
Lott
Thompson
DeWine
Lugar
Thurmond
Domenici
Mack
Warner
Enzi
McConnell
Frist
Murkowski
NAYS---48
Abraham
Edwards
Levin
Akaka
Feingold
Lieberman
Ashcroft
Feinstein
Lincoln
Baucus
Fitzgerald
Mikulski
Bayh
Graham
Moynihan
Biden
Harkin
Murray
Bingaman
Hollings
Reed
Boxer
Inouye
Reid
Breaux
Johnson
Rockefeller
Bryan
Kennedy
Santorum
Cleland
Kerrey
Sarbanes
Conrad
Kerry
Schumer
Daschle
Kohl
Torricelli
Dodd
Landrieu
Voinovich
Dorgan
Lautenberg
Wellstone
Durbin
Leahy
Wyden
NOT VOTING---2
Gregg
McCain