[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8440-H8444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
is recognized for the remainder of the 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about education. I
want to talk about the Department of Education. I want to spend a
little bit of time talking about our kids. And I want to spend a little
bit of time talking about where we go from here.
The fastest growing program on our college campuses today is not
computers, it is not high tech, it is not science and math. It is not
foreign language. It is not political science. The fastest growing
program on college campuses today is remedial education. It means that
our young people who are graduating from high school are entering
college without the basic skills necessary to complete the work in
their colleges.
We have been embarked on a program where we have had the opportunity
to go around the country and visit 20 States and talk to educational
leaders. In some of these hearings, we have had the opportunity to
listen to our college presidents and deans on our college campuses.
They came in and they said, ``The most important thing you are doing
for us, and make sure you don't decrease, as a matter of fact, make
sure you increase funding for it, is increased funding for remedial
education.'' After I heard this a few times, it is kind of like, you
ask the question, you say what do you mean, what do you need remedial
education dollars for on our college campuses? These are some of the
best schools in America and you have got standards for the young people
coming in. And they said, ``Yes, but we've got a lot of people who we
are admitting who are not functionally literate at an eighth grade
level in reading, writing or math.''
So the comment then became, we need the money to bring these kids up
to the basic levels, and we forgot to ask the first question, which is,
why are you not engaged with the people at the K-12 level to solve the
problem at the K-12 level rather than accepting that as a condition and
saying, ``We're now going to see this as an opportunity for growth, to
grow our programs on college campuses.'' But it is a symptom that says,
we are not doing a good enough job at the K-12 level.
Another symptom is outlined in a document that has been prepared, it
is called America's Education Recession. It outlines a couple of things
that we need to be concerned about. It says that our young people not
only as they enter college do a number of them need remediation, but it
also says that when you test our kids at the 4th grade, 8th grade and
12th grade levels, they are not at grade proficiency, meaning they are
not learning what we have expected them to learn by the time they are
in the grade where we are testing them.
In America's highest poverty schools, 68 percent of fourth graders
could not read at basic level in 1998 as measured by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Students scoring below the basic
fourth grade level were unable to read a simple children's book. That
is our fourth graders.
The problem is that we see that in math as well as in reading. So we
know that the fastest growing programs in our colleges are remediation.
We know that our kids are not testing well when it comes to basic
proficiencies. The question then comes up, how well do our kids perform
when we compare them to international standards? Or how well do our
kids measure up to kids in other industrialized countries? What we find
is in study after study, our kids do not measure up. In the math and
science area, the Third International Math and Science Study, we
compared American students with other students in industrialized
countries. In math and science, we score 18 out of 21.
Who scores higher? The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland,
Iceland, Norway, France, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Austria,
Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Russian Federation, Lithuania,
the Czech Republic, and then we have the United States. We are seeing
enough symptoms that are saying we do have an education recession in
America. An education recession does not say that all of our kids are
doing poorly. What it does say is that we are leaving too many of our
young people behind and we are leaving them behind in an area where we
cannot afford to leave any child behind.
We have to have every young person in America developed to their
fullest potential. We cannot afford to leave any child behind. Not only
can we not afford it, but more importantly it is not the right thing to
do. The right thing to do is to make sure that every one of our young
people has the opportunity to succeed through the learning process.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for
the Department of Education, we have had the opportunity to travel
around the country to gather these statistics but also to take a look
at educational programs that work and educational programs that do not.
I will talk a little bit about those a little bit later, but going out
into the grassroots and taking a look at our kids, our schools, our
teachers and meeting with administrators and parents, we see lots of
exciting things happening in education. But I am also tasked with
taking a look at what is going on in the Department of Education, and
is the Department of Education fostering innovation? Is the Department
fostering excellence in our educational system?
{time} 1500
In some cases, it is a barrier.
If we take a look at this chart right here, it does again give us
some reason to be concerned. The title of the chart is ``Show me the
money.'' The problem is that we in Congress allocate and appropriate
money to the different agencies. One of those agencies is the
Department of Education.
The Department of Education, let me just scale it for you, is about a
$40 billion agency. That is how much we give the Department roughly
each and every year to help administer and to help our kids at a local
level achieve their educational goals. In addition to that, they manage
a loan portfolio of about $100 billion. So it is about a $140 billion
agency.
