[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 31 (Thursday, March 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1044-H1045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WESTERN UNITED STATES STUDENTS ARE TREATED UNFAIRLY BECAUSE OF LARGE
PORTIONS OF LAND OWNED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a situation to the
body that is somewhat unique which we in the West will be talking about
in greater detail and more frequently as time goes on. I feel competent
in being able to address this issue, because before I joined this
august body I spent 16 years in the Utah legislature as Speaker at the
end; but all 16 years I was a member of the Public Education Finance
Committee, or Appropriations Committee. I also, as I have frequently
mentioned on this floor, served for 28 years as a high school teacher
before I joined this group. Even though I recognize that money does not
equal education excellence and we can do many things to improve our
education system without money, at some time, we still have to build
schools, and teachers at some time still have to eat.
So I wish to present before the body three factual phenomena of which
my colleagues may not be aware. First of all, the fastest growth in the
student
[[Page H1045]]
population happens to be in the States of the Mountain and Pacific time
zones. Twelve of the 15 fastest growing States are in the West. In the
West we have an average growth in our student population of 7 percent,
where in the East, the average growth is a negative 2.6 percent. Ten of
the 13 States with the highest teacher-student ratio are also in the
West. And as the map that I am looking at right now shows, as far as
growth in expenditures per pupil, 12 of the 15 slowest-growth States
also happen to be in the West. The amount of money increased to public
education for funding of students in the East was 57 percent. In the
States of the West, it was half of that, at only a 27 percent rate.
Now, the question we should ask is, Why are these red States in here
that are all encompassed in the West, why are they growing so slowly?
It is not because we are not taxing our people. Indeed, the tax rate
for both local and State governments in the West is actually higher
than what it is in the East. It is not because we are not trying to
present our portion of the budget for education. In my State of Utah,
42 percent of the budget goes to public education. If we add higher
education, then it is up to almost 65 percent of the budget.
The reason for it is very simple, and it deals with this particular
chart. What it means is that land and property tax driven by land
propel local governments and school funding, and also income brought
from property propels local government and school funding. The bottom
line is, as we look at this map, the West land is taken from and
controlled by the Federal Government. The blue areas within each of
these States represent the portion of that State which is controlled by
the Federal Government; and thus, the land is taken off the property
tax rolls.
The State of Maine has a whopping .8 percent controlled by the
Federal Government. New York has .3 percent. The large State of Texas,
and it was smart when it became a State because they kept their own
debt, but they also control their own land, only 1.5 percent is
controlled by the Federal Government. But of the States in the West,
every one of them has at least 25 percent of their land controlled by
the Federal Government, and the States with over half of their land
controlled by the Federal Government are, once again, all found in the
West. The States of California and Arizona, Wyoming have 40 percent of
their land controlled by the Federal Government. Oregon is 50 percent.
Idaho and Alaska are 62 percent. My State is 65 percent, and 83 percent
of Nevada is owned and controlled by the Federal Government and off the
tax rolls. On average, 52 percent of the West is owned by the Federal
Government compared to only 4 percent of the East.
Now, the bottom line for that means we simply do not have the
resources to fund our education system accurately and we are falling
behind other States, and it is an unfortunate concept. There are
several different ways in which that happens.
When these States were entered into the Union, there was an enabling
act which provided for this unfairness to be rectified. That has yet to
take place, as the Federal Government has changed its policies towards
land, and we are now talking about an amount of land that has a value
of close to $14 trillion. Secondly, no property tax can be generated
from those lands. If we average the acreage at merely $500 per acre and
compare that with the tax rate that this land could have generated,
these Western States should have been generating $4 billion, which
could be used to fund education in the West.
Now, the Federal Government recognizes that because we have a program
called PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, in which the Federal Government
will compensate Western States. The problem is, what happened in the
year 2001, this land should have generated $4.2 billion. The Federal
Government compensated these States to the tune of $165 million in the
PILT program, and all of this money is going to governments that were
local and, once again, not to education.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, as we will be talking about at some
time in the future is students in the West should be afforded an equal,
an equal education opportunity, and they are not. This land is
controlled by all of us, and we are saying all of us should be paying
for the benefit, because students in the West are still being
disproportionately affected unfairly.
____________________