Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, this bill, H.R. 1402, is an attempt to force this Congress to continue to operate an antiquated system of price-fixing that violates the free market principle. What we are talking about today, and the legislation we are bringing to the floor tomorrow, should this rule pass, is basically this. In 1937 we started with a milk pricing system that said, the farther away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, you live, the higher you get a price for milk. We have this in law today. In 1937, we did not have an interstate highway system. We did not have refrigerated trucks or railcars to ship milk around. Wisconsin was the only surplus-producing milk State at that time. That was 1937. This is 1999. We have interstates, we have very good highways, we have refrigerated milk trucks. Yet, we have an antiquated, socialistic style milk-pricing system that says if you live farther away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, you are going to get more for your production of milk. This is a system that is anti-free market, it is anti-free market principles that we all espouse to support, but more importantly, it comes right at the bottom line of upper Midwest dairy farmers. This is a system, should this rule pass and should this bill pass, that will stop the USDA from implementing very modest reforms that they are proposing to implement 9 days from now. So let us make this very clear. What we are about to do here is pass the bill, if this passes, that blocks the USDA from putting together modest reforms on behalf of all Nation farmers, all of our farmers so that they can go back to farming regardless of where they live in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage on H.R. 1402.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

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

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I too am a member of the Subcommittee on the Census. I serve with the gentleman from Florida and with the gentlewoman from New York. I believe that this census is a very important census. This committee has done very good work to put this census together. However, this is not an emergency. There are portions of this census, the $1.7 billion part of this census, that is arguably an emergency because of the court rules. However, I think that we could also make the argument that the Census Bureau dragged their feet and could have prepared for that. But we are not even going to argue the point. This amendment sets aside the $1.7 billion in unforeseen census expenditures. However, the other part to the census is $2.9 billion. We knew this was coming. We have known about this since 1790. When the Budget Act was passed in 1997, Members of Congress who were negotiating that deal knew it was on the horizon and intentionally did not include this in the budget because they thought they would kick it out to today, to this year. Well, my colleagues, we knew that this was coming. We knew that the census would have to be paid for. I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We need to pay for this honestly. Just remember, if we do more emergency spending designations than the new on-budget surplus allows for, we are going into the Social Security surplus; we are going into the Social Security Trust Fund. My colleagues, we are getting very close to that moment. All of us voted for one budget resolution or another which stopped the raid on Social Security. We have to stay out of the Social Security Trust Fund in an honest way. We can make the argument that $1.7 billion was unforeseen emergency census spending, but not all of this money. $2.9 billion of this census is stuff that we knew was coming. We should have prepared for this. It is not a new emergency. We should pay for this. I like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for a wonderful bill. All things considered, there are things in this bill that I think are far better than previous bills that were brought to this Congress under appropriations bills. But this is not an emergency. This is something that we should be honest with the American people about. We should cut other spending to pay for this census.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Construction Contractors Payment Protection Act of 1999, H.R. 1219. This legislation has been carefully crafted to balance the rights and interests of the parties on projects covered by the Miller Act. The Miller Act requires a performance bond to protect the government for completion of the project and payment bonds to protect certain persons providing labor and materials since these persons are not afforded the protection of mechanics liens on federal projects. Legislation previously proposed did not adequately balance these considerations. I am pleased that twenty-three construction industry groups including the Associated General Contractors of America, the Surety Association of America, American Insurance Association and National Association of Surety Bond Producers were able to agree upon provisions enhancing the current Miller Act. Bonding is a very important benchmark in the construction industry. This bill preserves that benchmark. Bond capacity represents a company's financial and capacity to complete a project. Bonded contractors expose their companies to rigorous financial and operational evaluation and their officers often pledge corporate and personal financial assets as collateral to the bond. The Miller Act was designed to protect subcontractors and the government to ensure the timely completion of a construction project. Government contractors have proven to be very reliable. Hundreds of thousands of contracts are entered into annually. The government purchases billions of dollars of construction services. I commend the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Davis and the gentlelady from New York, Representative Maloney, and the Chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Horn for their extraordinary efforts to reach a consensus agreement by so many in the construction industry.