John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. PBC?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, top down is just dead wrong. I want to rebut one other argument in support of national testing, and that is, the proponents of this idea said, well, States can opt out, and Lynne Cheney, in writing this article which I commend to all of my colleagues here in the Congress and to all of America, points out that even if States choose to opt out, a Federal test will strongly influence the textbooks because they are only a handful of textbook companies, and they are going to write those textbooks to such a national task. And it seems to me the whole notion of, well, one or two States, Arizona, can opt out; heck, Arizona opted out of daylight savings time, one of, I think, only two States in the Nation which did. But in this field, where Arizona just said, we do not want that national test, the textbooks we would have to go purchase would be driven by that top down Bill Clinton dictated, but I do not care if it was Ronald Reagan dictated top down, one-size-fits-all standard, and I think it is a mistake.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The purpose of the amendment which I just offered, which I would like to address, which is of grave concern to me, is that, in fact, we have a situation under this legislation and elsewhere, but particularly under this legislation, where millions of dollars, indeed tens of millions of dollars, are spent by the Federal Government and can be paid to contractors and individuals currently subject to a fraud prosecution by the Federal Government. It seems to me if we have a department of the Government called the Justice Department, and if we have inspectors general offices within HHS and a variety of other agencies which are charged with the duty of auditing the expenditure of carefully collected taxpayer dollars and assuring that those dollars are spent pursuant to law and spent in a proper fashion and not fraudulently, then we ought to recognize that there is no right inherent in anyone to get a Federal contract and to be paid Federal moneys under that contract. Indeed, we ought to say that, well, of course there is a presumption of innocence in the criminal law in this Nation. There is no presumption of a right to be paid Federal moneys. Let me give my colleagues some examples. There was a foundation created in 1994 to implement school-to-work grants. It was awarded $1.05 million. Following the first year, the inspector general called into question more than 73 percent of the claimed expenses of that foundation, alleging fraud. However, even while those practices were being challenged by the inspector general, the foundation was awarded an extension of its contract and an additional $1.43 million. It seems to me that we are indeed charged as the stewards of taxpayers' money with looking after the proper expenditure of those funds. And if we have entities such as the inspector general's Office, such as the Attorney General, to investigate fraud and to charge fraud, and we make them comply with statutes in bringing those allegations, then indeed we have a duty not to at the same time give away taxpayer dollars to them while they are accused in a civil or criminal proceeding with fraud in the action itself. For those who object to that, I wonder what their motives are. It does concern me. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we can look throughout the Federal Government. There are dozens of incidents, hundreds of incidents, thousands of incidents. Let me pick one from the Medicare field. A physician improperly billed $350,000 over a 2-year period for comprehensive physical exams of residents of a home care institution without ever seeing a single resident. He was charged with fraud. Should he have had the right under the presumption of innocence not just to contest his guilt or innocence on that question, but to get a new contract; to get yet an additional contract so we pay him more money not to see people while we litigate the issue of his fraud under the prior contract? I suggest that if we are properly stewarding the taxpayers' dollars, we should not do that. A psychotherapist working in a nursing facility manipulated Medicare billing codes to charge for 3 hours of therapy to each resident, when, in fact, he spent only a few minutes with each resident. Again, a charge or an allegation administratively of fraud was brought, yet we renew the contract to this psychotherapist. We have a duty to steward these moneys. We can raise points of order, we can hang ourselves on technicalities if we want, but, Mr. Chairman, I assert that we have a duty to protect taxpayers' funds. The presumption of innocence does not extend to the right to have a contract with the Federal Government to get even more money when your practices have been seriously called into question. Some argue that this ought to go to any entity under investigation for fraud, and that was one of the issues brought to me. I rejected that proposal, because indeed if you are simply under an investigation for fraud, no formal charge has been brought, perhaps it would not be fair to turn you down, because you could have an abuse of the investigative power. But once an entity of the Federal Government, the inspector general or the Attorney General, actually charges fraud, it seems to me that taxpayers have a right to say, until that matter is resolved, we are going to suspend further contracts and further payments to that individual. Let me conclude by saying after surfacing this amendment, individuals at each of the agencies which would have been affected under the Labor- HHS bill contacted my office and said they would love to have this kind of tool to put a cold bar in place and to ensure that where there has been a proceeding, criminal, civil, or administrative, already filed alleging fraud, they would like to be able to deny the funds.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] and applaud him for offering this amendment. There is a great debate going on in America, and times change. There was a point in the history of our Nation when we felt the best education policy should be in Washington, DC. I suggest to my colleagues that time has changed. This amendment takes a giant step in the right direction toward advancing education, improving education in the classrooms of our children. I think it is best said that the money that reaches the teacher that knows my son Stephen's name and the money that reaches the teacher that knows my daughter Courtney's name is the best money spent in education. And the ideas that the teachers and the administrators at Stephen's school and Courtney's school have are better than ideas created and imposed top down thousands of miles away in Washington, DC. We are not increasing a program here of the Federal Government. What we are doing is embracing a concept. That concept is simple and straightforward: That the best education and the best education reform can be created not in Washington, DC, thousands of miles away from where my daughter Courtney and my son Stephen go to school, but right there at Courtney's school and Stephen's school. This amendment is a thoughtfully considered amendment which will advance the education of our children. I urge my colleagues to support it. It will, in fact, improve education in America. I urge them to embrace the concept.

