Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The gentleman is absolutely right. Delaware, three years, they still haven't figured out exactly how they are going to use it and what they are going to do with the test results. This President, in six or eight months, wow, he develops a test, no parental involvement, no local involvement, has not gone to the Governor of our State of Michigan, hasn't gone to California and said what would you like in a national test? How will that integrate with what Michigan is doing in the area of testing? He has developed a national test, meaning he is going to drive national curriculum. And he now believes that a test that a few people here in Washington have developed over a short period of time is going to work in Florida, is going to work in Arizona, is going to work in Detroit, is going to work in L.A., is going to work in New York City, Cleveland, Louisville, all of these places we went to, and the one thing we found in all of these places, there are tremendous things going on in education, but the problems and opportunities in the educational focus that they need to have in their schools varies, in some cases ever so slightly, in other cases dramatically, because the circumstances are different. He is going to try to impose a one-size-fits-all test, and then he is going to come back and say, see, those kids in Cincinnati, those schools are not doing well because they did not do well on my test. Those teachers and those school administrators and those kids may be doing great, depending on where and what their environment is. But he wants one-size-fits-all, and it will not work.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, as my colleague from Arizona knows, we came to Arizona, you were there when we did a hearing. We have been to 13 other States with my subcommittee and we have talked about testing, we have talked about charter schools, we have talked about vouchers, we have talked about innovation and improvement in public schools. We have really taken a look at the full range of education reforms that are going around and taking place in the country today. It is amazing. Testing is one of those issues. Testing is a very complicated issue. We had a hearing in the State of Delaware where we talked about Delaware's experiment with testing. Delaware has done it right. Delaware did not go to Washington and say, hey, Washington, would you develop a test for us and we will implement it? Delaware started at the grassroots level. They got parents involved, they got teachers involved, they got administrators involved. Remember, Delaware is the size of what? One Congressional district. They have one very good Congressman. He was there at the hearing. They started at the grassroots level and talked about where are our kids, what do we want to test them on? After a three-year process they developed a test that they felt was appropriate. This President wants to develop a test in six months?

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I support him in his efforts to restore and to maintain the foghorns along the shores of Lake Michigan. In another effort of the Coast Guard that was discussed briefly in the debate, in general debate on this bill, I want to reinforce the decisions that the Coast Guard has made and also reiterate I think all of our concern both from Michigan, from Indiana and Illinois about ensuring that the Coast Guard and having confidence in the Coast Guard that the Coast Guard is putting in place a structure of services and capabilities and resources that is going to provide safety for the boating population and also for the commerce along Lake Michigan. In regards specifically to the location of a helicopter station in Muskegon, Michigan, they have gone through an elaborate process of identifying where the most effective operational location should be for that capability and also a community that could provide those services at the lowest possible cost. But I think we all as Congressmen that border on Lake Michigan are committed to ensuring that every section of that coastline and all the waters of Lake Michigan are adequately protected by the Coast Guard and that we will work together to make sure that there are ample resources to ensure that that moves forward in the future.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have been in Arizona, and we also went to Delaware, and the reason I bring up Delaware is, Delaware is the size of one of our congressional districts, all right? So, you know, Delaware said, we want a State test, and what Delaware did is, they spent 3 years starting at the grassroots level to develop a State test. Remember, one congressional district; Michigan has 16. It took them 3 years to develop a test, because they wanted to get parental by, and they wanted to get teacher by, and they want to get school administrator, business community. They wanted the State to accept the test. Bill Clinton wanted to take 10 months and, top down, drive a test and impose it on all of America, on every school, on every child, and have them test, the exact wrong. It is the ``Washington knows best'' mentality rather than doing a grass, which is going on in the States right now; States are developing tests, and it is a grassroots, bottom-up type of move, not good enough for our President. Bill Clinton wants to be the expert, says, I am going to develop a test, I am going to impose it on everybody.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is pretty exciting we have made some progress on the education issue again, but it is interesting to watch the debate. In the Senate a couple of weeks ago, they passed a motion that said, they passed an amendment that said we are moving decisionmaking back.