John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is exactly right. This is the whole question about who is going to write the test, who is going to decide what our children learn. Like the gentleman from Wisconsin, I trust the parents and the teachers and the administrators and, for that matter, the students in my own school a lot more than I trust bureaucrats in Washington. Let me conclude on that point. This is an issue that is going to be resolved in Washington very soon. The Senate has staked out a position on the Labor-HHS bill which says, well, we will do national testing, but we will assure that it is a good test, not one that has whole math in it, not one that refuses to test children on their computational skills; we will delegate the decision on writing the test to an organization called the National Assessment Governing Board. Lynn Cheney wrote a subsequent article pointing out that that assumes that this National Assessment Governing Board will be immune from the pressures to test whole math or to test some other radical theory. The problem is not just who in Washington writes it; the problem is that it should not be written in Washington. The test to test our children's skills ought to be written at least in our neighborhoods, in our schools by our school districts, by our school boards, and by our State departments of education, and not by national organizations who are so remote from those parents and those children. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I compliment both my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for bringing out and emphasizing for all of our listeners the importance of curtailing spending. That is indeed critically important, I think, for the future of this Nation, not just for the economic reasons, not just because the government spending is out of control, but also because I think we are discovering that government does not have all the answers. When we give government too much in the way of resources, it just grows and grows and grows, and not all of what it does is good. As a matter of fact, as government gets bigger freedom gets smaller. I did want to segue into the education issue. As I listen to you do the math computation, I think, indeed, if certain proposals before this Congress prevail, we could be the last Members of this Congress that can do basic mathematic calculations. Last week this issue came up. We are in the midst of a fight over an issue called national testing. My colleague came to the floor last week and pointed out that in the midst of that debate, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. Many of my colleagues and friends back home in Arizona say to me, why is it Republicans are against national testing? Why is it you do not want to do the President's national testing idea? I point out to them that there are grave dangers in the President's proposal, because if we do national testing as the President proposes with the Department of Education setting the tests, we are in serious jeopardy of dumbing down America and America's math skills. For example, I want to point out an article that appeared in last week's Wall Street Journal by Lynne Cheney, in which she illustrates this point. She cites a gentleman by the name of Steven Leinwand who sits on the committee overseeing President Clinton's proposed national mathematics exam. In this column she writes that Mr. Leinwand believes that it is downright dangerous, downright dangerous, to teach students mathematical skills like 6 times 7 is 42.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out and express my appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], my friend, for his candor in his remarks in support of this particular amendment. He said, and I quote quite directly, ``This leaves the power in the hands of the President.'' And indeed that is precisely what the proponents of this amendment want to do. They want to leave the power under the Antiquities Act in the hands of the President. Mr. Chairman, that might be a good idea and under prior Presidents probably was a good idea. But, regrettably, the most recent incident demonstrates that that power is awesome and can be, and in this case regrettably was, abused. Even if my colleagues do not think it was abused in this case, they ought to be concerned about the power of the President to act unilaterally; to, as he did in this case, ignore the Utah delegation; to, as he did in this case, ignore the Governor of Utah, who is sitting in a hotel in Washington, DC, desperately trying to see the President. I suggest that people who believe in sunshine, who believe in process, and who believe in the rule of law, should reject this amendment, because it leaves in the President's hands the power to unilaterally designate a national monument of 50,000 acres, as our bill would do, but to go beyond that and to designate 1.7 million, or 5 million, or 10 million, or 22 million, or, for that matter, 22 billion acres, and to ignore the Congress in doing that. That simply is not good public policy in this country today, where we believe in the rule of law, where we believe in representational government, where we believe public policy should be debated openly in the Congress between people who represent all kinds of different views. Mr. Chairman, to leave the President with that sole power to be abused when he wants to, as sadly happened in this case on the eve of an election, is a mistake, is wrong. I cannot believe that anyone does not see that. Sunshine is what we need. If my colleagues trust people and believe in representative government, I urge them to reject this amendment.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a couple of questions, the gentleman from Minnesota said this would keep the power in the hands of the President. It would keep the power in the hands of the President to create a monument of over 50,000 acres?

