On September 20, the House approved, by voice vote, a motion to instruct House conferees on the FY2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 4577) to insist on the highest education funding level possible. A second motion to instruct conferees to disagree with the Senate bill with regard to funding for school construction was approved 220-210.
Originally offered by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) as one motion, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Chair John Porter (R-IL) requested that the motion be divided, saying that everyone agreed with providing the highest level of funding for education. Members of both parties used the debate as an opportunity to highlight their differences in education funding.
As approved by the House, H.R. 4577 did not include funding for the President’s $1.3 billion school construction initiative. Rather, $1.8 billion was provided for a block grant, which would fund class size reduction initiatives as well as other programs. The Senate-passed bill provided $3.1 billion for the Title VI block grant. Under the Senate bill, states would be allowed to use the funds at their discretion. The conference report, which has not been filed, acceded to the Senate position and provided $3.1 billion in the form of a block grant.
The motion would instruct conferees to disagree with the Senate provision “and, instead, broadly expand the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited accountability in the use of funds.”
Supporting the block grant provision, Rep. Porter said, “They may use it for school construction, reducing class size, professional development, or what their needs are. Should they be forced to use this money for school construction when they do not need it? Of course not. But it should be available to them for training teachers or reducing class size or doing other things that they know very well, much better than Washington, what the needs may be.”
House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Obey argued, “We are for all the money that we can get into education and back into local school districts. We think that is the number one priority facing the country. However, we believe that there ought to be accountability in the way that money is used, and we believe that whatever funds are provided from such a block grant, for instance, should be provided in addition to the funds that are provided to meet national priority needs, not as a substitute for funds which are provided for those priority needs.”
