Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 275 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in short, my amendment that I bring forward is an amendment to make special education a priority by increasing the funding for IDEA by $300 million and by reducing the 21st Century Learning Centers by the same amount, an appropriation which is $600 million at this time. My reason for offering this amendment really comes down to the promise made to special education students and their parents and teachers by the Federal government. When Congress passed the IDEA law in 1975, we did so with the stipulation that the Federal government would fund 40 percent of special education and the State governments would fund 60 percent of special education. Sadly, that is not the case today. This new law from 1975 on amounts to an unfunded mandate being placed upon our local school districts. It is a law where every single dollar in local school districts being chased to fund this unfunded mandate comes at the expense of every other local resource decision allocation made in our local school districts. This funding formula right now stands at 12.6 percent, meaning the Federal government is funding 12.6 percent of IDEA, where it promised in 1975 to fund 40 percent. It is a huge funding shortfall, which is a large unfunded mandate being placed on our local schools. Last month the House passed legislation authorizing the IDEA Grants to States program, which is where the bulk of the IDEA funding comes from. It is $7 billion. Many voted in favor of this legislation. However, the underlying appropriations bill being debated here provides $5.49 billion for IDEA. As I mentioned earlier, the increase for special education will be offset by a $300 million decrease in 21st Century Learning Centers. This is a program that was created by a Wisconsonite, Steve Gunderson, in 1994. The purpose of this program at that time was to allow local communities in rural areas like western Wisconsin to have the chance of using the facilities, the libraries, the computer systems in high schools and other areas where those kinds of facilities do not exist. Well, this program has gone well beyond its original intent to the point where, Mr. Gunderson has said, if we examine both the Department's publicity for this program and its allocations of funds, we discover little of the legislative intent. This program has grown in function and in funding beyond the scope of why it was created in the first place. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this program has grown 800 times in 5 years, from $750,000 to $600 million in this budget year's budget, an 80,000 percent increase in just 5 years. Yet, this program is unauthorized. This program has had no IG reports, no GAO reports, no reports discovering whether or not this program is using its money wisely. There is another very important point which the authorizers have pointed out. That is that it vastly mirrors and duplicates other existing programs in the Federal government; namely, the Safe and Drug- Free Schools Act. That bill that has been passed through the authorizing committee, H.R. 4141, would add these two programs together, would put 21st Century Learning Centers in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. Even with this amendment passing, it would provide a 50 percent increase in Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act with the authorizing language. My point is this, Mr. Chairman. Almost every Member of Congress, on a vote of 413 to 2, voted for House Concurrent Resolution 84 earlier this year, stipulating that the highest priority of Federal spending in education would be IDEA, would be special education. All this amendment does is seek to go down the road of trying to cover that unfunded mandate Washington is placing on our local schools. It says to other Members, ``Be consistent. If you voted for House Concurrent Resolution 84, as 413 Members did, then be consistent and vote for this amendment putting $300 million into IDEA and leaving the growth of the 21st Century Learning Centers to be a 50 percent growth for fiscal year 1999.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A few brief points. This program goes vastly beyond its original intent, even stated by the author of the program. Two, even with this amendment, after-school programs will be vastly increased. Even with this amendment, in fiscal year 1999 there is a $100 million increase. Number three, it really comes down to an issue of local control. If we vote to fully fund IDEA and get as close to that goal as possible, we are voting for any program that helps local school districts, because we are voting to put those dollars in the hands of local education decision-makers. It is a vote for after-school programs. It is a vote for local control.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a cosponsor of this amendment. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has interpreted my amendment precisely correct. I have had the opportunity as a freshman Member to have many, many, many meetings with school board members, superintendents, teachers, administrators, all the different school districts in the district I represent. I have an educational advisory board with these types of people on there, including parents and home schoolers, to talk about these issues. I get the same thing over and over, let us do our job. Just in the district I represent, they have vastly different needs, vastly different problems. In one end, in Kenosha, you have different problems; in the other end, in Janesville you have far different problems, let alone the problems that may exist in Harlem or East L.A. or Sante Fe, New Mexico. The point is we have a very vast and different country. We have a priority of educating our children, but the problems we are experiencing in our school districts are so different. There are so many different ideas out there, so many different solutions out there. By funding IDEA, you free up that decision-making power. So when I bring an amendment to the floor, which I