[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9567-H9575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING DOLLARS TO THE CLASSROOM
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 139) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Department of Education, States, and local
education agencies should spend a greater percentage of Federal
education tax dollars in our children's classrooms, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 139
Whereas we know that effective teaching takes place when we
begin (1) helping children master basic academics, (2)
engaging
[[Page H9568]]
and involving parents, (3) creating safe and orderly
classrooms, and (4) getting dollars to the classroom;
Whereas our Nation's children deserve an educational system
which will provide opportunities to excel;
Whereas States and localities must spend a significant
amount of Federal education tax dollars applying for and
administering Federal education dollars;
Whereas several States have reported that although they
receive less than 10 percent of their education funding from
the Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their
paperwork is associated with those Federal dollars;
Whereas while it is unknown exactly what percentage of
Federal education dollars reaches the classroom, a recent
audit of New York City public schools found that only 43
percent of their local education budget reaches the
classroom. Further, it is thought that only 85 percent of
funds administered by the United States Department of
Education for elementary and secondary education reach the
school district level. Even if 65 percent of Federal
education funds presently reach the classroom, it still means
that billions of dollars are not directly spent on children
in the classroom;
Whereas American students are not performing up to their
full academic potential, despite significant Federal
education initiatives, which span multiple Federal agencies;
Whereas, according to the Digest of Education Statistics,
in 1993 only $141,598,786,000 out of $265,285,370,000 spent
on elementary and secondary education was spent on
``instruction'';
Whereas, according to the National Center for Education
Statistics, in 1994 only 52 percent of staff employed in
public elementary and secondary school systems were teachers;
Whereas too much of our Federal education funding is spent
on bureaucracy, and too little is spent on our Nation's
youth;
Whereas getting 90 percent of Department of Education
elementary and secondary education funds to the classroom
could provide substantial additional funding per classroom
across the United States;
Whereas more education funding should be put in the hands
of someone in a child's classroom who knows the child's name;
Whereas burdensome regulations and mandates should be
removed so that school districts can devote more resources to
children in classrooms;
Whereas President Clinton has stated: ``We cannot ask the
American people to spend more on education until we do a
better job with the money we've got now.'';
Whereas President and Vice President Gore agree that the
reinventing of public education will not begin in Washington
but in communities across America and that we must ask
fundamental questions about how our public school systems'
dollars are spent; and
Whereas President Clinton and Vice President Gore agree
that in an age of tight budgets, we should be spending public
funds on teachers and children, not on unnecessary overhead
and bloated bureaucracy: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the
Congress, the Department of Education, States, and local
educational agencies to--
(1) determine the extent to which Federal elementary and
secondary education dollars are currently reaching the
classroom;
(2) work together to remove barriers that currently prevent
a greater percentage of funds from reaching the classroom;
and
(3) work toward the goal that at least 90 percent of the
United States Department of Education elementary and
secondary education program funds will ultimately reach
classrooms, when feasible and consistent with applicable law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Martinez] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts], the author of the resolution.
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me today to stand before
the House to support the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, an
initiative I have been working on since early this year. As a former
high school math and science teacher in public schools and because my
own children have been educated in public schools, I know of the
importance of America's public schools. With this background, I rise
today in strong support of America's public schools and the students
that attend them each day.
Today the House will have a chance to strongly support public
education when we vote on the Dollars to the Classroom resolution. The
Dollars to the Classroom resolution urges that we get at least 90
percent of Federal education tax dollars to the classroom, to the
individual who knows the name of each child. This could mean an
additional $1,800 in public classrooms across America.
Do my House colleagues realize that currently we are wasting billions
of education tax dollars each year? Let me give Members an example of
this waste. The Department of Education funds tens of thousands of
publications, 21,922 to be exact, that are available for each of us to
purchase, for a fee I might add.
There are 140 studies on checklists that are listed. There are 13
studies on welding. There are 260 studies on surveys. There are 26
studies on camping. There are close to 100 studies on education
researchers researching their research techniques. There are three
studies entitled ``Cement: The Concrete Experience.'' I would rather
empower teachers to buy books for classrooms than to fund studies on
cement.
In short, the question is, do we fund bureaucrats or books? A vote
against the Dollars to the Classroom resolution is really a vote for
the bureaucracy. We do not want to become so entrenched in the beltway
mindset that we have forgotten why we are here.
Let me take a minute to remind my colleagues. We are here for kids
like Melissa who writes, and I quote, ``My social studies book was new
in 1988. Hey, it's 1997. We need to get new books.'' And Glenisha who
says, and I quote, ``I support this bill because it seems as if people
are taking our parents for granted, because they're paying taxes which
they assume are to schools, but most of the money doesn't make it to
the classroom where it should be. We should have had this bill a long
time ago.''
Mr. Speaker, if Members will not take my word for it, at least listen
to the children who attend public schools across America each day, or
listen to the teachers.
Helen Martin, a teacher in the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
in Pennsylvania stated this: ``It is very frustrating to see so much
tax money go to Washington for education and not to see funds in the
classroom that have been appropriated for education. Please return more
education tax dollars directly to the students of our Nation who will
become the scientists, business people and lawmakers of the 21st
century.''
Mr. Speaker, I beg Members to not turn a deaf ear to the children and
the teachers of our Nation. Let us get America's hard earned tax
dollars away from beltway bureaucrats and into the classroom. Let us
use the money for books, computers, maps, microscopes, and teachers.
It is our choice. We have a vote today that will impact America's
kids. We have a moral responsibility to drastically improve our current
education system for our children. If we are really serious about
supporting public schools, the choice is clear. Vote for the Dollars to
the Classroom resolution. Vote for the kids in the public education
system.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the RECORD:
Moving Dollars to the Classroom
(By Representative Joseph Pitts)
``People are taking our parents for granted, because
they're paying taxes which they assume are to schools, but
most of the money doesn't make it to the classroom where it
should be''--5th Grader Glenisha Danyelle McLellan
Glenisha's statement is undeniable--a significant portion
of federal education dollars do not make it into classrooms.
In the midst of rapidly growing federal education budget, the
actual amount of funds making it into classrooms--where the
fundamental basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic are
taught--is being siphoned off by an increasingly large
Washington-based education bureaucracy.