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just talk about some of the issues. We can budget in our offices our COLA increases for our employees. It is up to us as managers of our office accounts to budget appropriately and to budget COLA increases, cost of living increases, for our employees. But I would like to go back and talk about what the gentleman from Oklahoma said. The seniors in my district are not getting 5 percent increases in social security payments this year. The seniors in my district are getting less than 2 percent increases in social security, COLA increases. I think it is time for Congress to lead by example. I think it is important that when we have made such a historic move this year to wall off social security, and let me just rephrase this, this year for the first time in a generation, for over 30 years, Congress passed a budget that stopped raiding social security. This is the first Congress that has done this in so long, we should lead by example. Because we chose to stop the raid on the social security trust fund, that drives many other budget decisions around here. It makes spending less in other areas, because for once in a generation, we are not going to raid the social security trust fund. That is why all we are saying, take the House number, which is lower than the Senate number in a legislative branch appropriations bill, a 2.4 percent increase, not a 5 percent increase. It is very important that we lead by example and we free up the fiscal space to pass our appropriation bills on budget and away from the raiding of social security, as we are doing.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring some truth back into this whole debate about our government surpluses. Here is what the Republican Congress has proposed: $2 trillion toward reducing the national debt, far more than the President and the Democratic party has proposed; stopping the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund; putting $200 billion into shoring up Medicare; and if after those goals are achieved, our constituents continue to pay their taxes, give hard- working American working families tax relief. The Democrats' and the President's plan? Raid Social Security by the tune of $341 billion, increase the national debt, do not put as much down to the national debt as we do, and keep all of the extra money in Washington. If Americans overpay their taxes, the President, and the Democrats want to spend the money. The difference is not tax cuts or debt reduction; the difference is tax cuts or new spending on new Washington programs. The President put it best when he said in Buffalo, New York to a packed crowded of 35,000 people: ``We could give you your money back, but we wouldn't be sure that you would spend it right.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the difference. It is a difference in philosophy. We think people should get more of their own money after we start paying down debt, after we stop the raid on Social Security.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, rather than go into anecdotes, go into facts and talk about some of the arrangements that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been talking about. First, I would like to talk about the score of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that this would cost less than $500,000 per year for this score of the bill. That is after they read the legislation, and I will get to that in 1 second. But to put this in perspective, Federal agencies will spend an estimated $17.9 billion per year to write and enforce regulations in fiscal year 1999. That is one-tenth of 1 percent of total spending on Federal regulatory programs. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the CBO's estimate is off by a factor of 10, H.R. 1074 would still cost less than 1 percent of total agency spending on regulations. It will not strain agencies' budgets. But going on to the point that this would cause a cost-benefit analysis on rule by rule by rule, the bill specifically states that OMB is given the discretion to bundle rules into aggregate components, to take a look at component rule categories. So this will not make OMB go down the road of doing 5,000 separate rule by rule by rule cost-benefit analyses. This bill gives OMB the discretion to bundle rules in the aggregate by section, by related categories, and then conduct the aggregate cost-benefit analyses.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think what we have here is the basis for a working relationship for another vehicle to do some hearings in our committee to work on this issue together. But at this time, with an amendment that is written in a very sketchy way that has so many open-ended definitions that does cap the ability of OMB to do this where this corporate welfare analysis is not scored by CBO, so we just do not have enough knowledge to know whether this falls within the cap or outside the cap. I think it is unworkable at this time. I would like to add that this amendment is key voted as a ``no'' vote by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. I think though, however, we have something we can work with. Hopefully, we can work together after passage of the final passage. I hope we defeat this amendment. But I would like to urge my colleagues that maybe we could get a relationship and work together on this in the committee. We have to tighten up the definition and do something that is good for our country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) what is the definition of ``incorporated entity'' and has he taken into consideration that incorporated entities could very well mean a dentist's office, a doctor's office, a municipality, a law firm, something like that?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman were to remove the cap altogether, I personally would not have a problem. I would have to refer to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee. But if the million-dollar cap were removed, I think that would go quite a ways farther in ensuring something like this. But I do think the definition ``incorporated entities'' does have to be cleaned up.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a figure that the gentleman disputes.

