Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us now mirrors much of what we are doing in the rest of H.R. 2. This really is the first time that a Republican Congress has a chance to make real changes to Federal education policy, to try to improve Title I so that disadvantaged children do actually learn and succeed so that we can take those who are below grade level and move them up. The focus does have to be on accountability and achievement. There are a number of improvements in this bill that move us in that direction, but there is also a movement that I am concerned about. We have so-called accountability, but the problem is that there is not flexibility. We tell States how to target their money, where to spend it. We tell States what information to report to parents and the public on their schools. We tell States how to desegregate students based on race and gender, and we tell States what kind of qualifications teachers and para- professionals must have. The section of the bill that we are attempting to change here is one of those areas where we provide more flexibility for school-wide programs so that we can tailor those programs to most effectively meet the needs of the children in those schools. The amendment that we have in front of us, again, takes us away from flexibility at a local level, takes us away from having the flexibility to design the programs for the needs of the children in those schools. Like other parts of the bill, it moves decision-making away from the State and the local level and moves it back into Washington. This Congress has had a number of successes in moving decision-making to the local level. We passed Ed-flex. We passed the teacher empowerment. Tomorrow or later today we will have the opportunity to debate the program called Straight A's. All of those programs take us in a direction that says we know who we are focused on, and we are going to let the States and the local levels design and implement the programs most effective to meet the needs of those kids; very much based on the welfare reform model, where we recognize that States and local officials care more about the people that were on welfare than the bureaucrats in Washington; that they were most concerned about moving those people off of welfare and into dignity by providing them a good job. We are going to see the same thing in education, that when we empower people at the local level to address the students with the greatest needs, we are going to see more success. We recognize that the 34 years and the $120 billion of investment have not gotten us the kinds of results that we want. Parts of this bill move us in the right direction. Parts move us in the wrong direction, but this amendment should not be passed and we should stay with current law.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The interesting thing about this process has been it has been a bipartisan effort. My understanding is that the bipartisan bill that was negotiated in good faith included an increase in the authorization level from $7.7 billion a year to $8.35 billion. I believe, as my chairman said earlier in the debate on this, we are finding that bipartisan agreements do not necessarily mean a whole lot anymore. What we are now finding is that, in this bill, we are moving from the current authorization from $7.7 billion in its proposal to move up to $9.85 billion. This is a 36-percent increase in funding for a bill that my colleagues on the committee have said all of the reports would indicate that we are not doing very well with this program. Today, 34 years later since the inception of Title I, we still see a huge gap in the achievement levels between students from poor families and students from non-poor families. I do not want new money for Title I until we fix it. I am not sure there ever was a time when Title I was unbroken, but it certainly is broken now. So before we take a look at whether the changes that are in this bill which move more accountability and more control to Washington, before we take a look at whether what I believe is a misdirected step actually will improve the education of our most neediest children, this amendment says, ``Let's throw 36 percent more money at the problem before we realize whether the changes that we have proposed will actually make a difference or not.'' I do not think that is necessarily a good step to take. I do not think it is a wise step to take. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. The opportunity to move students from a school where they have experienced crime or serious problems, I think, is a proper direction. Again, what we are doing is we are providing flexibility. In this case, we are empowering students, we are empowering parents, and we are empowering local school districts to make the appropriate decision for their children as to where they need to be educated. Again, this builds on the other programs that we have introduced and passed this year that are moving decision-making back to the local level, back to teachers, and back to States. This is really the appropriate place for those decisions to be made. In this amendment we are empowering parents and we are empowering people at the local level to do the right thing to help their students. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify any confusion that may have existed about my remarks or at least as interpreted by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I referenced the letter from the Education Leaders Council, representatives of the leading States that are leading the country in reform. I submit the letter for the Record, as follows: Education Leaders Council, Washington, DC, October 21, 1999. Hon. William F. Goodling, Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2107 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodling: We are the state school chiefs who oversee the education of over 19 million (1 in 5) in the nations students. You and your colleagues will very shortly begin debate on the Straight A's (Academic Achievement for All Act) legislation that will help us and other states continue to ensure academic excellence for all students and true accountability for results for state education agencies and local school districts. 