Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have come a long way this year. We were in this Chamber earlier in 1999, towards the end of January when the President came down here and gave his annual State of the Union speech. The President at that time said, I want to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus. By implication meaning I am going to spend the other 38 percent. I do not remember, maybe one of my colleagues can remember and refresh my memory on the fees and the tax increases that the President proposed back in January, that he proposed in his budget. Does my colleague from Arizona remember what that amount was?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I bet there will not be a press conference. Because by law, they were supposed to tell us in March, in March of this year by law they were supposed to tell us and release their books to the Congress and to the American people saying, here is the $35 billion, here is the $85 billion in loans that we manage and here is what happened to the money. In March, they were supposed to tell us. They extended it, they extended it, they extended it, they extended it, until finally we hear that this week the auditors will finally come out and say, that $110 billion that we had way back in 1998, we cannot really tell you how we spent it, or the auditors cannot in good conscience tell us where the money went or how it was spent or whatever. But we cannot find a half a penny of waste. Any organization that is that big and whose books are not auditable has at least a half a penny and you can probably find nickels and dimes of waste and inefficiency because if you cannot track where the money goes, you cannot hold the people accountable for getting the kind of results that they want.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 1776, a small American warship, the Andrew Doria, sailed into the harbor of the island of Saint Eustatius in the West Indies, which is a colony of the Netherlands. Only four months before, the United States had declared its independence from Great Britain. The American crew was delighted when the island's governor, Johannes DeGraaf, ordered that his fort's cannons be fired in a friendly salute. As this was first-ever military salute given by a foreign power to the flag of the United States, it was a risky and courageous act. The British seized the island a few years later. DeGraaf's welcoming salute was a sign of respect, and today it continues to symbolize the deep ties of friendship that exist between the United States and the Netherlands. After more than 200 years, the bonds between the United States and the Netherlands remain strong. Our diplomatic ties, in fact, constitute one of our longest unbroken diplomatic relationships with any foreign country. Fifty years ago, during the Second World War, American and Dutch men and women fought side by side to defend the cause of freedom and democracy. As NATO allies, we have continued to stand together to keep the transatlantic partnership strong and to maintain the peace and security of Europe. In the Persian Gulf we joined as coalition partners to repel aggression and to uphold the rule of law. While the ties between the United States and the Netherlands have been tested by time and by the crucible of armed conflict, Dutch- American heritage is even older than our official relationship. It dates back to the early 17th century, when the Dutch West Indies Company founded New Netherland and its main settlements, New Amsterdam and Fort Orange--today known as New York City and Albany. From the earliest days of our Republic, men and women of Dutch ancestry have made important contributions to American history and culture. The influence of our Dutch ancestors can still be seen not only in New York's Hudson River Valley but also in communities like Holland, Michigan; Pella, Iowa; Lyden, Washington; and Bellflower, California-- where many people trace their roots to settlers from the Netherlands. Generations of Dutch immigrants have enriched the United States with the unique customs and traditions of their ancestral homeland--a country that has given the world great artists and celebrated philosophers. On this occasion, we also remember many celebrated American leaders of Dutch descent. At least three presidents, Martin VanBuren, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, came from Dutch stock. Our Dutch heritage is seen not only in our people but also in our experience as a nation. Our traditions of religious freedom and tolerance, for example, have spiritual and legal roots among such early settlers as the English Pilgrims and the French Huguenots, who first found refuge from persecution in Holland. The Dutch Republic was among those systems of government that inspired out nation's Founders as they shaped our Constitution. In celebrating of the long-standing friendship that exists between the United States and the Netherlands, and in recognition of the many contributions that Dutch Americans have made to our country, we observe Dutch American Heritage day on November 16. I salute the more than 8 million Americans of Dutch descent and the 16 million people of the Netherlands in celebration of this joyous occasion