am hoping the Committee on Rules will allow me to do, by funding IDEA or getting closer to meeting that mandate, you are not just voting against one program to put money into another, you are voting for all those programs out there that could be created, if school districts did not have to chase these unfunded mandates. You are voting for freeing up the hands of parents, teachers, and administrators to get involved in their school districts, to tackle problems, to address the needs that we have in our individual school districts. As a Member of Congress, when you vote to fund IDEA, to free up those local resources, reduce property taxes, find the problems and address them. My school districts that I represent right now cannot do that. They do not have the resources to do the things they think are necessary. And you know why? It is because they are chasing unfunded Federal mandates. That is really the crux of the matter. I noticed that all of these new programs that are coming up here in Washington through the administration and the Department of Education look pretty good to a politician in Washington. You do not get a lot of political kudos when you simply say let us put more money on unfunded Federal mandates that has been around since 1975. You get more press, you get more notoriety, you sound more proeducation, when you stand up here and have a press conference saying I have this brand new program or this new program or this new program. But what actually ends up happening is each of these new programs takes on a life of their own. They put new mandates on our local school districts; they tell the administrators how to dot every I, how to cross every T. It is a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all mandate on all of our schools, regardless of the uniqueness, regardless of the individual problems they may have; and it comes at the expense of funding a mandate that the Supreme Court said we have to fund, that current law says we have to fund, a mandate that we should fund. That is why I think it is important that as we look at our spending priorities in any budget in Congress, you prioritize; and that is why I am trying to pass an amendment to prioritize this unfunded mandate before going down the road of creating new programs or expedientially increasing new programs that are actually duplicative of other programs. If we fund unfunded mandates like IDEA, you can have a safe drug-free program in every district if you wanted. You could have 21st century learning centers in every school district if you want it. But guess what, the decision would not be made by politicians in Washington who can take credit for it. It would be made by local decision-makers, school board members, administrators, parents, teachers. That is what the whole debate is about, whether we want Washington to micromanage education or we want our local people, those who know our kids the best, the names of our schools, to manage education. That is what it is really all about. I just want to say it is a pleasure to be here on the floor of Congress with two of the leaders in education reform, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). They have really set the trend, set the way for education reform in America. They have wakened up the call for reform for education in America, and they have really done this country a great service by highlighting some of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is occurring at our Department of Education. I just really applaud the gentlemen for that.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I see we have been joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), another education reformer. And I would like to include the gentleman from Michigan in the conversation, but I would like to inform my colleagues of an amendment that I have pending in the Committee on Rules right now that recognizes the fact that Washington has been creating new programs, growing new programs, putting new strings on these programs, and diminishing the commitment to IDEA. I have an amendment which seeks to try and put some more money within the existing appropriations bill into Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to try and help toward funding that unfunded mandate. What I found is if one looks at the 21st Century Learning Centers, it is a new program that started in 1995. In tracking this program, it was a program conceived of, authored by, and passed by a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin where I come from, Steve Gunderson, who is no longer serving in Congress. He passed that program at that time to do this, to open up schools, specifically high schools, to rural areas who do not have those kinds of facilities from other means. Meaning if one is in rural western Wisconsin, one does not have a YMCA, one does not have a library or village hall, allow the community as a large to use the swimming pool of a high school, the library of a high school, the computer lab of a high school after schools, during summers. That program was funded with $750,000 to basically keep the schools open for these purposes. Guess what that is funded at now in this bill, $600 million. We have seen an 800 percent increase in the funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers. The other point is this, Congressman Gunderson, who actually offered this, came to the committee fairly recently and said, This program does not look anything like the program I wrote when I passed it into law. This program has gone well beyond its scope and intent. This program has nothing to do with its original intent. It is overfunded. Its mandate is much, much larger. Now it is duplicating other Federal programs we have in the Federal Government from the Department of Education. So we have another duplicative program from the Department of Education. It has gone beyond its original mandate. It has grown 800 percent in the last 6 years when we are still sending this unfunded mandate on our local school districts, and we still have kids with disabilities who are being educated, and one