The disturbing thing is that for the last 2 years, this agency has
not been able to get a clean audit from the independent auditors that
come in and take a look at this agency, look at its numbers, look at
its policies and procedures to determine whether how they report the
money being spent is actually the way that the money is spent.
They said, we looked at your books, we looked at what you said, we
looked at your procedures, and, by taking a look at your procedures, we
have reached the conclusion that we do not have a high degree of
confidence that what you are reporting is actually the way that the
money is being spent in the Department of Education. You have failed
your audit.
The disappointing thing is that the Department of Education is one of
only
[[Page H8441]]
nine significant organizations in the Executive Branch that has been
unable to get a clean audit. Other departments include the Department
of Treasury, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Agriculture, EPA, HUD, OPM and AID. Nine agencies cannot
get a clean audit.
I came from the private sector, and I agree with something that the
Vice President said in 1993, in a book that he prepared, he said
creating a government that works better and costs less. It is a report
of the National Performance Review, authored, or at least given credit
to, by Vice President Gore. In this document he says, ``In other words,
if a publicly traded corporation kept its books the way the Federal
Government does, the Securities and Exchange Commission would close it
down immediately.'' It would close it down immediately.
Now, we are not going to do that with the Department of Education. We
cannot do that with the Department of Education, and we do not want to
do that with the Department of Education. But I do believe it is time
for this Congress and I believe it is time for the American people to
demand some accountability for the $40 billion, some of the most
important money that we spend in Washington, to demand some
accountability to the Department of Education and say where is that
money going and how are you spending it?
We do know that in an environment where the auditors say we cannot
give you a clean audit, we do know that in the private sector, that
sends off the red flags and sets off the alarm bells, and it says there
is a reason to be concerned here, because if they do not have the
proper procedures or they do not have the proper control mechanisms in
place, what you have done is created an environment that is ripe for
waste, fraud and abuse.
So over the last year we have gone back, along with General
Accounting Office and the Inspector General at the Department of
Education, and said is there any waste or fraud within the Department
of Education? Help us explore what is going on within the Department of
Education, to let us know whether there are examples of waste, fraud
and abuse.
The disappointing thing is the answer has come back a resounding yes.
Let me give you some examples.
The first one is not a big example, except that it dramatically
impacted the lives of 39 young people in America. Congratulations, you
are not a winner. As taxpayers in America and as the Federal
Government, we have decided we are going to reward young people who
excel by giving them a Jacob Javits scholarship, which pays for 4 years
of graduate school. It recognizes their achievement and it recognizes
the achievement of their undergraduate schools in preparing them for
graduate work.
Earlier this year we notified 39 young people that they had won the
Jacob Javits scholarship. Two days later, after these kids were
excited, called home, called mom and dad and said, ``Hey, we won, isn't
that great,'' I just dropped my daughter off at college this fall and I
can tell you how excited I would be if I knew she had won a 4-year
scholarship. Parents were excited, the undergraduate schools were
excited because it recognized they had been successful and they were
being recognized for their contributions and their success. The only
problem was, 2 days later the Department of Education had to call them
back and say, sorry, we called the wrong 39 young people.
Failing proofreading. In September 1999, remember, this is an agency
that has a $100 billion loan portfolio, they send their forms out where
kids apply for additional financial aid. 3.5 million forms printed, 3.5
million forms printed incorrectly. The taxpayers in America, young
people, lose $720,000.
Dead and loving it. The Department of Education, when they give
loans, they recognize if a young person becomes disabled or if they
pass away, that it would be unrealistic for us to expect to collect on
that loan. We forgave $77 million in student loans. That is good news
for those young people. It is even better news when they recognize that
they were not disabled and they had not died.
A theft ring within the Department of Education. Because they did not
have the proper controls in place, they had a purchasing agent who
could order electronic equipment, including a 61-inch color TV,
including Gateway computers, including VCRs, printers and the like,
ordered $330,000 worth of equipment. She could certify that the
materials had been received at the Department of Education, certify
that they should be paid for. Only one problem, they were not delivered
to the Department of Education, they were delivered around to
individual homes around the Washington, D.C. area. All done through the
phone guy. What was in it for the phone guy? The phone guy got paid
$660,000 for overtime that he did not work.