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for participating in the special order.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, they sent it back. But these were examples and they were only telling us about a couple. So, again, this is another thing that we have asked for is, give us a listing of all the duplicate payments that were made under this old accounting system and did you recover them. Because maybe some schools maybe did not know they got a duplicate payment and so they maybe spent it, and now all of a sudden they have got to be put on a repayment schedule to get the money back. Sloppy fiscal management is not in the best interest of anybody. It is not in the best interest of the taxpayer. It is not in the best interest of the Department of Education. And it is not in the best interest of local school districts, either.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, this is I think maybe perhaps one of the sadder moments when we were sitting down with the leadership of the Department of Education and we asked about duplicate payments and they said, we are aware of one. And we kind of pushed them on it and they said, well, there might have been a couple. And then we hauled out again from I think their chief function officer document that we said the head of the bullet points were examples of duplicate payments, 40 million, 4 million, 296. I know that went to the State of Colorado or the University of Colorado.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, that puts us right back to what the Republican agenda has been and like we said when we began this. The two parameters are, number one, their books are not auditable, so we are going to be able to find the waste, fraud, or the savings in the Department. I am not concerned about that. But then that moves over into the policy debate. And remember, Republicans have put more money into education than what this President even asked for. So it is not about money. What it is about is policy, how is that money going to get to a local school, how is it going to get to a local teacher or to a local classroom. My colleague and I just participated in, number one, we said last year and we are going to work on it again this year is that we want to put 95 cents of every Federal education dollar into a local classroom so that a teacher can use that money to help educate a child. The second thing that we want to do, and this is where we really had the two different worlds of education policy two weeks ago, the ESEA, the Elementary Secondary Education Act, which is a Washington mandate model that says you will use this money to do these types of things and we are going to measure you and hold you accountable, versus the process that you and I very much support, which is what is called Straight A's, which is, in exchange for the States coming back and getting a great degree of flexibility, we will hold them accountable, not for what the other bill does, which is measures process, did you fill the forms out correctly and did you use the money for what we intended it for, we allow the States and allow the local school districts to take the money and use it on what they felt was most needed in that school, if it was technology, if it was reducing class size, if it was teacher training, if it was additional materials for the classroom; and in exchange for that flexibility, the State would be held accountable not for filling out the process, but for improving the educational achievement of every student in the State. So the Federal Government would reach into a contract with the States and focus on academic achievement rather than a process oriented system. That is what this is all about. It is about educating kids. That is why we are going over to the Department of Education and saying, we are sorry, a department that manages $120 billion a year that does not have auditable books is not doing a good enough job helping our kids get a good education, a department that perhaps maintains some of these questionable accounting practices really is not doing a good enough job. We have not even talked about the duplicate payments.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Going back to the letter my colleague was reading, the Department clearly knows that their financial controls were lacking, when they say the Department has worked closely with their Inspector General. It is obvious they have not done a good enough job. In 1998, the last year they tried to audit the books, the books were still not auditable. Perhaps in this one account we can find a good portion of that, but then we still cannot take away what is in this report. Paying for Jerry Springer, paying for a process that takes 20 weeks and 216 steps.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. $594 million.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I was going to give an example of doing better, and one example of this administration thinking that they can do better. Under the National Performance Review process, which was designed to streamline government, and maybe this was the example the gentleman was thinking of using, but the Federal Education Department does not educate kids, what it does is it hands out money. And they hand out money based on school districts applying and then the Department of Education giving out grants. Under Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, they did do better. They took a look at how this process works, the discretionary grant process, and they found out that if a school district or an educational entity applied for a grant, it took 26 weeks to get processed and it took 487 separate steps from start to finish. So if a school district is all excited, or is really concerned because they have identified this issue or problem that they need to deal with, it was kind of like, hey, the Federal Government has this program out here, let us apply for it. Twenty-six weeks later and 487 steps later they might have gotten their answer and they might have gotten a check. Well, they improved that. It now only takes 20 weeks and 216 steps. So if school starts in September, and that school has got some creative teachers who have got a program they would like to propose or whatever, maybe by the beginning of the new year or the second semester they might be able to have an answer to the grant request. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, when the chief financial officer says we have this account established that has over $700 million in it, only 2 percent of which, only $12 million, is in that account based on why that account was set up, meaning roughly $700 million found its way into this account through some other reason, when we combine that with the fact that that is 1996; that 1998's books are not auditable, we have just asked some, I think, very legitimate questions. How much is in the account today? And the estimate was, well, this account today has in it somewhere around $189 to $200 million. So as of today, or at least as of Friday there was still $200 million in that account. We have asked the General Accounting Office to go to the Department of Education and ask some very basic questions, which I think we as Members of Congress, representing the American people, are entitled to some answers. We have asked as colleagues, and as the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, I want to know where that original $700 million came from. Under the anti-deficiency act, no Federal agency is entitled to carry dollars over from year to year to year. I want to know where the decision was made that these dollars, $700 million, did not fall under the Anti-Deficiency Act, and that they should have been returned to the Treasury at the end of every fiscal year, where did the Department get the authorization to keep that money at the Department of Education? Now that it has gone from $700 to $189 million, where did this $500 million go? Is the tracking there? Under whose authorization, under what congressional authorization did this $700 million get whittled down to $189 million? We are talking about real money here. This is $500 million. We have a legitimate right to know. And maybe when we go through this whole process, the Department of Education will have a very reasoned approach to showing how they got from $700 million to $189 million. But when we have these kinds of questions in place about the money being parked inappropriately or in a fund that was designed for another purpose, when we have a department that has unauditable books, and when we have at least an appearance of a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, there are some questions that should be asked and the Department should be held accountable for and that they should respond to. And we have set those wheels in motion to try to get the answers to those kinds of questions. And, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If we go to take a look at that report, I believe that is also the report that says of the $712 million that were in that account at the end of 1996, only $12 to $13 million were actually in the account based on what the account was set up for, and that the balance, the other 98 percent of the money had found its way into this account with no relationship to the intended purpose of this account. Is that accurate?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a minute, when we talk about the books are not auditable, this is not a couple of Members saying, hey, we do not think the books are auditable. It is their own chief finance officer, their own Inspector General saying they are not auditable. The same thing, we use words from the people in the Department of Education. So these are not allegations made by Congressmen, these are people within the Department making these kinds of statements. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what message we clearly sent last week was really twofold. Number one, we are going to help find the 1 percent savings and make sure we do not raid Social Security. The second thing is we are going to help come in and find the other inefficiencies and the other management deficiencies in this Department to ensure that we get maximum leverage on the $120 billion that we give them each and every year to make sure that that money actually helps kids learn. If they cannot find 1 percent, if they cannot produce auditable books, it is kind of like what they always say, we are the Federal Government, and we are here to help. It is kind of like, Mr. Secretary, we are here to help. It is part of our responsibility. The gentleman from Colorado and I are part of the oversight subcommittee. We are held responsible by the House to ensure that the funds that are given to Federal agencies are actually used in and accomplish the goals and the purposes that Congress mandates by law. Let us talk about some of the things that we found when we talked about them, and that is the grant back fund and the duplicate payments and those types of things. But before we do that, let us just go back. Some have said, well, this is a new effort now. The Secretary comes out on Tuesday, talks about these kinds of issues, and, all of a sudden, now Republicans are interested in education. Wrong. In 1995, we started the first hearings that led to the Education at a Crossroads report which we published in 1998. The hearing cycle began in 1995 and continues to this year. We have been in Chicago. We have been in Milwaukee. We have been in Wilmington, Delaware. We have been in Milledgeville, Georgia. We have been in San Fernando, California. We have been in Phoenix. We have been in Napa, California. We have been in Louisville, Kentucky, the Bronx and New York, Cincinnati, Little Rock. We have also done a lot of work in investigating the expenditures here in Washington. The gentleman from Colorado remembers when we went back. One's tax dollars at work were kind of an interesting highlight of this report. We highlighted it. Remember, the Department of Education, one of its primary responsibilities is to help those kids who need help the most, to help them to learn, to read, to help them to learn, to do math. The Department of Education's office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, what do they think is one of their primary missions? Close captioning is provided for, and this is a quote from one of their reports, diverse programs such as, this is the Federal Government, our Department of Education paying for close captioning of Bay Watch, Ricky Lake, the Montel Williams show, and Jerry Springer. Good wholesome, all American programming. I guess I understand why they provide close captioning for Bay Watch. My understanding is most people watch that