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I believe that if the Teamsters election had only been an U.S. election, the result would have been different. But because the American taxpayer picked up the tab for the Canadian election, the result was different, and that is what pushed Mr. Carey over the top. And just a quick correction, before we get inundated with faxes, a correction, Canada is not overseas.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. The problem gets to be, and we have had hearings around the country in my subcommittee. I chair an oversight subcommittee, and we have been taking a look at education.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is correct.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate some of this tongue-in-cheek tonight, but I think we also recognize that this is very serious business, and recently we have encountered another whole aspect of what may be corruption in the administration. We know that there is corruption. What I am talking about is an action that the House took here last week, on Friday, and we also took a similar action the week before, and it deals with the Teamsters Union, where in 1996 the Teamsters had another election for a Teamsters president. The election cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. And it is kind of like, well, I really hope that when the Teamsters run an election and they spend $20 million, that the Teamster members are entitled to a fair and honest election, and there are Federal laws in place to make sure that that happens. But there is one slight difference with the Teamsters election in 1996, in that the Teamsters did not pay for the election in 1996. They did not pay for their own election. They did not pay for the printing of the ballots, they did not pay for the counting of the ballots, they did not pay for the facilities that were rented, they did not pay for the campaigns; none of these things. The sad thing was, in 1996, and over a period of about 2\1/2\, 3 years, the American taxpayers spent about $20 million, the American taxpayers spent $20 million to pay for a Teamsters election. The Teamsters election was completed in December 1996, the ballots were completed, counted early in 1997, and on August 22 the election officer who oversaw the election process overthrew the election. She looked at the election, looked at the charges that were made, and said this was a fraudulent election and we are going to throw it out; meaning we have to do it over again.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. No, we do not think so. It was a consent decree in 1989, where the Justice Department reached an agreement on a series of steps and activities to root out corruption out of the Teamsters and required a democratic election for the president of the Teamsters in 1991 and another election in 1996, and it was optional for the Justice Department or the executive branch to decide who was going to pay for the election in 1996. In 1991, the Teamsters did exactly the right thing, they said this is an internal operation. We would like Government Oversight to make sure that Federal laws are adhered to and those types of things. The Teamsters paid for their own election in 1997. It was a good, fair, clean election. The people that we have interviewed and told us about that said it was a good election, 1996. Somewhere around 1993, 1994, we do not know exactly who or where, but somebody said do not worry about that $20 million, Teamsters. The Federal Government is going to pick up that tab. We will pay for it, and who knows what you are going to do with that other $20 million, but the Federal Government will pay for the election. We run the election, and 9 months later we throw it out.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is absolutely correct. What has happened, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for clarifying this. I was right, the Federal Government paid for it. You were more correct because, you know, when we in Washington spend $20 million, it is not our money, it is taxpayer dollars. It was about $50 a vote for every vote cast is what the American taxpayers paid for the Teamsters election. Now, the interesting thing is how did the election officer determine to make this serious, you know, change in policy that said, I have reviewed the election, and there is such corruption in this election I am going to throw it out. And what she found in this process was that there was money laundering. There was money laundering to vendors who would bill the Teamsters for certain activity, never complete the activities, but get paid for it and funnel money back into the campaign of Mr. Carey. There were political action committees, organizations, whose primary intent and focus is to drive the agenda here in this House and drive the agenda here in Washington, who all of a sudden started getting extraordinarily large amounts of dollars from the Teamsters. This is now the union money, funds coming to the union headquarters in Washington and being sent somewhere with the understanding that if we send you some money, oh, look, they gave me some money.