[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 24971-24976]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 SENSE OF THE HOUSE URGING 95 PERCENT OF FEDERAL EDUCATION DOLLARS BE 
                         SPENT IN THE CLASSROOM

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H.Res. 303) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives urging that 95 percent of Federal education dollars be 
spent in the classroom, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Whereas effective teaching begins by helping children 
     master basic academics, holding children to high standards, 
     using effective, scientifically based methods of instruction 
     in the classroom, engaging and involving parents, creating 
     safe and orderly classrooms, and getting dollars to the 
     classroom;
       Whereas our Nation's children deserve an educational system 
     that provides opportunities to excel;
       Whereas States and localities must spend a significant 
     amount of education tax dollars applying for and 
     administering Federal education dollars;
       Whereas the administrative costs of the United States are 
     twice the average of other countries in the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD);
       Whereas it is unknown exactly what percentage of Federal 
     education dollars reaches the classroom, but according to the 
     Department of Education, in 1998, 84 percent of the 
     Department's elementary and secondary education dollars were 
     allocated to local educational agencies and used for 
     instruction and instructional support;
       Whereas the remainder of the Department's dollars was 
     allocated to States, universities, national programs, and 
     other service providers;
       Whereas the total spent by the Department for elementary 
     and secondary education does not take into account what 
     States must spend to receive Federal dollars and comply with 
     requirements, it also does not reflect what portion of the 
     Federal dollars allocated to school districts is spent on 
     students in the classroom;
       Whereas American students are not performing up to their 
     full academic potential, despite significant Federal 
     education initiatives, which span multiple Federal agencies;
       Whereas according to the Digest of Education Statistics, 
     during the 1995-96 school year only 54 percent of 
     $278,965,657,000 spent on elementary and secondary education 
     was spent on ``instruction'';
       Whereas according to the National Center for Education 
     Statistics, in 1996, only 52 percent of staff employed in 
     public elementary and secondary school systems were teachers;
       Whereas according to the latest data available from the 
     General Accounting Office, in fiscal year 1993, Federal 
     education dollars funded 13,397 full-time equivalent 
     positions in State educational agencies;
       Whereas in fiscal year 1998, the Department of Education's 
     paperwork and data reporting requirements totaled 40,000,000 
     ``burden hours,'' which is the equivalent of 19,300 people 
     working 40 hours a week for 1 full year;
       Whereas too much of our Federal education funding is spent 
     on bureaucracy, special interests, and ineffective programs, 
     and too little is effectively spent on our Nation's youth;
       Whereas getting 95 percent of all Federal elementary and 
     secondary education funds to the classroom could provide 
     substantial additional funding per classroom across the 
     United States;
       Whereas more education funding should be put in the hands 
     of someone in a child's classroom who knows the child's name;
       Whereas burdensome regulations, requirements, and mandates 
     should be removed so that school districts can devote more 
     resources to children in classrooms; and
       Whereas President Clinton has stated: ``We cannot ask the 
     American people to spend more on education until we do a 
     better job

[[Page 24972]]

