[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10817-H10818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about why it is that 
we are still here in Washington, why many of my colleagues are not back 
in their States campaigning for an election that is very near at hand.
  I think we need to realize how important is the struggle that is 
going on in this city right now as it relates to a very important issue 
for so many senior citizens in America. That is Social Security.
  About two weeks ago we had a huge fight out here about whether or not 
it was all right to use the Social Security surplus for tax cuts. And 
in the end that fight was decided, no, it is not okay to use Social 
Security money for tax cuts. That is not okay.
  Tonight we are out here, and many of us have come back specifically 
for this reason, because there are so many people out here right now 
that want to take that Social Security surplus money and use it for new 
government spending. There are specific proposals, one, $14 billion to 
fund the IMF. Another one, let us rebuild embassies with the Social 
Security money. Another one, let us help Korean flood victims with the 
Social Security money. I am not here to debate the merits of the IMF or 
even the merits of building the embassies or helping the flood victims 
in Korea, but what I am here to suggest is that if this government sees 
fit that these are the top priorities, then it is necessary that we 
eliminate some other sort of government spending so that we can afford 
to fund these top priorities. Because what is wrong is going into the 
Social Security trust fund and taking the Social Security money out to 
fund these new Washington spending programs. That is wrong.
  If the government sees these as the top priority items, then the 
government needs to find less important items and get rid of them so 
that we are not in essence stealing the Social Security money to fund 
new government spending.
  Another program that we are hearing a lot about in the news right now 
is education. There is a proposal from the President to increase 
funding for education. I got a call from a constituent. That is the 
other reason I came over here tonight. I had a discussion with a 
constituent this evening. She said, Mark, what exactly do you say when 
the President calls for more funding for education for 100,000 new 
teachers and building new schools? What do you say back to the 
President?

  I said, I support having smaller class sizes and more teachers and 
newer school buildings, too. I think it is absolutely essential that we 
have smaller class sizes and newer school buildings. But the question 
that needs to be answered is not whether or not we should have smaller 
class sizes but who is going to control where those dollars are going 
to, who is going to decide where those new teachers go?
  Should it be us out here in Washington? Is there something that makes 
us powerful or more knowledgeable than parents and teachers and 
communities? What exactly is it that would lead us to believe that we 
are better stewards of that money than the parents and the teachers and 
the folks in the local community who can then make decisions how to 
best spend that money and where to best put those new teachers. The 
debate is not about whether we should have more spending for education. 
The debate instead is about who should decide where those dollars are 
going to be spent.
  One more thing, when we talk about the government collecting tax 
dollars out of working people's pockets, getting them in Washington and 
then the government, the Federal Government out here in Washington 
deciding where we are going to put 100,000 new teachers and where we 
are going to decide that it is all right to build new school buildings, 
when we collect that money out of the taxpayers' pockets, 40 cents goes 
to the bureaucracy before any money gets out to hire new teachers or 
before any money gets out to build new schools. That is wrong. That is 
what is wrong with the whole concept.
  If we want to direct more of the Federal tax dollars to schools and 
to education, that is good. I have no problem with that at all. As a 
matter of fact, I think that is a very high priority in our Nation. But 
when we are redirecting those dollars, let us empower the parents and 
the teachers and the communities to decide how to best spend

[[Page H10818]]

those dollars to better educate their children.
  My experience here in Washington, I have seen absolutely nothing, 
absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe that the people here 
in Washington are better able to determine how to best educate our 
kids, are better somehow than the people that are there in those local 
communities, in the Fox Valley where I spoke to this young lady this 
evening. I see nothing that would indicate to me that the parents and 
the teachers and the school boards and the other folks there in the Fox 
Valley in Wisconsin are not better prepared to make decisions on 
education that relate to their kids than the people here in Washington, 
D.C.
  That is what this debate is about. It is not about more money or less 
money for education. Education is a very high priority. There are all 
kinds of government waste that we can eliminate so as to redirect more 
dollars to education. I support that.
  To the extent that we are talking about allocating more of our 
Federal resources to education, I support that. But I also support 
making sure that it is our parents that are deciding where their kids 
go to school, what the kids are taught and how it is taught in those 
schools. We need to reempower our parents to be actively involved in 
the education process of our kids.
  We found an interesting thing happens, when the parents are actively 
involved in the education process of the kids, we looked at a study of 
thousands of teenagers, what we found is that when the parents are more 
actively involved in the kids education, not only does the education 
get better, but we find that there is a decrease in crime rates, there 
is a decrease in drug use, decrease in teen pregnancy. So the bottom 
line in this whole education debate is not should there be more Federal 
dollars allocated to it or less. The debate is about who should decide 
how those dollars can best help educate our kids.
  I keep coming down to, I have just seen absolutely nothing that would 
indicate to me that somehow, because we are here in Washington, we know 
what is best for educating our kids out in Wisconsin. I just do not buy 
into that. I think the right answer to this is go ahead and support 
reprioritizing the dollars toward education, but let us make sure that 
our parents and our teachers and our communities and our school boards 
are then deciding how to best use those additional resources to best 
improve the quality of education for our children.

                          ____________________