[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14358-H14363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              ON EDUCATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through this special 
order tonight on education. I would like to cover some of the myths, 
some of the truths, some of the other, basically the good, bad, and the 
ugly of the program.
  First of all, I covered a little bit of it the other night when we 
split up, with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], talking 
about Bosnia, but I would like to reexamine some of the figures. First 
of all, the Federal Government provides only 7 percent of the funding 
for education. Let me repeat that. The Federal Government provides only 
7 percent of the education. The other 93 percent is paid for by State 
revenues.
  Now, of that 7 percent that goes down, less than 25 cents on every 
dollar that we send back here to Washington, less than 25 cents on a 
dollar goes back and down to the classroom. Why? Because of the 
bureaucracy that eats up the dollars in between. So it is a very 
inefficient system.
  When people talk about Head Start and Goals 2000 and some of the 
better programs, it would be much better to get a better return on the 
dollar at the State level and provide those systems without the Federal 
intrusion.

                              {time}  2130

  Now, also that 7 percent that the Federal Government sends down to 
the 

[[Page H14359]]
States, that 7 percent takes over 50 percent of the rules and 
regulations to the States and the schools. Only 7 percent requires over 
50 percent of all the State rules and regulations. It requires 75 
percent of all the paperwork that a State has to do.
  While that is being accomplished, that also affects the 93 cents on a 
dollar, or 93 percent, that the States fund education itself. If we 
look at just the State of California, which I am from, and let me go 
through and you can go through State by State and find out that there 
are many similarities, but let us look at the State of California. Why 
is education being shut down right now and programs are being cut? Why 
can we not get school bonds passed? Why can we not put a tax increase 
on the State recipients to support our education systems? Why do we 
have teacher and school programs that are being canceled under the 
current system as it exists today?
  If we ask ourselves those questions and we look at the problems we 
are having in every State on our education programs, then I would think 
Members on both sides of the aisle would say there is a lot of room for 
improvement.
  Let me take a look at some of these factors that affect the State of 
California. Remember, again, 93 cents on a dollar, 93 percent of all 
education is paid for with a State tax dollar. So that means you have 
to have people working in the States that are paying taxes.
  Let us take a look at the 1993 tax bill under President Clinton. 
President Clinton cut defense $177 billion. The State of California is 
one of the largest defense States in the Union. A $177 billion cut as 
between our military and secondary and defense-related jobs has lost 
over a million jobs.
  Now, let us say that a portion of that million jobs that were lost in 
the defense industry and our military, they get another job. Well, 
studies have shown that they do not get the same high scientific-level 
job but it is something less, so there is even less revenue. But let us 
take half of that, or even a quarter of that, that those people do not 
have jobs in the State of California. Now, that means less revenue, 93 
percent less revenue that goes into the coffers in Sacramento, CA, for 
education and for law enforcement and the other infrastructures.