As a former high school math and science teacher, I have
seen and experienced first-hand the funding shortfalls many
schools face each year. Some have tartered textbooks dating
back more than a decade. In many urban areas, teachers lack
the funds to buy basic necessities such as new crayons,
pencils and paper for their students. Year after year,
thousands of teachers nationwide--in affluent and poor
districts alike--are not given the proper resources to
conduct the necessary classroom experiments that facilitate
the learning process.
After one studies this ``resource gap'' in our nation's
classrooms, it becomes abundantly clear that the answer to
these problems does not lie in increased education funding.
Indeed, the problem in education is not how much we spend,
but how we spend it. By propping up bureaucracies instead of
providing local schools, teachers and parents with the
resources they need, we have failed our nation's children.
[[Page H9569]]
In his most recent State of the Union address, President
Clinton declared that education would be his ``number one
priority for the next four years.'' Mr. Clinton should
fulfill that commitment by working to ensure that a very high
percentage of every federal dollar spent on education is
channeled directly to a classroom, instead of remaining in
the seemingly endless labyrinth of programs which originate
in Washington, DC. This goal is one that has already been
embraced by Republicans.
At present, it is unknown exactly what percentage of
federal education dollars reach the classroom. What is known,
however, is that the federal education bureaucracy is a
multi-layered behemoth that saps up billions of dollars that
are desperately needed in America's classrooms.
As part of the effort of the Republican majority to ensure
that more dollars are directed into classrooms, the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce has initiated a far-
reaching project--``Education at a Crossroads: What Works?
What Is Wasted?''--to evaluate the extent and quality of
federal involvement in education. Led by Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI),
the Committee has unearthed a federal education bureaucracy
consisting of 760 different programs in 40 separate
departments and agencies, costing taxpayers more than $100
billion a year (1997 figures).
Currently, the federal government spends approximately
$15.4 billion on elementary and secondary education programs.
The best estimate suggests that about $5.4 billion never
reaches the classroom. Instead, this money is consumed by
numerous layers of administration, paperwork, publications,
studies, and an intensive grant application process.
This federal bureaucracy, coupled with the waste endemic in
many state education bureaucracies, results in fewer and
fewer dollars actually reaching the classroom. For instance,
a recent audit of New York City public schools found that
only 43 percent of the local education budget reached the
classroom. The Wall Street Journal has reported (3/27/96)
that 24.6% of U.S. public education spending (federal, state,
and local) goes to non-teaching personnel.
The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) is chock full of
examples of wasteful spending. In many cases, programs and
policies can be eliminated, thus freeing up more resources to
be utilized directly by those actually doing the teaching.
Two prime examples are the USDE's voluminous collection of
``studies,'' and the time-consuming grant process. While
there are certainly other problem areas that need a close
examination, these two serve as effective ``case studies.''
Cement: The Concrete Experience
According to the USDE, it ``publishes a wealth of
information for teachers, administrators, policymakers,
researchers, parents, students, and others with a stake in
education.'' A recent search of the USDE's Home Page on the
World Wide Web found that the database currently contains
descriptions of 21,922 different studies published since
1980. The subjects covered in these reports span the
horizon, ranging from Eskimos to cement.
A brief, and by no means comprehensive, examination of the
list of studies reveals:
1767 studies on career planning;
140 studies on check lists;
Nearly 100 studies on education researchers researching
their research techniques;
260 studies on surveys;
3 studies on ``Cement: The Concrete Experience''; and
82 studies on calculators.
And that is just a small fraction of a small sampling of
the publications available.
Additionally, these reports are not available for free; the
USDE charges a fee for each report, so those wondering what
``Cement: The Concrete Experience'' is all about must pay to
find out. This is a tragic waste of taxpayer dollars. Not
only are the bureaucrats in Washington consuming money that
could be directed to local schools to fund studies on all-
too-often irrelevant topics, but the USDE then forces
teachers to use limited classroom resources to purchase
copies of the few studies that may prove useful.
This dizzying logic lends an insight into the USDE's
funding priorities. As President Herbert Hoover once noted:
``In all bureaucracies there are three implacable spirits--
self-perpetuation, expansion, and incessant demand for more
power.'' Indeed.
Grant Process: 21 Weeks, 216 Steps
Another frustrating example of waste in the federal
education system is the extraordinarily long grant
application process teachers across the country must endure.
The USDE has made applying for a grant so complicated that
many teachers never even bother, feeling the benefits (the
money) don't outweigh the costs (countless lost hours).
Teachers who do choose to try to secure federal grants must
waste hours upon hours on an application process that takes
21 weeks and churns through no less than 216 tedious steps of
bureaucratic red tape. And that's just to apply for a grant.
In the end, there is no guarantee of actually receiving the
funds.
Interestingly enough, the aforementioned 21 week process
involving 216 steps was recently highlighted by the USDE as a
significant accomplishment. Previously, the grant process
involved more than 400 steps and took an additional 5
weeks. While the new ``shortened'' process should
certainly be applauded, it is a long, long way from
satisfactory.
The USDE also recently highlighted additional steps it has
taken to make the Department more efficient and more
effective. One achievement so noted was a reduction in the
paperwork burden imposed by the federal education
establishment by 10 percent or 5.4 million hours. However,
even with this improvement, 48.6 million hours of paperwork
is still required by USDE policies. That amounts to the
equivalent of 24,300 employees, working 40 hours per week,
for an entire year. Again, the recent improvements are
welcomed, but there is a long, long way to go.
The USDE ``studies'' and grant process are just two
examples of areas where we must demand a better return on our
education dollar. Furthermore, I have no doubt that Chairman
Hoekstra and other members of the subcommittee will uncover
additional areas ripe for reform as they continue working on
the Education at a Crossroads project.
$1,800 for Every Classroom in America
Considering the funding shortfalls many teachers
experience, and having identified an enormously large and
wasteful bureaucracy, it seems that an important policy
initiative would be working to move more dollars directly
into classrooms, while spending less on propping up the
establishment in Washington. One proposal that would move
policy in this direction is the ``Dollars to the Classroom''
resolution, which calls on the USDE to send 90 percent of the
money it earmarks for elementary and secondary education
directly into classrooms.
While the federal government actually funds a relatively
small portion of elementary and secondary education (federal
spending represents about six percent of total education
spending in this area), it is significant nonetheless. The
$5.4 billion currently wasted on bureaucracy could provide a
windfall of funds for every classroom in America.
If the federal government sent approximately 90 percent of
current federal education dollars directly to the classroom,
it would translate into an additional $1,800 for every
classroom in America. The impact of such an infusion of
resources would be felt immediately by every teacher and
every student in every school across the country.