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

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. Chairman. Let me point out that not a single argument mounted on the other side of the aisle on this issue has addressed the bill as amended by the manager's amendment. The manager's amendment would allow the President to designate any amount of land. It would simply provide that that designation would expire within 2 years. So all the discussions on the other side about emergency need on the President's part is just a distraction from reality. The other shocking argument we hear from the other side is that they oppose sunshine. If my colleagues around this Capitol listen to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon], detail the outrageous abuse of power by this President in what he did this time around, that is not sunshine. Refusing to discuss the issue and misleading the Utah delegation is not sunshine; it is keeping the American people and the people of Utah in the dark, and it is wrong. The Antiquities Act was broken by this President, but he raised an issue, and that is, we need to look at what is wrong with it and fix it. How we can fix it is to allow the Congress to have a say. Let me point out how he broke the act. The act says specifically when the President chooses to exercise this power, he must in all cases confine the area designated to the smallest area comparable with the proper care and management of the objects that are protected. Mr. Clinton did not do that in this case. He designated 1.7 million acres, vastly more than needed to be designated. All we are asking on this side is that when the President takes that action, that the measure come back to Congress for a vote. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that we were a Nation of laws and not a Nation of men. I am glad that the previous Presidents designated the Grand Canyon, but this Congress came back in after that and made the Grand Canyon a national park. What opponents of this bill do not want is they do not want a public debate. They do not want open consideration of this issue. They want raw power in the hands of the President to be exercised in the dark of secrecy. I asked the gentleman on the other side of the aisle if he would yield on that point and he would not yield on that point. Their goal is not to allow the American people to know what the President is doing and to give him a free hand. Clearly, the President in this case abused the Antiquities Act, and this is a reasonable measure to protect it; to say for 50,000 acres he can do whatever he wants, but when he goes above 50,000 acres to 1 or 22 million acres, then he ought to have to consult the people. The President may represent all the people. He lost in the State of Utah. It seems to me it is fair to give the people in this Congress whom we represent a voice in these issues.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I bring to it some level of experience. From 1983 to 1990 I enforced the Voting Rights Act in Arizona, and in 1990 I represented the Arizona legislature in reapportionment. Mr. Chairman, no less than the integrity of this Nation is at stake in this amendment. This is not a difficult issue. My colleagues have accurately pointed out that both the United States Constitution specifically requires an actual count and so does Federal law. This is not a question that is in doubt, but let me urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of what is being proposed by this amendment. Never, I repeat, never in the 200-year history of this country has there been a deliberate attempt to count less than the entire population. Contrary to what we just heard on that side of the aisle, what the census proposes in this sampling idea is to deliberately count only 90 percent of Americans and then to stop at that point and estimate the rest. Until 1990, the Census Bureau rejected sampling and said it was unconstitutional. I call on my colleagues to imagine the incentives we are creating. If we tell America we are only going to count, actually count, until we get to 90 percent, and then we are going to sample from that point on, what motive is there for a single American to send in the form; and what faith will they have in this system? The Constitution says enumerate one-by-one and do an actual count. This is a bad idea and is at the heart of integrity in our government.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. If it was leaked last week or a month ago, it is old news, even if it is just now revealed to show a crime. I thank the gentleman and give back my time.

Mr. SHADEGG. The last one, and I will conclude: ``Leak it as soon as you know it, so that before the hearing you can call it old news.'' That one we watched play out last week, where it was very important in the Committee on House Oversight that we make all depositions instantaneously public so that they could be old news by the time the hearings were held, and we brought them out and brought them to light and pointed out, oh, by the way this sentence in the deposition demonstrates a crime.