with the sound turned off anyway. But that is where some of our Federal education dollars go. Here are some of the educational publications from the Department of Education: Cartoons, the title of which is the Ninjas, the X-Men, and the Ladies; Playing With Power and Identity in Urban Primary School. We talked about this earlier at a press conference. Another educational publication is the Bakery Industry. This is their title, Lesson Plans Prepared For Car Grocery Employees. The lessons focus on topics from the workplace in the following areas: Bakery, cake orders, courtesy clerk, and sushi bar, 96 pages long. I am partial to bakeries, my dad was a bakery, but I am not sure this is a high priority program. Fifth Grade Pipefitters, another leading edge educational department program. Building workplace vocabulary for pipefitters, compound words, 27 pages. I like this one. They are great. They did one for the cement industry. Care to guess what the name of that is. This is for the cement industry. Title: A Concrete Experience, A Curriculum Developed to the Cement Industry. I love this one. Donna Reed; Channelling Your Donna Reed Syndrome, a manual on stress management for the workplace, 20 pages long. This is not about whether we can find 1 percent, it is about whether there is the Commitment to go through the over 200 programs at the Department of Education and to decide to focus on what is right and what is not necessary. Remember the two contexts that we are debating this in and talking about tonight is the Department of Education, their books are not auditable, and this Republican Congress has actually allocated and approved more funding for the Department of Education than what the President had in his original request. We are willing to fund education; but at the same time, we are going to hold that Department accountable for the $35 billion that it receives in annual appropriations. That is kind of the context, saying these kinds of things have been going on in the Department of Education. We identified those from 1995 to 1998. We issued the report in 1998. Now, in 1999, we find out that their books are no longer auditable. Then maybe we want to talk a bit about the grant back account. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that guidance. Mr. Speaker, addressing the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) here, the question that that Congress can and should be asking is: Mr. Secretary, why can you not answer the question of where the money went? What have you done with $120 billion? I think that, as part of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, those are the kinds of questions we will ask over the next 2, 3 weeks, 2, 3, 4 months. The gentleman from Colorado, as a member of the subcommittee, knows that we have been dealing with this issue with the Corporation for National Service for 5 years. For 5 years, they have not had auditable books. Now, some would say, well, that is only a $600 million, $700 million agency, why worry about it? Back in Michigan $600 million, $700 million is still a lot of money. The Department of Education, there is $120 billion. But the Secretary would get up and pound the table because he cannot answer the basic question as to, why are your books not auditable? We have given you $120 billion. We have entrusted that to you. You cannot tell us where the money went. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line that we found out, which we suspected because GAO was reporting earlier this fall that this was going to be the case, for the Secretary to come back and call something a publicity stunt. I talked to my staff about what was going to happen after we came back. He said, well, you can bet that the other side, since they cannot talk about the issue, they are going to just holler and scream and start pounding the table. If I were them, I would holler and scream and pound the table and scream, because if they are not holering and screaming, they are going to have to answer the one basic question, which I did not see reported anywhere: Mr. Secretary, you are managing $120 billion, why are your books not auditable? Why are you hollering and screaming at Congressmen? Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Did the Secretary actually say that?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, we had that dialogue with the management and the employees of the Education Department for about 2\1/2\ hours on Friday morning. It was very interesting, I do not know if the gentleman read some of the comments, but in my papers back home some of my colleagues on the other side characterized, and get this, this is three Members of Congress going to the Education Department, being very warmly received, talking to the leadership, talking to rank and file employees. I think the gentleman is absolutely right, if they were given the challenge, and I think we asked the leadership, have you gone through and seen how you would find 1 percent, and kind of got this glazed-over look from the leadership of the Education Department. But when we talked to the rank and file Education Department employees, do you think you can help us find 1 percent to make sure that we do not decrease by one amount the penny that is going into the classroom, they were very excited about that kind of an opportunity. The characterization of Members of Congress talking to employees within the Department, it was characterized as being like storm troopers. It was kind of like, I do not think so. I do not think that is the response we got at all, either. The Department of Education employees, we were talking to them about how they hand out the grant fund. The gentleman and I have been working on this process. I have been working on this process. We issued a report in 1998 in the subcommittee called Education at a Crossroads. This report came out in 1998. It highlighted not the inefficiencies or the waste, fraud, and abuse, just because they are not doing the basics, but it was