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 in improving student achievement. While we would have preferred to see the flexibility with accountability provided through Straight A's available to every state, we strongly believe that the current compromise, limiting its provisions to 10 pilot states, would represent a major step forward if it ensures passage of the bill now. Many states are straining against the inertia created by bureaucratic micro-management and thousands of pages of regulations attached to hundreds of separate programs which may or may not be consistent with state and local priorities. Remove this burden now by passing Straight A's, and we are confident you will have no problem finding ten states ready to take advantage of all it has to offer. There is no magic in what our states are doing. The results we seek are simple: measurable academic achievement increases for all students. The original intent of ESEA and title I in particular has been thwarted, not through poor intention, but by a misguided focus on process and regulation over results. We agree that a federal role in education is appropriate in response to national concerns--and the persistent low performance of poor children in this country merits such a response. But we have to move beyond a simple reauthorization of an act that, while well intended, has produced minimal if any gain for these children in thirty years. They deserve better. Sincerely, Gary Huggins, Executive Director.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for yielding me this time; and I congratulate him on the pair of bills that he passed out of the subcommittee last week. I think if we take a look at the bills in context as a pair they are a very positive step forward, and tomorrow I will strongly urge my colleagues to support the Straight A's bill because I really believe that this is the type of program that addresses the needs of our neediest children. Today, however, we are talking about H.R. 2. H.R. 2 is what I believe is a tinkering around the edges of a program that needs much more radical reform. If we take a look at this program and the results that it has generated over the last 35 years, here are some of what my colleagues on the full committee have said about title I: all of the reports would indicate that we are not doing very well. Another quote, to date, 34 years later, title I, since its inception, we still see a huge gap in the achievement levels between students from poor families and students from nonpoor families. The message is consistent that title I has not achieved the kinds of results that we want, and that is why we need more significant reform than what we find in this bill. Other quotes, I do not want new money for title I until we fix it. I am not sure there ever was a time when title I was unbroken, but it is certainly broken now. I know what is currently the law. It is not working. We have failed those students over and over and over again. That is why we need more significant reform than what we have. Over the last couple of years, we have had the opportunity to travel around the country and also take a look at education programs here in Washington. The project was called Education at a Crossroads. It went to many of these areas where title I is, and what the people at the local level wanted is they did not want more mandates from Washington. What they wanted is more flexibility to serve the needs of their kids. They know the names of their kids. They know the needs of the kids in their classroom, and they said please free us up from the regulations and the mandates and let us serve the needs of our kids. What we have is, yes, we have reforms but we have a thick bill that is going to impose significantly more mandates on those schools that are going to end up focusing on red tape and meeting the process requirements rather than focusing on the needs of our kids. That is why tomorrow when we talk about Straight A's, that is what represents the type of change that we need, because what it says is, in exchange for accountability, where we measure the results of the learning for each of our kids, which is a huge new mandate on the States, but in exchange for that mandate we give the States and the local education agencies a tremendous amount of flexibility for how they meet the needs of their kids, so we measure performance and we give them flexibility. That is the kind of mirror package that we need to put together. The Education Department has hundreds of programs and hundreds of mandates. It is why we need reform. It is why we need flexibility with accountability. I am disappointed I have to oppose this bill, but I look forward tomorrow when we pass the Straight A's bill which will give States and local education agencies the types of flexibility they need to really improve education.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 303.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the sponsor of the resolution.

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. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks a very special time in the history of one of the communities in the Second Congressional District of Michigan. For the past 75 years, Grand Haven, Michigan has celebrated its relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard and the contributions of the Coast Guard to our country as a whole. Since 1934, the city has hosted the Coast Guard Festival, which has included a major parade, displays of various Coast Guard vessels, and a variety of ceremonies that focus on the special relationship, the special partnership between the Coast Guard and the community of Grand Haven. Since 1963, when then-U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Richard Schmidtman attended one of these celebrations to dedicate the city's famous Musical Fountain, Grand Haven has proudly displayed the unofficial title of ``Coast Guard City, U.S.A.''. This designation was taken directly from Admiral Schmidtman's remarks. Ever since, signs near the entrances of the city have informed visitors that they were entering Coast Guard City, U.S.A. As I said, that designation has been unofficial. That is until this year. As part of the Coast Guard reauthorization act of 1999, this Congress made it possible for the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to officially declare an American town as ``Coast Guard City U.S.A.''