     with the money we've got now.'': Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the 
     Department of Education, States, and local educational 
     agencies to work together to ensure that not less than 95 
     percent of all funds appropriated for the purpose of carrying 
     out elementary and secondary education programs administered 
     by the Department of Education is spent to improve the 
     academic achievement of our children in their classrooms.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I believe it is important that we go about the work of reauthorizing 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and also appropriating funds 
for education, that Congress renews its commitment to the principle 
that education dollars are most effectively spent in the classroom.
  Two years ago the Dollars to the Classroom resolution was 
overwhelmingly supported by this chamber by a vote of 310 to 99. This 
resolution is a resolution that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Pitts) has been tremendously influential in bringing before our 
committee and then to the floor of the House. It is difficult for me to 
think of what could be more noncontroversial than Congress recognizing 
the importance of sending dollars directly to the classroom. We want to 
make sure every tax dollar we spend on education makes a real 
difference in the life of a child.
  Specifically, the Dollars to the Classroom resolution calls on the 
U.S. Department of Education to work with States and local school 
districts to ensure that 95 percent of funds for elementary and 
secondary education are spent to improve the academic achievement of 
our children in their classrooms. The United States spends twice as 
much; I repeat, the United States spends twice as much as any other 
country to administer education.
  Too much is spent on bureaucracy at all levels of government. We need 
to do our part to make sure that Federal dollars do not enable 
bureaucracies at State and local levels to grow even larger. We know 
very little about what proportion of Federal dollars are spent in the 
classroom. The Department of Education says 84 percent. Others say even 
less. But we do not need to argue about the exact number.
  The evidence of bureaucracy taking away resources from the classrooms 
are plentiful. For example, more than 13,000 employees are funded with 
Federal dollars and State education agencies to administer Federal 
programs. It would take 20,000 full-time employees a year to fill out 
all of the paperwork produced by the Department of Education. In just 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act there are more than 60 
programs. Overall there are more than 760 education programs.
  I think we can all agree that Congress should be about the business 
of empowering parents and teachers to do their jobs as effectively as 
possible, and that means giving them the resources to educate children 
as effectively as possible. It is time to transform the Federal rule to 
make it student centered, not program centered, to make it results 
centered rather than process centered. At the end of the day what is 
more important is how these programs are working to improve student 
achievement. We want to make sure that every tax dollar counts and goes 
to helping children learn. We think this is best accomplished by moving 
resources to the people who do help children learn, parents and 
classroom teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that it is important to send the vast 
majority of education dollars to the classroom. In fact, that is 
exactly what the Federal Government is doing right now according to the 
new report by the GAO. On September 30, GAO released an analysis of the 
top 10 education programs and found that the Department of Education 
distributed over 99 percent of the money to the States.
  The States, in turn, distributed an average of 94 percent of the 
funds they received to local school districts. Far from the 
bureaucratic nightmare of wasted Federal dollars repeatedly alleged by 
some in the Republican majority, GAO found that States used their funds 
on providing technical assistance to local educational agencies, to 
professional development for teachers, to program evaluation and to 
curricula development.
  Mr. Speaker, GAO also surveyed local school administrators in nine 
representative school districts and made the following emphatic 
conclusion, and I quote: ``We found that State staffs spent very little 
time administering the programs and that district office staff also 
generally spent little time administering them,'' end of quote.
  Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that this GAO study was not requested 
by Democrats, but by the majority, Republican majority. Now I suspect 
that some of those who requested this study were hoping that it would 
be a hit job on the Department of Education. Instead, it confirms what 
we have said all along. The Department of Education spends less than 1 
percent of funds on administration.
  So I hope that this new GAO report will stop those who would falsely 
demagogue the administration of the Department of Education programs. 
We want solutions, not false and empty resolutions. The majority's 
funding plan for education is in shambles. We should get on with 
finishing the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act instead of wasting time on this blatant effort to undermine public 
support for Federal education spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who has worked so hard that 
this money does get down, in spite of what we just heard, to the 
classroom teacher.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership and support on behalf of 
this resolution and all education reform. I just want to mention first 
of all, in response to the gentleman from Missouri who cited a GAO 
report, that he did not continue reading from the report. I have a copy 
of it here. Let me continue reading what he failed to read:
  ``After saying that collectively the States distributed 94 percent of 
the Federal funds they received mainly to local agencies,'' it 
continues, ``excluding the $7.3 billion Title I program, one of the 
largest elementary secondary education programs. The overall percentage 
of funds States allocated to local agencies by the remaining 9 programs 
was 86 percent.''
  I could read more, but that is the quote used in the resolution.
  Also he mentioned the local administrators not complaining. Let me 
give my colleagues a quote from my school superintendent when he came 
to present testimony before the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. He said, ``The direct funding of dollars for classroom 
teachers' use would put the money in the hands of the people who would 
make the difference in districts like ours. Who better to decide what 
is needed in his or her classroom than the teacher.''
  Another one Dr. Linder Shingo, a superintendent from Georgia: 
``Administrators from Washington will never meet the needs of 
individual children. I cast my vote for returning as many dollars 
directly to the local schools as we are able. Less bureaucracy on all 
levels would allow more dollars to directly reach the students in the 
classroom.''
  In addition, one of the administrators said they do not even bother 
applying for the Federal funds because of the administrative 
requirements and the costs to them in the local level and the paperwork 
and the procedure necessary to apply for the Federal funds.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let me go ahead and say that I rise in support, 
strong support, of the Dollars to the Classroom resolution today, an 
effort on