taking a look at some of the things we could do better. That is, we identified that of every Federal education dollar that is sent out, 35 to 40 cents of that is wasted in bureaucracy. It is kind of like we in Congress create a program, we have to tell the local people that the program exists, they apply for the program, we review the application, we write a check, they cash the check, they spend the money, they report how they spend the money, the Federal government has to audit it because we know we cannot trust the local people, and when we cut through all of that, it is kind of like, there goes 35 to 40 percent out of that. It is not necessarily all Federal money, some of it is State or local money, but it gets to be a very expensive process. So we know that there are savings there. We are very willing, and this, I think, was the message we gave to the Education Department, help us find the 1 percent, or help us find 10 percent, and we will not take all that 10 percent and drive it into a surplus. Help us find 10 percent so that we can take that other 9 cents that you find and drive it into a classroom where it really makes a difference, and take it out of bureaucracy. I think they are just as willing to do that as they are to find the 1 percent for social security.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, again, this is about taking the money, taking a look at the $120 billion. Like I said, let us clarify, this is about $85 billion in a loan portfolio that the Department of Education is responsible for managing, and about $34 to $35 billion in annual appropriations, and for 1998, those books are unauditable. We do not know what will happen with the 1999 statements. My colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, and I went down there on Friday. We met with a number of the employees and some of the leadership at the Education Department. They were very hospitable. We gave them roughly a day's notice. We let them know on Thursday that we would like to come down and meet with some of them. They were very gracious and they were very knowledgeable. They were very helpful when we came there on Friday morning. I think we had a very fruitful discussion with the leadership. We asked them about the auditability of their books. That is where we heard about the five different or the three different accounting systems that are going to be in place over a period of 5 years, and maybe my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, would like to share some of the other things we talked about. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what they told us was that in 1997 they had an accounting system. My other colleague here, the gentleman from Colorado, was with us. I think this was what we heard. My colleague will correct me if we do not get it exactly right. What we heard was that in 1997 they had an accounting system. They decided to transition into a new and improved accounting system. As they started implementing this new system in 1998, they implemented it and they found out that there were a number of problems: security clearances, duplicate payments, perhaps unrecorded payments, and those types of things. So they went back to the vendor who had developed this system for them. Basically this vendor had pulled out, withheld support for this new accounting system. Now, what is the Education Department doing? They have unauditable books for 1998. They are now in the process of soliciting companies and accounting firms to develop a new accounting system which they hope will be in place by 2001. So until 2001, we are going to limp along with this current system. So in a period of 5 years, we will have gone through three accounting systems: the original accounting system, which was operational in 1997; the one they bought and paid for in 1998, and no, they could not tell us how much they paid to get this new accounting system; and now the one that is anticipated to be online by 2001. There were three accounting systems. I come back to the fact that this agency is entrusted with managing $120 billion, this is with a B, not with an M. This is $120 billion per year, and they cannot tell us where the money goes. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. And $7 million is real money. It is the same thing we have in the Department of Education. Secretary Riley is saying, we cannot find 1 percent. If we go to his department, as three of us did last week, and we talked to his chief deputies, they are saying, we are sorry, we cannot audit the books. What is worse, finding out you lost $7 million, or finding out you did not know where the money went? My guess is that as we go through the Department of Education, again, as we talk about some of the other discussions that we had at the Department of Education, I think we will find that the money is there to be found if we put in place the stringent financial controls. What always amazes me, and I think my colleague also had this kind of background, when we talk about stringent financial controls, I am sorry, but every day every small business, every publicly-held company, every Fortune 500 company, they have auditable books each and every year. This is not brain surgery. There are people who do this every day, and they do it for a living. We are just asking an agency that manages roughly $120 billion a year to please be careful with the taxpayers' dollars, and at the end of the year, please be able to tell us where they spent it. There is another whole discussion, and this is much of the debate we are having on education today, because once we find out where it goes, then we will have the other debate which says, tell us how effectively that money has been used: Did we actually improve students' learning? But this is on a much more basic level, just tell us where the money went.