An additional $1,800 for every teacher to use provides a
number of possibilities for improving the quality of
education:
$200 purchases a microscope, and a child can see a double
helix strand of DNA.
$70 purchases a sling psychrometer, which students could
use to measure the relative humidity and predict the weather.
A mere $10 obtains flash cards, allowing students to
practice time tables with a friend.
$50 buys a globe or a set of maps, allowing children to
improve their geography and their knowledge of nations across
the seas.
And $1,500 buys a computer with enough desktop space, RAM,
and Internet access to allow every student in the classroom
to experience the vast amount of educational information
available at his or her fingertips.
In some cases, that new found money may be the difference
between new textbooks and continuing to use those from the
early 1970s. Without a doubt, placing $1,800 at the disposal
of a creative and hardworking teacher can and will make a
substantial difference for our children, their education, and
their futures.
Teachers and superintendents agree that the ``resource
gap'' in the classroom must be narrowed. At a recent
Education at the Crossroads hearing in Washington, Helen
Martin, a high school science teacher from Uninoville,
Pennsylvania told legislators:
``It is very frustrating to see so much tax money go to
Washington for education and not see funds in the classroom
that have been appropriated for education. Please return more
education tax dollars directly to the students of our nation
who will become the scientitis, business people and
lawmakers of the 21st century.''
Dr. Linda Schrenko, the state Superintendent of Schools in
Georgia has noted:
``Administrators from Washington will never meet the needs
of individual children. . . . I cast my vote for returning as
many dollars directly to local schools as we are able. . . .
Less bureaucracy on all levels will allow more dollars to
directly reach the students in the classroom.''
This debate is not about what we should do with the federal
Department of Education. Instead, it is about bringing
accountability to this federal agency in a way that ensures
that children, not bureaucrats, are the final winners.
In 1996, while speaking to the nation's governors, the
President stated: ``We cannot ask the American people to
spend more on education until we do a better job with what
we've got now.'' That is something we can all agree on.
Our efforts to move ``Dollars to the Classroom'' will force
the Washington bureaucracy to do a better job with the money
we are already spending. And through the Education at a
Crossroads project, Chairman Hoekstra is working to help
identify the programs that are effective at accomplishing
this goal, as well as those that are undermining it.
On still another occasion President Clinton added, ``In an
age of tightening budgets, we should be spending public funds
on teachers and children, not on unnecessary overhead
[[Page H9570]]
and bloated bureaucracy.'' Now, if only the message could get
through to the money handlers at USDE.
Raising the question ``Where is the money spent?'' is well
worth the time it will take to bring this subject to the
forefront of debate. For too long, liberals have claimed that
increased federal funding is the ultimate problem-solver.
Yet, ever-increasing education budgets have demonstrated
otherwise, as test scores continue to decline.
House Education and the Workforce Chairman Bill Goodling
(R-PA) has noted time and again that we know children are
achieving when we invest in programs that help students
master basic academics, engage and involve parents, and move
dollars into classrooms. These are the activities of local
schools, teachers, and parents, not pencil-pushers and
bureaucrats in Washington.
Basic academics and more dollars to the classroom are a
winning combination. Now, we must ensure the best education
possible for the most number of students, and the best way to
accomplish that goal is to see that our tax dollars make it
right back into the classroom. When federal education dollars
seep into the pools of Washington's 40-agency education
bureaucracy, the exact opposite happens--millions of students
lose out on available funding.
As H.G. Wells said in his famous Outline of History,
``Human history becomes more and more a race between
education and catastrophe.'' No one would disagree with that.
And no one would deny that this is a race we must win.
Today, Republicans are launching a number of initiatives
designed to help America win that race. The ongoing Education
at a Crossroads project continues to illuminate problem areas
and success stories in education. The ``Dollars to the
Classroom'' resolution will help refocus our efforts on
children, not bureaucracies. These Republican projects will
help ensure a stronger education system, and a brighter
future for every American student.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we can all agree on the importance of sending the majority of
education dollars to the classroom, but in fact this resolution does
not ask for that. This resolution asks that 95 percent of the program
dollars go to the classroom, and in fact that is already what is
happening. But having said that we all feel that the majority of
education dollars should go to the classroom so that children can
receive a quality education, I have to stipulate that I do not agree
with the rationale and the myths outlined in this present resolution
that is before us today. I wonder why we are consuming our precious
floor debate time on this unnecessary rhetoric instead of considering
measures which will truly improve the public education of our children.
I believe this body needs to act upon solutions, not resolutions, in
our quest to respond to the educational needs of our children. Playing
politics through the consideration of this resolution is not the proper
nor justified response to our problems in the education system. Despite
the obvious political goals of the majority on this resolution, which
is to embarrass the Department of Education, I believe it is necessary
to point out some of its obvious mistruths.
Among the many premises of this measure is the statement that 3 years
ago less than 60 percent of funds spent on elementary and secondary
education was spent on instruction. I do not know how we can confirm
the accuracy of that statement when, as we all know, the determination
of whether an expense is classified as administrative or instructional
varies from one school district to another. Some schools classify
teacher aides and professional development as administrative costs
while others classify that as instructional. In this instance and in
many others throughout the resolution, the claims advocated by the
majority clearly have absolutely no basis in fact.
Another misleading premise is that the Department of Education and
the program it operates are gobbling up funds for wasteful
administrative purposes rather than targeting dollars for the
classroom. This conclusion is misleading and was never proven by the
majority during the committee consideration of this legislation. Nearly
all major education programs, and that is what we are really talking
about, is the programs, include a 5 percent cap on funds that may be
used by State and local educators for administrative purposes. The
statutory limits contained in our federal election laws specifically
ensure that the funds we provide are going to benefit our Nation's
students, not the bureaucracies the majority claims. The limited
administrative costs that do exist focus in large part on
accountability and quality improvements, and that is something that we
should all be concerned with. Additionally, nearly all States are
presently taking advantage of a new provision in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act which permits a single consolidated application
for many Federal grant programs.
Mr. Speaker, rather than wasting time debating a resolution designed
to undermine public education, we should adopt instead a positive
approach to educational progress, one that emphasizes how the Federal
Government can assist local school reform or help prepare crumbling
schools that they are now in desperate need of. These are the
solutions, not resolutions, I was referring to earlier.