We provide one other program that says we are going to help school
districts that have a big Federal installation that kind of eats up
their tax base, we call it Impact Aid. Again, because we do not have
the computer security in place, this summer, when a school district was
supposed to receive its Impact Aid funds, we had someone, we are not
quite sure because it is still under investigation, but what we do know
is $1.9 million did not go to two schools on Indian reservations in
South Dakota, but it went into personal accounts here in Washington,
D.C., and in this case they were caught by the car guy.
The car salesman caught this, because an individual went in to a
Chevy dealer here in Maryland, and they wanted to buy a Corvette. The
alarm bells went off for the car salesman, because he did a credit
check on the person buying the Corvette. The credit check did not
balance out. The guy called the FBI, and, rather than getting a
Corvette, the person trying to buy the Corvette ended up with a date
with the FBI. That is how we found out; not through the procedures at
the Department of Education, but because the car guy called the FBI and
said this does not check out.
All of this is in a context today where we recognize we want to
invest in our kids.
I am glad to see my colleague from Wisconsin has joined us.
Again, I am saying we do not want to not invest in our kids, but what
we are saying is if we are going to invest in our kids, or if we are
going to invest in other areas, whether it is in Treasury, Justice,
Defense or Agriculture, let us make sure there is accountability. We
need to make sure that when an American taxpayer sends their money to
Washington, that we hold that money in trust for them and we spend the
money wisely.
I will yield to my colleague from Wisconsin to talk a little bit
about where we are going with spending programs, and perhaps some areas
where we have some concerns.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I notice the gentleman is here talking about how a lot of the
money coming to Washington through our Federal tax dollars is getting
wasted, it is getting misappropriated, there is actual fraud involved.
So I thought that would be a fitting topic to discuss, what is the
future?
As we go into this coming election, it is very important, as we look
at the waste, the fraud and the abuse, of how our taxpayer dollars are
being spent here in Washington, it is important to take a look at what
our two Presidential candidates are proposing with respect to spending
the surplus from now for the next decade when they actually are in the
oval office.
I think it is important that we note, there is a huge surplus. It is
not just a Social Security surplus. We have a giant non-Social Security
surplus, almost over $5 trillion, coming into Washington over the next
10 years. As we take a look at this surplus, we are going back to our
districts, talking to our constituents. When I go home to Wisconsin, my
constituents tell me, first pay off the national debt, stop raiding the
Social Security trust fund, fix the problems we have with Medicare, and
if we are still overpaying our taxes, make sure we can have some of our
money back, rather than spending it on new money in Washington.
These are the priorities that I am hearing as I am traveling back,
and I think a lot of people are seeing this around the country.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will just yield, I think you are
helping us get the language right. A lot of people in Washington are
talking about this as a Washington surplus, meaning
[[Page H8442]]
that this is Washington's money. I think the gentleman has been very
careful to point out this is not a Washington surplus, but this is a
tax surplus. We are collecting more in taxes than what we need to run
the Federal Government, so this is an overtaxation. This is not just
Washington's money.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is right. It is not Washington's money,
it is America's money. As we take a look at this, let us take a look at
the two different proposals being pushed right now by the two different
Presidential candidates. I have here sort of an apples to apples
comparison of the Gore budget and the Bush budget plan for America,
should either of these two men become President of the United States.
When you take a look at the Gore budget, and this chart shows the
surplus dollar, how each candidate plans to divide up every dollar of
surplus coming from taxpayers to Washington. Well, it is not a question
of whether you cut taxes or pay down the national debt; it is now a
question of whether you cut taxes or spend the money in Washington.
Take a look at the pie over to my right, which is the Gore budget. Of
every single surplus dollar, Vice President Gore is proposing to spend
46 cents, 46 cents of every surplus dollar coming from income tax
overpayments, to be spent in Washington on new government programs on
these Federal agencies. That is compared to George Bush's plan to spend
6 cents, 6 cents, of every surplus dollar in Washington on other
programs here on Federal agencies.
It is a huge difference. It is $2.1 trillion, about half of the
surplus, the Vice President is proposing to keep in Washington and
spend on government agencies, compared to Governor Bush's plan to spend
$278 billion.
But it goes beyond that. Mr. Bush has often been criticized for not
paying down the debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you
take a look Governor Bush's plan, he is actually dedicating 58 cents of
the surplus dollar for the next 10 years towards shoring up Social
Security and Medicare and paying off our national debt, to the tune of
we will pay off the national debt in 12 years.