[[Page 24973]]

which we have been working for a couple of years to ensure that our 
Federal elementary and secondary education dollars get to where they 
belong, in the classroom of our public schools where teachers who know 
a child's name has some control over the money.
  Overall not a lot, a high percentage of our schools' funding is from 
the Federal Government. Most of it is State and local government funds, 
but about 6 to 7 percent does come from the Federal Government, and 
this is about in a day of tightening tax dollars the need for more 
efficient and effective use of our tax dollars. Currently, as I 
mentioned, it is estimated and depending on the programs some more some 
less, but it is estimated from between 65 to 86 percent of the Federal 
education dollars make it to the classroom for educational purposes.
  Regardless of the exact amount, that is not enough. It is no secret 
that funds designated for the education of our kids are wasted when 
they are not funneled down to the level where they can actually play a 
supportive role in classroom activities, and instead they are often 
funneled off by bureaucracies at all levels. The importance of this 
Dollars to the Classroom resolution today is that we should set a 
standard to reduce bureaucratic and ineffective spending. We should 
work to get more money into the local classroom. We should prioritize 
the way we spend our education tax dollars and put children first.
  This is about the kids. This is for them. We must get the dollars 
down to where they benefit, where the action is, into the classroom, 
and our kids deserve to be the prime beneficiaries of Federal funding. 
This resolution calls on Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure 
that 95 percent of the funds are used for classroom activities and 
services.
  What could this mean for our kids? First, it would signal an 
important systemic shift in how Federal education dollars can be 
delivered to our Nation's schools. It could mean more books, more 
textbooks. I have had students from my district share that their 
textbooks are in some cases older than their teachers. In the words of 
an eighth grader who was here last year and who spoke, he said quote, 
``Our geography books are from the 1980s. A lot has happened in the 
world since then. Instead of calling the books Geography Today, they 
should be called Geography of the World 15 years ago,'' end quote.