The Democratic caucus I believe has adopted an education agenda that
will truly help ensure a quality education for our Nation's children
and respond to the needs of our public education system. This agenda
emphasizes early childhood development, well-trained teachers, relief
for crumbling and overcrowded schools through the rebuilding of our
Nation's educational infrastructure, support for local plans to renew
neighborhood public schools and coordination of an efficient use of
existing resources. The Democratic agenda will ensure that every child
will be ready to learn to read by the time they enter kindergarten and
bring down student-to-teacher ratios and provide quality instruction
and assist schools to wire the classrooms to the Internet plus support
local schools' renewal plans that are developed by stakeholders in our
communities' public school system, and encourage States to adopt
rigorous standards of academic performance. These are actual solutions
to the problems we encounter in our educational system. These are what
we should be debating, not meaningless politically minded resolutions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the one instance in which
the majority decides to work together in a bipartisan manner is on a
measure that does nothing to respond to the Nation's educational needs.
I challenge my Republican colleagues to work together in a bipartisan
fashion to address those tangible issues which I previously outlined
that will truly help our Nation's children. Everyone in this body needs
to remember, we need to provide solutions, not resolutions.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that
after 35 years of Democrat control, their resolutions and their
legislation was well-intended. Unfortunately, it struck out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs.
Emerson].
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Resolution
139, the dollars to the classroom resolution. I commend the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts], the sponsor; the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the Committee on Education and the
Workforce for their continual hard work to ensure that real reform
occurs in our Nation's education system.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution would simply set a goal that at least 90
percent of Federal elementary and secondary education dollars reach the
classroom. It is currently estimated that only 65 percent of all
Federal funds actually reach our Nation's classrooms. This town is
notorious for talking about reforming this education system, but this
dismal statistic proves that nothing has been accomplished.
The dollars to the classroom resolution is a great way to send a
message to the administration that we in Congress are prepared to
invoke real reform at the Department of Education. Our goal should be
an education system where every child can outscore, outperform and
outcompete the students of every other Nation in the world. It is time
to put our children before bureaucrats. The decision of how our
education money is spent needs to be made by local teachers, local
administrators and parents, not the Federal Government. It is time that
we invest more wisely, and we must spend our education dollars where
they can achieve the most, right in the classroom.
This resolution would mean as much as $1,800 would be added to each
classroom budget. At Houston Middle School in southern Missouri, where
I taught a class last week, $1,800 is the difference between having
computers
[[Page H9571]]
and much newer books and other much needed learning resources in that
classroom. They desperately need it. It is finally time for Congress to
take a stand and do what is right for our Nation's children. I urge my
colleagues to support the dollars to the classroom resolution.
{time} 1230
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 139, the
dollars to the classroom resolution. The resolution, if you take a
moment to read it, in its resolve clause, is perfectly admirable and
legitimate. It says the House of Representatives urges the Congress and
the U.S. Department of Education, the States and local agencies, to
determine the extent to which Federal elementary secondary education
dollars are currently reaching the classroom and then work toward a
goal of at least 90 percent of the funding to be utilized in that way.
I do not believe there is a single Member of the Congress that will
argue against such a resolution.
What troubles us and why the Democrats on the Committee on Education
and the Workforce all voted against this resolution is because the
whereas clauses contain in them absolutely unfounded, unsubstantiated
conclusions.
If these conclusions were actually factual, why are they calling upon
the Congress and the Federal Government and the States to study this
matter? If they have all the facts, that should be it.
But the very fact that they are calling upon the Congress and the
Federal Government and the States to look at this and to determine
exactly what is reaching the classroom is discounted by the fact that
more than half of the whereas clauses contain in them what I consider
absolutely fallacious conclusions regarding the subject matter.
I believe that it is intentionally so stated, because it wishes to
disparage the idea of Federal funds for education.
I think that we have to look very closely at the whereas clauses and
not just be sucked into voting for the resolution because of the
resolve clause. I stand here today and urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to read this resolution carefully and see if there is any
reason to support the whereas clauses.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate in the testimony given to the
subcommittee that all of the funding that is intended to go to the
classrooms or the school districts are not so being funded. Yet this
resolution makes general conclusions that the money is not getting to
the schools.
The resolution states although the States receive less than 10
percent of their education funding from the Federal Government, more
than 50 percent of their paperwork is associated with those Federal
dollars.
That statement is absolutely unsubstantiated. There is no evidence
that the States spend 50 percent of their paperwork on Federal
programs. So I think that that is an outrageous statement that in
itself calls for a negative vote on this resolution.
Furthermore, there is an assault statement on the New York City
public school system. The resolution says ``while it is unknown exactly
what percentage of Federal education dollars reaches the classroom, a
recent audit of New York City public schools found that only 43 percent
of their local education budget reaches the classroom.''
There is no evidence to that fact regarding this particular school
system. In any event, it is not relevant to this resolution, because
all that the resolution is attempting to discuss are Federal dollars,
not local and State dollars. So that whereas clause simply is not
relevant, as it deals with local funds.
The resolution also states even if 65 percent of the Federal
education dollars presently reach the classroom, it still means that
billions of dollars are not directly spent on the classroom.
This is absolutely a false statement. Whoever said only 65 percent of
Federal education funds reach the classroom? There is already evidence
in the record to indicate that between 95 and 98 percent of the funding
from the Federal Government actually gets to the local school
districts.
We have testimony in our record here, the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Blunt], in response to my question said in discussing this matter
with others, he thinks ``the average in the country is somewhere
between 93 and 98 percent actually getting to the districts.''
So I cannot imagine where there is any truth whatsoever in this
statement about 65 percent of the Federal education dollars reaching
the classroom.
So on with the rest of the resolution. It makes mention of the Digest
of Education Statistics, regarding total money local and State that are
spent in elementary secondary schools. This resolution is dealing with
only talking about Federal dollars, so let us stick to the subject
matter, and not mix apples with oranges.
I believe that there is ample evidence in all the statistics that are
available that 93 percent of our Federal dollars are actually reaching
the school districts.
The resolution states too much of our Federal education funding is
spent on the bureaucracy and too little spent on our Nation's youth.
The U.S. Department of Education has come repeatedly before our
committees and stated that only 2 percent of its budget is spent on
administrative costs. So the rest of it goes down to the States.
If we mean to incriminate how the States handle their budgets, then
that is a matter entirely separate from this resolution. This
resolution is only talking about the Federal money. We have been very
careful in determining the way in which the funding is to be allocated
in terms of all of the programs that we have implemented.