is almost pitting those kinds of kids against all other kids in schools when Washington continues to send this unfunded mandate to our school districts. What my amendment would do is take half of the money from this new growing program that duplicates other programs and put it into Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and simply say that, if we are going to be increasing programs from the Department of Education which already duplicates other programs by 800 percent, why do not we first take care of the unfunded mandates we have right now. Why do we not first pay our bills and tell our local school districts, we want you to at indicate the resources. We want you to make the decisions in our schools, in our classrooms, in our school districts. That is why I am hoping that this amendment will be made in order by the Committee on Rules so we can have a demonstration of our commitment on the floor of Congress for trying to get to this unfunded mandate, for saying no to growing new programs, duplicative programs by the tune of 800 percent, and getting to this unfunded mandate.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. What we have been seeing with this administration, and the gentleman should correct me if I am wrong, is the fact that they have lessened our commitment. They have gone away from funding the unfunded mandate we are imposing on local schools, to funding more Federal education programs that have even more strings attached to them, which tie the hands of local education decision- makers, and give us even more unfunded mandates in our schools?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman would yield, so when the gentleman is saying that the President, the Clinton administration dropped the commitment to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, did general Federal education spending drop at the same time?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for his leadership on education in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He is one of the bright, shining stars in Congress on pushing for education reform. I just wanted to come down and join him in this discussion about education. Specifically, about the kinds of unfunded Federal mandates that we are imposing on our local school districts. This week, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be considering the Labor-HHS- Education bill. That is the bill that funds all the Federal Government education programs. Well, what I find is unique and interesting is that for the last 30 years we have been doing this, and then some, is that in 1975 Congress passed a law, a good law, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Everybody calls this IDEA. Well, what that law basically did was to say that all children with disabilities should receive a quality education. That is a very prudent measure, and a law that I think the gentleman from Colorado and I both support. But what they did in that law was say that the Federal Government would fund 40 percent of IDEA spending in our local schools and that the State government would then fund the remaining 60 percent. So a local school district would not have to pay for the educational mandate being imposed on local school districts. Mr. Speaker, that was 1975. That just is not the case today. Today, in the First District of Wisconsin, Janesville, Beloit, Racine, Kenosha, they are getting about 7 percent of the funding for IDEA. Now, nationwide, the average is about 12 percent, because this Congress and a couple before have doubled the commitment to IDEA under the new majority in Congress. But that is just not enough. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a quick illustration of what this unfunded mandate does to our local schools. Many of us, and I know the gentleman from Colorado is a leader in this, are advocates for local control. I, and many others, believe that the educational decisions should best be left to those who know our children the best: teachers, parents, administrators. As a former Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett, once said: ``Education is the moral obligation and responsibility of the parent, the ethical responsibility of the teacher, and the constitutional responsibility of the State.'' But an education with respect to IDEA, it specifically is a Federal mandate that forces our local schools to pay for this. But when the local school districts come in and have to pay for this, where is Washington? In my case, where is Madison, the State government? They are nowhere to be found. Local school districts are being stuck with the bill. What this means is that local control is atrophying. Local control is being sucked out of our schools because our local school boards or property taxes are being driven toward chasing unfunded mandates from Washington. In a State like Wisconsin where we have a revenue cap on education spending and our education budget, it is even felt more. So when we have a revenue cap on what we can spend on education, on how high property taxes can go, and then Washington comes along, as it is doing, and imposes this mandate, a very costly one, a prudent one, but a very costly one, and does not live up to its end of the bargain, what we do is take every dollar out of those local education needs and put it towards chasing an unfunded Federal mandate. So every time Madison and Washington impose this mandate on our schools on a year-to-year basis, every time a school board in Janesville, Wisconsin, wants to come up with a new innovative program, a new innovative idea to treat the unique needs and problems of our schools in Janesville or Beloit or Kenosha or Colorado, every dollar we send is a dollar taken out of local control, a dollar taken out of that local resource decision-making. By imposing these unfunded mandates, as we are doing in IDEA, on our local school districts, we are taking money away from local decision- making.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4241) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville, Wisconsin, as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building''.