[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.

                          ____________________