Programs for special education and for other matters are clear in
their distinction as to how the funds are to be spent. I think one has
to look at the newly developed Coopers & Lybrand accounting package,
and the analysis of the Milwaukee school district which shows that 93
percent of all title I funds went to the classroom for instructional
support and 90 percent of all title I funds were spent at the school
level.
In the State of South Carolina, we had the opportunity to hear from
the Superintendent of Education, Barbara Stock Nielsen, who testified
on May 8 of this year that the vast majority of Federal dollars do
reach the classroom and that it is probably easier to track the Federal
dollars than it is the State and local dollars.
Mr. Speaker, given the facts that we know, that we have been
presented in the subcommittee, it is clear that the Federal Government
is doing an excellent job. Let us not pass a resolution that disparages
Federal aid to education with facts stated in the whereas clause that
are absolutely unfounded, unsubstantiated, and in many cases totally
false.
So I urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution. It may feel
good to say you want more money to get to the students and to the
classrooms, but I ask you to look at the whereas clauses and see how
inconsistent they are and vote down this House Resolution 139.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts] to discuss this.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman who said there
was no evidence or substantiation, let me quote from the testimony that
she should have heard when the hearing was held before the committee. A
quote from Lisa Graham Keegan, the Arizona State Superintendent, who
said Federal funds account for 10 percent of the education funding, but
50 percent of their paperwork burden. Dr. Charles Garris,
superintendent of Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, my own
district, came and presented testimony, talking about Federal funds
only.
He said that even at the local level, after the administrative
overhead from the Federal, at the local level, 25 percent of the funds
never reach the students that they were intended to serve, and he
detailed the expenditure of those funds. Then he had a stack of papers,
an application for a Federal grant. He put it down and he said, ``This
takes 5 months to apply, and still, after 5 months of applying, going
through 216 steps, we don't know whether we will get any. I will not
even apply.''
[[Page H9572]]
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard that claim, and I wonder when that claim
or statement was made, because, more recently, innovations at the
Department of Education through programs like Ed-Flex and other waiver
initiatives of the Education Department has allowed States and
localities to waive statutory and regulatory requirements of several
Federal education programs, such as Even-Start, migrant education,
Eisenhower Provisional Development Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
community programs, innovation education programs, emergency immigrant
education, and the Perkins Vocational Education Programs.
Twelve States currently are Ed-Flex States. So if a State wants to
apply for that, they have the option to do that. That is still not the
problem or the major educational problem that our education system has
in its system today, and I do not think this resolution, which has no
standing in law, because it is just a resolution, is going to do
anything to really alleviate any of those problems.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution. Guaranteeing that 90 percent of Federal funds for
elementary and secondary schools is spent directly in the classroom is
just plain good sense. I cannot imagine why anybody could be against
that.
While there is not complete certainty as to the actual percentage of
Federal education dollars that reach the classroom, we do have
available to us several studies which suggest that well over 30 percent
of these funds are eaten up by the Federal and State bureaucracy.
I have been part of the hearings all around the country on the
Crossroads to Education. Everywhere we go, we hear from local people
that these funds are eaten up by the bureaucracy. I do not think this
should be so, Mr. Speaker. I believe that too much of Federal education
funding is spent on bureaucracy and not enough on teaching our
children.
I believe that we should support this resolution in a bipartisan way,
and even the Democrats on our committee may vote against it. I believe
most Democrats in this Congress will support this in a bipartisan way,
because they know that the people who actually know our children at
home should be the people in charge.
I urge support of H.R. 139.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to that.
Look, here comes back the same story. We are comparing apples and
oranges when you compare Federal programs and State programs.
The Federal Government has no way of dictating to States what they
expend for administration or other paperwork requirements in their own
State. The Federal Government does not control that.
The Federal Government does have caps in the Federal Government on
how much can be spent on administration. So to say in one breath that
the State and Federal governments are guilty of an excessive cost of
administration and overhead regarding paperwork is a misstatement, and
it is a misleading statement.
Nobody is against as many of the funds as possible going to the
classroom. The Federal programs, as outlined by the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] have stated that up to 93 percent, and maybe more,
in most cases, are going, of Federal dollars, are going to the
classroom. The only thing we can control by this resolution is the
Federal dollars going to the classroom.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, in our great State of South Dakota, we have a
fine tradition of public education. My children participated in that
process. We always believe as a matter of policy that the State and
local governments are those where the function and responsibility
primarily for education resides, but as a matter of conviction, that to
the extent the Federal Government, the taxpayers, are asked for Federal
dollars to support education, that those dollars ought to go into the
classroom.
My two young girls attend public schools. They are only 2 of the 51
million students in America who may not have the resources and supplies
necessary to prepare them for the 21st century, because we are not
getting enough of the Federal funding into the classroom.
That is why I support this resolution. With this resolution, it is
estimated that each classroom would receive an additional $1,800. In my
State of South Dakota we spend approximately $3,500 per student.
Another $1,800 could help pay for additional computer software, hooking
on to the Internet or books.
I believe in public education. I hope my colleagues in this body will
show their support for public education by supporting a resolution
which will ensure that we get the very best value for our tax dollar.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here again, I do not know how many times we are going to
say this, but the fact is that the figures that they come up with do
not take into account that 93 percent of the elementary and secondary
education spending is done with local dollars, and it is locally
controlled.
What we are talking about in the resolution is an effort to make sure
that at least 95 percent of these funds get to the education classroom,
and, in the Federal programs, except the moneys they use for the
publications that they are allowed to make in the budget that they get
which is appropriated by this Congress for those specific purposes, is
not used for the programs, and the program money, more than 95 percent,
is actually ending up in the classroom.
{time} 1245
That is the only thing this Federal Government cannot control. As an
average, throughout the United States, only 6 percent of the money that
local schools receive in assistance to their budgets is from the
Federal Government. Of that, they are getting the majority in the
classroom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith.
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong
support of this resolution, and I want to thank the chairman for
bringing it to the floor. I listened carefully to the debate. It is
still confusing because we all say we want the money to go to the
classroom, but I hear debates against that.
We have to have our No. 1 priority to be the classroom, the hands-on,
where the teacher knows the child's name, and we have the teaching of
the basics, reading, writing, arithmetic.
What I found when I got to Washington, DC, though, about 3 years ago,
was a lot of apologists for the bureaucracy, fighting hard every day to
keep the Federal buildings full of bureaucrats, when actually we need
teachers in the classrooms at home.