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reinforce what my colleague is talking about. This message has gone across to all cabinet levels, the same message, we cannot find 1 percent. While the Secretary of the Interior is saying, we cannot find 1 percent, his deputies are saying, I am sorry, we lost $7 million.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from Colorado here tonight as we talk about educating our children. The topic tonight came out of a process that for some of us began in 1995, where we began a process that was called Education at a Crossroads, where we took a look at the definition of education here in Washington, we took a look at what worked and what was wasted in the Federal programs, and also what worked and what was wasted at the state and at the local level, and really came to a decision to review some of the information and the documentation that we gathered since 1995 based on a press conference that the Secretary of Education gave last week. As many of our colleagues know, we are embarked on a plan this year for the second year in a row to try to make sure that we spend no Social Security dollars on general fund expenditures. It looks like we did that in 1999, or came very, very close, for the first time in 40 years, and what we want to do is duplicate that for 2000, so we have embarked on a plan that said we are going to look for a 1 percent savings. Last week the Secretary of Education came out and said, ``If you try to find a 1 percent savings in my department, you cannot find it. It is not there, and any reduction in expenditures in education will come off the backs of our children.'' We went to the Education Department on Friday, and there are just two things that I would like everybody to remember as we put this in context, two things. If you remember only two things out of this whole night, other than that we are trying to save 1 percent, remember these two things: The first is that the Department of Education's books are not auditable. The first is the Department of Education's books are not auditable. We will talk a little bit more about that. But we have got a secretary from a department that has responsibility for $120 billion of taxpayer money, and he is blasting Congress. But when he goes back to his own department and three Congressmen go over there and ask him and his colleagues and say can you kind of tell us where and how you spend the roughly $35 billion in appropriations that we give you on an annual basis and the $85 billion of loans that the Department of Education manages, can you kind of tell us how you manage the taxpayers' dollars, the response is, ``I am sorry, but for the last year that we had auditors in taking a look at our books, our books are not auditable.'' It means they cannot tell you. The auditors cannot look at the books with any degree of certainty and say that the money that came from the American taxpayer, went through Congress, was entrusted to the employees and the leadership at the Education Department, they cannot tell us where or how that money was spent and that there is no waste, fraud and abuse. My experience in the private sector tells me any organization that does not have the financial control systems in place to ensure that their books are auditable probably has some waste, fraud or abuse going on. So, number one, the books at the Department of Education, $120 billion agency, does not have books that are auditable. The second thing that I would like to just put in context, everything else that we do tonight is in context of this secretary is going out and saying that this Congress is stopping the raid on Social Security on the backs of our children. Sorry, Mr. Secretary, even when we find that 1 percent savings in the Department of Education, this Congress, yes, this Republican-led Congress, has appropriated $100 million more for the education of our children than what this President even asked for in his budget. We recognize and we are willing to invest in our kids' education, but we are not going to invest in programs that do not work or that move decision making to Washington; or, Mr. Secretary, when we give you another $100 million, you bet we are going to come down to your agency, we are going to help you manage your agency, because you have not been managing it, because you cannot even tell us where the dollars go. I will yield to my colleague from Colorado, just remembering those two things in context: Their books are not auditable, and Republicans are investing more in education than what the President even asked for in his budget.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let us go back and talk about what we not only did on the floor today but what we did in the committee. The gentleman is right, there was a bipartisan agreement to move the bill through. It is interesting that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed amendments which broke that bipartisan agreement, but that is really not the issue here about what they agreed to and what we agreed to and what agreements they broke. Really, this is about the kids. So let us take a look at the dialogue that took place on the debate of the bill that we passed earlier today. Colleague after colleague after colleague talked about the failed 34-year history of Title I, the continuing disappointment of the Federal dollars, the $120 billion that had been targeted to the most disadvantaged and the poorest students in the country. We have not closed the gap. We have left those kids behind. What we said today in the bill that we passed earlier is, yes, we can tinker around the edges, we can tinker with this $8 billion, but for those kids we need to at least try something else and try something more innovative than what we have done in the past, because tinkering around the edges may not be enough to help those kids. I still remember in some of the hearings that we have had in the Education at a Crossroads Project. We went to New York City. We went to those kids who are in those schools that are failing, and I still remember the father coming in and saying, I have had one kid now in school for 5 years. Five