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is because the union dues could not be used directly for the election of Mr. Carey. So they were laundered through campaign organizations with a quid pro quo, you do this for me and I will do this for you. The end result is what do we have? We have $20 million of taxpayer money that is right down the drain. We know that when the Teamsters ran their own election, they ran a clean election. When the Federal Government and this administration got involved in the process, we spent $20 million of taxpayers' money and all we got was an illegal election. So we know that the Teamsters election was full of illegalities. That is why it was overthrown. We know that there were lots of dollars that were funneled out into congressional campaigns, meaning that I believe that there were many congressional campaigns that we can accurately describe as being tainted elections because the dollars got into those elections in an illegal way. So we have got tainted Teamsters elections. We have got tainted congressional elections. And we have $20 million of taxpayers' money right down the shooter. I just want to add one thing, what we did last week, in a very surprising vote, is Congress finally stood up twice in the last 10 days and said, we are not going to pay for the rerunning of the Teamsters election. We are going to follow the current law. We can run a Teamsters election fairly. We know that we did that in 1991. We do not need any change of the law to have Teamsters get a fair election. All we need to do is follow the existing law. In the last 10 days, this Congress and the other body on one occasion have said, we are not going to pay for any more internal operations of the Teamsters. But increasingly, in both cases, we had almost 190 Members of this House say, oh, yeah, we will let the taxpayers pay for the rerun of this election. We have the Justice Department and Labor Department right now figuring out ways to get some money, the money we did not spend in 1996. We are collecting some fines and penalties. Why are we collecting fines and penalties? These are not wild allegations. There are three people that have already pled guilty and have been fined and the Justice Department saying, wow, here is some more money coming in, these people who will pay for the rerunning of the election. This House stood up and said, no more. We will supervise the election. It is our job to make sure that the Federal laws are enforced. That is our responsibility. That is the people's responsibility. But it is not the people's responsibility to pay for the printing and counting of ballots and to run the internal operations of the union. This is an interesting situation. We are going to be taking, I think both of our committees are going to be taking an additional look at this because of the involvement of taxpayers' dollars, the overthrowing of the election, and how it may have gone into other parties of the campaign process in 1996.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. We are saying that, as a result of the American taxpayer picking up the tab for the 1996 election, the American taxpayer spent $20 million that the Teamsters organization did not have to spend itself. I do not know what they did with that money, where that money went. But I think it is a question that is worth asking. Just as a side note to this, not only did the American taxpayer pay for the Teamsters election in the U.S., now think about this, the American taxpayer paid for the printing of ballots, paid for the counting of ballots in Canada. We paid to run the private internal organization of the Teamsters not only in the U.S., but also in Canada. Unbelievable.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is not, this amendment does not remove the Federal Government from its proper role of oversight for the activities of private organizations. What this amendment does is it says we will not pay for the transactions that a private organization has to incur on a day-to-day business to fulfill its proper role to run its business. This is corporate welfare, corporate welfare at its worst, because when the Federal Government in 1996 did reach out and say, ``We are going to help you and we're going to pay for your day-to-day operations,'' people within the Teamsters said, ``Thank you very much,'' and they took this $20 million and they used it for illegal purposes, not to build their union, not to strengthen their organization, but to begin to destroy it and destroy the confidence at all levels and destroy the public perception of this organization. Mr. Chairman, this organization has the funds to run its day-to-day operations. The taxpayers should not once again be asked to foot the bill and to run the day-to-day operations. The Federal Government, the Labor Department and the Justice Department have a role and have a responsibility to monitor and supervise those elections, not to pay for the counting of the ballots and the printing of the ballots.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it accomplishes an objective that we outlined last week on an earlier appropriations bill. What it does is it prohibits the spending of any additional dollars on the actual paying for the administration of a rerun election by the Teamsters Union. As my colleagues are aware, the Federal Government spent roughly $20 million in 1995 through 1997 to pay for a Teamsters' election. The efforts of these taxpayer dollars were subverted by individuals within the Teamsters, resulting in the election being thrown out because of illegalities and corruption in that election. This paid, these dollars paid for the actual printing of ballots, the counting of ballots, the payment of phones, the internal operations of a private organization. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to incur these costs. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to oversee and ensure that no Federal election laws are violated, that there are no violations. This amendment says we will supervise but we will not pay for the day-to-day operations of a private organization. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my colleague from Maryland, and we will take a look at that. I think we both understand and appreciate that there is a problem out there with the Federal bureaucracy and the Federal paperwork. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Chairman, today, I want to talk about what the Hoekstra block grant amendment would do. What we are focusing on here is moving the emphasis on where decisionmaking is in education from Washington to our children. This is a step toward moving decisionmaking back to parents and moving dollars to the classroom. This is about providing flexibility at the State level. The status quo today in Washington is 760 programs, 100 billion dollars' worth of spending. What we are proposing to do is to take 28 programs and about $2.7 billion of spending and put it into a single block grant, or move it into chapter II of funding, so we give maximum flexibility to the States to do what they believe is most appropriate for the students, the children, and the parents in their State. Over the past year, year and a half, we have gone around the country taking a look at what works and what is wasted in education. What we are finding is very exciting. What is working in education is the reform and innovation that is going on at the State level. Whether we are in Cleveland, whether we are in New York City, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Louisville, there are exciting things going on in education. Education is actually turning around, and we are getting the kinds of results we would like to have. As we talk to parents, as we talk to children, as we talk to educators and administrators, the message is very clear: They are turning around their educational system and getting positive results because of the impact and the decisions they are making at the local level, not because of what we are doing in Washington. As a matter of fact, too often we find that Washington is a hindrance in driving the kind of reform and change we need at the local level. States will tell us, we get 6 percent of our money from Washington, we get 50 percent of our paperwork. We get all kinds of mandates that inhibit the kind of change that we would like to be making. We cannot defend that type of status quo, where Washington is standing in the way of reform at the State and local level for a resource as precious as our children. What we see today is, in this area, we see 28 different programs where the directions and decisions about how those dollars are spent and what happens in the classroom are made by people here in Washington; where the local level has to look not to parents for what they want to do, but they have to look to bureaucrats and rules and regulations in Washington. Here is just one example. These are the forms, not the completed forms, the forms, rules, and regulations that the State of Michigan has to fill out to get their money from Washington. This is what the State fills out, and this is duplicated thousands of times as we go around the State, as we go to individual schools and educational districts. That is not value-added. We had testimony here in Washington where one of the administrators from a school district in Pennsylvania said, you know, 25 percent of the money that I get from Washington never gets to the classroom, never gets to the kids. I need to spend 25 percent of the Washington money just to fill out the Washington paperwork. That is not value-added. We need not a Washington-based program that delivers us these kinds of programs and this kind of complexity. We need to move to an approach that does not focus on bureaucracy and goes through thousands of bureaucrats to get to a student. We need the focus to be on the student, on the child, where teachers can look at the child, not at the bureaucrats; where parents can focus on the children, and not the bureaucrats, so that we really are driving the dollars to the classroom where we have the leverage. It is time to take another look at education. It is time to have true reform and move decisionmaking back to the local level, back to the parents, and away from bureaucrats in Washington. The exciting thing, as I said, is the change and improvements we are seeing in education at the local level: Real progress, real innovation, and real movement away from what one of our administrators described as the three B's, when she dealt with Washington and her local bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, the administrator said, Miss Yvonne Chan said, ``When I focused, and before I started running the charter school, I focused on the three B's.'' We said, ``What are the 3 B's?'' She said, ``I had to focus on bussing, on budget and the buts. And the `but' was, every time I had a good idea, I got the answer back from the local administrators or from Federal rules and regulations that said, `That is a great idea, but you cannot do that. If we let you do that, but then we would have to let everybody else do it.' '' She said, ``I had great ideas on how I could help my kids in my school but the rules and the regulations got in the way.'' She has now been freed up from many of the State's regulations. What we now want to do is free her up from the Federal regulations. This is the beginning of the debate. Later on I will ask permission to withdraw this amendment, because this will continue and this is going to be a process. But this process and this dialog has to take place and it has to take place on this amendment, because what is happening is there is a different way to help our kids than the model that is currently in place.