Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would yield, I think when we have been out here before, because we are also, we are going to be issuing a report in July that was initiated before we started the Labor Department, because I have also got oversight responsibility for the education department. And I think you may remember over the last year, you know, your spaghetti chart that shows all these lines crisscrossing. We came up with the same thing in education because we wanted to take a look and say who really has responsibility for helping kids in Washington and helping kids get a good education. That is, I am not debating the point whether we can actually do that in Washington. I am just saying, who in Washington believes that it is their responsibility? Where is this coordinated? We asked the Executive Branch. We said, ``How many education programs are there?'' Tabulated them up, we went to GAO, we went to the Congressional Research Service. About 760 different education programs.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I think that is right. I think this leads to where you are going. We then called in the General Accounting Office. I had my staff there. I said, ``We've got a problem. I think we have a problem. We've taken a look at the Labor Department. We've taken a look at their discretionary spending. We have met with the Labor Department. We can't account for about 3 to $4 billion.'' The response from GAO was, ``Yeah.'' It is kind of like, ``What do you mean, yeah?" It is kind of like, ``Well, what's the problem?" ``Well, we can't find 3 to $4 billion. They can't tell us where it went. We'd like to know who got the money, what they were going to do with it, and whether they actually accomplished the goal and the objectives that we had set here from Congress.'' They said, ``Well, we're actually completing a report, and we're not surprised that you can't find 3 to $4 billion. We can't find it, either.'' It is kind of like, ``Oh?" They said, ``This is not just a Labor Department problem. When our report gets issued, you will find that this problem crosses all the different Cabinet posts here in Washington.''

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, I just want to really thank the gentleman for putting it in perspective, what our priorities are: saving Social Security, paying down the debt, and reducing the tax burden. Then when we take a look at not discussing the role or the mission of the Federal Government, because that is another debate, but just saying if we collectively decide that we are going to do everything that the government does today, but we are committed to do it more effectively and more efficiently, we can do those three objectives. We can save Social Security, we can pay down the debt, and we can lower taxes, just by saying we are going to be more effective and more efficient. Then if we decide that certain of these things no longer need to be done by the Federal Government, we can even go faster towards those objectives.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would yield for just a second, of course the way we calculate here in Washington, I am sure that is $23 billion over 5 years.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The bank will go and they will verify, they will want to be able to verify your income, they will want to verify the balances on the other loans that you have outstanding, they will want to verify that what you want to buy is actually worth the amount that you want to borrow, and they will audit your records.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would yield for just a second, it is no different than what happens to an individual when they go apply for a mortgage.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is about $40 to $50 a week that this family is going to have in increased disposable income. Somebody can say, maybe I will work a few less hours, but it is a choice they can now make that they did not have before.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. And, as we go through this audit, I just want to let the gentleman from Wisconsin know that for the last year and a half we have gone through this process at the education department, we have gone through this process at the Labor Department, we have gone through this process at the Corporation for National Service where we have audited them or we, you know, found out. We have done this for the National Endowment for the Arts, and it is very, very consistent. The money does not get to the places that it is intended to go, that we are not making the difference. So anybody who believes, even if we agreed with every mission that the Federal Government has taken on, and I think you and I probably do not necessarily agree that everything the Federal Government is doing is something that the Federal Government ought to be doing, but even if you agreed with every mission that Washington has assumed today, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of waste, fraud and abuse in the system, that we could deliver better results with the money that we have today and at the same time deliver a tax cut back to the American people. We can do it in the Education Department, we can do it in the Labor Department, we can do it in the Corporation for National Service, and I think the gentleman is going to share some other examples with me. But we have done this work here on the House side. We have got the background and the data that backs up exactly what this GAO study is going to show.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman could yield for just a second.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes, only $3 billion out of, you know, the $40 to $50 billion that the Education Department spends every year, but, you know, we are starting, and we are going to take it and we are going to put it into opportunity grants, which says we are going to get the money to a child and we are not going to give it to a bureaucrat.