This resolution just says 90 percent of our Federal dollars, the
money we pay, and gets to the Federal level, goes into the classroom.
How can Members argue with that, at a time when people are saying, go
back to the basics, we want local control?
I urge a strong vote ``yes'' for this resolution.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a half-truth. The Education
Department already sends at least 95 percent of the major education
program money to the States. Only 2 percent is used by the Department
for administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my colleague,
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often we have
said it in committee, and we are repeating it again on the floor: the
U.S. Department of Education spends only 2 percent of the total funding
for education on its administration. So I do not understand this
accusation of this huge bureaucracy consuming the money that belongs to
the classrooms and to the school districts. The statistics are there,
the studies have been made, and CRS reports all indicate that the
figures given by the U.S. Department of Education are correct, only 2
percent.
[[Page H9573]]
I also want to call to the attention of the House that in the various
legislation that we have passed we have also stipulated not only
limitation on Federal bureaucracy or Federal administrative costs, but
we have put caps on the State administrative costs. I have a long list
here. I do not know how much time there is.
Let us look at Goals 2000. The maximum percent that the States can
spend on administration is 4 percent of their grant. Title I LEA
grants, 1 percent of the grant is a cap on State and local educational
administrative costs; Even Start, a 5-percent limit; title I migrant, a
1-percent limit; Eisenhower Professional Development, a 5-percent
limit; title VI, a 3.75-percent limit; safe and drug-free schools, a 4-
percent limit; the vocational basic grants, a 5-percent limit; adult
education, a 5-percent limit; IDEA, a 5-percent limit.
So we have been careful in understanding the requirements for
administration, but also the need to get the money to the places the
legislation intended. In each of these major pieces of legislation, we
have carefully not only limited the Federal costs of administration,
but we have stipulated a limitation on the amount of moneys the State
can spend.
If the States in other programs are spending more money than they
should be, that is a State and local matter. So for those people who
are arguing State and local control, that that is the best place to
regulate education, then we ought not to be talking about how they
spend their money for education. If we truly believe in local control,
that is a matter which the local people, the local State officials,
have to come to grips with. But insofar as the Congress, as far as
Federal administration is concerned, I believe we have been absolutely
attentive to the needs of the classroom, the school districts, and the
children.
There are, of course, some areas where it is not possible for the
moneys to go directly to the classroom; such as funds for professional
development. This is not a direct classroom benefit; but we are
benefiting a teacher who is going on for further education.
I believe that this resolution is simply an attempt to haunt the
House and the U.S. Department of Education with all sorts of cobwebs
and misguided conclusions, to try to cast an impression that the
Federal Government has been a wastrel and has not been attentive to the
needs of the students and the needs of our local school districts. This
of course is false.
Again, I ask the House to vote down this resolution.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, only some groups that would want the
power to reside in Washington, D.C., of wasteful spending would oppose
this. Why? They want the power here in River City; the same people who
vote against balanced budgets, tax relief, because those are taxes
given to spend more money for failed systems.
Let me tell the Members, the studies did not even take into account
the time that principals and administrators put into working on the
paperwork. We have heard States saying up to 50 percent, 50 percent of
their costs, are dealing with Federal paperwork.
Let me give Members an idea. Goals 2000 that my colleagues mention,
and say this was a George Bush-Ronald Reagan thing, Goals 2000, look at
the number of ``shalls'' and ``wills.'' I am not a lawyer, but I know a
``will'' in a line is more important; the States will do certain
things. If they do not comply, it has to override the board. The board
then sends the recommendations for Goals 2000.
Think about the group that has to look at that. Then it goes to
Sacramento. Think about just all the schools in our districts sending
all this in to the superintendent, then sending it to the State and the
Governor, and then, guess what? There is a big bureaucracy back here in
Washington, DC; we know there are problems with it, so they send
paperwork back. That takes dollars away.
My wife is an elementary school principal. She had to attend a class
for 1\1/2\ weeks just to learn how to write a grant to the Federal
Government. That is not even included, the dollars get down there, then
they have to look at that. Seven hundred and sixty Federal education
programs.
Let us look at this. The President wanted $3 billion for a literacy
program. There are 14. What is wrong with saying, let us fund 1 or 2,
and get rid of the other 13 or 12 of them? But no, my liberal friends
will want to put more money for failed systems and keep the same system
going.
Let us look at the results. We are 28th in math and science, last of
the 15 industrialized nations in all core courses. Money is the issue,
but the money to get down to the classroom, not to the Federal
bureaucracy.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the chart
to which I made reference, and a letter from Mr. Riley:
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1997.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am responding on behalf of President
Clinton to your letters dated May 8, 1997, and June 11, 1997,
inviting the President to join in the review and evaluation
of Federal education programs currently being conducted by
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am
forwarding a copy of this letter to those who joined you in
writing.
As you know, education is the President's highest priority
as he works to help all Americans prepare for the challenges
of the 21st century. The President also has a keen interest,
dating back to the 1993 National Performance Review, in
determining ``what works and what is wasted'' in Federal
programs.
I came to Washington to make the changes needed to help
improve teaching and learning in America's schools. I think
you also know that I share your interest in local control of
education, focusing on the basics, supporting parents, and
getting the most out of Federal education dollars by making
sure they have the most positive and cost-effective impact on
American classrooms. These principles are at the core of
every elementary and secondary education initiative proposed
by the President Clinton, and we remain convinced that they
are essential to effective education reform.
Over the last year, various Federal Departments, including
the Department of Education, have provided a considerable
volume of material to staff of your Committee relative to the
list of more than 700 programs, which have been characterized
in press events and public statements as ``education''
programs directly impacting elementary and secondary
education.
A cursory examination of the Committee's list reveals that
its size is primarily due to three factors. First, education,
training and outreach are by definition a component of
virtually every Federal program activity. For example,
educational activities are critical to Department of
Agriculture efforts to improve nutrition, Department of
Health and Human Services programs to prevent the spread of
disease, and Department of Transportation activities to
encourage safety in the transportation sector. Second, the
Federal government has a strong interest, determined and
defined largely by the Congress, in supporting a wide variety
of specialized career training and research activities. This
includes training FBI agents and air traffic controllers as
well as much of the research carried out at the National
Institutes of Health. Third, for 130 years the Federal
government has played a key role in expanding opportunity and
quality at every level of education, a role primarily filled
through programs administered by the Department of Education.
