[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7528-H7530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to speak on 
the future of our Nation--and that future is our children, and whether 
they will have the same opportunity to live the American dream that all 
the members of this House have enjoyed in our lifetimes.
  Since the 104th Congress was sworn into office a year and a half ago, 
we have debated the issue of how best to provide for our children's 
education. That is good. We need discourse and hotly contested ideas 
from both side of the aisle if we are to forge a bipartisan, hopefully 
even a nonpartisan plan for ensuring that every American has the 
education necessary to not just survive, but to succeed in a global 
economy.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have that needed discourse while the 
debate is fraught with distortions and political rhetoric, and that is 
where we find ourselves today. So I would like to begin by reviewing 
exactly what educational reforms have been passed by this House over 
the last 18 months.
  Under the Balanced Budget Act, total student loan volume was 
scheduled to grow from last year's $24 to $36 billion in 2002. That's a 
50-percent growth in spending. The school lunch program was approved 
for a 36-percent increase over the same period, with the States allowed 
to run their lunchrooms without Federal interference for the first time 
in decades.
  The maximum annual Pell grant amount for low-income college students 
was raised to the highest level in history at $2,400 per student.
  The House approved sweeping, and long-needed reforms in the way 
interest is calculated on some of the loans. Under the proposed 
changes, no student would have paid any interest on their loans while 
they were still in school. But graduate students would have been 
required to pay back the interest that accrued on their loans while 
they were getting their graduate degrees, after they graduated and got 
jobs.
  At present, working-class Americans are forced to subsidize that 
accrued interest for doctors, lawyers, and Ph.D. recipients. It is just 
not right for someone earning minimum wage to be paying the loan cost 
for someone earning six-figures. The budget we passed last

[[Page H7529]]

year would have put an end to the practice, and saved our children $10 
billion they would not have had to pay back with interest. The demagogs 
in Congress call this cutting.
  As to the Direct Loan Program, the budget would have brought that to 
a halt. Since the very inception of Federal student aid, loans have 
successfully been processed through private lenders. It is amazing that 
while the Federal Government is doing everything possible to downsize 
and privatize, and the President himself tells us that the era of big 
Government is over in his State of the Union Address, the Clinton 
administration continues to launch new big government programs, seeking 
to federalize what is now in the private sector.
  The education plan that passed this House last year would have made 
the same student loans available from the same sources as they have 
been for the past 30 years.
  For those who love to cry out against mean-spirited Republican cuts, 
I'm proud to say that although there was absolutely not one nickle of 
cuts in overall spending, there were, indeed cuts in areas that badly 
needed cutting. The Head Start Program was slated for a true 4-percent 
reduction in funding, which is well warranted, according to Head Start 
Founder Edward Zeigler, who I quote:

       If 30 percent of the programs closed down, there would be 
     no great loss * * * Until the program has reached a certain 
     level of quality, they shouldn't put one more kid in it.