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to briefly reiterate, Madam Speaker, Les Aspin served the First Congressional District for 22 years; served as Secretary of Defense, was a scholar, was a professor and academic. He was known as a good statesman, as an honest man. Whether we agreed or disagreed on a given issue with Les Aspin, we always knew that he thought issues through, and that he was going to give good service to the First Congressional District of Wisconsin. He was a gifted statesman. His memory will live on for quite a while. We thought it would be especially fitting that the Janesville, Wisconsin, Post Office be renamed after Les Aspin, given the fact that his own office was housed in the old Janesville Post Office for a good 20 years. I might add, Madam Speaker, that the Janesville City Council has passed a resolution affirming the designation of this Post Office. Madam Speaker, I ask passage of this measure.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Former Congressman Les Aspin faithfully served the people of Wisconsin's First Congressional District for over 20 years as their elected representative. During his time in Congress, he was a credit to this institution we now serve in. A former U.S. Army captain, Aspin served as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services from 1985 to 1993. When the President called on him, Aspin continued his hard work to improve our Nation's security by serving as the U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1993 to 1994. This dedicated public servant passed away, unfortunately, on May 21, 1995 at the age of 56. Wisconsinites are very proud of Congressman Aspin and all that he has done for Wisconsin's First District and the Nation. I believe that it would be appropriate to honor the late Congressman Aspin by naming the U.S. Post Office in Janesville, Wisconsin, my own hometown, as the Les Aspin Post Office Building. Aspin's former Janesville office had been housed in the old Janesville Post Office downtown, which is now the Keeley Pharmacy, for over 2 decades. As the Congressman who currently serves the First Congressional District, and as a member of the opposite party that Congressman Aspin served from, I believe that this still would be a fitting tribute to Congressman Aspin, especially since this marks the 30th anniversary to the year he was first elected to this congressional seat. Les Aspin embodied honest public service and his example continues to inspire Members of Congress today. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for their cooperation and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I would urge my colleagues to honor a great American statesman who gave much to this institution and to support H.R. 4241. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to those two concerns by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who voted for this lockbox amendment in prior Congresses. We have changed it a little bit since the last time the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) voted for it. Number one, the conference report must pass for the savings to be realized. We lower the 302(a) after the conference report with the House and the Senate passes. Number two, it is a 1 year time savings. It happens in the first year. It does not change the 5-year budget resolution window. So I think those are very good points the gentleman has raised. We have taken care of those concerns in this amendment. The gentleman voted for it once before, and I hope he will do so again. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, I would like to actually quote Mr. Leon Panetta. Leon Panetta was the former chairman of the House Committee on the Budget when the Democrats controlled the House. He was the former Budget Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton. Recently at a budget symposium, Mr. Panetta said, ``We should set aside a specific amount of the projected budget surplus for either use on entitlement programs or tax cuts, and Members can then fight on how that should be done. But to establish a pay-go account for that purpose and if that pay-go account is exceeded, you then have to pay for any additional spending above that limit.'' Mr. Chairman, this is precisely what my amendment does. It is an amendment that has been endorsed effectively by Mr. Panetta, the former chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, the former chairman of the Office of Management and Budget. To respond to the gentleman from Texas, who is a thoughtful gentleman on these issues, I say that we are always passing tax relief packages here in the House. The only difference that this amendment presents is that if constituents, taxpayers continue to overpay their tax, that should be factored into it. We should not spend the money on discretionary spending if it shows up in town, if we have brand new surpluses. That money should instead go toward tax reduction or entitlement reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I see that the committee's report that accompanies this bill encourages the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations to ensure that up to date building control technologies are used in the Pentagon as that building is renovated. As the chairman of the subcommittee that funds DOD's capital construction budget, he understands that installing inadequate building control systems can increase the operations costs in future years. I commend the chairman for this wisdom. However, the report suggests that the funding for this effort be taken from unobligated balances in the Energy Conservation Investment Program. The report further states that the Energy Conservation Investment Program has unobligated balances that total $39 million. I have received information that the unobligated balances in that account may be much smaller. If that is the case, the funds for the Pentagon building controls may not be available. I believe such a result is unintended. So I hope the Committee will look into this matter.