Vice President Gore? He says not so much should go to debt reduction,
Social Security and Medicare. He wants to dedicate 36 cents of the
surplus dollar toward those goals.
Where is the difference? Mr. Bush is proposing 29 cents of our
surplus dollar to go back to the people it came from, the taxpayers; by
eliminating the marriage tax penalty, by eliminating the death tax, by
making health care more affordable through health care tax cuts, those
kinds of things, making the tax code fairer for all Americans.
The Vice President is proposing a net tax cut of 7 cents, meaning
Americans are projected to send a lot of extra money over to pay their
taxes for the next 10 years, to the tune of about $5 trillion. The Vice
President is saying, let us give them 7 cents on the dollar back, and
we will keep the money in Washington; 46 cents we will keep and spend,
we will dedicate 36 cents to paying off the debt, shoring up Social
Security and Medicare.
It is a completely different vision than what Governor Bush is
proposing. He is saying his number one priority in the budget, pay down
the debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare. Then, if people are
still overpaying their taxes, give them their money back by reducing
their tax bite. Take less out of the paychecks in Washington, rather
than spending the money in Washington, which is precisely what Vice
President Gore is proposing.
If you take a look the sum of the totals, as we examine these Federal
agencies, the waste and the fraud and abuse that is occurring in these
Federal agencies, Vice President Gore wants to fuel the flames. He
wants to spend $2.1 trillion of the hard-earned surplus in Washington
on new programs and other Federal agencies.
{time} 1515
Compared to Bush's proposal to spend $278 billion. So it is not a
question of paying off the debt or cutting taxes. It is a question of
paying off the debt, reducing taxes, or spending the money in
Washington. And I think if our constituents were faced with a choice
of, after we pay off the debt, do we want to keep the money in
Washington or do we want to have it back in our pocket, we think the
people want to have it back in their pocket, and that is what the Bush
plan is.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have been joined by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). Put the chart back up that
talks about the 6 cents in new spending that Governor Bush is talking
about versus the 45 cents that the Vice President is talking about. The
one thing that I think we have recognized, and the gentleman from
Colorado served on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
with me, we believe that there is tremendous leverage in the money that
we are already spending, that there are ways to reform the way that we
are spending the money.
Again, as an example, the Department of Education could get much more
of a bang for our buck. And maybe the gentleman from Colorado would
care to comment on some of the reforms that we are proposing, besides
just being able to audit the books. I would think that just by having a
clean set of books and knowing where our money is going, we could
leverage significantly. But also the programs and the plans that we
have, Straight A's, Dollars to the Classroom, regulatory flexibility.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, spending the money that the taxpayers send
to Washington more wisely is always a goal, and a goal to which
Republicans seem to be more deeply devoted to than our friends on the
Democrat side of the aisle. We can see that from the budget suggestions
made by the two presidential candidates. Vice President Gore would
propose to spend more money. We contend that we can meet many of the
needs that the Vice President has in mind, but we can do it not by
spending more of the people's money; we can do it by spending the money
we currently do spend more wisely, and spend it in a way that is much
smarter.
Before I get to some of the specifics on how we can do that in
education, I want to point out the overall impact, not just on how we
divvy up these two equivalent pies of projected surplus revenue, but
there is also a secondary impact we have to consider and that is the
impact on the economy. Because spending more and more money in
Washington, D.C., really is not the best way to stimulate positive
economic growth. That is really the second part of the story.
The point is the tax relief. If we really can reduce taxes on the
American people by 29 cents, versus the measly 7 cents that the Vice
President has proposed, what we know is that Americans do something
better than government with money. They spend it wisely. They invest it
wisely. They create more jobs. They create more wealth. And that is
what we learned throughout economic history in America.
Tax relief actually allows us to pay down debt more quickly and
allows us to do it in a more powerful way where Americans enjoy more
freedom. So we want to do what Americans do all the time with their
family budgets, and that is count every penny.
The gentleman mentioned the U.S. Department of Education.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I was going to mention, and neither one of
my colleagues here today were here in 1993. I had the pleasure of
serving my first year here in 1993, and other than that little blue
sliver that is on the Gore plan of tax relief of 7 cents, the rest of
it or the biggest chunk of it looks very much like the Clinton plan of
1993.