  Let us take a look at another factor in the State of California, and 
primarily on the border States. There are over, Mr. Speaker, there are 
over 800,000 illegal aliens in kindergarten through the 12th grade. I 
only use the term 400,000. That way it cannot be disputed. But there 
are nearly a million illegals in kindergarten through 12th grade in the 
State of California.
  Let us take a look at just the school lunch program. Of that 400,000, 
the majority of them are under 185 percent below the poverty level. At 
$1.90 a meal, that means if you take that times 400,000, that is over 
$1.2 million per day just going to illegals in the school lunch 
program. And then? we talk about that we do not have enough dollars for 
education. It takes about $5,000, I think the average is around $7,000 
nationwide, but it takes about $5,000 a year to educate a child in the 
State of California. If we take that and multiply it times 400,000, 
that is over $200 billion out of the coffers that we could be using for 
education, Mr. Speaker, in the State of California.
  We have documented 18,000 illegal felons; these are just the ones 
that are caught, in California prisons alone. There are actually about 
24,000 aliens, but only about 18,000, between 16,000 and 18,000 of 
those are illegal aliens in the State of California prison system at an 
average of $25,000 a year to House them. We are spending billions of 
dollars in a program that could go for education. When they talk about 
there are more prisons then there are dollars for education. That is 
the one area that we could really work on is to stop the illegal 
immigration into the United States and protect our borders.
  Over half of the children born in San Diego and Los Angeles hospitals 
are to illegal aliens. Then that child then becomes an American citizen 
and qualifies for all of the Federal programs. That, again, is draining 
the resources out of Sacramento, the dollars that we need for 
education.
  Let me just, Mr. Speaker, let me go through one single, just one 
single Federal program that was written with good intent, and in many 
cases has done a lot of good but has gone to the extremes. I would talk 
about the Endangered Species Act.
  You say, ``Duke, how does the Endangered Species Act affect 
education?'' Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. How many jobs have we lost 
in the timber industry and the billions of dollars of revenue in the 
State of California that would go into the Sacramento coffers for 
education? Billions of dollars.
  Look at the gnat catcher and the construction industry in the State 
of California. It has cost us billions of dollars of revenue that is 
not going into our coffers for education. I look at the water and the 
salmon and Central Valley water project that was passed when we were 
not in the majority. Look how that has affected the farmers in the 
State of California. California's No. 1 commodity is agriculture. A lot 
of people do not understand that.
  Take a look how it has affected the farmers, avocados and exports and 
different areas, again revenue. How many jobs, Mr. Speaker, have we 
lost to the tuna industry because of the porpoise? When we have 
valuable resources and we have systems in which even in the Panama 
agreement that have been represented by five of the environmental 
groups, except for Earth Island, that receives a lot of its money, over 
a million dollars, just for the Tuna Save, but yet they are one of the 
organizations that does not support logical reform in the tuna 
industry.
  I look at the kangaroo rat, the least tern vireo, the California 
desert plan that took millions of acres off of the tax roles that do 
not go into education, hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars of revenue that is not going into the coeffers in Sacramento, 
Mr. Speaker, and then we are having to close down education programs 
because we do not have the funding.
  You will find that library services and media and central and study 
halls and those areas are being closed down, not just in the State of 
California but across this land, because of the lack of jobs and 
because of the lack of money that is going into those coffers from the 
State level because of Federal systems.
  Alan Greenspan, and my colleague just a minute ago spoke eloquently 
about the need to balance the budget, another reason we do not have 
dollars for education, Mr. Speaker, Alan Greenspan testified last week 
before the committee that interest rates have gone down 2 percent 
primarily because the markets and the lending industries believe that 
the Republicans can balance the budget in 7 years. He also warned that 
if that belief goes away, that interest rates will not only rise beyond 
the 2 percent but will keep spiraling upward.
  What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? For example, a college loan, let us 
talk about an individual family in California or your State or 
anybody's State, a college loan with 2 percent interest rates over 4 
years at $11,000 means $4,500 back in either the student's pocket or 
the parent that loaned the money in the first place, $4,500.
  People are wondering why, why are two people having to work and they 
cannot make ends meet. I mean, it is crazy. In the State of California, 
and I am sure across the States, where people are having to work, they 
are slaving, they are working 10 to 12 hours a day and they are just 
barely making it on a margin in small business. But if you look at the 
interest rates, for example, in a home mortgage, why are they paying 
these excess costs? Why can they not make it? A home mortgage, 2-
percent reduction, $90,000 mortgage, which is not real high in the city 
of San Diego, it is in the inner cities, but a $90,000 mortgage, 8.5 
percent fixed over 30 years means $37,500 back in the pocket of that 
individual, and you can attribute that to the balanced budget, or lack 
of a balanced budget, because of those interest rates.
  Alan Greenspan also said that those interest rates will continue to 
go down if we balanced the budget by 2 to 4 percent, and think of the 
dollars that that will put back into the pockets of the American 
people. They will buy products. The cost of goods will go down. And 
that will mean there will be more dollars in the coeffers of Sacramento 
for education.
  An auto loan, $15,000, will be a thousand dollars back in the pocket 
of an individual. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you 