Mr. SHADEGG. No doubt shortly after the statute of limitations. Just, again, reclaiming the time the gentleman has yielded to me graciously, Al Gore, in his perusal of the statutes, could not find a controlling legal authority. My staff found yet another one they thought was interesting. 18 United States Code, section 641, which talks about converting Federal property to a private use. That, of course, brought to my staff's mind the idea that there was a notation, I believe, since we are talking about notations on House documents, that said quote, ready to start overnights right away, and was signed President Clinton. President Clinton. Now, those initials BC, Bill Clinton? That would be the same one?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to join in this discussion if the gentleman would yield. One of the posters the gentleman put up is one that strikes me a great deal in this debate, and if he will put it back up, it says, first rule, follow the current law. I notice we are now debating on the set-aside the whole issue of campaign finance reform, and there is this hue and cry that we really ought to be revising our campaign laws because, clearly, this episode demonstrates that we need to rewrite the law. And yet, as the gentleman shows there, rule No. 1, follow the current law, it kind of makes me wonder what is the point of rewriting the law so that we have a new law if they did not follow the old law. Why do we think they will follow the new law? It is kind of amazing. I know the gentleman talked about legal authorities. I am an attorney, and I was proud to make my living in that field before coming here, but in that regard, and just to touch on follow the law, let us talk about Al Gore's favorite phrase: The controlling legal authority. And guess what? There is some in this area. As a matter of fact, there are a number of statutes that touch on these practices quite directly. For example, 18 United States Code section 201 outlaws bribery in this country. Now, whether or not we quite have the facts to establish bribery, whether they will come out before the Thompson hearings end, whether they will come out in the course of the Burton hearings may not be clear, but there is a law here that says bribery is wrong. But let us talk about some others where we do have some pretty clear evidence. How about 18 United States Code section 600, which prohibits the use of government offices for political purposes. How about that same section of law that says it is a crime to promise access to a government building or to government services in return for campaign contributions. There were, I think, 103 White House coffees held with the President, telling them they could come to the White House and have coffee with the President for $500,000. It seems to me we turned this place into Starbucks on Pennsylvania Avenue. Let us talk about another one. 18 United States Code section 607 specifically says it is a Federal crime to solicit campaign contributions in a Federal building. On that one we have Al Gore on at least 86 different solicitation calls from the White House. We also have a fascinating note, that maybe the gentleman has put it up or maybe he has not put it up, where a White House staffer makes a note that BC made 15 to 20 calls and raised $500,000. Now, BC, I suppose we could be talking about the cartoon character BC who I used to read about. We could be talking about Bill Cosby.

Mr. SHADEGG. Boston College. There could be that other remote possibility, that when it says on a staff note written in the White House, written by David Strauss, ``BC made 15 to 20 calls and raised $500,000,'' there is at least a slim chance, I would suppose, and maybe I could ask my colleague if he wants to comment on this, that BC did not refer to Bill Cosby or Boston College but Bill Clinton.

Mr. SHADEGG. We are trying to bring some light to this discussion and maybe some humor here, maybe we should do a national call-in, where we put up a 1-800 number and ask the American people how many people think BC in that note refers to Bill Cosby or Boston College or the cartoon character BC or somebody other than Bill Clinton; and how many think maybe BC in that White House note refers to 15 to 20 calls raising $500,000 by BC, referring to Bill Clinton.

Mr. SHADEGG. We could do that and let the American people call in and tell us what they really think. To continue the theme of mentioning a few controlling authorities that the Vice President did not happen to notice.

Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman can talk about the HRC.

Mr. SHADEGG. Hillary Rodham Clinton? Oh, no, I am certain that is a coincidence. I doubt if it would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. SHADEGG. No, that is right. That is in the same note where it said BC made 15 to 20 calls and HRC is making calls. I doubt if that is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am certain it is just someone else who happens to have similar initials.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, at the risk of changing topics, and I think that is a vitally important issue about which we are all concerned and it fits with the theme of this hour, I notice we are running out of time, and I wanted to take a moment, both of my colleagues are on the Committee on Education, to raise a separate issue that was raised at the end of the last hour, and ask each of them to comment on it, because I think it is an issue that the American people need to know about. My questions tonight arise out of a Wall Street Journal column that appeared today that I hope each of my colleagues have seen. It is a column by Lynne Cheney, and it carries the caption ``A Failing Grade for Clinton's National Standards.'' If I could, I just would like to talk about this article for a moment because it is so compelling to me. I have a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old at home. As a matter of fact, just before coming over here to the floor, I was on the phone with my 15-year-old and asking her some questions, and she was working on her homework and doing a small project for me. Nothing is more important to me than their education. And I am deeply interested that they get a good education and get ahead in this life. And that takes us to a debate that is at the fore of this Nation right now and on which conferees between the House and Senate will be meeting very soon, and that is the question of national testing. The point I want to make here is that I have reasonable friends at home, very bright people at home, who come to me and say, ``Congressman, I do not understand. Why are you against national testing? Should we not, as a Nation, want to know how our students are doing and want to compare our kids in Arizona,'' my home State, ``with the children in other States across the country,'' such as yours, Indiana. And I walk them through this explanation. But this article really brings the issue home. I point out to them that the sad reality is that teachers will teach to the test. And maybe that is not so sad. They want their students to do well. So if they know the content of the test, they are going to say, ``I better make sure my students learn the content of the test.'' So people say to me, okay, Congressman, if you are worried that a national test will cause people to teach to the test, does that not simply say that when the President picked objective areas, such as math, and not more subjective areas, such as social studies, that that really should solve the problem about national testing, we will test English and we will test math and there are black and white, right and wrong answers and we will see how kids are performing and we will not get into the subjective areas like history? And I point out to them that, while that sounds good, reasonable, rationale people ought to be deadly opposed to National testing. And this article makes it clear why: Because there are not black-and-white areas in today's Washington, D.C. Education Department under Bill Clinton. And here is the point: The article by Lynne Cheney in today's Wall Street Journal, and I hope my colleagues all have read it and I hope America will read it, talks about a gentleman by the name of Steven Leinwand. He sits on the committee overseeing President Clinton's proposed national mathematics exams. He has written an essay, and this gentleman is mainstream, new education, Washington, D.C. expert. In the essay he explains why it is ``downright dangerous'' to teach students things like 6 times 7 equals 42. He says it is downright dangerous to teach students the multiplication facts. Now why does he say that is dangerous? Because such instruction, teaching kids their multiplication facts, ``sorts people out,'' Mr. Leinwand writes, ``annointing the few who master these procedures and casting out the many.'' His basic principle is, we cannot teach math to kids because some kids will learn the answer, 6 times 7 is 42, and some kids will not learn it; and the kids who do not learn it will feel bad. Now, if that is the kind of mindset that is going to dictate Bill Clinton's national testing and the teachers in America will be compelled to teach to that, I think it is disastrous. Let me conclude by pointing out, he writes another test for an organization called the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; and they propose, through this committee, a national math exam that will avoid directly assessing certain knowledge and skills, such as whole-number computation. He does not want kids to be able to do addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division because of this sense that some of them will fail and some of them will feel bad. And the organization says, in case this exam which they have written might indirectly assess whether 8th graders can add, subtract, multiply and divide, the committee recommends that, even for those basic skills, students should have a calculator throughout the entire time period. This is just amazing to me. But that is why I think national testing, while it sounds good and sounds reasonable, is in fact an attempt to impose a national standard and national agenda that the people in Arizona do not really like.