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Well, we have calculated that because the other, you know, the train of thought is 760, and the first thing is hallelujah, that is why we got an education department, so that we can take these programs and run them through one place, because that is what I would think: Education; education programs. Put them in one place. Thirty-nine different agencies. Many were programs that sound very, very similar. So, as we have taken a look at it, as the gentleman has asked, as we have gone around and we have taken a look, where does the money really make a difference? The money makes a difference when it is in the hands of a teacher in a classroom directly benefiting a child. The bureaucrats do not help the child one bit. So when a dollar comes from Wisconsin or a dollar comes from Michigan for education and goes to Washington, we are estimating that about 60 to 70 cents gets back to a child, gets back to a teacher, gets back to a classroom. Thirty to 40 cents gets eaten up in this, you know, bureaucracy maze here, and we know that the dollar has to get to the child if it is going to make a difference. So I mean when we talk about reforming education, and we are going to talk about some other things, we can get lots more dollars to the child in the classroom without spending any more money in Washington. All we have to say is we are going to do it different, we are going to take the money, we are not going to feed a bureaucratic machine. We are going to get the money to a teacher and to a child and to a classroom, and the money is going to be there, and we are going to have some proposals, we are making them up tomorrow in committee, to start doing that. It is only $3 billion, only $3 billion.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is right.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I also congratulate my colleagues for putting this bill together. I hope that in the coming months and the coming years we can build on this bipartisanship and seriously take a look at America's labor laws, labor laws that were developed in the 1930s and the 1940s. And now, as we take a look at entering a new millennium, we recognize that the workplace has changed. We have moved into a global economy. The types of products and services that we are excelling in and producing in this country have evolved and changed. In the last 8, 9 months, we have gone around the country, we have had roundtables. We have had hearings. We are learning that for us to be globally competitive, we need to restructure and reevaluate the legal framework within which we compete. And as we change this framework and as we evolve it, it is going to create more opportunities for American workers. It is going to enable American workers to be more competitive, to be more productive. And when they are more productive, they can earn a higher standard of living. We want to eliminate bureaucracy. We want to eliminate rules and regulations, rules and regulations that do not fit the 1990s. One of the facilities that we had the opportunity to visit was an IBM facility in Atlanta. What we saw in Atlanta was a telemarketing center, actually a sales consultant center where people over the phone were selling multimillion dollar computer systems. Ten years ago these would have had to have been sold face to face. Now they can be sold over the telephone. The nature of the product has changed; the nature of the customer has changed. And the nature of the way that you service these clients has changed. This bill recognizes the changes that are taking place. It says that we can service these customers in a new and in a better way and in a more productive way. Again, I applaud my colleagues on this effort and urge my colleagues to support this bill tomorrow.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. For the last 18 months we have had the opportunity to go around America and we have had hearings in 17 States about what works and what does not work in education. We have also had an opportunity to take a look at education and what education means in Washington, and we have found that in Washington education means hundreds of programs, and we say ``Hallelujah, at least they're all in the Education Department,'' and it is kind of like, no, they are spread over 39 agencies, and we say, ``Well, at least they're effective and efficient which means that we're going to get those dollars down to kids,'' and it is like, no, that is not true either because for every time we take a dollar out of a local community and send it to Washington, we only get about 65 cents back to a child and back to a classroom. That is not very good, and that is not helping kids. Going around and spending time at local school districts, we find out what has worked. What works is when we leave control at the local level, when we leave the money at a local school district and do not take it to Washington and siphon off 30 to 40 cents, when we leave control at the local level, and we do not get people at the local level begging for money from Washington and getting the money back with a whole lot of rules and regulations. What works is when we focus on basic academics, and what works is when we empower parents. Now is not the time to come up with a whole new range of education programs in Washington that move control away from parents and away from the local level and move it to Washington. What is the mantra in Washington? Where have we gotten to today? Where we are moving to in Washington is we say, ``We want to build your schools, we want to put in your technology, we want to hire your teachers, we want to determine your class size, we want to teach your kids about sex, we want to teach your kids about drugs, we want to feed them breakfast, we want to feed them lunch, we want to feed them snacks, and other than that they are your local schools.'' Let us keep control with parents.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time. As the previous Member may have talked about, there is a direct correlation that when you send money to Washington, it does not make it back to the child and it does not make it back to the classroom. This current system gobbles up money and it hurts kids and it hurts our public schools and it hurts our children. We have taken a look at it: 760 programs, 39 agencies, $100 billion. It does not work. You send a dollar to Washington for education, maybe 60 to 70 cents actually makes it back to a child in a classroom. Yes, we do not support that kind of a system. We have gone to 17 States, we have taken a look at what works in education. We have gone to lots of great schools. When you empower parents, when you focus on basic academics, when you get dollars back into the classroom, it works. We are not in the process or the need to focus on a particular system. We need to start taking a look at the kids. We have been in Cleveland, we have been in Milwaukee, we have been in all the places where education is progressing and where change is taking place. And every place where education is improving, it is moving power to parents and it is moving it to the local level and not moving more of it back to Washington. This is not the answer to all of the problems we face in education, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. It is a step that we ought to take. And it is a step we ought to take here in Washington, D.C. because it is not an issue of money. We spend roughly $10,000 per child in Washington and we get some of the lowest results of any public school in the country. It is not fair to those kids. Another few million dollars to improve these schools is not going to make the difference. We need radical change. We need to help the 7,573 students who tried to apply to get these scholarships who are not going to have that opportunity.