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

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem that I see with this bill is that incorporated entities and requiring the OMB to study incorporated entities could go down the road of going in to seeing whether anything the Federal Government does benefits something as small as a doctor's office or a dentist's office could be considered corporate welfare. We all know that the intent of this is to allow us to be better empowered to stop big, multimillion-dollar grants to very large corporations. But it is my fear that this amendment is not written that way. On top of it, we do not know how much this is going to cost. And I know the gentleman is concerned about costs.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of the points that the gentleman mentioned and also just mention that I would like to speak in favor of the Kucinich-Waxman-Hoeffel amendment. However, I am unable to speak in favor of this amendment because the two policies contained in this amendment, although in and of themselves are good policies, fine policies, but put together in one amendment they are actually self- defeating. What I mean when I say that is this amendment is a contradiction because it will increase the cost of the study and then it will cap it. I understand that the gentleman has not certified whether the CBO has scored the cost of a new corporate welfare study, but not knowing the cost of a new corporate welfare study and then throwing on top a million dollar cap is self-defeating. The amendment provides a convenient excuse for OMB to refuse to perform the analysis due to costs. Even if a study would normally not go over $1 million, as OMB has said, absent a corporate welfare study, the increased requirement of a corporate welfare analysis would provide an even stronger incentive for OMB to argue that it is impossible to remain within these caps. Mr. Chairman, one additional point that I think is very worthwhile noting, as I was just reading the gentleman's amendment, and I would like to mention that I would love to work with the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from California, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania on ridding corporate welfare from the Federal Government because I, too, believe we should not be subsidizing these types of business arrangements; but in reading the definitions contained in the amendment, it says ``incorporated entities.'' Well, incorporated entities could mean hundreds of thousands of small businesses, such as lawyers, doctors, dentists, and even municipalities. So I think the way the amendment is drafted it is drafted in such a way that it will give us precisely what the gentleman from California feared, and that was requiring OMB to do so many analyses that it will prevent them from doing their other priority work. It will require OMB to go down not just to the big corporate giants that are getting the advanced technology grants and the other corporate welfare grants that we, as a team, want to get rid of, but going to the dentists, going to the municipalities, going to the doctors. The definition of incorporated entities is too vague, which gives OMB a chance to say this will cost too much, this will exceed $1 million. So by combining the laudatory goal of going after corporate welfare with the $1 million cap, the gentleman is essentially killing the bill. They are essentially rendering this bill absolutely unworkable by saying OMB will not be able to do this, it is going to cost too much and, therefore, will have no cost-benefit analysis at all. If the gentleman would be willing to work on a separate piece of legislation going after the issue of corporate welfare aside from this legislation, I think we could get a wonderful bipartisan team together and really advance this bill and clean up the definition of ``incorporated entities.'' If that would be the case, I think we would have a winner here. But, sadly, this amendment is nothing short of killing the bill. A vote for this amendment is a vote against the Right-to-Know Act. It is a vote against cost-benefit analysis. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in support of H.R. 1074. The public has a right to know. What this issue really boils down to is what is good for democracy, and what is always good for democracy is information. What this legislation seeks to achieve is to give the public information. Now through our regulatory framework in our Executive Branch of government all of our laws in this country are implemented, executed by our Executive Branch of government. We here in Congress often pass overly vague laws, and it is up to the regulators, the Executive Branch of government as defined in the Constitution, to put the teeth in those laws, to execute those laws, to define the regulations. But what we are finding in this Federal Government which has become very vast and very large with so many different regulations, so many different agencies often promulgating the same regulations on the same topic and the same issue, that we have so much duplication, we have so many regulations that are passed onto our people which really take the full force of law, which do not take into account any chance of looking at whether the costs exceed the benefits, whether there is a better way of imposing the regulation or whether it duplicates other existing regulations within the Federal Government. What this bill seeks to do is to have OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, conduct a review every year, something well within their means, something the Congressional Budget Office says is very minimal on a cost basis. What the OMB will do under this law is give us a report analyzing the costs and the benefits of proposed regulations. It will look at whether or not regulations duplicate each other. We analyzed this last week, and we looked at so many different areas where regulations are so duplicative that people, family farmers, factory workers, small businessmen and women in this country are facing regulations that tear them in different directions. We have two different regulatory agencies pursuing wet lands conservation laws. One regulatory agency told a farmer in California, Dave Peckham, ``Go ahead and farm your field, put a vineyard in there. Make sure you put your vineyard around this wetland,'' and then another agency came and said, ``You're violating the law. We're going to conduct fines and impose penalties on your business.'' We have so much waste and duplication in our regulatory agencies in this government that the public has a right to know what is being duplicated, where is this taking place. The public also has a right to know about the costs and the benefits of the regulations being placed upon our people. And what this really comes down to is simply a good government act. This is good government. The U.S. Government imposes a hidden tax on our public today. Last week, we voted for a tax relief package. We imposed taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, death taxes on our people in an overt way. We see the tax, it comes out of our paycheck, we send in our 1040. But there are other taxes that our public pays today, there are other taxes that citizens of this country pay, and that is a hidden tax, the cost of regulations. It is estimated by Thomas Hopkins of the University of Rochester, the Rochester Institute of Technology, that hidden tax of regulations costs our economy, our people, our small businesses every year in excess of $700 billion. A $700 billion tax is being imposed upon the people of this country, and we are not even looking into whether or not these taxes exceed the costs, whether the benefits of these taxes exceed the costs, whether or not they are being duplicative or not. All this is a good government measure to say: Let us look at what we are doing as a Federal Government, let us look at the regulations we are promulgating. This does not change one regulation, this does not affect any law from being implemented. This gives the public the right to know the truth. This gives the public the information that they need so they can follow the law. All we are saying is, ``Let's have the Office of Management and Budget review these regulations, let's have the Office of Management and Budget weigh the costs and the benefits of these regulations, let's have the Office of Management and Budget tell us whether they are overly duplicative or not,'' and I would like to echo what my colleague from Illinois said about the bill and its supporters: Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. This bill is being supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the International City and County Management Association. The bill is also supported by Americans for Tax Reform, the Center For The Study of American Business, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Seniors Coalition and the Sixties Plus Coalition.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I said ``killer Kucinich,'' not ``killer Hoeffel.''