                              {time}  1615

  That is a pretty astute comment for an eighth grader. More dollars to 
the classroom could also mean more teachers, more teacher aides. This 
money could be used for teachers' salaries. More dollars to the 
classroom could mean new computers, computer software, even microscopes 
so that students have new opportunities of discovery in science and 
physics and mathematics.
  It is a little-known fact that most public schoolteachers now dip 
into their own pockets to provide supplies for their classrooms, 
sometimes spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars a year. Yet, 
consider this fact: according to the General Accounting Office study in 
fiscal year 1993, Federal education dollars funded 13,397 full-time 
equivalent positions in State education agencies. In fiscal year 1998, 
the Department of Education's paperwork and data reporting requirements 
totaled 40 million of what they call burden hours, which is the 
equivalent of 19,300 people working 40 hours a week for one full year.
  If we are honestly going to discuss our priorities in Federal funding 
of elementary and secondary education, we must ask why so much funding 
goes to the bureaucracy instead of going right to the kids in the 
classroom. With the dollars to the classroom resolution, we aim to put 
priority back on our kids. This is a goal on which we all can agree. We 
should vote for the Dollars to the Classroom resolution, recognizing 
that local schools, not bureaucracies, are best suited to make 
decisions about allocating resources. They understand their students' 
backgrounds, their needs; they can respond to them most directly with 
proven methods of instructions. We should trust the parents and our 
teachers and our public schools to use money to meet their unique 
needs. Vote for the dollars to the classroom resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why the gentleman would 
exclude Title I from factoring in the administrative costs when it is 
the largest education program in the country, $8 billion. And when we 
factor in the ESEA to Title I funding, my figures are correct. Ninety-
nine percent of the Federal money goes to the States, and 94 percent of 
that goes to the classroom.
  The problem the gentleman from Pennsylvania has is with his State 
agency. IDEA, when we send Federal money to the State, the State keeps 
25 percent of it instead of sending it on to the LEAs or the local LEAs 
or to the classroom. When the national average for that money is 13.5 
percent, what is the State of Pennsylvania doing with the other 13.5 
percent, the other 12.5 percent? That is where his problem is, and that 
is where he ought to be trying to get the State legislature to do 
something about that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). The problem is not here in the 
Federal Government because the Federal Government does send most of the 
money to the local States and school districts, it is the local States' 
and school districts' options to do with that money what they will. In 
fact, there is a contradiction here. They are saying 95 percent goes to 
the classroom when in fact, more than 95 percent goes to the classroom 
already, 99 percent goes. The fact is, with this resolution one would 
think we are opting to give the locals the discretion to use more than 
the 1 percent they are using now for administration and use the 5 
percent for administration, so in actuality, the resolution is 
counteracting what they are professing to do.
  But more than that, the gentleman referred to the GAO study and the 
GAO study, in actually looking at the schools, it says, in the context 
of the government as it prepares to consider the reauthorization, and 
they asked to determine how the educational programs and the 
administration money was used for, and the final thing it says, we 
selected nine school districts to ensure that the districts were of 
varying sizes, were located in different parts of the country, and 
represented a mix of urban, suburban, and rural districts; and their 
conclusion was, in visiting the nine schools of the Nation's 16,000 
school districts, they found that the school level staff spent very 
little time administering the programs and their district office staff, 
which also generally spent very little time administering the programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I hate to be here on the floor wrangling about something 
that gives somebody a 30-second political soundbite that they can use 
in some way to enhance themselves in saying this is what we do for 
education. I rise in opposition to this resolution because it is a 
nonbinding resolution to begin with, and although it urges the 
Department of Education, the Federal Department of Education, the 
States and local educational agencies to strive to ensure that 95 
percent of all Federal funds appropriated for educational programs are 
spent to improve academic achievement in the classroom, let me tell my 
colleagues that in those local school districts where the bulk of the 
money comes from, they are doing exactly that. They are trying to spend 
that money in a way that they can guarantee the academic achievement in 
the classroom of these young children, contrary to what my friends on 
the other side of the aisle say.
  While it is a nice sentiment, I must express my dismay that we are 
wasting, as the chairman said, valuable time on the floor on this 
resolution when we could be doing so many other things that are more 
important such as

[[Page 24974]]