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I always get beat up at my town meetings between getting the deficit and the debt confused.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Is this the same Washington that is going to stop our kids from smoking but we are going to give them free needles? Somewhere in here there is a contradiction. We can stop our kids from smoking through Washington programs, but we cannot keep them off drugs so we are going to give them free needles.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. My colleague talks about moving in the right direction. When I first came here in 1993, the deficit as Washington counted it for 1998 was projected to be $300 billion per year. We are on the path now to have a $40 billion to $50 billion surplus. This is a switch of $350 billion to the positive.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would further yield, the debt is $5.6 trillion. And we spend $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank both of my colleagues for being here and also for the work that they have helped us accomplish in this Congress. We are talking about education. We are talking about the budget. We are talking about where we go with spending and tax cuts. And because of the work of Members like my colleague, we here now in Washington I think really are at a crossroads on a number of issues, on education, where we have got these series of hearings, we have gone to 17 different States, and we are at a crossroads I think in Washington about deciding how we deal with education in America. We know that, since 1979, with the Education Department, we have been bringing more power and more funding, more rules and regulations to Washington and saying we need to improve education in America, and the way to do that is to move more money and power to Washington and allow the Education Department to dictate to local schools and to local parents and local administrators how best to educate their kids. After 19 years of following down that path and seeing that our children's test scores are not up and seeing that Washington defines ``education'' as being 760 programs going through 39 different agencies, and there is 34 pounds of rules and regulations in the IRS code, I can tell my colleagues that when we took a look at all of the forms that schools have to fill out for these 760 different programs, we had about four or five stacks that were four or five feet high and it is like wow, and what that means is when we spend a dollar to Washington for education, only 65 cents gets back to the classroom. What we found in our 17 hearings around the country is what is the leverage points for improving education in the local school in Colorado, in New York, in Michigan. It is parents, it is local teachers, it is local administrators identifying the needs for their kids. So I think here in Washington now we are going to have some votes on this on the floor, we are going to have some votes in committee about we are at the crossroads. The President does not agree with the gentleman, because the President wants to spend more of the money that comes here. He is not in favor of tax cuts. He believes bureaucrats here ought to define what school districts get more money for school construction, which schools get money for technology, which schools get money for lowering class size. He wants that money to come here and not stay in the district. So we are going to have to make the decision. Are Washington bureaucrats going to make more of those decisions or are we going to take these programs, consolidate it, move it back to local teachers and administrators and parents and say, hey, here is a check, if you want to use this to reduce class size, use it to reduce class size? If you need technology, you decide where you are going to spend it. So I think we are at a crossroads. There is a group here in Washington that says we need to spend more and we need to tell people what to do, and there is a group that came out and said, we have gone around the country, we have gone to these places, the energy and innovation and the effectiveness, the good things that are happening in education in America today, and there are lots of them, it is happening because there are people at the local level who have a passion for helping their kids and they know what to do and we have got to unleash their potential and follow the roles of the States with charter schools, with innovation. That is the key crossroads in education. We are going to have the same types of questions on the budget. I know that we do not have a surplus as good as we would like to have and it is only a surplus in Washington terms, but it is a significant change. There are some that want to spend it. I think some of us want tax reduction and pay down the debt. That is another crossroads. Are we going to use it to grow government or are we going to use this to take the opportunity to rethink programs and move the power back to the American people?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for inviting me, and for letting an old-timer join them this evening. But having been here in 1993 when this President set his priorities, and then seeing his budget that he just submitted to the Committee on the Budget a couple of weeks ago, and having Alan Greenspan testify to the Committee on the Budget today, I cannot help but reinforce how positive is the direction that we are going in. Alan Greenspan came in and said that what we really need to do is we need to stick to the discretionary budget caps, because interest rates and the markets and the financial experts really are not taking us at our word. They are really not believing that we can actually hold tough on the discretionary spending. So he sent us a clear message today, saying hold tight on discretionary spending caps and we will continue to see the benefits in our economy, because what we will do is we will continue to see lower interest rates; holding spending, perhaps cutting taxes. But what is our President doing? His budget proposed increasing spending, so the 20.1 percent would go up; increasing taxes; and actually takes us back to a deficit. The President's budget proposal as scored by CBO says we will have a couple of years of surplus, low surplus, but by 2000, we are going to go back to deficit. If we did nothing, if we all went home for the next 5 years and did nothing, we would be better off than doing the President's budget, because he increases taxes, but it is back to the old policies that we saw before from this President: let us increase taxes, let us increase spending. We would be $43 billion better off in terms of reducing the deficit if we did nothing. This President wants to increase spending and increase taxes, and do it in such a way that government grows and the deficit comes back.