[[Page H14360]]
would like to have another thousand dollars in your pocket to spend at 
Christmastime, or whatever, and, by the way, then you are going to buy 
a hamburger, you are going to go to a movie, and that is going to 
support the other businesses. That revenue is going to be generated, 
and it is going to go into, again, 93 percent of the revenue for 
education, which comes out of the State, and we need to provide that.
  But that is another reason why the balanced budget is important to 
education.
  I would like to provide for the Record, Mr. Speaker, an article where 
it says the Endangered Species Act, in the State of California, has 
added $44,000 per home in the State of California. Let me repeat that: 
The endangered species has added 7.5 percent to every home, and we are 
talking about low-income homes for the poor and the impoverished, and 
we increase it. We just talked about how important 2 percent is. If it 
is increased 7.5 percent, $44,000 per home. Why? It is because in 
endangered species, you have got set aside land, and you build on 
others' lands. Who is going to pay for that? The consumer is going to 
pay for that, Mr. Speaker, and in doing that, that means less revenue 
again for education that goes into the coffers, and so on.

  I would like to provide that for the Record. It is called ``Habitat 
Protection Raises Building Costs.'' It is ``In the Opinion,'' North 
County, San Diego. I will give you that in just a little bit. It is 
very important why we do not have the dollars in education.
  Let me tell you about this institution, Mr. Speaker. For the past 40 
years, it has been about power. It has been about the power to be 
reelected so that you can maintain a majority. That power has emanated 
from the ability of the Federal Government to disburse money down to 
many groups. I am sure, like myself, every day we have people coming 
into the offices for dollars. Everything is important. They can find a 
reason to support their particular Federal program.
  But that is why we have ended up, and in all the debate about why the 
deficit and the debt are important, it comes down to what is important 
for us in education. But if you take a look at what we are trying to do 
is take the power out of Washington, DC, because the power to be 
reelected equates to the power to disburse money out of the Federal 
Government, which acquires power at a Federal level, and a bigger 
bureaucracy to disburse those dollars. Those dollars that go down to 
disburse are as little as 23 cents on every dollar. There is only 30 
cents on a dollar in your welfare programs because of the 
bureaucracies.
  Some of my colleagues will tell you, well, look, you are cutting 
education, you are cutting education, you are cutting the money for the 
environment, you are cutting the money for Medicare. We zeroed out, Mr. 
Speaker, the dollars for Goals 2000 on a Federal level. Absolutely, you 
could say on a Federal level it is accurate to say we cut Goals 2000, 
zeroed it out. But as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story is we 
take the dollars and we send it directly to the State, take those 
dollars directly to the State, and the State can run a Goals 2000.
  The proponents of Goals 2000 will tell you, well, it is a voluntary 
system. It is the old bait-and-switch, Mr. Speaker. It is voluntary if 
you do not want the money in the Goals 2000, and I would challenge you 
to read it. There are 45 instances that says ``States will,'' ``States 
will,'' mandates from the Federal Government. It set up five, actually 
six bureaucracies and institutions, new bureaucracies and institutions 
that the States have to adhere to. You have to file boards. You have to 
send the reports to the Federal Government, and guess what, Mr. 
Speaker, while you have got this manpower at the State that is having 
to do all of these things which takes dollars away from the classroom, 
you have got a catcher's mitt of bureaucracies on the other end 
receiving all of those reports and analyzing. Do the States meet those 
requirements? Do we allow them to run with the dollars just like it is?
  The answer is, again, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Let us do 
away with that:

                              {time}  2145

  Remember, 7 percent requires over 50 percent of the rules and 
regulations. Let us send it to the States. Let us let the States run 
their own Goals 2000, and prosper better. But yet my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will say ``You are cutting Goals 2000, a good 
program.'' If it is so good, let them run it, but let them run it at 
the State level, without the Federal bureaucracy and the Federal 
intrusion.
  As I mentioned, there are 45 must-do clauses, while it only has three 
that said you should do in Goals 2000. Six new bureaucracies and 
research institutions under Federal control. It is also established and 
run by the union bosses and the Federal administration.
  In 1979, the Department of Education doubled. It went from $14.2 
billion to $32.9 billion. If the President's direct loan program were 
allowed to be affected, it would be the largest lending institution in 
the United States. That is Federal intrusion, that is Federal control, 
and it is Federal waste, Mr. Speaker.
  Per pupil spending grew 35 percent between 1979 and 1992. Federal 
programs and taxes have increased threefold. SAT scores have declined 
12 percent, and yet we have less than 12 percent of our classrooms that 
have a single phone jack. We look at the bureaucracy that eats up the 
dollars, and we look at why we do not have dollars for education.
  Let me give you another idea about Goals 2000. The humanities 
standard at the Federal level, after spending $900,000, $900,000, was 
suspended, Mr. Speaker. One of the required standards was that English 
be replaced, English be replaced, Mr. Speaker, with the words 
``privileged dialect.'' That type of social engineering and politically 
correct Federal intrusion is one of the reasons I believe that our 
school systems are doing poorly.
  Look at the Federal history standards. They emphasize everything but 
the foundations of Western culture. I sat with the creators of those 
standards, with the gentleman from Michigan, Dale Kildee, the ranking 
minority member on the education subcommittee that I serve on, and Dale 
Kildee, an ex-history teacher before he came to this body, stood up and 
said, ``It is wrong. You are not teaching history, you are emphasizing 
non-history issues.'' For example, there is more in the Federal 
standards for history on Madonna than there is the Magna Carta. There 
is more on McCarthyism than there is on the Constitution of the United 
States.
  These are some of the reasons why many of the people do not support 
Goals 2000 on a Federal level, but where at a State level, where the 
State establishes the standards, they can establish the same aid 
standards under Goals 2000, but it does not have the rules and 
regulations, it does not have the Federal intrusion, and it sure costs 
a lot less to run.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Well, we are 
cutting student loans.'' Well, Alice Rivlin of the Clinton 
administration proposed to eliminate college loan subsidies for a 
savings of $12.4 billion. Well, that is not done in this body. There is 
no subsidy taken out.
  I heard my colleague just before say, ``Well, maybe we will not have 
to cut Pell grants.'' Pell grant awards are the highest this year than 
they have ever been in history.
  Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: Pell grants, Pell grants that I believe 
in, for low income students, is at the highest level it has ever been 
in its history.

  Now, I would also let the Speaker know that it is not enough; that 
with the rising costs of tuition and with the rising costs of books and 
college courses, that it does not pay what it was originally intended 
for with Mr. Pell. But we put $6.5 billion into that program.
  Perkins student loans increase by 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, over 7 
years. Let me repeat that. They say we are cutting education in this 
balanced budget. But, again, I give you the Goals 2000. Zero it out at 
the Federal level, yes. I want to cut most of these things out of the 
Federal level and put it back to the States.
  The same thing with the environment. There is a lot of sand and dirt 
between San Diego, CA, and Maine, Mr. Speaker, and to blanket across 
the Nation with a rule and regulation from the Federal Government that 
has been obtrusive should not happen. It should be at the State level.

[[Page H14361]]