  Indeed, over the last 6 years, Head Start enrollment has grown by 39 
percent, while spending has increased 186 percent. That kind of out-of-
control spending has to stop, and the plan we passed would have brought 
it to a screeching halt.
  There were also real cuts in spending for the U.S. Department of 
Education, which would have taken an 11 percent reduction in funding. 
Since it was created in 1979, the Department of Education has spent 
$342 billion without any evidence the money has improved education in 
any way. Even the liberal Washington Post wrote in a December 
editorial: ``America's schools are not noticeably better because a 
Department of Education was created.''
  Why hasn't the Department of Education helped improve our children's 
education? Because of simple economics--you cannot take money from 
taxpayers across the country, send it to Washington, DC, then send it 
back to the States, and not lose most of the original money in the 
process. According to the Congressional Research Service, of every 
dollar we send to the Department of Education here in Washington, only 
23 cents ever finds it's way back to our local schools. That's not 
efficient, and that's not how to compete in a global economy.
  Now, there is one program that is eliminated entirely under the 
balanced budget plan--Goals 2000. That program has skyrocketed in cost 
from $87 to $372 million in just 1 year. It duplicates other Federal 
efforts, creates a multitude of new bureaucracies, but has no real 
impact on day-to-day learning. And the attempts of the program to 
revise American history to reflect the new politically correct themes 
of the far-left have been so inflammatory they were voted down in the 
Senate by a 99-to-1 vote. So the new plan contained not one penny for 
Goals 2000.
  The defenders of the failed status-quo in education have tried to 
convince the American people that Republicans would undermine education 
by holding down the massive spending increases that the Clinton 
administration had planned. But maybe they should instead answer the 
question of why we should spend more taxpayer money when our Federal 
dollars have failed to achieve positive results, year after year after 
year.
  This plan to bring our educational efforts into line with our ability 
to fund them, and with the level of achievement of our programs, now 
sits in limbo, vetoed by the President.
  But the educational reforms in the Balanced Budget Act are not the 
only efforts undertaken by this Congress to improve the way our 
children learn.
  A major battle in the effort took place just this spring here in 
Washington, and most of the Nation missed it. It was the latest round 
in the fight over who has the ultimate authority over a child's 
education and future--the parent or the Federal Government.
  This House provided funds for Washington's public schools to offer a 
small pilot school choice program, that would allow about 2 percent of 
all Washington, DC, school children to attend better schools, and then 
only if local school board members choose to use the plan.
  For those students locked into attendance at the worst public schools 
in the District, vouchers would be provided to pay for transportation 
to alternate public schools, or for transportation and tuition at 
private schools.
  The program, similar to one in Milwaukee and nearly two dozen other 
communities, was designed to give poor parents the same power and 
freedom of education that rich parents have. It would have improved 
public schools by making them compete for students, and most 
importantly, by giving students the opportunity for a better quality 
education.
  Unfortunately, there are those here inside-the-beltway who are 
adamantly opposed to fairness and equality of opportunity. After 
stalling the D.C. budget for months over this single issue, liberal 
Senate Democrats under pressure from President Bill Clinton voted to 
filibuster the bill, which prevented it from even coming to the floor 
for a vote. The White House announced it would have vetoed the entire 
bill over this tiny pilot project, even though the District's local 
political leaders begged for passage. The White House, liberal Senate 
Democrats, and the NEA won, and Washington's schoolchildren lost.
  Why the extraordinary fight over a program that could at most impact 
only 2 percent of students in a single school district? Because the 
National Education Association decided to make this a litmus test. 
Their chief lobbyist told the Washington Post on February 28 that ``It 
is much bigger than D.C.'' And when Washington's NEA office says 
``jump,'' the Washington bureaucracy says ``how high?''
  The reason, as U.S. News and World Report recently explained, is 
that--and I quote:

       The NEA has wedded itself to the Democratic Party . . . 
     teacher unions have used their resources to fight reform--and 
     their resources are vast. The union's palatial Washington, 
     D.C. headquarters, renovated in 1991 at a cost of $52 
     million, is a testament to its power in national politics. 
     The union handed out $8.9 million to congressional candidates 
     between 1989 and 1995, only a fraction of it to Republicans. 
     And the Clinton White House is banking on the NEA playing a 
     big role in this year's presidential campaign.

  According to the Education Policy Institute, NEA and its related 
educational PAC's spend $40 million a year on the national level 
lobbying for their agenda, 98 percent of which goes to Democrats. And 
with a total budget of $1.2 billion a year, the amount of overall 
political impact this special interest exerts on our children's 
education is beyond measure.
  What these objections are really over is not the education of 
children. It is over the billions spent every year on Federal 
allocations for education programs at dozens of Federal agencies. And 
billions ultimately find their way, directly and indirectly, into the 
coffers of the NEA and their members. The greatest fear of the NEA is 
that granting freedom to families to choose where their child is 
educated will cut off the flow of those funds, and their ability to 
control the educational agenda of the Nation.
  As long as the liberal trend towards federalization of our local 
schools continue, the NEA's feast on largesse at the Federal trough 
will continue. Any increase in parental or local control of those funds 
stands diametrically opposed to their goal of dominating the 
educational industry.
  However, a clarification of how this debate is currently framed is 
badly needed. Those on both sides of the issue of school choice often 
make the same mistake. It is not an issue of public versus private 
education. It is a question of how to provide the best education 
possible for every child in this country.
  As we face the educational challenges facing us in an era of global 
competition, we can no longer afford the illusion that we have 
competing school systems. We have one educational system in America, 
and it includes public, private, and home schooling, and we have to 
maintain the openmindedness to rethink our approach on a child-by-child 
level.
  For most of our Nation's children, public education provides a 
quality