Programs in the first two categories were never designed,
nor were ever claimed, before the Committee undertook its
current review, to improve the quality and performance of our
elementary and secondary schools. Programs in the third
category include a significant number of activities that
support postsecondary education, in addition to elementary
and secondary education. According to our review of the
Committee list, this leaves less than one quarter of the
programs identified by the Committee that actually deliver
dollars aimed at improving elementary and secondary
education.
The Department's item-by-item review of the Committee's
list is enclosed for your information. That review was
conducted in consultation with other involved agencies. In
short, this review shows that the Committee's tally of
``Federal education programs'' is significantly overstated.
Out of the latest total of 788 programs:
183 are no longer authorized or funded;
139 are postsecondary or adult education programs;
71 funds specialized research;
68 provide employment or job-related training and technical
assistance;
58 are for the education and training of health
professionals;
47 provide public information or community outreach;
[[Page H9574]]
27 support the arts, museums, or historic preservation;
26 provide various services to individuals;
16 fund construction projects, community development, and
community service; and
11 are nutrition programs.
The remaining 142 Federal programs that support elementary
and secondary education, include noninstructional activities
like the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports,
as well as educational outreach activities related to
specific agency missions, such as training science teachers
through the Department of Energy and Aviation Education at
the Department of Transportation.
Focusing just on the 305 programs identified as Department
of Education programs, 122 are unauthorized, unfunded or
simply not programs. That leaves 183 Department of
Education programs covering pre-K through postgraduate
education and training, of which 102 programs impact
elementary and secondary education.
Despite these sharply reduced numbers of what can
realistically be characterized as ``elementary and secondary
education programs,'' the entire list of 788 programs has
been cited as proof of (1) wasteful and inefficient
duplication in Federal programs, (2) an excessive and costly
Federal bureaucracy, and (3) burdensome regulatory and
paperwork requirements on schools and teachers. In reality,
the Clinton Administration working with Congress has an
impressive record on all three counts:
Beginning with the 1993 National Performance Review, the
Clinton Administration has taken the lead in eliminating
unnecessary or ineffective programs and consolidating
duplicative activities. Through fiscal year 1997 the
Department proposed the elimination, phase-out, or
consolidation of more than 100 programs, while Congress has
agreed to eliminate 64 programs totaling $625 million. Even
with the addition of new programs, the total administered by
the Department fell from 240 in 1995 to under 200 in 1997.
The recently signed reauthorization of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act included program consolidations
that will reduce that number even further. In addition, the
President's 1998 budget request included 10 more program
terminations, and his proposed reauthorization of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act would
reduce the number of authorized vocational education programs
from 23 to 3.
The Clinton Administration has reduced the number of
Federal employees to levels not seen since the Kennedy
Administration. The Department of Education has actually seen
its workforce fall by nearly 40 percent since 1980. In fact,
the Department today employs over 3,000 fewer individuals
than its predecessor agencies. Partly as a result of this
decline, the Department administers more dollars per employee
than any other Cabinet-level agency, and delivers 98 cents of
every appropriated dollar to States, schools, and students.
No President has done more to reduce regulatory burden, cut
paperwork, and enhance local control of our elementary and
secondary schools. Under President Clinton's regulatory
reinvention initiative, the Department has eliminated nearly
40 percent of its regulations. The Department also has
greatly expanded waivers of statutory and regulatory
requirements that stood in the way of better teaching and
learning, including allowing State-level officials in 11
States broad authority to waive Federal requirements as part
of the ED-FLEX demonstration. Consolidated applications and
reduced reporting requirements have helped to reduce the
paperwork burden on applicants for Department programs by
over 10 percent. We are also cutting paperwork by conducting
more business over the Department's site on the World Wide
Web, which is currently visited about 5 million times each
month. Finally, no Federal program provides more flexible
support for locally-based education reform efforts than the
Goals 2000 program, for which no regulations were
promulgated.
The President and I share your determination to eliminate
unnecessary programs in order to devote the maximum Federal
resources to those activities that make a real difference in
improving teaching and learning in the classroom. The
American people expect us to work together to help prepare
their children for tomorrow's challenges. As we work on
reauthorizations, including the upcoming Higher Education
Reauthorization, the Department wants to continue to work on
a bipartisan basis to remove obsolete programs from Federal
statute as we have done in other legislation over the last
several years.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary.
Enclosure.
____
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max
1997 percent Amount
Program Appro. for for
admin. admin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goals 2000................................... $476 4.00 $19.0
Title I LEA Grants........................... 7,194 1.00 71.9
Even Start................................... 102 \1\ 5.0
0 5.1
Title I Migrant.............................. 305 1.00 3.1
Title I N&D.................................. 39 1.00 0.4
Eisenhower Prof. Dev......................... 310 \1\ 5.0
0 15.5
Title VI..................................... 310 3.75 11.6
Safe & Drug-Free/SEAs........................ 415 4.00 16.6
Save & Drug-Free/Governors................... 104 5.00 5.2
Voc. Ed. (Basic Grants, Tech-Prep)........... 1,110 5.00 55.5
Adult Education.............................. 340 5.00 17.0
IDEA State Grants............................ 3,108 5.00 165.4
IDEA Preschool............................... 360 5.00 18.0
IDEA Infants & Families...................... 318 (\2\) (\3\)
--------------------------
Total (not including IDEA Infants)..... 14,173 2.70 382.7
Total, ESEA programs................... 9,255 1.40 129.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authorization allows funds set aside at the State level to be used
for technical assistance or other activities in addition to State
administration.
\2\ No limit.
\3\ Unknown.
Note.--In all cases, the percentages shown are the maximum amounts that
States can use for administration. Some States will use smaller
amounts for some programs. On the other hand, the maximum amount for a
few programs is actually slightly higher than what is shown because
the statute allows States to reserve X% or $Y, whichever is greater;
this will have only a minimal impact on the overall totals, but allows
the smallest States to use, for administration, a portion
significantly greater than the national averages.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and congratulate him on all the fine work we have done on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and also for really allowing
our subcommittee to travel around the country over the last year and
hear what is going on in education and the impact that the Federal
Government is having.
Let us take a brief look at exactly what this resolution is calling
for. Number one, it asks to determine the extent to which the Federal
elementary and secondary education dollars are currently reaching the
classroom. It invites us to work together to remove the barriers that
currently prevent a greater percentage of funds from reaching the
classroom, from reaching our kids, and then work toward a goal of
getting 90 cents of every Federal education dollar into the classroom.