providing monies for classroom construction in the local schools, 
something that we have been refusing to do which would go a long way in 
helping these kids achieve academic fulfillment. We are about 2 weeks 
into the fiscal year, and we only have about nine of the 13 annual 
appropriations bills, including the educational appropriations bill, 
still outstanding.
  If the Republicans call for the Federal Government to shut down next 
week, no Federal money will be going to those classrooms where they 
want 95 percent to go. In addition, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) pointed out, according to a recent study that they ordered by GAO 
that was done at the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), 95 percent of all of the 
Federal education dollars are already being spent on improving that 
academic achievement.
  So here we are today, wasting time on a resolution that does not do 
anything because it is nonbinding, urging the Department and the States 
and the districts to do something that they have already been doing for 
a good number of years. We in the Congress have a tendency to 
contradict and let us say over and over again to the public school 
districts that they are not doing what they should be doing in 
educating their children. There may be public school districts in some 
places that need a lot of improvement. But the fact of the matter is, 
95 percent of all of the people that sit in this chamber and 95 percent 
of all of our staff are products of the public schools. If the public 
schools are so bad, then how did we all get here. I say we ought to let 
the locals do as they know best as they say so many times and take our 
nose out of their business.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I guess I should ask to have my statement brought back to me, because I 
cut out all that nonsense political partisanship that was written into 
it, but maybe after hearing all of this nonsense, I should bring it 
back and read that too. Obviously, some people have not read the 
resolution, because the resolution very specifically says that the 
Federal Secretary should work with State and local officials to bring 
this about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), and I ask unanimous consent that he control our time from 
this point on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and applaud the chairman for the work that over the years he has 
done on education. I also thank the chairman for the opportunity that 
he provided me over the last couple of years to take our subcommittee 
around the country and hold a series of hearings that we entitled 
education at a crossroads.
  As we went around the country, as we heard from governors, as we 
heard from local officials, we did hear about the Federal money that 
goes to the local level, that goes to the State level. We consistently 
heard about the money that comes to the local level, the money that 
goes to the State level and how Federal strings are tied to that money. 
Not necessarily consuming dollars in Washington, but consuming lots of 
dollars at the State and local level, either in applying for the 
programs, finding out what programs existed, or meeting the reporting 
requirements of the various education programs.
  So the requests from the States, the requests from the local agencies 
and the local departments of education was, send us the money, free us 
from the mandates, free us from the paperwork, give us a system that 
allows us to focus on educating our kids, free us up so that we can 
focus on meeting the educational needs of our local communities and our 
local schools. And that, in the bigger sense, is what dollars to the 
classroom is about. It is saying that number one, we want to target 
Federal education dollars to the States and to the local levels, 
eliminating bureaucracy.
  But the larger component of dollars to the classroom encourages the 
Secretary to take a look at the total picture of the costs that we are 
imposing on States and local agencies where we are not spending Federal 
dollars, but where we are spending local and State dollars to meet 
Federal requirements. We need to endorse the direction of this 
approach; this is a good proposal, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. If 
this was a debate about military policy, this would be like us ignoring 
the People's Republic of China and declaring war on the British Virgin 
Islands.
  We are here today to discuss a problem that has largely been solved; 
at the same time, we are ignoring some very real problems in America's 
classrooms.
  The chairman of the committee and the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman wrote to the General Accounting Office who calls them as they 
see them. And they said, we have heard all of these concerns that too 
many dollars are being kept in Washington and spent by the Washington 
bureaucrats and not getting back to the classroom. Tell us what the 
facts are. And the GAO did a study of it and the GAO came to this 
conclusion: in fiscal year 1996, the Department of Education 
distributed over 99 percent of its appropriations for the 10 programs 
to the States, the States in turn collectively distributed 94 percent 
of that money to the local districts.
  Then we hear that, well, all the money is really being spent by the 
local districts in filling out papers and complying with all of these 
rules. The GAO sent investigators to nine school districts, they did 
in-depth evaluation and discussion with the personnel in those 
districts and here is what they concluded: this is not the Democratic 
Party concluding this or the Republican Party concluding this, this is 
the GAO, which I think has, as their motto is on the front page, a 
reputation for dependability and integrity, and here is what they said: 
we found that school level staff spent very little time administering 
the programs and the district office staff also generally spend little 
time administering them.
  So it seems to me that we are here discussing, in large part, a 
problem that exists only in the minds of the majority. Title I, less 
than 1 percent of the funds spent in Washington. IDEA, less than 1 
percent of the funds spent in Washington. The Perkins loan program, 
nothing spent in Washington. Safe and drug-free schools which the 
majority tried to eliminate a few years ago, less than 1 percent spent 
in Washington. Goals 2000, that terrible Federal takeover of our 
schools that they resisted so violently, less than 1 percent spent in 
Washington. The school-to-work program, maybe we should take a look at 
this, 7 percent spent in Washington, 93 in the States; the Eisenhower 
program, less than 1 percent spent in Washington. Innovative education, 
nothing spent in Washington, bilingual education, 1 percent; Even 
Start, 1 percent.
  Now, I say to my colleagues, there are some real problems that we 
ought to be discussing. In my State of New Jersey, children today in 
over 50 schools went to schools that are more than 100 years old. 
Children went to 1,000 that were more than 50 years old that are 
falling apart, yet the majority has not seen fit to bring a school 
construction bill to this floor. My colleagues may disagree in the 
majority with school construction, but, Mr. Speaker, let us bring it to 
the floor and have an honest debate and a vote.