years ago, there was a program and it was a 5- year program towards excellence, and the schools are as bad now as they were 5 years ago and they may even be worse; and now you are coming in and you have another 5-year program for me? That is what we have, but not a 5-year program. We have a 34-year track record, and the bill that we passed earlier today was tinkering around the edges. That is not good enough for our kids. That is not good enough for the future of this country. It is at least time to take a look at a more innovative approach. That is why we have the Straight A's bill in front of us today because we need to get the Federal Government to catch up with what is going on in the States. What is the approach that we are taking? The approach that we are taking is moving away from a bureaucratic program that has a program for every identified need, has a set of rules and regulations for every program, has a series of applications, has a series of red tape and it takes money out of the classroom; it takes innovation and creativity away from our local school officials. By the way, they are the only ones that happen to know the names of the kids in the classroom that we are trying to help. The bureaucrats here in Washington do not know the names of those kids that we are trying to help. What we do is we tell these local officials if they will reach an agreement with us where we give them flexibility to focus on the needs in their schools, whether it is to make them safe, whether it is to improve technology, whether it is to lower class size, they do what is right for their school and then they report back to us on performance, because really what we are interested in, I thought we were interested in improving the performance of the students rather than in mandates, regulations and red tape. That is why we are doing the straight A's proposal, to get that innovation and to match the needs with the programs that we put in place. What do the State education executives say about it? Well, I would have preferred to have seen the advantages and flexibility made available under Straight A's to every State. The 10-State pilot is a fair compromise if it ensures passage of the bill now. Many States are already straining to break the bonds of over-regulations, over- involvement, and overkill on the part of the education bureaucracy. Remove those barriers to innovation through passage of H.R. 2300, and I think you will find no problem finding 10 States willing to take advantage of all that the Straight A's Act has to offer. We cannot wait any longer. This is a letter from Lisa Graham Keegan, State of Arizona Department of Education. She is the superintendent of public instruction. The Education Leaders Council, what do they say? Passage of Straight A's is critical if we are to build upon existing innovative approaches to education reform in the States that are producing success and improving student achievement. It is time that Washington recognizes that the innovation and the focus of improving our student education is taking place at the State level and Washington is still trying to catch up with the innovation that is going on at the State level. That is why we need to provide this kind of opportunity to some of the States. What do the governors have to say? Let us go back and reference what the governors' letter says that is being referenced so often. Straight A's is aligned with the NGA education policy in many instances. We urge the committee to maintain these provisions in the bill as it continues through the legislative process. Governors are strongly supportive of the provision in the legislation that permits States to determine how funds can be distributed to the States. NGA policy calls for Federal education dollars to be sent directly to the State to enable the State to set priorities, provide greater accountability, and better coordinate federally funded activities with State and local education reform initiatives. It does say the governors do recognize the link between the concentration of poverty and low education and achievement. The governors recognize that. What this bill will do is it will provide the governors more opportunity to provide more dollars to the most disadvantaged students in their States. This is the welfare reform model where we are saying Washington cares more about the disadvantaged in one's State than the Governor and the State legislature. What did we find out? We heard the same kind of scare tactics when we talked about welfare reform. We passed welfare reform. The States innovated, and more people are off the welfare rolls now than at any time in recent history. The States and the governors and legislators care about the people in their States. We ought to at least enable 10 States to experiment, to move this program back, and to see how we can help the people in those 10 States. It is about kids. It is about making a difference. So we have got the State education officers. We have got the NGA. We have got governors who want that kind of flexibility because they want to focus dollars on kids and on the classroom. They do not want to focus it on bureaucracy. That is why we are doing this amendment and why we are doing this bill. The emphasis here is on helping kids. It is on moving away from process. It is about moving away from bureaucracy. That is why we are doing Straight A's, so that we can focus on the kids, that we can make a difference, and we can at least begin the process of reform and put the Federal Government in a position of supporting reform at the State and local level rather than being a barrier to helping kids that need help the most. Free up the States. Free up our local leaders. Free up those people who know the names of the kids in the classroom and who care more about them than anyone in this Chamber or anyone in the Department of Education. It is about our kids. It is time for change, and it is time for reform. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.