[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 32 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1262-S1263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 3086. A bill to support high-achieving, educationally
disadvantaged elementary school students in high-need local educational
agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator
Grassley, to introduce legislation on behalf of the millions of
talented, high-achieving American students who every day, despite our
best efforts, are being left behind.
When we talk about reducing the achievement gap, we usually think of
helping economically disadvantaged kids who are having a tough time in
school keep up with their peers.
Unfortunately, there is also a growing gap between high-achieving
kids from high-earning families and students with just as much
potential and talent who come from difficult economic circumstances.
Potential is being squandered every day. Tragically, some estimates
indicate that one in five of our highest-achieving students drops out
of school. That is 20 percent of our best and brightest students, the
hope of our nation and the key to our economic competitiveness in the
21st century, left behind.
Every child should have the opportunity to reach their full
potential. So, today I introduce the Equity in Excellence Act of 2010,
designed to eliminate this gap among high-achieving students by helping
talented but economically disadvantaged kids find the challenging and
enriching materials and programs they need to stay in school and on
track.
Here is how it works.
First, our bill will help to evaluate how school districts are
challenging their most talented students--and to diagnose the problem
when they are not.
Second, it will put in place evidence-based programs--ranging from
enrichment programs to academic acceleration strategies to high quality
support material--designed to maximize learning among high-potential
students.
Third, it provides funding to hire and train personnel--principals,
counselors, psychologists--skilled in meeting the needs of high-
achieving students.
Fourth, it provides funding to educate and inform parents of these
students, so that they can partner with schools in supporting their
kids.
This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association for
Gifted
[[Page S1263]]
Children, an organization of more than 8,000 parents, teachers,
education professionals, and community leaders united in support of
high-achieving kids and their unique needs.
Of course we all want to ensure that every child--no matter what
their strengths and weaknesses, no matter what their grades or test
scores, no matter what their economic background--can get a good
education that prepares them for the 21st century economy.
Every child who falls through the cracks represents a tragedy. When
those who have displayed such tremendous potential are left behind, we
all suffer. This legislation offers a step towards keeping those kids
challenged, engaged--and in school.
I want to thank Senator Grassley for joining me in this effort, and
encourage our colleagues to join as well.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCAIN):
S. 3088. A bill to reduce the number of executive branch political
appointments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good
friend the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing
legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees.
Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at
2,000. When I previously introduced this legislation, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates it would save $382 million over the next 5
years and over $872 over the next 10 years.
The bill is based on recommendations of a number of distinguished
panels, including the 1996 Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the
Presidential Appointment Process. The Task Force findings, which are
still very relevant today, are part of a long line of recommendations
that we reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive
Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual
publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, and it
was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on
the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman
and current economic advisor to President Obama, Paul Volcker.
This proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of former
Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review, which called for
reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing
that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the
creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year
in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.''
Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 and 2003 Volcker
Commission reports, which argued the growing number of presidential
appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of
the executive branch.'' The first Volcker Commission recommended
limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as this
legislation does.
It is essential that any administration be able to implement the
policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government
must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the
Volcker Commissions noted, the great increase in the number of
political appointees in recent years has not made government more
effective or more responsive to political leadership.
Between 1980 and 2008 the ranks of political appointees rose by more
than 27 percent whereas between that same period, excluding the defense
sector, the civilian workforce remained consistent at about 1.1 to 1.2
million.
In recommending a cap on political appointees, the 1989 and 2003
Volcker Commission reports noted that the large number of presidential
appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or
White House. The 1989 Commission argued that this lack of control and
political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to
develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet
secretaries accountable.''
Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also
restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce
bureaucratic impediments.
In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this
sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown
increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines
from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may
reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job
effectively. . .''
The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of
temporary appointees between the President and career officials can
undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging
talented individuals from remaining in government service or even
pursuing a career in government in the first place.
Former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well when he noted:
But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of
deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his
eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon
political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional
political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome
to see a position one has spent 20-30 years preparing for
pre-empted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference
between an audit exception and an authorizing bill.
The 2003 Volcker Commission report identified another problem
aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely
the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of
positions. As the Commission reported, both President Bush and
President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before
their leadership teams were fully in place. The Commission noted that
on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than
eight months after the inauguration, one-sixth of an entire
presidential term. By contrast, the report noted that in the
presidential transition of 1960, Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on
average, 2\1/2\ months after the inauguration.
In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in
government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental
effect on potential appointees. The 2003 Volcker Commission reported
that, ``Potential appointees sometimes decline to enter government
service when confronted by this process. Others drop out along the way.
But the principal impact of the modern appointments process is the
delay it imposes on the staffing of new administrations.''
The Clinton administration made modest reductions in the number of
political appointees but the numbers have steadily increased in the
past decade.
As we scour the Federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending,
we can't overlook spending that many in Washington may well wish to
retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction is not simply to
support measures that impact someone else. By reducing the number of
political appointees, we can ensure a sufficient number remain to
implement the policies of any administration without burdening the
Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political
jobs.
Reducing the Federal deficit and balancing the budget is something
that has been central to my Senate career, from the 82 point plan I
brought to the Senate in 1993 to my most recent Control Spending Now
Act, which would cut the deficit by around $500 billion.
The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points
included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various
Federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs, and it will be
added to my Control Spending Now Act. I urge my colleagues to join me
in reducing the deficit and reforming government.
____________________