  But, again, we are sending the money to the state on the environment. 
My colleagues will say we are cutting funds for the environment, we are 
cutting education, we are cutting Federal instruction. Let me repeat, 
student loans increase by 50 percent, from $25 billion to $50 billion 
over the next 7 years.
  The Republicans will spend $340 billion over 7 years on education, 
job training and student loans. The last 7 years, the Democrat 
leadership, when they were in the majority, spent only $315 billion on 
education, job training, and student loans.
  Spending on K through 12 education has increased by 4.1 percent, but 
yet we bring better management, less rules and regulations, less 
Federal paper, less Federal reporting, and more local, school and down 
at the LEA control with the teachers, the parents, and the educators.
  From 1983 through 1993, the States put in education $60 billion and 
have increased that to $115. But yet if you take a look the increase in 
spending for education across the board, Mr. Speaker, on reading 
skills, I heard on the television today that a great number, better 
than 50 percent, of the children do not read up to grade level 4 in the 
State of Maryland.
  California was last in literacy. I think there are different reasons 
for that. A lot of it is probably the immigration rates and other 
things. I want to tell you, my wife is a teacher and a principal, and 
there are a lot of great schools that we have across this Nation. There 
are some great teachers. But across the board, Mr. Speaker, our 
education systems are failing our children, and it is not efficient. We 
can do better. From both sides of the aisle we can do better, by taking 
the power out of Washington and putting it back at the State level.
  Let us look at, for example, title I. I was back in my district this 
weekend, and one of the teachers said ``Duke, don't take money out of 
Title I, because it is important.''
  Well, let me tell you what the Clinton administration said. Title I 
is not achieving its goals. Comparisons to similar cohorts by grade and 
poverty levels show that the program's participation does not reduce 
test scores gapped for disadvantaged students. Indeed, Chapter 1 
student scores in all poverty cohorts decline between third and fourth 
grades. They also go on to say that once a student goes on in 
education, that any gains made are lost.
  Let us look at Head Start. This is again what the Clinton 
administration says, effective in some areas. I would say in all 
fairness, Mr. Speaker, I have visited some very good Head Start 
programs. In the State of California, my district, there is a great 
Head Start program. Even the administration agrees that there is 
mismanagement across this country in the field of Head Start. But yet 
we continue to pump money into it and do not demand that the standards 
and the values and the management is there for the Head Start program. 
We have got to change that.

  Several studies indicate a short-term cognitive and effective social 
benefit for poor children. However, the same studies indicate as the 
child moves into the elementary school the effects decline. They 
decline to zero. If we are going to put the dollars into education, Mr. 
Speaker, that are effective, that are long lasting for our children, 
that teach reading, writing, arithmetic and so on, then I think we need 
to focus on getting what will get the best bang for the dollars.
  Let us look at the student loan program, where we say we have 
increased student loans by 50 percent. But where did we get our savings 
from? The Clinton administration, President Clinton's direct student 
loan program cost $1 billion more than the private industry, like the 
banks and lending institutions. My colleagues on the other side will 
say ``Well Duke, that is just for the rich. You are just supporting the 
special interest groups and taking it away from the Federal 
Government.''
  Well, with the Federal Government and its mismanagement, and I think 
you can look across the board, that is in defense, that is in 
education, that is in welfare, NIH, anywhere, the mismanagement of 
dollars the taxpayers give us, and you can save it by privatizing that, 
then we will do that. So we limit the President's direct loan program 
to 10 percent and save billions of dollars. That is not including the 
savings CBO scored. They do not even know what it would take to receive 
those dollars back. That is just the administration fees on the direct 
loan program.
  So, yes, there are programs that we have eliminated and cut. But, 
again, Mr. Speaker, those are on a Federal level in driving the dollars 
back down to the States.
  Let me tell you about other savings that we made on the loan program. 
This country has a law on the books that has been overlooked. I want to 
separate illegal aliens form legal aliens. We have legal aliens in this 
country that are going to our colleges and universities. It is to our 
benefit to educate those aliens at a time, because they plan on 
becoming American citizens. Over a lifetime, for just completing a 
bachelor's degree, there is an increase of earnings in that household 
by over $300,000. Again, that means $300,000 in revenue that that 
person is going to earn and pay taxes on. Remember, State taxes pay for 
93 percent of education, so it is to our benefit.
  But, at the same time, almost anyone has been qualifying for those 
education loans. So what we did, let us say, which I am not, but let us 
say I was a low-income parent applying for a student loan at a low-
income rate, low-interest rate. I would have to show what my earnings 
are to qualify.
  Well, all we have done, Mr. Speaker, is ask the sponsor of that legal 
alien, because under the current law that sponsor has to sign a 
document that they will be responsible for the alien, that legal alien, 
while they reside in the United States and are working for citizenship 
for this country, their earnings are calculated to see if that student 
qualifies for a low-income loan, the same as an American citizen would 
have to do. We think that is fair, either as a citizen or as a legal 
alien, to qualify to see if you should qualify for a low-income loan.
  Say, for example, Imelda Marcos' relatives came to the great State of 
California. We may to want to give those individuals a low-income loan, 
because they can pay for it themselves.
  But there is an increased cost on lenders, guarantors, and agencies 
in the secondary markets in the Federal education loan program. We save 
over $1 billion, Mr. Speaker, I think that is important also.