If my colleagues remember, if they were watching Washington, one of
the most sought-after committees in 1993 was Committee on Public Works
and Transportation, because the President came in and said we are in an
economic crisis here. We have got to what? We have got to raise taxes
so that there is more money here in Washington, and then we have to
spend it because we can spend is more wisely.
I think there is a quote to that effect in Buffalo.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I
am very familiar with this quote because I think it goes to the
different philosophies that are being represented here in Washington.
[[Page H8443]]
Two weeks after the President came right behind the gentleman there
and gave the State of the Union address last year, where he talked
about how we are going to use the government surplus, he went to
Buffalo, New York, and talked to a packed crowd of tens of thousands of
people. He said, with respect to the government surplus, the people's
surplus, he said, quote, ``We could give you your money back, but we
would not be sure that you would spend it right,'' end quote.
Well, therein lies the philosophy. The people's money is spent right,
so long as they spend their own money. The belief here in Washington,
shared by President Clinton and Vice President Gore, is that we here in
Washington know how to spend the people's money better than they do.
There is a different school of thought; there is a different philosophy
which we share that people know how to spend their own money better.
People know how to take care of their children, their grandparents,
their parents much better than some distant bureaucrats in Washington
do.
So these two pie charts here, the visions, the blueprints about how
to divvy up the surplus, they are more than just numbers, more than
just budgets. They are twin visions. They are two different visions.
The Gore vision here on how to treat the surplus is to spend the bulk
of the money in Washington. Spend the bulk of our families' budgets in
Washington on more programs, on more agencies so that Washington can
try and come up with a solution to solve the problems in our lives.
The different vision, the Bush vision proposed in the Bush plan is to
pay down our debts so our children and grandchildren can inherit a
debt-free Nation from our efforts. And as people are still overpaying
their taxes, here is the critical part, do not think that Washington
can spend money better than people can. Give people their money back
and make the Tax Code much more fair and simpler so that they can move
on and live and grow businesses and raise their families.
So the vision here is very stark. It is very different. The Gore
vision: spend the money in Washington, keep it in Washington, pay off
the debt at a slower pace. If we actually add these numbers up, this
$2.1 trillion spending increase that the Vice President is proposing,
it is the largest proposed spending increase in the Federal Government
in 30 years. Not since Lyndon Johnson has a spending increase been
proposed. It is so large that if we add it all up, it forces the Vice
President to go and raid the Social Security trust fund by $906
billion. He spends so much money, it is over $906 billion.
The answer then is either dip into Social Security or raise taxes if
we want to satisfy all of the Vice President's spending desires. That
is not what the Bush plan is doing. That is not what we are trying to
get done. Pay off the debt, shore up Social Security and Medicare, and
as people are continuing to overpay their taxes, give them their money
back rather than spend it on new programs in Washington. That is the
difference in visions that these two alternatives present.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I think my
colleague from Colorado is going to talk a little bit about the
difference in vision on education, which I think is very much the same
thing. What we see here in front of us is one that is a Washington-
based plan versus one that says we are going to take care of business
here in Washington, which is paying down the debt.
But other than that, we are going to give the money back to the
American people who sent it here in the first place. We are going to
trust them. I think it is very similar to the differences that we have
here envisioned in where we are going to go with education.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Start with our Dollars to the Classroom philosophy and
the legislation that we have pushed as one of our top education
priorities and let us use that example by comparing how an American
taxpayer would spend their money versus how Washington currently spends
its money on education today.
If a taxpayer, who is represented by the blue sections of the chart,
and where we think surplus money ought to go, versus the Vice
President, which is next to nothing, let us suppose that taxpayer would
want to budget that tax savings for a new washing machine. That family
would expect that 100 percent of the money they budget for the washing
machine would go to the actual purchase of the washing machine.
But in Washington when we say education is a high priority, somehow
people in Washington are just content to see only 60 percent of the
money budgeted for education actually ever make it to a classroom. Now
that is a huge distinction in how Americans view fiscal responsibility
versus how government views fiscal responsibility. Republicans have a
different way.
Clinton and Gore, they have been in the White House now for 8 years.
They have had their opportunity to try to use the money that the
Americans have sent here and spend it wisely, and we share their
sincerity that we want to help children. But we are not for all the
waste that for 8 years they have been willing to endure and sustain.