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the gentleman from Colorado might be reluctant to yield to the gentleman from Michigan only because we have talked about the oasis in the west, but Michigan in many respects is the oasis of the Midwest. Under our governor, the State I believe since 1990 has had 24 tax cuts. We have moved from a point where our structural unemployment was higher than the national average for a number of years. It was structural. It was said that Michigan's unemployment rate cannot get below the national average. I think now for the last 2 or 3 years our unemployment rate has been below the national average. Surprisingly, but not really because we have implemented the same strategies, tax cuts, aggressive business promotion, Michigan last year led the Nation in terms of job creation. So, again, by returning power at the State level, we have returned it back to families, to businesses to grow jobs. That helps everybody. That benefits everybody. The governor across the lake from us in Wisconsin I believe announced that he was recently signing the last welfare checks because now in Wisconsin they are going to restore the dignity that anybody receiving State assistance is going to be receiving a paycheck. They are going to be working for their benefits. So the kinds of strategies that the gentleman was talking about in Colorado are taking place and being successful all around the country. Lowering taxes, cutting spending and returning power back to the local level.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I hear, listening to our colleague from Missouri. What we are finding is at the State level Governors are aggressively slaying the dragons of big State government, whether it is South Dakota, whether it is Colorado or Michigan. They are trimming back on bureaucracy. They are lowering taxes. They are doing all the things that the other side said you cannot do it. The people need this. Government has to deliver these services. And what we are seeing at the State level is kind of like, we can slay those dragons, and when we do, the average person benefits because they keep more of their own money. We create more jobs which increases wages, and we have to learn that same lesson here in Washington, that we can go out and slay those dragons. We can slay the Tax Code and develop a better Tax Code than what has developed over the last 30 years because of special interests. We can change the education bureaucracy here in Washington so that we are focusing on kids again. The education bureaucracy here in Washington focuses on special interests. It focuses on everything but kids learning. The study that came out last week, the Timms international study, devastating for America. I think in science and math we scored 19, 20 out of 21 countries. That is an improvement because in some of the other studies that have been done internationally, we scored about 38 or 39. These were high school seniors. The only reason we moved up is we are not compared to as many countries as we were in the other studies. But it is devastating that we are not turning out the kinds of kids out of our education system that we need to be turning out. We have gone around the country listening, and we will be in your State in a couple weeks. We have been, I think, in 14 different States. You have to focus on parents, local control, basic academics in the classroom and safe and drug-free schools. That is the message. What we have learned is Washington programs are focused on bureaucracy and paperwork. We have 760 programs and, you say, hallelujah, now I know why we have an Education Department to coordinate all these 760 programs. Wrong. They go through 39 different agencies. We have got to slay that dragon, get the education bureaucracy in Washington out of here and get it focused on kids, parents and local control, and helping those children learn, not bureaucracy, bureaucrats or paperwork in Washington.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for asking the question. Absolutely. Because if there is another agency in a department that needs to be sunsetted, not that we need to get rid of it but that we need to reevaluate its purpose, because we know we are not getting the kind of results that we want so we know we have to do something; then we have to go through and we ought to be evaluating those 760 programs. We know that out of those dollars, 30 to 35 cents never gets to the classroom, which is where the leverage point is. So then we should come back, and I have a list here of what does the Federal education program do or what does the President want it to do. The President wants the Federal education program to build our schools and hire our teachers. Are those Federal responsibilities? I do not know. We really should have a good debate about that. I am not sure. I do not think so. We want it to develop our curriculum, test our kids, feed them breakfast, feed them lunch, teach them about sex, teach them about drugs, do after-school programs. But other than that, it is our local schools. Now, are those, are all of those decisions best driven from Washington? This is where the education department has evolved from since 1979. And if we go back through the debate, in the debate in 1979, the people who participated in support of the education department said we do not want to move control from parents and the local and the State level to Washington. We just want to facilitate. Well, in reality if we take a look at where that bureaucracy has gone, it has moved well beyond its original mandate. It should have been sunsetted so we could have reevaluated the direction and the impact and the performance on an ongoing regular basis, rather than creating an agency where bureaucrats are just feeding themselves and getting bigger and bigger and bigger and losing focus of their real job.