                             {time}   2100

  Let me speak to something else, and I think we could probably get 
support from both sides of the aisle on this issue. As I mentioned 
before, we have less than 12 percent of our classrooms across this 
Nation that have a single phone jack in it. I think every Member in 
this body understands the importance of the information age in the 21st 
century. In the olden days, as my daughters like to report, it used to 
take 30 years for us to double our knowledge. It now takes 1 year, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Look at the amount of children that are using computers now in many 
of the homes. Of course, many children are not. Take a look at the 
information they have available to them. Look at our libraries. Try to 
get an airline ticket without going down and using a computer. Or even 
in our classrooms or in our offices. Yet, less than 12 percent of these 
classrooms have even a single phone jack. If we want to take that 7 
percent as a vision and really do something with education on a Federal 
level, Mr. Speaker, I think there can be a partnership between the 
Federal Government, between the States, and between private enterprise.
  I want to give my colleagues an example. If we really want to help 
education, if we do not upgrade those classrooms with the technology 
for our children to learn, then the delta, the difference, between the 
rich and the poor, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like 
to point to all the time, that delta will increase significantly 
because we do not provide the skills for our children to go on and 
apply to the job market.
  I have industry and small businessmen across the board come to me and 
say, Duke, as little as 25 percent of the people that come to us even 
qualify for basic entry level into the job market because they cannot 
read, they cannot write, they cannot do math, or they cannot speak 
English. We are failing our kids, Mr. Speaker. 

[[Page H14362]]

  Now, let us work at a Federal partnership, let us work with the 
telecommunications subcommittee with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jack 
Fields. Let us create, which they are doing, a market where there is 
profit sharing, to where the AT&Ts and the Baby Bells, and the IBMs and 
the Apples work and build up our classrooms. Let us let them make a 
dollar. Profit is not a dirty word, unless one is a socialist. Let us 
let them build up our classrooms, provide for our kids, because we 
cannot do it. We do not have the dollars on the Federal level to invest 
in our classroom.
  Mr. Speaker, walk down here in Washington, DC and look at these 
schools. These kids are lucky to have books sometimes. Or look at a 
Federal housing project, where kids are carrying guns. They are not 
carrying books. If we do not build these classrooms and work with that 
private partnership, then I think we will be lost.
  I talk to Alcoa and I talk to AT&T and the Baby Bells, and the people 
I am talking about. We have about a 3 percent disintegration of copper 
wire in our electronic system. We have about another 3 percent where we 
build new schools and new facilities. That would be a 6 percent 
investment in this Nation that we could work with the Federal, the 
State and private enterprise. Six percent a year. And it would not take 
us that many years to build up our classrooms.
  Now, let the AT&Ts and the Baby Bells and the IBMs put the fiber 
optics in there, and the Alcoas. Let them make a profit from that, but, 
at the same time, they are investing in our school system. Let us give 
incentives to do that because again, if we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, 
our kids are going to be in the big delta between the rich and the poor 
because they will not hare the skills to go forward.
  I want to give my colleagues a classic example. I have a school I 
have spoken about in the committee. It is Scripts Ranch. The city and 
private enterprise went in and put fiber optics into the school. Every 
classroom has a computer. We have boys and girls at the high school 
level, on the vocational side, that are swinging hammers. They are 
building modular units, and they sell those units, those classrooms. 
And if we were to inspect them, they are as good as any tradesman would 
do, because they are supervised by tradesmen, both union and private, 
by the way. And they are making sure the kids are safe when they swing 
their hammers. But they sell those units and they buy other high-
technology equipment for that school.
  On the other side, the kids that are college bound, not vocational 
bound, are the engineers, the computer designers and the architects. 
They are using the computers and they have redesigned the whole school. 
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, in the summer, and were chastised for the 
summer jobs program. Probably not very many jobs were created by the 
summer jobs program, other than keeping kids busy, but let me tell my 
colleagues about the summer jobs program at Scripts where they have the 
computers and they have the kids working in vocational and college 
bound.