[[Page H7530]]

learning experience with a multitude of resources often not found in 
smaller private schools or a home schooling environment. Those children 
will likely, and should, continue in their current schools even if 
vouchers are available.
  But for many disadvantaged youth trapped in inner-city schools 
overrun with drugs and violence, the ability to have a choice would, 
with absolute certainty, greatly improve their ability to learn.
  And for children with special needs or talents, the ability to choose 
both public and private alternate schools, or home schooling, would 
allow them to progress far beyond the level of our ``one-size-fits-
all'' current policy.
  All this is representative of just how distorted the debate over 
education has become. Instead of focusing on improving our children's 
learning levels, success is measured by programs and dollars spent, and 
by squashing reforms that threaten the monopoly held by powerful 
special interest groups. It's a debate that I hope changes this year.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to shift the focus of Federal education policy 
back to parents, communities, and States--in that order. We need to 
encourage reform efforts like school choice. And most importantly, we 
hope that when our efforts are done, children will begin to learn again 
in even the poorest and most disadvantaged school districts.
  Meanwhile, both the President and the Vice President continue to send 
their children to private schools instead of the District of Columbia 
public school system, in spite of denying that same choice for 
thousands of poor children in the same city.
  But Mr. Speaker, we need to be willing to look beyond the issue of 
just school choice, and into what our States and communities can 
accomplish if we return real educational freedom to this land. For the 
last 30 years, we have seen our educational system decline, to a point 
that many Americans are losing hope that their children will have a 
future. But if we are just willing to cast aside the political 
blinders, we will find that we have an unlimited opportunity to bring 
real improvement to our Nation's schools.
  For the last year the House Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee has been trying to determine just how much, and where, the 
Federal government has been spending on education. What we have 
discovered is beyond belief.
  Last year, 39 separate agencies of the Federal Government were 
allocated over $120 billion for at least 763 education programs. And 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service told us they believe 
there are probably several hundred more programs that they have yet to 
find.
  And what are some of the things that we are spending this educational 
money on today?
  $3 million for the Intergovernmental Climate Program.
  $1 billion for the Labor Department's Job Corps Training Programs.
  $204 million for Clinton's Americorps volunteer program that is 
costing us nearly $30,000 a year per volunteer.
  Another $42 million for Volunteers in Service in America.
  $71 million for the Foster Grandparent Program.
  $10 million for the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program--which is 
an oxymoron if one ever existed.
  $48 million for the National Center of Education Statistics.
  $8 million for the National Education Dissemination System.
  $311 million for bilingual and immigrant education.
  $86 million for Educational Research and Development.
  $1 million for the Institute of International Public Policy.
  $16 million for National AIDS Education and Training Centers.
  $180 million for Family Planning Services.
  $18 million for overseas schools and colleges.
  And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now, to be sure, there are 
some very worthwhile expenditures included in the totals, such as 
funding for our Nation's military academies, along with research grants 
to colleges and universities from which we derive direct benefits in 
many areas of our lives.
  But imagine what we could do to improve our children's education if 
we returned this fortune to our local schools.
  If my home State of Georgia's share is calculated on the same 
percentage as the formula agreed on for Medicaid funding by the 
Nation's 50 governors, including Georgia's Democratic Governor Zell 
Miller for my friends on the other side of the aisle, this comes to an 
astounding $3.16 billion a year in education money for Georgia. And I 
believe my colleagues from both parties will find the following amazing 
scenario would ring true for their States as well as Georgia.
  Bill Alred, statistical analyst for the Georgia Department of 
Education in Atlanta, says Georgia school systems spend a grand total 
of $5.3 billion on grades Pre-K through 12 in fiscal year 1994, the 
last year for which full statistics are available. If we kept the money 
at home instead of sending it to Washington, we could cover nearly 60 
percent of the total cost of elementary and secondary education in 
Georgia.
  Even more astounding is the impact the Federal spending could have on 
our Georgia colleges and universities. Roger Mosshard, assistant vice 
chancellor of budgets with the Georgia State Board of Regents, says 
Georgia's university system took in around $2.5 billion last year from 
all sources, including tuition fees; payments for room and books; 
Federal, State, and private grants; and direct funding.
  If we kept the Federal spending at home, Georgia could fund its 
entire university system with over $500 million to spare, and I think 
that many of you would find the same true in your State.
  That would mean free college for every child who can pass the 
courses, not just as undergraduates, but through the doctoral level 
including medical and law school. And not just tuition, but dormitories 
and meals, rooms, books, lab fees, research, field trips, everything. 
And this absolutely revolutionary, quantum leap forward, could be 
funded with what we are already spending.
  Now take a long hard look at that list of where that money goes now. 
Comparing the options, which do you think will help our children best 
prepare for a global, high technology economy in the 21st century?
  I implore my friends on both sides of the aisle to stand up against 
the special interests, face the future with courage and an open mind 
instead of fear, and join the fight to bring our schools out of the 
failed ways of the past, and into a future that is limited only by our 
ability to see it.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to make education be about our children 
again--instead of just about supporting bureaucracy.

                          ____________________