. I am happy to report to this House that, on this coming Saturday, August 7, 1999, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral James Loy will be in Grand Haven to make it official. Grand Haven will be Coast Guard city U.S.A. He will do that this week at the 1999 Coast Guard festival. I have worked with several Members of the House and the other body for several years to make this designation a reality. I would like to thank all the people who worked with me to get this legislation approved, including Senators Abraham and Levin, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who were especially helpful. I also want to thank the local officials in Michigan, especially Coast Guard festival executive director Jerry Smith. Also various people at the U.S. Coast Guard, including former Commandant Admiral Robert Kramek. And Members of my staff, especially Todd Sutton and Chris LaGrand. I would like to thank all of these people for their patience and for their hard work. Most of all, I congratulate the people of Grand Haven and their dedication and respect for the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. For more than 75 years, this community on the shores of Lake Michigan at the mouth of the Grand River has welcomed the Coast Guard personnel with open arms. They have celebrated their relationship with the Coast Guard since the first community Coast Guard picnic way back in 1924. In 1943, the city's residents also shared the Coast Guard's pain. They shared the Coast Guard's pain with a memorial service honoring the crew and the crew members of the Coast Guard cutter Escanaba, which had been based in Grand Haven from 1932 to 1940. One hundred and one men were lost when the ship was sunk by a German U-boat in the North Atlantic during World War II on June 13, 1943. The city shared its pain, but also its resources. The city showed its commitment to the U.S. Coast Guard by raising funds to build a replacement, which was named the Escanaba II. The mast of the original Escanaba was saved and erected as a monument to those fallen heroes in Grand Haven's Escanaba Park, where it still remains today. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Grand Haven, which from Saturday and henceforth will be known officially as Coast Guard City USA.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me, and I am glad that I can join my colleagues here tonight to really talk about some of the issues that they have been talking about earlier, but also to put the tax relief plan in context of what we, as a majority, are driving for in the House of Representatives, an agenda that we identify as enabling us to secure the future for American citizens as we move into the next millennium. I know we are going to focus on the tax relief package tonight. But we need to put it in context of the other elements of our plan. We are focusing on education. We have passed a number of different education bills in this Congress. The most important, or one of the bills last week, again was the Teacher Empowerment Act focusing on enabling local school districts to make sure that every teacher in the classroom was qualified to teach our children, giving local school districts additional flexibility. We are also, as we move through the tax plan and the tax relief efforts, ensuring as our first step to set aside in a lockbox all of the FICA taxes that the American taxpayers are paying in each and every week. As part of that, there is a right-to-know provision of the tax relief bill that is going to enable taxpayers, when they get their W-2 form, not only to see the amount of FICA taxes that they pay each and every year, but the matching amount that their employers pay each and every year. So that they are going to see that it is not 6.5 percent of my income, it is 13 percent of my income that never comes home with me but goes directly to Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When we take a look at what is in the tax cuts, I find it a very interesting discussion to try to identify exactly what part of the Tax Code is the most unfair. I mean, I think we all started out by saying tax relief is essential. When we combine State, local, and Federal taxes and have a tax system that takes 40 percent of the average family income, I think we are united. That is unfair. That is too much. That means that in a two-wage-earner family, one wage-earner works the entire year to pay the tax bill. We think that is unfair and that puts too much stress on the family. That is why we support an across- the-board tax cut so that every individual in America will benefit from that. Then we go to the inheritance tax, which clearly we work all of our lives, we pay taxes all of our lives, and then we want to leave part of that to our children. And Uncle Sam again is one of the first ones in line and makes the dream of passing a family farm or small business on to our children, makes it so much more difficult to realize. Another part of the Tax Code that is unfair is the marriage penalty. We penalize people for being married. Interesting concept. I think again we are united in saying this is an unfair element of the Tax Code. For the individual who wants to go out and buy health care, does not receive health care from a corporation or a large buying organization, they have to buy with after-tax dollars. If they work for a large corporation, they get it provided and there is no tax consequences to it. That is unfair for the entrepreneur, for the person who wants to start off their own business. We are trying to remedy that. For the family that wants to set aside dollars for education, we are putting that in so that again it enables people to invest in their people. We think that that makes this a better Tax Code. So we all have our own personal problems with the Tax Code, but we recognize that there are a lot of inequities and unfairness in the Tax Code. But it starts with tax relief, and then it moves on to these individual elements. I think we are all looking forward to the day as this Tax Code starts to address fairness, saying we need to make this Tax Code fairer that we can move on to the next debate after 2000, which is how do we simplify the Tax Code. Two essential elements I think of our longer term vision of what we want to have, which is a fairer Tax Code and a more simple Tax Code. And as we move in that direction, we will make a lot of progress.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. This goes on top of the tax bill that we did in 1997. This tax relief plan does not have the signature element that we had in our last tax relief package, of the $400 to $500 per child tax credit, but the impact will be as big on the American family as what that tax relief package is. So this definitely means more money in a family's pocket at the end of the year.