  The city of San Diego hires these kids. The unions and private 
enterprise, under apprenticeship programs, they teach them a skill on 
the vocational side and they give them a better on-the-job training for 
their college preparation. And it works, Mr. Speaker. It is a good 
program. And it is an investment between the Federal, the State, and 
private enterprise.
  This is similar to the model that I can see for this whole country, 
Mr. Speaker, in investing in our school systems. We can do that, if we 
can get away from the Federal socialized meddling with States' rights 
and let the States set their own educational standards, and let the 
States, if they want, have their own Goals 2000, and let the States do 
their own Head Start Program and keep the Federal rules and 
regulations, the inadequacies and the bureaucracy.
  But, again, this place is about power. This whole balanced budget, 
and we will hear over and over and over again, from those that would 
put a socialist model on education, that this is the only place that 
can make those decisions. This government, at a Federal level, is the 
only one, because the States will not do it. We do not trust the States 
to do it because they want the power here in River City.
  And that is what this whole debate is on the balanced budget. Because 
if the budget is balanced, Mr. Speaker, that power to disburse money 
and control dollars with rules and regulations down to the State level 
limits the minority party for reelection. And if we limit reelections, 
we limit the power. We limit the power to get reelected. It is a self-
contained sewer system. That is what the budget debate is. They do not 
want to balance the budget because it limits their ability to flow 
dollars down to constituents.
  I have told my colleagues about the plaque the President has on his 
wall during the election that said ``It is the economy, stupid.'' It is 
not. It should be their pocketbook, stupid. Because when we touch 
somebody's pocketbook, liberal or conservative, they are up here 
fighting for those dollars, because the Federal Government is not going 
to provide it for them. And we should learn that lesson, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would agree with this next statement; that part of the problem 
that we have with education is the current welfare system. I look, and 
I used to teach at Hinsdale High School in Hinsdale, IL. We have some 
of the finest schools in the, Chicago, IL, area, and, I think, in the 
world. We have Hinsdale and Evanston and Nutrier. But any time we look 
at the good schools, the good teachers, where they have good 
facilities, we need to look beyond that at the inner cities and some of 
the areas where the education programs, like Washington, DC, or any 
great city that we could come across.
  There is an area of about 5 miles in Chicago of Federal housing. 
Those kids do not carry books, Mr. Speaker, they carry guns. It is 
loaded with pimps and prostitutes. Their pregnancy rates are terrible 
for unwed mothers. And what hope do those kids have? Do we think if we 
put computers in those schools that they would learn? Do we think 
across the country there is a low percentage of our teachers that even 
know how to turn on or even use those computers to teach those skills?
  That is why I think the intereducation program, the Eisenhower 
grants, even through we get very little of the money back down, I would 
rather have the State provide it. But if we do not teach and give our 
teachers the funds, the wherewithal to upgrade their schools, like 
title 1 and Eisenhower grants, then how can we ask the teachers to 
perform and teach the kids, especially when they do not have computers 
in there in the first place. They have to learn those skills to be able 
to teach our kids.
  If we look at the welfare system that we have, and I think it is one 
of the biggest reasons why education has failed, Mr. Speaker, where we 
have a system that discourages a parent coming together with a mother, 
a single mother, and a child or vice versa. If they do, we take that 
welfare check away from them. We discourage that couple getting 
together.
  And I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree 
that every time I have been to a college event for graduation, or 
someone going to an academy or an education event, where there is 
success, the overwhelming majority of those successes involve where 
parents were involved with their kids. And if we do not have the parent 
involvement, the percentage, of those kids are going down. Yet the 
welfare system deters people from coming together or even a 
mother working.