Mr. SHADEGG. Did a hearing in my district in Arizona.

Mr. SHADEGG. Lesson No. 7, ``Never put it in writing.'' This one Al Gore should have learned. Obviously, he does not have friends. Lesson No. 8, ``Friends don't let friends call from work.'' And one that touched on the point the gentleman went into at length about what happened in this Buddhist temple, and the fact that people there were extremely generous, as a matter of fact. This is an important Clinton White House lesson learned in the course of the campaign of 1996: ``Monks may not be as poor as you think.'' Another one, ``Don't settle for less.'' Yet another, ``Never sell the Presidency for less than $50,000,'' unless of course you can get $50. Another one, ``Felons deserve a second chance: Donor mentoring.'' ``The CIA can't keep a secret.''

Mr. SHADEGG. If we are going to call overseas to get a contribution, use Sprint, it is cheap.

Mr. SHADEGG. We are trying to help out the economy. Helps the trade deficit and the labor movement. Lesson No. 6, ``Sprint has the best rate for international calls.''

Mr. SHADEGG. If I could, briefly, while we are on this point, and then I will be happy to yield back. We are trying to bring some light and make this a little humorous, so I hope everyone watching understands this is a little tongue in cheek. We did discover a rather tongue-in-cheek memo from the White House, actually probably not crafted in the White House because I doubt they would let this memo out, but it says ``Clinton White House Lessons Learned in the Campaign of 1996.'' I thought the gentleman mentioned some humorous things his friend had sent him, and so I thought I would mention a couple of these things that I thought were rather pointed in the vein of Clinton White House lessons learned in the campaign of 1996. First, lesson No. 1, ``Blame it all on the DNC chairmen.'' Lesson NO. 2, ``Don't give back illegal money until it's discovered in a Senate hearing.'' Lesson No. 3, ``Make sure all donors know their 5th Amendment rights'' against self-incrimination. Lesson No. 4, ``The press won't cover the truth until after the campaign.'' Lesson No. 5, ``Spin illegal international contributions as `foreign investment,' helping the trade deficit, pro-labor.''

Mr. SHADEGG. Good point. So coffee at Starbucks is $1.27, coffee at the White House is $50,000.

Mr. SHADEGG. There was one last one. The gentleman was just talking about the use of the Buddhist temple and the innocence of the people there. We found one more controlling authority that our friend Mr. Gore might want to take a look at. It was 18 United States Code, section 371, and 26 United States Code, section 7201, which similarly make it a crime to misuse a tax exempt organization such as, for example, a Buddhist temple which has tax exempt status.