[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7014-H7015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGAN. Madam Speaker, I have been intrigued by the comments of my 
two colleagues who just preceded me in addressing the House, the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone]. I am compelled, based on their commentaries, to make a few 
observations.
  First, with respect to the challenge that was made to Republicans on 
the issue of supporting school construction, neither party has a 
monopoly on virtue on this particular subject. The question is, how are 
we going to fund school construction, and which party is truly standing 
for proposals that will increase school construction?
  Back in my home State, when I was majority leader of the California 
State Assembly, we passed more money for education last year than had 
been appropriated in almost 30 years. Members then went home after the 
session and congratulated themselves for that accomplishment. But the 
reality was that the victory was somewhat Pyrrhic in nature, because in 
California the manner in which school construction is funded is impeded 
in two significant ways.
  In California, like with the Federal Government, we pay construction 
contracts with a labor union prevailing wage. The California prevailing 
wage law works like this: if a school is being built in a rural area of 
the State, the government pays those with whom it contracts the highest 
union wage paid to workers in urban areas like San

[[Page H7015]]

Francisco or Los Angeles, where the cost of living is significantly 
higher. Rural government contracted construction workers earn wages and 
benefits averaging some $26 an hour on the cost of the contract. This 
has a significant negative impact on the number of schools that can be 
built or have infrastructure repairs.
  We Republicans have tried to reform rules like this and make them 
more reasonable, because we know that only one-half of a school can be 
built under these windfall agreements for the market price of a whole 
school. We have not yet been able to overcome the political clout of 
the labor bosses who contribute heavily to our friends on the other 
side of the aisle. Is it a coincidence that we get very little support 
from these colleagues in our calls for reform?
  The other thing that impedes school construction on a national and 
statewide basis is the degree and extent of the topheavy government 
education bureaucracies that siphon away money from schools.
  As a Republican, I believe we ought to block-grant education dollars 
directly to our schools, and not pour them down the rathole of 
bureaucrats in Washington. Why should bureaucrats steal 30 to 40 
percent of education dollars to feed their bureaucracies, and deny 
those funds to our children and teachers and local schools? With 
reform, we would have more school construction, we could pay teachers 
more, we could end the problem of oversized classrooms.
  Why hasn't this occurred? Because time and again, those who support 
the status quo and derive political and financial support from the 
status quo obstruct reform. They would much rather see 30 to 40 cents 
of every education dollar go to pay bureaucrats in Washington or in 
State governments, rather than see that money returned to our local 
school districts and go directly to school construction and education 
needs.
  I make a pledge to my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Mr. 
Pallone: I will consistently vote in this Chamber at every opportunity 
to take money from bureaucrats and send it directly to the schools.
  I return a challenge to him and to my friends on the Democrat side of 
the aisle. Our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, 
will be bringing up a bill shortly in this Chamber, that is very 
simple: it would require 90 cents on every education dollar must go 
directly to the schools, and not to bureaucracies. I challenge them to 
support this bill, and let their rhetoric match their actions. My guess 
is that when this bill comes up for a vote, Republicans will almost 
unanimously vote for it. I also suspect we will not get significant 
support from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Why? Because 
they would have to stand up to those who profit from the status quo--
those from whom they draw so much political financial support.
  Finally, when my friend from Maine, Mr. Allen, talks about campaign 
finance reform, he joins the daily refrain from Members of his party 
proferring the same sentiments. Why is that in their indignation they 
never talk about the one real, meaningful degree of campaign finance 
reform injustice? I have yet to hear a single colleague from the other 
side of the aisle stand up and condemn the compulsory taking of union 
dues from working Americans, and having that money used for political 
purposes contrary to the wishes of those workers. They cry foul over 
hundreds of millions of dollars taken without permission from working 
Americans, and having that money funneled almost exclusively into the 
campaign coffers of Democrats, despite the fact that 40 percent of 
every AFL-CIO worker in this country is a registered Republican.
  In California, if a Republican wants a job in a union shop, he or she 
must join that union as a condition of employment. When they join that 
union, money is taken from their paychecks without their permission to 
fund the political causes of the labor bosses. That is not right, yet 
these same ``guardians'' of good government who pontificate on campaign 
finance reform each day here have yet to condemn it.
  If we are going to have meaningful campaign finance reform, let us 
start from the ground up and end a system of compulsory stealing of 
money from those who earn it at the expense of democracy--and freedom.

                          ____________________