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just really want to reinforce some of the comments that my colleagues from Arizona and Colorado have made. When we are talking about what we would like to do, we are not talking about an idea or a direction or a hope, we are talking about legislative language that has been introduced, that has been debated, and that has passed. The National Security authorization bill, passed legislation that is written and has passed. The education bill, whether it is Ed Flex, which gives more flexibility to local school districts and how they deal with the red tape and the mandates from Washington, legislation that has gone through committee and has passed. The Teacher Empowerment Act, legislation that that has been written and has been passed, the Straight A's bill, the legislation is written. The lock box, the legislation is written, is passed, has moved out of the House and we are waiting for the other body to deal with it. The Tax Relief package, the bill is written, has gone through committee, and has passed the House of Representatives. So it is awfully easy for people on the other side to talk about what they would like to do, and I think my colleague from Arizona has said they have spent a lot of time talking about what they would like to do, but the few times when they have given us legislative language on the budget, not one person voted for their legislative language. So we have met the challenge. We are not only talking about what we would like to do, we are actually here on the floor each and every day passing legislative language that is going to make a difference, that is going to help us secure the future for our kids, for working Americans, and for our retirees. We are making a difference and we are getting the job done. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Speaker and I invite my colleagues to stay with me until midnight so that we can continue this dialogue on our agenda for securing America's future, and I will yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will leave that statement up, it is exactly how this President thinks, that Washington can spend the money better than the American people. When this President came into office in 1993, total Federal revenues as a percent of gross domestic product, it was 18.4 percent. And under this President, that has never been enough, because he does not believe that the American family, the American taxpayer, knows how to spend that money better than what Washington can. Today, or projected for the year 2000, Federal revenue will be 20.6 percent of gross domestic product. So the amount of revenue going into Washington as a percent of our gross domestic product is increasing. And actually as we provide and attempt to provide tax relief, our attempt will not even get us back to the level of 1993, which means that the Federal Government is getting bigger and bigger. Some people believe that this tax relief package that we are trying to provide, this fairness that we are trying to give back to the American taxpayer, is coming at the expense of the Federal Government. No, what we are trying to do is we are trying to get back to where we were in 1993 and 1994. It is a rightsizing of the Federal Government. It is not a downsizing. It is a rightsizing, of getting back to where we were in 1993 after that tax increase.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, it is not only what the Constitution says, although it drives who we are and what we should do, but the lessons as to why the Framers of the Constitution were so brilliant, we only have to go back to when we reformed welfare. When welfare decisions were being made by bureaucrats in Washington, we were not moving people out of welfare. When we debated here on the floor of the House, and we took the examples of like the State of Wisconsin, that the State legislature, the Governor, they came up with a program to move people off of welfare into the work force, and the bureaucrats here in Washington said, no, you cannot do that; or even worse than that, they did not give them any answer at all. I think it went on for over 300 days, when we had to stay unified, Democrats and Republicans saying this is what we want to do to help our people in Wisconsin, and the bureaucrats did not even have the courtesy of sending them a reply. But when we took the welfare program and gave it back to the States, we have seen phenomenal results. It is the same model that we want to put on one of our priority projects, education. We do not want more bureaucrats here in Washington telling people who know our kids' names what they need to do in the classroom. Let the people at the local level do it. Let us empower people at the local level. It is why we are having a tax relief package that says, let people, let families, let moms and dads, decide what to do with an 800 or 1,000 or 1,500 hours a year. Let them decide how they want to allocate that among the priorities that they have, whether it is a car, whether it is education, or whether it is health care. But let us not let a bureaucrat or politician in Washington make that decision for them. The same thing with retirement. Let us make sure that we secure the future for our seniors by setting aside 100 percent of the FICA taxes over the next 10 years. Let us set that aside to save social security and to save Medicare, to remove that stress from them. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I thank my colleagues for joining me this evening. Just on a final note, the problem here in Washington is not revenue. In 1999 we will collect $1,821,000,000,000. By 2009 that will have increased by 50 percent; that government revenues, if we do not provide tax relief, will have increased to $2,725,000,000,000. The problem in Washington is not revenue, the problem is we are collecting too much. We need to give tax relief and we need to control spending. We are not cutting spending, we are just slowing the growth, so Federal programs can continue. We just need to control our appetites here in Washington and secure America's future by giving American families and American individuals some of their money back.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

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