[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12542-S12543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee and as the ranking member on the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee--
my chairman is the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Specter--we have been involved, as I am sure everyone knows, in a lot 
of negotiations over the last several days regarding the education 
portion of the bill. There are some other items there also, but 
basically on education.
  After reading some of the newspaper accounts and listening to some of 
the speeches on the Senate floor, I can only come to the realization 
that perhaps the American people are a little bit confused now about 
what is going on. I respectfully submit that may be the point of what 
is going on--to try to confuse the American people. I am going to try 
to set the record a little bit straight here, in my limited amount of 
time.
  I was in my office a little while ago listening to the Senator from 
Texas talk about education. He had a chart. He went on to say that only 
37 cents of every dollar that comes in here, I think in the Department 
of Education, actually gets back out to the local schools.
  Having been involved both on the authorizing committee for now 14 
years and on the Appropriations Committee, an equal amount of time on 
Education, I was quite astounded by this figure because I never heard 
this figure before.  So I decided to go back and find out exactly what 
were the facts.

  So I guess the best place to look is in the committee report, 
compiled not by the Democrats but by the Republicans,--by Senator 
Specter for the Committee on Appropriations. Of course, I will say 
this, and most gratefully say, he and his staff have worked very 
closely with me and our appropriations staff in putting out this 
report.
  So I looked in the report, to check on administrative costs for the 
Department of Education, because I never heard that figure, 37 cents. I 
thought, ``Boy, if that's the truth, I might join the Senator from 
Texas in this argument.'' So I looked it up. In this report--this is 
the document right here; big and thick, has a lot of numbers in it, 
very boring reading--the committee recommendation for the Department of 
Education is $34.4 billion. That number is likely to increase as a 
result of the negotiations on the final bill.
  So then I said, ``OK, how much does the Department of Education spend 
administering these programs?'' Well, here is the line item. It is 
right here in the book. You do not have to go very far. General 
Departmental Management: $101 million. Well, I am not the best at math, 
but I tried to figure this out. And as best I can come, that is less 
than one-half of 1 percent of the total money that we appropriate to 
the Department of Education goes for administration--less than one-half 
of 1 percent.
  I then asked my staff to find out how much of was spent for 
administration at the State level. And that is about 2 percent. So 2.5 
percent of all the money we take in that we give the Department of 
Education goes for administration; therefore providing 97.5 percent to 
local school districts and students. That is right; out of every $1 
that goes to the Department of Education, 97 cents-plus goes out to 
schools and to students.
  Where the heck that 37-cent figure, that the Senator from Texas had, 
came from, I have not the foggiest idea. I have his comments. I still 
do not understand where he got that figure. The only thing I can expect 
is that maybe he did not take into account Pell grants that go directly 
to students that are paid to schools. I do not know. Whatever the 
reason is, that is not the correct figure. It is not chewed up in 
administration.
  The documentation is right here in black and white in the committee 
report. It just seems that all we have is we just have a lot of 
rhetoric around here and somehow we are supposed to take the rhetoric 
for substance.
  The substance is there. It is not a secret. You can find out how much 
goes for administration, and it is not as much as the Senator from 
Texas said. Fully 97 cents of every dollar that goes to the Department 
of Education goes out to schools, goes out to students.
  Again, it seems now that what I am hearing is that the Republicans, 
in the negotiations, are saying that they are going to match us dollar-
for-dollar, but they just want to throw the money out there in the 
Title VI block grant to the States, so they can do with it basically 
what they want. So the sort of hue and cry is ``We'll give money to the 
States and let the States do what they want.''
  There is a better way. To deal with class size, the President has an 
initiative to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in this 
country. The President and those of us on this side of the aisle, what 
we want to do is put that money through title I reading and math 
program to reduce class sizes. I am told the Republicans want to send 
it out through the Title VI block grant.
  Again, I am sure that the American people watching me speak here are 
saying, ``Gobbledygook, Title I, Title VI,

[[Page S12543]]

