Boehner Introduces Legislation to Help Offset Hurricane Rebuilding & Recovery Efforts

WASHINGTON , D.C. – House Education & the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH), along with other Committee Republicans, today introduced the Setting Priorities in Spending Act (H.R. 4018) to repeal and eliminate 14 federal programs that have proven inefficient, duplicative, or simply unnecessary.  These programs cost taxpayers approximately $247 million last year alone.

“Despite their dubious merits, Congress has continued to fund these programs year after year, and it’s time to eliminate them once and for all,” said Boehner.  “President Bush was right when he said Congress should cut spending to help pay for hurricane relief, and this is the time for the House and Senate to show our resolve and make the difficult choices that are in the best interest of not just Gulf Coast residents, but the American taxpayers as well.”

The bill supports the efforts of House Republicans and appropriators to cut discretionary spending as part of the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill.  The House passed its version of the appropriations bill on June 10, 2005, and it eliminated funding for each of the 14 programs targeted for repeal in the Setting Priorities in Spending Act. 

Boehner was joined in introducing the bill by Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX), and Committee members John Kline (R-MN), Kenny Marchant (R-TX), and Virginia Foxx (R-NC).  Additional cosponsors include Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), among others.

“Congress needs to step up to the plate and cut federal spending to help offset the ongoing hurricane recovery and rebuilding effort,” Boehner said.  “Each of these programs targeted for elimination has continued to be funded by Congress in recent years, despite their questionable value.  We have a responsibility to help those in need in the aftermath of two devastating hurricanes, but we also have a responsibility to cut unnecessary federal spending elsewhere to pay for it.”

Specifically, the bill repeals the authorization for the following education programs:

• Arts in Education:  This program has a limited impact in integrating arts into the school curriculum, and arts education programs may be funded through other authorities.  A large portion of the program’s funding never reaches local communities and is instead diverted to national organizations.

• Community Technology Centers:  These centers have a limited impact and funding for similar activities is available through other federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

• Early Learning Opportunities Act (ELOA):  The Early Learning Opportunities Act program is unnecessary because it duplicates the efforts of multiple federal programs and funding streams intended to enhance early learning opportunities and support the school readiness of young children. 

• Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners:  This program has a very limited reach, serving only Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and children and families in Massachusetts .  Funds are not directed to schools or districts, but instead go to earmarked entities in Massachusetts , Alaska and Hawaii .

• Foreign Language Assistance:  Activities to promote and expand foreign language instruction may be supported by larger, more flexible Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, such as Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and State Grants for Innovative Programs.  There is also little evidence that activities funded through this program result in improved outcomes for students.

• Literacy Programs for Prisoners:  This program is unnecessary because funding provided through other programs such as vocational and technical education can be used to provide educational opportunities for prisoners.

• Occupational & Employment Information:  This program provides information and technical assistance that can be carried out by states through state leadership activities under the Perkins Act.

• Parental Information & Resource Centers:  This program is unnecessary and duplicative because other ESEA programs, such as Title I grants, fund parent education and family involvement activities and these activities are a specifically authorized use of funds under ESEA State Grants for Innovative Programs.  Local school districts also have the ability to consolidate certain federal funds to carry out a variety of activities, including parent education.

• Ready to Learn TV:  The activities supported by this program, including the development and distribution of educational video and related materials, can be carried out more effectively and efficiently by the private sector.

• Ready to Teach:  State Grants for Innovative Programs and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants provide ample resources for the types of activities intended under this program.

• Star Schools:  These distance education projects can be completed through alternate programs such as State Grants for Innovative Programs and Improving Teacher Quality State Grants.

• State Grants for Incarcerated Youth:  This program has proven of limited value in improving the functional literacy of incarcerated youth.

• Tech-Prep Demonstration:  The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act (H.R. 366), approved overwhelmingly by the House in May, eliminates the separate funding stream for this program and incorporates the activities – particularly efforts to ease the transition from secondary to postsecondary education – into the broader goals of a more streamlined Vocational and Technical Education program.

• Women’s Educational Equity:  Activities promoting educational equity for girls and women may be supported through larger, more flexible programs like ESEA State Grants for Innovative Programs.  In addition, because girls consistently outperform boys on standardized testing, the program is not accurately addressing the existing need to improve student achievement and close achievement gaps.

# # # # #