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

Mr. SHADEGG. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the other side of the aisle was we had reached an agreement under which I would offer the amendment, the point of order would be reserved, and I would have a chance to explain why I feel the amendment is appropriate, and then at the conclusion of that I would withdraw the amendment. That does not appear to be what has happened, so let me make my arguments with regard to the amendment. What the amendment says is that the funds appropriated under this bill shall not be used to enter into or pay for either a contract or salary to a person or an entity which is the subject of a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding in which the Federal Government has alleged fraud. That means, Mr. Chairman, that it would only apply not where there was a mere investigation of fraud, but, rather, where there was an allegation which had been formalized by the filing of a civil or criminal or administrative complaint; and not a civil or administrative complaint by anyone, but, rather, by the Federal Government. If we cannot protect under the laws of this Nation the expenditure of taxpayer funds to entities which are currently being prosecuted for fraud, then I would say we are in deep trouble.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it does violate it. I believe it is, in fact, consistent because it applies only to actions that have been filed, and therefore there would be no investigation required.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate the clarification from the gentleman. I certainly agree with him. There ought to be an examination of the success or failure, and I am thrilled to hear that there will be no top-down Federal mandate on what these programs must include or not include.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As an individual who has spoken out on this floor on this issue several times already in the course of this debate, I want to tell my colleagues that I believe the compromise that has been struck is indeed a very good one; and I compliment the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee and all who have been involved in it. At least insofar as I understand the agreement which has been reached, I think it does a great deal of good. Let me just, if I might, make it clear what that understanding is by emphasizing what is important to me and then entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and, hopefully, a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Let me begin by saying, when the issue of Whole School Reform was raised by the language in this bill, that became a topic of concern for many of us and many of us spoke out on that topic. I want to make it clear that Whole School Reform, as it is set forth in the studies that the gentleman from Wisconsin has described, is not something I object to. My concern is that, as the bill was written and with its reference to the prior authorization which said the moneys had to be spent on Whole School Reform, what we were doing was federally mandating school reform only so long as it fit into the box of Whole School Reform, however that term is defined by those studies. As I have listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin in this discussion and to the gentleman from California, I think the amendment that we have now agreed upon, striking the words ``Whole School Reform'' and instead inserting the definitional language which says that these moneys will be available for school reform standards or school reform programs which meet State content standards and State student performance standards with emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement, go a tremendous way toward resolving my concern that we were in fact doing top down. I would have to agree with the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup]. I could not agree more with the description which the gentleman from Wisconsin just gave of the critical importance of allowing these decisions to be made right at the school level by parents, by teachers, by school administrators in their own schools. My concern with the language of the bill as it existed before this agreement was that we were saying they could do it, but only if they did it to fit into the box of Whole School Reform. I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin describe what he sees here, and he emphasizes local reform, and I am extremely pleased by that. If I could ask the gentleman from California to join me in a discussion. Is it the gentleman's understanding of the language, which we are substituting into the bill as a result of this compromise, that it makes it clear that the school reforms which will qualify for these moneys includes school reforms created and designed at the local level and not necessarily having them meet any Federal definition of what is acceptable or not acceptable?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. It had been my intent to offer an amendment to transfer the entire $200 million, which is the subject of this debate and of this appropriation, to the IDEA Program, because I do think that is an important program, and it is right now a partially unfunded mandate. But, as crafted, I believe that this amendment on which we have struck a bipartisan compromise resolves my concerns, and I have no intention of offering that amendment, assuming that we have agreement. I listened to the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in which again I agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly, that he believes we should enable school districts to reform how they do everything they do. I certainly agree with the gentleman on the issue of comprehensive reform. I do not think that it is reform to just bring in computers or just do one piece. If I could just clarify that. It is the gentleman's understanding that this leaves these decisions to parents and teachers and administrators at the local level on how best to reform their school and improve education for their children?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just to further clarify, the language does not impose any Federal standard or requirement that it must fit a particular Federal mold?