so what?'' Well, so what is a big difference in whether more money gets 
out to the students or not.
  There is a big difference. For example, in title I, we have a cap by 
law that says that no more than 1 percent of the money that goes out to 
Title I can be used for administration at the State level. One cent of 
every dollar, that is all, no more; so that 99 cents actually gets to 
the schools and the students.
  However, under Title VI, 15 percent of the money that goes out to the 
States is held at the State level; 15 cents out of every dollar is held 
at the State level. The remaining 85 cents then goes out to the school 
districts.
  Title I is more efficient and will get more resources into the 
classrooms and schools--99 cents of every dollar, to actually hire the 
teachers and reduce class size. What the Republicans are saying is, 
turn it over to the States. They keep 15 cents and send only 85 cents 
to the schools.
  So I submit, Mr. President, that if you really want to cut 
administrative costs, if you want to get the most money out there to 
get the most bang for the buck, let's put the money in Title I and not 
the Title VI program.
  There seems to be another strain going on around here and that is 
that ``the Federal Government is doing too much in education. The 
Federal Government should do less. We have got leave this to States and 
local communities.''
  I would be the first to defend and the last person standing in 
defense of the right of local jurisdictions to control their schools. 
That does not mean that the Federal Government does not have a role to 
play in helping those schools. I believe it does; a significant role. 
And we have owned up to that over the years. But to say that the 
Federal Government is doing too much, I think, is to ignore what we 
have done in the past.
  In 1980--of every dollar that went for elementary and secondary 
education in America, for every dollar that went out, the Federal 
Government provided about 10 cents. So about 10 cents of every dollar 
that went out for elementary and secondary education came from the 
Federal Government. That was 1980.
  To those who say that today, in 1998, the Federal Government is doing 
too much in elementary and secondary education, I point out that from 
that point in 1980 to now the Federal Government is only providing 
about 6 percent of the money for elementary and secondary education. In 
other words, in the intervening 18 years, the Federal role in support 
of elementary and secondary education has been cut by almost.
  I always tell my constituents in Iowa, and other places, obviously, 
you wonder why your property taxes are going up. That is why. In order 
to keep the schools up and to meet their constitutional requirements to 
provide for new technology, to help fix up crumbling schools, the 
States then have to put it back on the local jurisdictions, and they 
have to raise property taxes. That is why the property taxes seem to be 
going up all over this country.
  So I always say to people, if you want property tax relief, the best 
thing is to get the Federal Government back up to where we were in 
1980. You do that and you will find out we will be able to fix our 
crumbling schools, we will be able to hire 100,000 teachers and reduce 
class size, we will be able to wire the schools for the Internet, and 
get the technology these kids need at an early level.
  Mr. President, if we had just held constant from where we were in 
1980 to today--do not increase but do not decrease; simply held 
constant--the Federal Government's share of elementary and secondary 
education would be about a 44-percent increase. We would be providing 
an additional $10 billion more each year our local schools. And any way 
you cut it, that spells property tax relief. That spells more 
technology for our schools.

  If I might digress just a moment, there are some who think that our 
kids in elementary school have to learn the basics first and then they 
can get on to computers. There are some who say that what our kids need 
is a No. 2 lead pencil and a Big Chief tablet; they learn that first, 
and then they can go into computers. They fail to recognize that the 
No. 2 lead pencil and the Big Chief tablet of today are the desktop 
computer.
  I know the occupant of the Chair is a little bit younger than I am, 
but when I was a kid in a two-room country schoolhouse in rural Iowa 
back in the 1940s and early 1950s, we had a blackboard and a piece of 
chalk. That was our computer. We used that blackboard and a piece of 
chalk; we had our Big Chief tablet and No. 2 lead pencil. That might 
have been OK for my generation. It is not OK for this generation; it is 
not OK for the kids today. It is not something they use after they get 
smart, it is something they use to help them learn smart, to understand 
what we are going to need in the 21st century to meet our needs.
  We could have that if the Federal Government would meet its 
obligations, if we just held constant where we were in 1980. That is 
what we are trying to do. We are trying to support the President's goal 
of reducing class size and getting 100,000 teachers out there. We are 
trying to support the President in his goal of getting money out to 
help fix our crumbling schools, so the kids don't have to go out and 
learn in trailers, so we don't have 30 to 35 kids in the class but 
something like 18 or 19, at the maximum, in any class.
  Last, we hear all the speeches about turning the money over to the 
States and let them decide how to respond. That all sounds good. What 
about all of the bipartisan accomplishments that we also hear about in 
this Congress? We passed the Higher Education Act; we reauthorized the 
vocational and technical education bill; we expanded the Federal 
Charter Schools Program. Senators on both sides of the aisle brag about 
this. How can you brag about it in one breath and turn around and say 
that we have to turn over all the money to the States? I am a little 
confused about that. If you are proud of the vocational and technical 
education and the fact that the Federal Government has supported it and 
we just reauthorized it, how can you then turn around and said we 
shouldn't do any of this?
  There is a role, a limited role, for the Federal Government, but a 
very powerful and important role. I believe this Congress is turning 
its back on its responsibilities, unless in the closing days of this 
session we can get an agreement to provide resources to reduce class 
size and fix our crumbling schools. We need the money in there right 
now so the kids don't have to go out in trailers in the back of the 
school to learn.
  I hope in the closing days we will be able to get the education 
funding that we need.

                          ____________________