                              {time}  1630

  We are discussing the issue of class size reduction. There are 
children going to kindergarten, first and second grade, in schools with 
36 and 37 children. They can learn successfully, but every valid piece 
of educational research we know says that children tend to do better 
when they are in with 17 or 18 children in the primary grades.

[[Page 24975]]

Bring to the floor legislation that will fund, not just talk about but 
fund, a class size reduction.
  The majority's Committee on Appropriations is apparently about to 
propose an across-the-board cut in the Labor-HHS appropriation bills 
that will cut across-the-board Title I, IDEA, Perkins, Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Eisenhower, Innovative 
Education, bilingual, Even Start, and all the rest. So they want 95 
percent of a smaller number, I would guess.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a well-intentioned amendment, but it talks about 
a problem that largely has already been solved. I would suggest that we 
get to work solving one that really exists. Let us put our workers to 
work in this country building and repairing schools, let us put 
qualified teachers in every classroom, and let us put ourselves to work 
on the real issues of education.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I am real curious about the facts and 
statistics that we just heard, because I have been in about 20 schools 
over the last couple of months, and what I have heard does not bear up 
to teachers who even yesterday were telling me that they were spending 
so much of their time dealing with paperwork.
  In Ohio, it is estimated that 50 percent of the paperwork burden was 
generated by Federal education programs, though the Federal resources 
provided only 5 percent of the funding. In Arizona, Lisa Graham Keegan, 
the State superintendent for public construction, says that while the 
Federal programs only account for 6 percent of the education spending 
in the State, 45 percent of the staff in the State Department of 
Education work with or manage Federal programs.
  I was in a dilapidated school yesterday that would like to renovate, 
but they cannot because of Federal regs. If they touch one bit of that 
building, they have to bring the whole building into compliance with 
ADA, which means it is cheaper to tear it down and build another one 
than it is to renovate to make it a better building.
  The things we do here in Washington, while well-intended, have a 
stranglehold on our schools. A special education student that is 
profoundly affected still has an education plan that is six pounds that 
a teacher has to use. There are only two pages they actually use for 
that student, but there are six pounds to cover themselves from 
lawsuits that come from the Federal level.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 303, 
which urges that 95 cents of every Federal education dollar be spent in 
the classroom. I am a cosponsor of this important resolution because I 
believe it sets forth the vision that many of us have for education in 
this country, a vision in America where all children are achieving 
their fullest potential because they are taught by well-trained 
teachers in disciplined classrooms filled with educational resources.
  Our children's education is most secure when the dollars and 
decisions are controlled back home by parents and teachers and local 
school districts. Spending 95 cents of every Federal dollar in the 
classroom is a worthy and attainable goal to improve education in our 
country. Our students deserve to have the money that we are setting 
aside for them actually work for them in the classroom.
  The statistics that we hear here by whatever government agency are a 
far cry from what teachers and principals and people are telling us 
back home. Let us take our hands off of it and let the system work. Let 
teachers teach and principals take care of their schools.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am still having trouble understanding this non-debate 
about this non-educational issue. The very people who requested the GAO 
to study the problem and the allegations they are making claim that 
they do not like what they hear. Well, they asked this independent body 
to report, to study and report. Now, when the body reports back, they 
say they do not believe it or they do not like it or they do not 
understand it.
  I do not understand what this issue is about. We know that the vast 
majority of funds from the Federal and State level go into the 
classroom. I think it is a political issue that they have hyped up and 
it is backfiring on them, because all credible evidence shows that the 
money is going into the classroom, so it is a non-issue. This is a non-
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the sponsor of the resolution.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is never a waste of time to 
talk about the money spent on our kids, educating our kids in the 
classroom.
  As far as the statistics, reading from the gentleman's own report, he 
says that 99 percent, and I will read the same sentence, it does not 
say ``to the classroom,'' it says, ``distributed over 99 percent of the 
appropriations from the 10 programs to the States.'' It does not say 
``to the classrooms.''
  Now, if we read down lower on that page, page 3, it says if we 
exclude Title I, which is the most efficient program, and look at the 
other nine, we have an average of 86 percent in those nine programs. So 
from the gentleman's own report, and if the gentleman will look on page 
10, it graphs each one as far as what is the administrative cost of the 
States, the States' use. If we just disregard the Federal use and look 
at the State agencies on page 10, only two programs meet the 5 percent 
or below. All the rest are above. That is just what the State 
administrative costs are, not the local administrative costs.
  Our resolution states, ``The local education agencies should work 
together to ensure that not less than 95 percent of all funds 
appropriated for the purpose of carrying out elementary and secondary 
education programs administered by the Department of education is spent 
to improve the academic achievement of our children in their 
classroom.''
  So what we are talking about is what is really important here. That 
is the kids in the classroom. That is what this resolution is all 
about, how are we going to impact the kids' learning and give the 
equipment, the tools to the teachers that directly impact the children, 
give them the aid that directly impacts their teaching so our kids can 
compete in this world. That is the goal of this resolution. I urge the 
Members to adopt it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To close the debate, the direction that we are establishing for 
Federal involvement for education is that we want to move towards safe 
and drug-free schools. We want local schools that focus on basic 
academics. We want local control, and we want to drive dollars back to 
the classroom. That is where we believe and that is where we know we 
have the most leverage on improving our kids' education.
  This resolution states that. It says that as a Federal Government, we 
are committed to moving Federal dollars back to the local level, where 
we can have the most impact. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Ms. WOOSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are supporting legislation to tell local communities 
how they should spend their education dollars.
  Education in America has always been a local issue and I, for one, 
think it should stay local.
  In the communities which I represent in Congress, Communities in 
Marin and Sonoma County, California, the decisions on how to use 
education funds are made by locally elected school boards, with input 
from parents, educators and students.
  They don't need Washington, DC telling them where to spend their 
money!
  Every community in my district already spends the majority of its 
education funds in the classroom.
  But, sometimes a community needs to spend funds in other ways, such 
as teacher training activities, educational technology or coordinated 
services.
  No matter how much money we spend in the classroom, children must 
come to school