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as a parent there is no issue, absolutely no issue more important to me than the education of my children. For us as a Congress there ought to be no issue more important than education, and that issue is critically important to the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS bill, H.R. 2264, which we will debate today, holds in it a wolf in sheep's clothing on the issue of education. I am deeply committed to education reform, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the parents and the teachers and the students and the administrators in my school and in any school district know how to reform my school and give our children the best education possible. This bill contains a wolf, a wolf which says, well, we are going to support school reform but only whole school reform, only top-down dictated Federal school reform. Do it by our model, and get the money; do not do it by our model and do not get the money. We do not need top-down school reform. I urge my colleagues to reject whole-school reform.

Mr. SHADEGG

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

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by bringing my colleagues two bits of what I think will be good and welcome news. The first is that having gone through more than 2 days I believe of debate on title I to this bill, this is the last amendment to title I and with luck we can debate it with relative speed. I want to compliment the members of the committee and the subcommittee. At two separate points in this legislation, the bill sets what I think are important standards for the expenditure of the moneys being appropriated. I think it is critical that we do that. Our task here is to ensure that the moneys that we take from taxpayers and allocate to various programs are spent in the most effective and efficient way possible. To ensure that, at two separate points in this bill, the bill sets a limit on the maximum amount of money which may be paid to an employee or a contractor of the National Institutes of Health to perform under a grant of $125,000. At a separate point in the bill, it sets a similar limit. This limit is imposed upon independent contractors and administrators who are performing work for the Job Corps, and it says that no one shall be paid under the funds appropriated in this bill at a rate of more than $125,000, as a contractor or administrator, as their salary for one year. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us simply says that while I agree that a cap of $125,000 is an appropriate limit for a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, I submit that it is an excessive salary and a misuse of the funds appropriated under this bill to pay an administrator or a contractor under the Job Corps program, whose function is to educate and train children, a salary of $125,000 a year. The amendment says that the salary for an administrator or a contractor within the Job Corps, whose job it is to inspire and train our youth, should not be excessive. Why is it important that we change that number? Because every dollar that goes to administration within the Job Corps program is taken away from education and training. I think it is appropriate that we say, let us use those dollars to the greatest extent possible to educate and train the disadvantaged youth within the Job Corps program. Let us not use them to pay what is in America today an excessive salary. And so the amendment I have offered says that the maximum amount allocable under the legislation for one year's salary for an administrator within the Job Corps or a contractor or employee performing that function would not be $125,000 a year, but rather would be $100,000 a year.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled with the willingness to accept the amendment, and I accept that.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, what I think this amendment shows is that we believe there is not a proper balance. We believe there ought to be more incentives.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me briefly state that I think this amendment strikes the right balance. I said, in discussing a similar OSHA amendment last evening, that as a young man I worked on a construction site and I was dependent upon the people who managed that site for my safety. If they were negligent, if they had dangerous practices, I could have been injured on that site. Mr. Chairman, I think worker safety is important to all Americans. One of my colleagues recently commented that the last thing any employer in America would ever do would be to call the Federal agency charged with worker safety and invite them in to help look at a job site and improve safety on that job site. Why? Because they would be desperately afraid that that organization, OSHA, rather than working to solve the problem, rather than giving them advice on how to avoid future injuries, would simply punitively punish them for what they had done, slap fines on them, slap them on the wrist and issue a critical report. Mr. Chairman, we need a balance. Human conduct is easy to understand. We need to achieve goals with both the carrot and the stick. This is a measure to say let us give a little bit more incentives. Americans, humans respond to incentives. This says let us shift some of this money to incentives to protect workers rather than just punitive measures.

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment as making simply good sense for America, urging OSHA to work with employers to ensure safety, rather than to threaten employers.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is precisely what I believe the gentleman's amendment does. It strikes a proper balance between incentives and punishment. And, indeed, that is what he seeks to do by the amendment, and that is what I believe he is doing.

Mr. SHADEGG. I did.