  Take a single mother. She wants to go to work. She will have to pay 
for child care. She is probably going to have to buy a new set of 
clothes. She will have to probably get some kind of training, because 
she has not worked in a second or third generation in many cases. But 
in many cases it is not, it is someone that has lost their job, that is 
having a hard time and they need to go back and they need the support. 
But there is a discouragement to get off of the system, because, again, 
we say go to work. You will have to have all these other costs, but we 
will take your welfare check away from you.
  Well, I think we need to provide that. I also do not think we have 
provided enough funds for the job training, which my colleagues harp 
on. Why? Because if we are going to solve the problems of the welfare 
problem and reform, and if we are asking these people 

[[Page H14363]]
to get off of welfare, then they are saying for what? If I do not have 
the skills, if I have never worked in my life, or I have limited skills 
and I cannot read and cannot write, which the statistics show across 
the country, and I cannot even qualify for an entry-level job, how am I 
going to go to work and support my family? That is the area where I 
think, if anything, we need to increase the amount of job training for 
people, to help them get off of welfare.
  I think, also, that when we look at the folks on welfare and look 
across the board, the low-income child is more likely not to succeed 
than those that come from higher socioeconomic levels. My colleagues on 
the other side are exactly correct on that. But the question is, Mr. 
Speaker, the model. Do we have a socialistic model, where the Federal 
Government does all and costs us extra dollars to get the dollars down 
because of the bureaucracy and the power and the rules and the 
regulations; or do we let the States, where we take away all those 
other costs?
  My colleagues will say we at the Federal Government are the only ones 
that can do that. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable. I think if 
we want to clean up our education system, we need to give States more 
responsibility and more power to do what they need to do. Because like 
I said, there is a lot of sand between San Diego, California, and 
Maine.
  There are a lot of great programs out there, Mr. Speaker, and the 
States can still run those programs. But when we are getting as little 
dollars down that we can, down to the State level, I think that there 
is a lot of room for error and a lot of room that we can improve.
  I want to give my conservative colleagues a caution, however, which I 
am a conservative. But serving on the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, I have been enlightened in some cases by my 
collegues on the other side of the aisle, and I see one of them 
grinning right now. If we try to do this too fast, and we can look at 
the State of California and the economic situation that I have just 
talked about. Try and pass a school bond in San Diego County. It is 
very difficult. Even on a State-wide election or an initiative. Most 
people check no if we want to increase their taxes or increase their 
burden. It is very difficult to support that. Try an increase in tax, a 
gas tax or anything, to pick up that load to the State. People are 
resistant, Mr. Speaker.
  A lot of my conservative friends, and which I consider myself one of, 
want to chop it off now; want to do totally away with it. If we do 
that, in my opinion, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, we will damage 
some of the very programs that we are helping. I say that in the face 
of only getting 23 cents out of a buck.
  But until we have that transition, until we can balance the budget, 
and it all ties in together, welfare, balanced budget, and education 
and jobs and revenue. It all ties in. It is called microeconomics. But 
until we can reduce those interest rates, until we can improve the 
economy, until we can get more dollars into people's pockets by having 
a $500 tax rate per child, that goes back into the pockets of people, 
until they can see where they are not both having to kill themselves 
just to get by to pay their mortgage, which they are paying $40,000 
more for, or they are paying $4,500 more interest on a loan because of 
the deficit, then I think we will have trouble shifting that power.

                              {time}  2215

  And I think over the next 7 years, we ought to look and do very, very 
carefully. Are we going to make some mistakes, Mr. Speaker? Yes, we 
are. But I think the blessings of it are that are going to return that 
power to the States. We are going to reduce the size of the Federal 
bureaucracy back here, which is so key to the Democrat Party and their 
maintenance of power. And that is why they will blast us night after 
night saying that we are hurting the environment, we are hurting kids, 
we are hurting seniors and so on. What we are hurting is their power to 
get reelected so that they can have the power in River City.

                          ____________________