[[Page 24976]]

ready to learn; teachers need to advance their skills; and students 
should have the benefit of modern educational technology.
  We have always relied on parents, educators and local community 
leaders to make local education decisions. I urge my colleagues to show 
their trust in the folks back home by voting against H. Res. 303.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
support H. Res. 303, a resolution which urges that 95 cents of every 
federal education dollar be send back to where they belong--in the 
hands of parents and teachers. The Dollars to the Classroom Resolution, 
H. Res. 303, calls on education agencies at all levels to ensure that 
95 percent of federal spending for elementary and secondary education 
programs makes it into the classrooms of this country.
  The Dollars to the Classroom Resolution recognizes the fact that 
learning takes place in a classroom, and thus student-focused 
expenditures on direct learning tools, such as books, computers, maps, 
and microscopes, should be prioritized. H. Res. 303 calls on education 
agencies to work together to ensure that federal elementary and 
secondary appropriations are put to use on instructional purposes for 
youth in classrooms. We must make a commitment to send more education 
dollars to schools, libraries, teachers, and students--not 
administrators and federal bureaucrats. The Dollars to the Classroom 
Resolution will require that 95 percent of federal education funds be 
used for classroom activities and services.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give teachers and parents the 
final authority over how education dollars are spent--not the federal 
government--and support H. Res. 303.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 
303, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________