It simply states we should return a greater percentage of our Federal
dollars back to the classroom, and that this is the most effective
place and this is the place where we can have most of the leverage with
our kids.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii
[Mrs. Mink] is confident that we are doing a good job here in
Washington. I wish she could have been with us more often as we went
around the country and have visited 14 different States, have had
hearings here in Washington, and there is a consistent message, whether
it is Milwaukee, New York, Chicago, California, Phoenix, Wilmington,
Georgia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Little Rock, Cleveland, Muskegon,
Michigan. All of these people are telling us one consistent thing:
paperwork, bureaucracy, and mandates from Washington are smothering
creativity and effectiveness at the local level. They are not saying
everything is fine, they are saying, we are being smothered by the
paperwork. People at the State legislature are saying, we are being
smothered by mandates that we need to pass on to the local school
districts.
No, when we take a look at it from a State level, when we take a look
at it from a local level, no, everything is not fine with education and
with Federal education dollars. We need more local parental control, we
need a focus on more basic academics, and we need to get more dollars
to the classroom.
Instead of looking at the local level, I am disappointed that my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] does not agree with
our President. Our President recognizes that everything is not fine. In
1996, as we were moving out and spending more money on education, what
did our President say? ``We cannot ask the American people to spend
more on education until we do a better job with the money we've got
now.''
The President recognizes we need to get more dollars into the
classroom, the people at the local level recognize we need to get more
money to the classroom. It is only a few here in the House of
Representatives that believe that everything is fine and we do not need
to change anything. No, we have a lot of work to do. We need to move
forward. When we are getting somewhere between 50 to 65 cents of
Federal dollars into the classroom, we know we can do better.
What are people saying? Dr. Yvonne Chan, from a great charter school
we visited in California, said ``Don't swamp us with the paperwork and
we can have a lot more money going to the kids.'' This is a woman who
saved $1 million out of her State budget and they are focusing it on
the kids, and
[[Page H9575]]
they are doing wonderful things in that charter school in that State.
We have seen that around the country, States freeing up
administrators, States freeing up teachers at the local level to focus
on what needs to be done in the classroom. It is about time Washington
decides that is the best place to go, that we start agreeing with the
movements that are going on around the States to less mandates, more
flexibility at the local level, and more dollars to the classroom.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker, at least 95 percent of the Federal
dollars are reaching the classroom, Federal dollars I am talking about,
for Federal programs. They reach the classroom. The paperwork from
Washington is not what is inundating the local school districts. If we
look at the State of Kansas, it has less than an inch of paperwork
regulations. If we look at the State of California, it is about 17
inches of paper regulations. That is what these people are complaining
about. But when we ask the question wrong, we are going to get the
answer wrong.
This is not about power. My friend, the gentleman from California,
Mr. Duke Cunningham, says that we are hungry for power up here. I have
never felt that power up here. It is not about power, it is about
States' rights.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the question today is, should we send more
dollars to the classroom? This does not seem like it would be a tough
question, but it is a question that we are struggling with on the House
floor today.
{time} 1300
Who knows your child's name better? A teacher who knows that child or
a bureaucrat in the beltway in Washington or even in the State capital?
Our opponents on this issue say that we are already meeting the 90
percent standard. Well, if that is true, let us pass this resolution
and ensure that we meet this standard in the future. But we have
studies that suggest that we are meeting a 65 percent standard. The
difference in the 65 percent standard and a 90 percent standard is
about $1,800 for every classroom in America. Every elementary school
principal, every secondary school principal can count the number of
rooms in their building, multiply that by $1,800; that is the
difference in what we are talking about here today.
Mr. Speaker, this is the difference in whether we buy microscopes or
not; whether we buy computers or not; whether a classroom has an
overhead projector or not; whether there are chemicals for the chemical
lab or tools for the shop. And Dollars to the Classroom can increase
teachers' salaries, rather than create another form for teachers to
fill out.
Dollars to the Classroom is more accountable to the taxpayer because
it would ensure for the first time by passing this resolution that, in
fact, 90 percent of all funds earmarked for elementary and secondary
programs get to the classroom. By doing this, we start the process of
setting a new standard, the standard that says that Federal dollars
that are appropriated here for education programs really need to get to
where kids and teachers are.
We have heard today about that study in the New York City school
system that says that 43 percent of money in that district is spent on
education; 43 percent is not good enough. Throwing dollars at education
will not solve this problem. It is a worn out solution. We need to
continue to work toward new solutions.
The new solution we are advancing today is to get the money in the
hands of teachers, get the money to classrooms, short circuit any
bureaucracy, whether it is bureaucracy in Washington, in State
capitals, or even at the local administrative level.
School superintendents and administrators support this concept.
Teachers support this concept. Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues
to join us in supporting this concept. This bill is different because
it sends dollars directly to the classroom where solutions can be
found. I urge my colleagues to support this new strategy that puts our
children first.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of House Resolution 139--
the dollars to the classroom resolution--I want to express my strong
support for this measure and ask my colleagues for their support as
well.
With the passage of this measure, the Congress has a tremendous
opportunity to send a strong message on how to improve our public
education structure. The resolution states that at least 90 percent of
Federal funds for elementary and secondary education should be spent in
classrooms.
We all agree that the public education system is in disarray. We can
improve our schools by providing them with the resources they need to
make their classrooms better, safer places to learn. House Resolution
139 does just that. The best thing Washington can do to better educate
our children is to send more responsibility and funding back to the
local communities and schools who know the needs of these children
best.
For too long, the Government has taken a view that bureaucrats in
Washington, DC, know what is best for the children in my State of
California. How can that be true if California's education needs vary
significantly within our State, let alone compared to other States? Who
would try to argue that schools in rural Mariposa County have the same
needs as schools in inner-city Los Angeles? Probably someone at the
Department of Education.
Mr. Speaker, we can no longer continue to build a one-size-fits-all
education agenda. I was sent to this Congress to represent the people
and the families of California's Central Valley. I believe part of this
representation includes giving my constituents the resources they need
to ensure that our children have the best education possible. House
Resolution 139 sends that important message.
As we head into the 21st century, it is important that the Federal
Government work with States and local communities by giving them more
flexibility and decisionmaking power to shape the policies that are so
crucial to our children's education. House Resolution 139 is an
important step in that direction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House
Resolution 139, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________