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important as we debate the rule and the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act that we put this in its proper perspective. We would debate what I would like to call the ``killer Kucinich amendment'' a little bit later when it is up next week. But let us put this in proper perspective. Regulations are good. They are necessary. But regulations do pose what we often call a hidden tax on the American economy. It is widely estimated that Federal regulations cost the American taxpayers about $700 billion annually. This is a tax that we do not see right on our paychecks. We do not see it in front of our faces in our businesses. This is a tax that comes to us through the various overlapping and duplicative rules and regulations, costing our American families and businesses about $700 billion annually. So when we talk about the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, it is really let us see what these taxes are costing us, let us get openness in Government, let us make sure that we know when we are imposing $700 billion of hidden tax on our Government, let us make these open taxes so we actually see really what these taxes are, what the cost and benefits of these hidden taxes on our families and businesses impose. Placing a cap on that to me seems to be very, very much disingenuous in the spirit of the public's right to know. We will debate the merits of that amendment next week. But I think it is very important to put this whole thing in perspective, that the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is a bipartisan solution at getting openness in Government at taking a look at what really is this hidden tax being placed on our families and our businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is the ranking member of this subcommittee. I must admit that as a new Member of Congress it is nice to see people who really like to cooperate on a bipartisan basis, and I think the gentleman from Ohio is a person who is of strong conscience and serves this body very well, and I just wanted to commend him for his attitude in working with us on passage of this legislation. We may disagree on some of these amendments, but I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his attitude on this. I rise in support of the rule, Mr. Speaker, for H.R. 1074. I would also like to voice my support for passage of H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. This is a bipartisan initiative. This point is made obvious by the groups that have voiced their support of this bill. It has the support of numerous groups, from the National Governors' Association to the Seniors Coalition. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Farm Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all publicly endorsed this legislation. These diverse groups have endorsed this bill because they recognize the benefits this legislation could provide to Congress and to the citizens of this country. This legislation will increase understanding and, therefore, public confidence in all Federal regulations and agencies. The public has the right to know the factors that affect agency decision-making. The Congress has the right to know that the intent of the legislation we pass here in Congress is being carefully considered by the agencies who promulgate these regulations, taking into account and implementing the laws we pass here in this body. Through this legislation, the public will have access to information regarding the cost and benefits including the social health, safety, environment, and economic effects of major agency action. Mr. Speaker, the key to accountability in Government is providing information. Information is vital to effective governing. The more accessible information is to the public and to the Congress, the more efficient and productive our system of Government will be. This bill does not change the existing process for adopting agency regulations. Moreover, it helps us change the environment in which these agencies adopt regulations by fostering an atmosphere of openness and accountability. Some groups have likened this to the annual accounting most companies do for their shareholders. Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people are the shareholders of our Government of our country and they deserve to be provided an accounting of the impact of Federal regulations. But I would like to make one more point that is very important in the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, which will require OMB to do an annual study looking at duplicative regulations. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of duplicative regulations in our Federal Government today. Just to point out a few examples: Agriculture's Natural Resource and Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers had conflict requirements over wetlands regulations. I am going to go into that in just a second. The grantees for so many different programs are required by Federal rules to provide nearly identical information to many Federal grant- making agencies for similar grant programs, including the same type of information to various agencies. The USDA and FDA have issued overlapping food safety regulations regarding tainted food products. Many agency programs, and thus their regulatory requirements, sometimes overlap. Just in the area of job training and employment there are 14 departments that delve into this area. Among the 14 departments and agencies that have programs, rules, and regulations with respect to job training and employment are the Agriculture Department, the Commerce Department, the Education Department, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans' Affairs, EPA, the NRC, and the SSA. All of these agencies promulgate regulations on job training and employment. Many of them duplicate and overlap each other. An accounting of these regulations is going to do nothing but help us get good Government, get good information to the citizens we represent. Going back to the area of wetlands regulations, there is a great example of how overlapping and duplicative regulations can