Sixty percent out of every education dollar is all that makes it to a
child's classroom. Our goal is to tell the Department of Education,
``We do not care how difficult it is. We do not care about your silly
rules, your silly regulations, your old ways of doing business, the
status quo over there in that nice office building. We demand that 95
percent of every dollar spent on education get to a child, get to a
classroom. We will give you the 5 percent for overhead and
administrative costs.'' That is what most other charities spend for
overhead. The Federal Government ought to be held to the same standard
that Americans insist on on a day-by-day basis.
Wasting cash, hemorrhaging money, maybe that is the way the Clinton-
Gore regime is inclined to spend money and they feel comfortable with
that. We have a different way, and we are fortunate that we have a
governor in Texas that has shown real leadership and he will join us,
given the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think we know how and why we lose 45 to
60 cents when we create a program here in Washington. There have been
hundreds since we have been here. They were here when we got here, but
there are hundreds of programs.
We have to tell a local school district that, hey, we have a program
for this to buy computers, a technology program. So we pass a program.
The Education Department has to notify these school districts. These
school districts then have to apply for the money. So they have to go
through the process of filling out these forms. We then have the people
within the Department of Education who sort these applications out and
say this group over here gets them and, sorry, you do not. So we send a
check to this local school district.
That local school district then has to track that money. So if it is
coming in for technology, they have to segregate that money, they have
got to make sure that it is spent on computers and nothing else,
technology. They then send the forms back to the Department of
Education and say, yes, we spent it on exactly what this program was
for. And then the Department of Education knows that they cannot trust
those people at the local level, so they send their auditors in to make
sure that the way the money was reported spent is actually the way the
money was spent.
It is kind of interesting, I have talked to some of my school
districts who have gone through an audit by the Department of
Education. They say it is absolutely brutal. They have to document
every penny, every dime, and all of this. And these are the people that
know our kids' names. And they are going through this process when we
have a Department of Education that cannot keep its own books here in
Washington.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate tragedy that in 1998,
the U.S. Department of Education could not audit its books. We are
concerned now about the inability of the Department to pass an audit of
their Department. But in 1998, the books were so poorly managed, the
finances were so badly mismanaged, that they could not even audit the
books. The documents were not even in an
[[Page H8444]]
auditable state, let alone letting us get to the point of finding out
where the money really went.
We have managed to improve things slightly, only so that we know now
that the U.S. Department of Education fails those audits when we can
actually sit down and add the money up.
So our goal is for financial accountability and responsibility. We
want to manage the funds that are spent today. If we can get that 40
cents back that today is squandered and wasted and misdirected away
from children's classrooms, we do not need the new spending. We can
actually increase the amount of money spent on children without
increasing one dime, the amount of money budgeted for education, just
by cutting out the waste fraud and abuse in the Department of
Education.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have an education advisory
board which consists of parents, teachers, school board members,
administrators, superintendents from all around southern Wisconsin; and
I am always asking them for ideas, asking them what kinds of reforms do
they think Washington needs to make their job better, to help them
improve the quality of education in southern Wisconsin.
Does my colleague know what they always say? Get off of our backs.
The fact that Washington only sends 6 cents of the education dollar
that is spent on education in all of our school districts, but
promulgates over 50 percent of the regulations is astounding. Six cents
on the dollar come from Washington; 94 cents on average are coming from
local property taxes and local and State money. Yet over half of the
unfunded mandates are imposed from Washington on our local school
districts.
What astounds me is that just in my area of Wisconsin that I come
from, we have school districts that have very interesting and unique
problems. Racine, Wisconsin, has school district problems that are so
unique to those in Beloit, Wisconsin, or those in Janesville,
Wisconsin, but let alone the problems that may exist in Harlem or in
Los Angeles or in New Mexico. In this kind of country, in a vast and
differing Nation, to subject our school districts to one-size-fits-all,
cookie-cutter solutions where we give them a little bit of the money,
but all of the mandates. It is strangling our schools and strangling
innovation.
I see that we are running out of time, but I think it is very
important to point out they do not have all the answers in Washington.
And in fact when we try to inflict these answers on our local school
districts, we are doing more harm than good in many cases.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for joining me this afternoon. I
mean there are two different visions here; there is a Washington-based
vision and there is a local vision. We are focused on the local vision.
____________________