actually do a lot of harm to our constituents when we are simply trying to make sure that they comply with the Federal law. I would like to take an example of a turf fight between two agencies over wetlands regulations. The turf fight is between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. There is a farmer named Dave Pechan who farms near Linden, California. He wanted to convert 40 acres of his land into a vineyard. In accordance with the law, Mr. Pechan asked the Natural Resources Conservation Service to evaluate his property for possible wetlands. The Conservation Service is one of those Federal agencies that is charged with enforcing wetlands regulations. After inspecting Mr. Pechan's land on two occasions, the Conservation Service determined that only a .3 acre swale could be considered a wetland. He was instructed to go ahead with his vineyard plans as long as he plowed around that tiny little wetland. Well, that seemed to settle the matter. Until one week later, when Mr. Pechan saw representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on his property taking pictures. They told Mr. Pechan that he may be violating the law when he farmed in wetlands. When Pechan produced the documentation from the Conservation Service showing that he was in compliance with these regulations, the agencies rudely rejected his claim. It seems that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Conservation Service are locked into a bureaucratic turf fight over which agency would have the lead role in enforcing wetlands laws. Well, in 1994, the Corps of Engineers signed a memorandum of agreement that ostensibly recognized the Conservation Service as the lead Federal agency. However, the Corps of Engineers reneged on that agreement because they refused to give up on enforcement of wetlands policy. The end result is this: The farmer in California, Dave Pechan, is snared in the middle of a bureaucratic turf fight. The Corps has told him that regardless of what the Conservation Service had determined allowing him to go through with his vineyard plans, he will be subjected to civil and criminal penalties if he continues to work his land. He is now in limbo while the Corps conducts its own wetlands evaluations of his property. Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is very common sense. It is bipartisan. This is a good Government bill. This simply says, let us get a handle on all of these regulations we are passing on to our constituents. Let us make sure they do not duplicate each other or overlap or send conflicting messages to our constituents. Lastly, it does not do one thing to change the regulations. It simply says, let us measure the cost and benefits of these regulations, what are they costing our economy, what are they doing to our constituents. This is clearly a good Government measure. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule on this measure. And next week when we vote on this bill, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am a newer Member of Congress here and I have been just coming into Washington for about 7 months, but I have heard it all now. We see here before us so many different Members of Congress coming up with so many different excuses, reasons and ways to keep the American people further separated from their own money. This is what it is coming down to, two philosophies. This is a beautiful celebration of democracy that we see here today. On one side we have Americans overpaying their taxes, so much so that we believe you should get some of your money back. Take a look at your paycheck and look how much is coming out every year. We think you should have your money back. The other Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle want to keep all of your money in Washington.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act, which provides States and local school districts with the support and flexibility to improve the quality of teacher force and to reduce class size. Now what we see here is an important educational, philosophical debate at stake. Do we trust parents, teachers, local school board members to reform education, to address the needs of our children in our schools and our unique communities, or do we want to continue to go down the road of having Washington fix these problems, having a Washington that knows the best solution? Now there is an area that I have particular concern about which is in disabilities education. The IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is a good act. We need to provide disability education for our children. However, the Federal Government imposes an unfunded mandate on our local school districts, as do most State governments. In Wisconsin we have a revenue-cap State, so every amount of unfunded mandate that comes from Washington on our local school districts comes right out of a local school district budget. I have met with so many district administrators, school board members, parents and teachers in the first district of Wisconsin, and they tell me, Give us regulatory relief, fund your unfunded mandates, give us local control. We know what works; we need to find solutions for our schools. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes so far down that road of freeing up the genius within our local school districts, getting those who are on the front line of the fight to improve our schools by getting teachers, parents, school boards, and administrators involved in fixing quality teacher improvement and teacher education. It also helps us hire special-education teachers to get at that unfunded disability education mandate which is crippling so many local school districts. By giving them the money they can use to hire those special education teachers, they can help cover that unfunded mandate, because in Janesville, Wisconsin, we promised the Federal Government we would fund 40 percent of disabilities education, but we are only funding 7 percent. This goes a long ways toward covering unfunded Federal mandates. A vote for the Martinez substitute is a vote for Washington knows best, one-size-fits-all. A vote for final passage is a vote to let local control rule.